From John
Since Thursday of last week after hearing some nonsense spoken by politicians on the radio, I realized that in order to filter the claims of politicians about what the Constitution says, we need to understand the contextual environment of the framers of the Constitution as they put together the government that we now have. So this morning I continued on in reading Federalist Papers. I read Federalist blog #15 HERE written by Alexander Hamilton in the fall of 1787. While reading this paper, I realized that I needed to refresh my memory about the sequence of events from 1776 through to the early 19th century in order to understand what Hamilton and his Publius colleagues were talking about in the Federalist papers. I guess if I had been schooled at the Academy in recent decades, I would have known this history. It seems very important to understand this history in order to evaluate what politicians are saying and advocating today, especially when they invoke the founding fathers and the right to bear military style weapons. Federalist blog #15 says nothing about the right to bear arms but I have only read about 20 of the papers. Many that I haven’t read are talking about the structure of the three branches of our federal government so I doubt that the right to bear arms is even mentioned in these.
The Federalist papers were published from around September1787 up to April 1788. The significance this timing was that the United States of America was not yet a union. The Constitution was adopted by 11 of the 13 (later all 13) states and went into effect a year later on March 4, 1789. Up until that time the 13 states co-existed as a loosely organized confederacy under the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” ratified in 1777 by the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Under this document unifying the thirteen states was like herding cats.
This is the map of the thirteen states in the 1780s (click to enlarge). This is the sliver of what is now the United States of America that revolted against the British Empire with George Washington’s leadership, and won the war for our freedom. But the loose collection of states in the confederacy was basically broke. As an example, there was no unity over issues nor money to pay the ransom for the sailors and ships taken captive by the Barbary Pirates.
After the Constitution - which spelled out the structure of the Union of the 13 states - took effect in March 1789, we for the first time had a Congress composed of the House of Representatives whose members for each state were proportional to the relative population of each state, and a Senate in which each state was represented equally by two Senators regardless of size and population. This is the body of government that has formulated all of the laws of the United States ever since 1789. Having these two houses in Congress came from a proposal known as the “Connecticut Compromise.” In 1791, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, were added and, after that, 17 additional amendments were added all ratified by at least 3/4 of the states as required.
Federalist #15 opined about the weakness of the Confederacy in promoting the importance of forming a well-structured Union backed by a Constitution that could raise money, and negotiate treaties and trade agreements, while at the same time having the authority to assemble and fund a navy and army if there was an impending threat from Spain, France, Britain, Indian nations to the west, and later Mexico to the southwest.
One of the first big deals of the Union was the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. By this time, the United States functioning under the Constitution was able raise the money to purchase this large landmass from France for $11,250,000 and cancelled debt of $3,750,000. France needed the money because of their Napolianic war with Britain. There was no provision for purchasing territories in the Constitution but the presidency was by that time was strong, so Jefferson just did it with the approval of Congress.
I had forgotten the details of the territorial acquistions that took place in the next 50 years leading up to Lincoln and the Civil War. Click to enlarge the map of these acquisitions and the list of the first four presidents of the United States. This growth would not have been possible under the Confederacy. Imagine a United States that didn’t own the Mississippi River or all the land west of the river.
So far, in reading the Federalist papers, I have not stumbled on to any discussion of the right to bear arms. The closest discussion I have found is the designation of the role of the legislature for organizing and funding the military.
I read some of the Federalist Papers years ago and while they are interesting to help us understand how the framers thought and what their intentions were, they were just that- thoughts and intentions. Nothing more.
To me the U.S. Constitution is a dynamic document that needs to change and reflect upon issues that are relevant to the present era. While the past is important, we have to remember that the issues our young country faced then were much different then they are now.
It seems absolutely absurd to me to be rigidly and pedantically applying the words, the thoughts and intentions of men from two hundred plus years ago to a country today that is in so many ways much much different.
I would agree that it’s absurd to HAVE to do so. But of course the politicians (particularly the right wing of today) are citing the Constitution including the Bill of Rights repeatedly (especially the 2nd amendment) while they haven’t actually read what the framers were concerned about. The framers were concerned about civil war, factions, and political bullying. Look what happened a hundred years later and look what we have today. Minority does not rule.
Your absolutely right John. Unfortunately this is what it has come to.
Re: #1
“I read some of the Federalist Papers years ago and while they are interesting to help us understand how the framers thought and what their intentions were, they were just that- thoughts and intentions. Nothing more.”
This is garbage. It is vitally important to know the intentions of the framers, not as an academic exercise, but because over time, the meanings of words change. If you don’t know what a writer was thinking when he authored a piece 200 years ago, you cannot possibly know with precision what he was saying. If it’s a love poem, who cares, but if it is the document that governs a nation, then understanding its meaning, AS IT WAS WRITTEN, not as golly gee wouldn’t it be nice if it said, is critical to accurately interpreting that document.
“To me the U.S. Constitution is a dynamic document that needs to change and reflect upon issues that are relevant to the present era.”
This statement is one which disposes my conservative nature to outrage. It is not that the Constitution must forever remain unchanged. On the contrary. It contains within its structure the means by which to modify, even override provisions that become archaic. Rather, it is the suggestion that it is acceptable to change the Constitution with a simple shortcut reinterpretation of that document, applying the current politics du jour. This evisceration of our founding document as a matter of convenience is as despicable when done by Progressives as when it was done by an over-reaching SCOTUS as in the DC vs Heller and Citizens United decisions AND as when done by those who would deliberately misread the 2nd Amendment to further and protect their own self interest.
If any Article or paragraph of the Constitution is deemed to be invalid, then amend it. If only you and your friends in the back room are offended by that particular passage, your amendment won’t get very far. If on the other hand, you speak for the majority of Americans and their elected representatives, you should be able to effect the change(s) you seek. But sneaking in the back door of elitist reinterpretation is a violation of the moral dictates that brought about this great nation.
I have found these papers to be very interesting and confidence building in support of our form of government. I will continue to read these and post parts of what they say at the Cafe with a link to the original. I feel the need to read these because the thoughts expressed in these 18th century blog articles show how well thought out our structure of government was. The other reason for reading these is to be aware when politicians and the talking heads in the media are distorting the truth about the nature of our government to suit their own political needs and wishes. In these the political system we have is discussed in the context of human nature which is also still the same today. The thoughts in these papers are as relevant today as they were back then. Likewise, Darwin published his brilliant thoughts 150 years ago and they too are as valid today (in my opinion) as they were then.
Diane-
Of course it is vitally important to understand the intentions of our framers, but only in the context of the time in which they were written. To use the Federalist Papers in a fundamentalist fashion in order to advocate for a way of governing in the 21st century or to support a current political agenda is disturbing to me. John is doing a good job at exposing the contradictions and the fallacies that abound as a result of people taking such liberties, in a way that give the Federalist Papers more relevance than they deserve.
IF we assume that the 2nd Amendment’s FIRST clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is the primary thrust of the amendment and that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is ancillary to the amendments primary purpose, then a clearer statement, by today’s standards – the meaning was abundantly clear in 1791 to the people in 1791 – would be, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of each State to form and maintain such a Militia, including the right of its citizens to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Part of the difficulty of interpreting the 2nd Amendment comes from the desire by many that possession of guns be a constitutional right. In 1791, owning a gun was as natural as having a phone is today. THINK! Why would anyone today need phone ownership to be a constitutional right? Does anyone think we need an amendment to guarantee us that “right”? Well, in 1791, no one thought they needed a constitutional amendment to possess a gun either. Guns, particularly on the frontier, were a necessity. Only a lunatic would have maintained otherwise. Therefore, why have an amendment to guarantee that right? On the other hand, the issue of State Militias was a contentious one. Some felt that each State needed to have its own army. Others believed there should be only a United States army. Some felt that it was wrong to have any standing army in “times of profound peace” while many pointed to the necessity of “garrisons” to protect the citizenry from attacks. In many states, the Militias met only irregularly to train while the need for an armed defense was 24/7. Against that backdrop, one can easily see the need to guarantee a) the States their right to maintain their own Militias and b) the people composing those Militias the right to keep and bear their own Arms.
In light of the above, if we interpret the 2nd Amendment as not providing a right to the general public, does that mean that the citizenry may not keep and bear Arms? Of course not! What it means is that the freedom to possess guns is not guaranteed by the Constitution. We the People can still have guns, cars, phones, whatever, AND all of them may be subject to laws, regulations and restrictions based on common sense.
Well said Diane. Thank you. Great perspective on this issue!
Like I said before, you are all brainwashed useful idiots and again through your bigotry and ignorance you prove me correct again.
A well regulated militia ,(comma)being necessary to the security of a free state,(this comma confuses commies like Clinton defining the word is) the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS Shall Not BE INFRINGED.
James Madison wrote the 2nd Ammendment and was quite clear on who the militia was and is, it is us.
Every time your commie gun grabbers make a law that reaches the Supreme court it is reversed and will be on these new proposals that pass our Ct General Assembley. As far as the Feinstien bill, it will never make it passed the democrats, never mind see the light of day in Congress.
For whatever reason, anybody that supports the Constitution, to you is a right winged extremist, but then again You commies called Liebermann a right winged extremist also. It doesn’t make it so, but it does make you small minded bigoted left wing extremists. You are not in the middle or have ever exprerssed a thought on these pages of moderation. I feel very sorry for you.