The Origin Of The Second Amendment - Early Sources On America's Armed Civil Population, Part 10

 

General Gage Disarms The People Of Boston, The Continental Congress Declares Such Action A Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms, And Some Observations On Boston's Armed Civil Population

Updated October 4, 2024

After the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, the British army was confined within town by a large force of Massachusetts voluntary militia besieging it. The people of town were essentially held as hostages under the guns of the British fleet. An agreement was reached between the selectmen of Boston, approved by vote of the people and General Gage, to allow anyone outside Boston wishing to enter with their relatives and all their belongings, and all those wishing to leave to do likewise with all of their property, except arms. All private arms of Boston's population were to be deposited for safekeeping in Fanueil Hall with the town's selectmen. Arms would be marked by the selectmen with the names of the owners so they could be returned to them at a suitable time in the future. Once all arms had been turned in, departing town would be allowed with a pass from a particular British officer.

It became evident once removals started that virtually everyone in town was going to leave with all of their relatives, take all of their possessions, including all the private stocks of stores in town with them. Gage was informed by loyalists that, if all the patriots departed, who made up the vast majority of the population, there would be no reason for them not to burn down their own town to drive the British out. Gage first reneged on the agreement by preventing merchandise from being removed. Then, he prevented provisions and medicine from being removed. Then, the officer necessary to approve a pass became very difficult to locate. Finally, Gage fully reneged on his agreement, claiming that large numbers of arms had been hidden away. No one else was allowed to leave, and relatively few had been able to so. Then Gage placed a military guard on Fanueil Hall preventing anyone from access to their own arms. At least two individuals were later imprisoned for 75 days for simply concealing arms in their homes. 

On July 6, 1775, the Continental Congress passed a Declaration Of The Causes And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms. One of the many reasons given for this Declaration was the disarming of Boston's population of all their private arms. Note that it was passed almost one year prior to the Declaration of Independence.

The selectmen of Boston recorded the following list of types and number of arms deposited by their owners at Fanueil Hall:

Firearms:     1,778

Pistols:           634

Bayonets:       973

Blunderbusses: 38

Comments on specific types of arms, starting at the bottom of the list:

Blunderbusses were short barrel shotguns with bell shaped barrel ends usually used for personal defense, or defense of coaches or vessels.

Bayonets were long, thin metal spear like detachable  instruments that were used on military style musket barrel ends used for stabbing enemy soldiers.

Pistols were short firearms held in one hand, often found in pairs, and normally used for personal protection, with larger types normally used as military arms carried in pairs on horseback.

"Firearms" in this list is a term clearly encompassing more than one type of small arms that were longer in size than pistols or blunderbusses. It would have included military style muskets. Presumably, based on the number of bayonets turned in, there would have been at least 973 military style muskets among the 1,778 firearms listed, although there could have been many more muskets than bayonets listed. Most of the other "firearms" were likely fowling pieces along with some rifles.

General comments on this list and the types of arms listed - These arms were the property of private individuals. Without doubt they were not all of the arms that the people of Boston possessed, as some individuals were imprisoned for simply having arms in their home. Also, Gage may well have been correct that large numbers of arms had been hidden away. Patriots in Boston trusted General Gage no further than a man could throw the British Admiral's flagship.

Given that Boston's population was around 16,000 at that time, the number of males would have been about half of that number, or 8,000, and the number of males 16 and older around 4,000. Under Massachusetts' militia law that dated back to the late 1600's, which was still in effect, but not being enforced by the Royal governor at this period, there should be a musket and bayonet present in Boston owned by individuals for every male 16 through 59, and every house holder as well. That would have been a considerably larger number than the 973 bayonets turned in.

The 4,000 male townspeople 16 and older possessed at least 2,450 what would be described today as firearms, as well as nearly 1,000 bayonets that were obviously military arms associated with military muskets. If that was the maximum number of private firearms in Boston in April of 1775, it is still well over one firearm for half of all males above 16 years old. Either the people of Boston were relative arms lovers, or firearms ownership in colonial America was rather widespread.

Considering that over ninety per cent of the American population were involved in farming, the percentage of arms ownership of the free male population was undoubtedly even greater than Bostons. As the total count of firearms for Boston was probably higher than the number of arms seized, and all Massachusetts farmers out in the countryside had to deal with numerous daily threats to their crops and livestock that the people in town would rarely have a problem with, arms possession in Massachusetts was widespread indeed. Plus, the people had been arming up since 1768. Recall Gage, prior to hostilities, stating that "arms are carried out openly by every man that goes out of Boston without molestation" as quoted in Part 6 of this series.

In Part 11, John Adams' statement that the American Revolution was over before the War for Independence began will be used as a retrospective on Parts 1 through 10 of this series and an introduction to American constitutional development.

The Origin Of The Second Amendment - Early Sources On America's Armed Civil Population, Part 9

Patrick Henry Marches With Hanover Volunteers Against Virginia's Governor, And Benjamin Franklin Describes All America Learning The Use Of Arms

As noted in the previous part, imports of arms and ammunition into the America Colonies were banned by the British in late 1774. And, as previously noted, British appointed governors in the Colonies were preventing laws from being passed by the people for any purpose because they would vote for armed defense by the militia, meaning by the people. Those governors were also actively trying to assure government control over all types of arms and ammunition anywhere possible.

The day after the Revolutionary War started in Massachusetts, and well before any news of that event was available to the south, Governor Dunmore of Virginia ordered the removal of gunpowder from the Williamsburg powder house. British marines used the governor's private wagon to haul the powder away before dawn on April 20, 1775, and store it on a British vessel under his control. The governor claimed this action was to prevent a slave rebellion and assured local leaders that if a rebellion occurred, he would instantly return the powder. However, the next day Dunmore threatened to free the slaves and lay waste to Williamsburg due to perceived threats to himself and the two British officers involved. 

On learning of the powder seizure, Patrick Henry sought approval from the local committee for marching the Hanover Volunteers to retrieve the powder. Such approval was denied. After news of hositilies between British forces and the people of Massachusetts at Lexington and Concord was received around April 28, 1775, the committee approved such action. Henry was offered command of the Volunteers and accepted. His forces were augmented with other volunteers joining his march to Williamsburg to retrieve the colony's powder. It was never likely that the powder could be retrieved unless the Governor gave such an order. However, Henry was able to collect full payment for the powder from the colony's receiver general. This ended possible military action, but it earning a rebel declaration for all involved, especially Henry, from Dunmore.

In Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin, having departed London as represenative of the American colonies, arrived back home in Philadelphia on May 5, 1775. From Franklin's letter to Jonathan Shipley in England regarding America when he first returned in early May:

"I found at my arrival all America from one end of the 12 united Provinces to the other, busily employed in learning the Use of Arms. The Attack upon the Country People near Boston by the Army had rous'd every Body, & exasperated the whole Continent. The Tradesmen of this City were in the Field twice a day, at 5 in the Morning, and Six in the Afternoon, disciplining with the utmost Diligence, all being Volunteers. We have now three Battalions, a troop of Light Horse, and a company of Artillery, who have made surprizing Progress. The same Spirit appears every where and the Unanimity is amazing." [Letters Of Delegates To Congress, Vol. 1, p.604]

Joseph Hewes, delegate to Congress from North Carolina, wrote Samuel Johnston on May 11, 1775 from Philadelphia:

"Nothing is heard but the sound of Drums & Fifes, all Ranks & Degrees of men are in Arms learning the Manual Exercise Evolution & the management of Artillery. They have now in this City Twenty eight Companies of Foot of 68 men each including Officers all of whom are out twice every day in Training. Several more Companies are forming, they have also two companies of Light Horse in short it is impossible to describe the Spirit of these people and the alteration they have undergone since I left them in December last. All the Quakers except a few of the old Rigid ones have taken up arms, there is not one Company without several of these people in it, and I am told one or two of the Companies are composed entirely of Quakers. The people of this Province in general are associating in Companies and employing Sarjants to teach them the exercise. I find all the Provinces are in Arms Except No. Carolina. New York has been Converted almost as instantaneously as St Paul was of old,. . ." [Delegates, Vol.1, pp.342-343]

A most interesting question here - where did all of these arms come from in Pennsylvania, the only American colony that never adopted a compulsory militia law requiring arms possession? And what was the actual deal with the Quakers and arms? How could these things happen without some law being passed to authorize it? These points will be addressed in an appropriate later post.

In Part 10, The people of Boston Are disarmed, and the Continental Congress declares such action as one of the causes and necessity of taking up arms.

The Origin Of The Second Amendment - Early Sources On America's Armed Civil Population, Part 8

General Gage Attempts Cannon Seizure At Salem, Patrick Henry Gives His Liberty Or Death Speech In Virginia, And The Revolutionary War Begins At Lexington

Updated September 24, 2024

Note that Britain banned imports of arms and ammunition into the American Colonies by November of 1774. Even fancy, expensive fowling pieces arriving in New York were seized by customs officers. Needles to say, none of this sat well with most Americans.

General Gage ordered a second action to disarm the people of Massachusetts on February 28, 1775. British troops sailed for Marblehead on a mission to Salem to avoid detection. The object was seizure of cannons and military supplies stored there. Quick action by the townspeople delayed the troops from entering by simply lifting Salem's drawbridge, all the while pelting the redcoats with insults and laughter. The delay allowed for relocation of the sought items making the British mission impossible to complete. However, the alarm bells went off early on, and there were companies of minutemen from surrounding towns arriving at Salem as British troops departed in failure.

Down in Virginia, Patrick Henry gave his famous "give me liberty, or give me death" speech on March 23, 1775, at the colony's convention. This speech was in support of his proposed resolution recommending the militia of the colony be put into a state of defense. The introduction stated:

"Resolved, That a well regulated militia, composed of the gentlemen and yeomen, is the natural strength and only security of a free government; that such militia in this colony would for ever render it unnecessary for the mother country to keep among us, for the purpose of our defence, any standing army of mercenary soldiers, always subversive of the quiet, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, and would obviate the pretext of taxing us for their support."

By this time, well regulated militia language had become a common American motto or maxim of the Revolutionary Era based upon repeated earlier usage. It was very similar to language in George Mason's earlier Fairfax County Committee of Safety resolution copying Maryland's language regarding a well regulated militia, quoted in Part 5. Henry's resolution went on to note necessary laws for defense could not be passed "to secure our inestimable rights and liberties, from those further violations with which they are threatened." The threat was from the royal governor, who was blocking legislative meetings under the colony's charter, and planning to seize the colony's powder supply to more easily compel obedience by armed government force.

The relevant period sources indicate that our ancestors understood well regulated militia references to relate to the body of the people, meaning an armed civil population capable of defending their country and rights, as well as keeping the government's armed forces under control. Well regulated simply meant that the people were capable of organized defense, something impossible without widespread arms possession and use. As noted in the previous part, the people could simply self embody by voluntary associations or private agreements if the law making apparatus was denied them, and the government was violating their rights as well as attempting to rule by force.

Back up in Massachusetts, General Gage sent out a third expedition to seize arms and supplies, this time to Concord well before dawn on April 19, 1775. Vigilant patriots noted military activity and express riders went out to spread the alarm. Some were seized by disguised British officers on the road, but they escaped and eventually the alarm was spread. The British were also trying to capture John Adams and John Hancock, who just happened to be at Lexington that night.

At Lexington's green, where the minutemen of town were assembled by dawn, the officer of the lead British column of troops rushed forward and ordered the minutemen standing at attention to throw down their arms several times. They did not. That officer later told people in Boston that a firearm misfired behind one of the rock walls around Lexington's green. His troops began firing on the militiamen without orders to do so. A number of militia were killed and injured, and the others fled the field faced with the much larger British force suddenly attacking them. Each side blamed the other for initiating hostilities.

The British troops then marched on to Concord and began burning military stores found there. The local militia observed their actions from a nearby hilltop, marching down to prevent the destruction of their town when smoke started rising from behind the buildings. They engaged the redcoats and routed them back towards Boston as reinforcements from all surrounding towns arrived in the area. The British were constantly fired at from behind stone walls by incensed farmers on their march back to Boston. The militia stopped pursuit at Charlestown, allowing for British wounded to be tended by the townspeople. Once inside Boston, British troops were confined there by a mass of militia preventing their march out anywhere into Massachusetts again.

In Part 9, Patrick Henry leads the Hanover Volunteers to retrieve powder clandestinely removed from the Williamsburg powder house in the night by British marines under orders of Virginia's governor.

The Origin Of The Second Amendment - Early Sources On America's Armed Civil Population, Part 7

John Adams On Americans Self Embodying As Effective Militia By Voluntary Associations And Private Agreements

Updated September 15, 2024

As noted in Part 1, John Adams was involved in early Second Amendment related development activity. Specifically, he wrote the seventh Revolutionary Era state declaration of rights for Massachusetts. Note all eight of them had a protection for an armed civil population. Details of Adams' contributions will appear in the future. Here, his earlier activities in the Continental Congress assuring the people capable of defending themselves against government tyranny are being addressed.

We have already noted numerous cases of people in various colonies self embodying as an effective, or "well regulated militia", or calling on the people to do so. The intent of these activities was to make certain that the civil population was capable of organized defense. There were no new American constitutions or governmental bodies until June of 1776 when George Mason wrote the earliest documents for Virginia. However, there were numerous well regulated militia associations that were formed much earlier. Some of these were done by individuals joining existing voluntary defensive associations. The earliest of those in Virginia was based upon individuals agreeing to act in concert for their own defense. George Mason and George Washington's early September 1774 activities forming the Fairfax Volunteers are an example stemming from their private meeting with Patrick Henry and two other patriots on August 30th. Government authorization was not understood as essential in order to establish an effective militia in the minds of Mason, Henry, Washington, and others.

Here is a period document from John Adams regarding this very point. It is one of his proposed resolutions for a recommendation by the Continental Congress on Sept. 30, 1774:

"Resolved that it be recommended to all the Colonies, to establish by Provincial Laws, where it can be done, a regular well furnished and disciplined Militia, and where it cannot be done by Law, by voluntary Associations, and private Agreements." [Letters of Delegates To Congress, 1, p.132]

Congress eventually passed a resolution on this subject on July 18, 1775, nearly nine months later. This was long after voluntary associations had been formed all across Virginia and many other parts of the American Colonies, and also well after open hostilities with the British began on April 19, 1775.

Note that it was the very authors and promoters of the future Second Amendment, George Mason and Patrick Henry, who implemented private and voluntary association related defensive actions in Virginia prior to Adams proposal to Congress. The reason why private agreements and voluntary associations for defense were necessary was simple. Only two colones had all government officials elected by the people, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The governors of those colones did not prevent their militia from being effective for defense. Most others were royal colonies with British appointed governors, and those were not allowing any meetings of elected representatives - specifically to prevent the people from resisting British actions. If such meetings were allowed, the people's representatives would have passed laws to immediately require all the able bodied free men to possess their own arms and to organize and train for defense. These were defensive actions private individuals and local voluntary associations were already engaging in. Local committees and provincial committees and congresses recommended defensive activities because the people who elected them wanted to defend themselves in an organized way.

In Part 8, General Gage again tries to disarm Americans, Patrick Henry gives his liberty or death speech, and the Revolutionary War begins.

The Origin Of The Second Amendment - Early Sources On America's Armed Civil Population, Part 6

 Americans Armed Up For Defense While General Gage Nearly Initiated The Revolutionary War On September 1, 1774

Updated September 6, 2024

Virginians started defensive measures much earlier than indicated in George Mason's Fairfax Country Resolves of January 17, 1775. Mason, Patrick Henry, and other patriots met with George Washington at Mount Vernon on August 30 1774, over four months earlier. Mason began forming a voluntary defensive association for Fairfax County immediately thereafter with Washington's assistance. On September 21, 1774, Mason's Fairfax Independent Company Of Volunteers was initiated. The introduction of this defensive association indicated primary reasons for its establishment as follows:

"In this Time of extreme Danger, . . . and threat'ned with the Destruction of our Civil-rights, & Liberty, and all that is dear to British Subjects & Freemen . . . sensible of the Expediency of putting the Militia of the Colony upon a more respectable Footing, & hoping to excite others by our Example" [Mason Papers, Vol. 1, p.210]

By early 1775, many others had been motivated by the example, as noted in Part 5.

By the time Mason's Fairfax Volunteers had formed, the wisdom of their defensive association was fully justified in light of General Gage's actions. He began to disarm the people of Massachusetts starting on September 1, 1774. Before dawn that date, General Gage sent troops surreptitiously out from Boston by boat to seize gunpowder from the Charlestown powder house and two cannons from Cambridge. These necessities for defense were transported to Fort William and placed under British military control. Though there were no hostilities, a rumor about casualties spread out across the countryside. As a result, massive numbers of armed inhabitants started marching towards Boston. A correction of the rumor then spread out turning around the waves of incoming militia. This event nearly ignited the Revolutionary War, and it most certainly convinced most Americans that Britain fully intended not only to disarm, but to conquer them.

Gage took other actions after learning of the extensive militia forces that had been marching towards Boston at the beginning of September. He ordered that no gunpowder be removed from Boston's powder house without his written permission. Large amounts belonging to merchants and other private individuals were stored there. He also began fortifying the only land entrance into Boston. When questioned about the latter point around September 24th, he stated it was evident that the people, who were not soldiers, were collecting arms and were intent on attacking his forces. He also indicated that the fortifications were entirely defensive, and that:

 "arms are carried out openly by every man that goes out of Boston without molestation." [American Archives, 4th Series, Vol. 1, p.807]

General Gage's September 1774 activities caused the people of Massachusetts to take precautions to prevent future such military actions. Generally, they voted for militia officers who were patriots, meaning supporters of the people's rights; they began training regularly; they appointed part of the militia to be ready to march at a moments notice (minutemen); they built more extensive communications networks for accurate information; and they planned watches of suspicious British military movements and for express riders to warn the countryside in case danger.

Reasons for the rather swift spread of voluntary militia associations and use of  free government related well regulated militia mantras by American patriots were not only Britain's claim of "a right to bind" Americans "in all cases whatsoever". Repeated British activities and resulting events made clear that the attempt to place the military in control of the civil population of Massachusetts would require conquering the people in order to disarm them. The first resolution in George Mason's Fairfax County Resolves of July 18, 1774 addressed this very topic. It specified:

"Resolved that this Colony and Dominion of Virginia can not be considered as a conquered Country; and if it was, that the present Inhabitants are the Descendants not of the Conquered, but of the Conquerors." [Mason Papers, Vol.1, p. 201]

On December 15, 1774 General Gage answered a question of Lord Dartmouth regarding disarming the New England colonies. Gage's answer was that such action would require force and being masters of the country. By this time, many Americans had already prepared to prevent disarming of the civil population by British military forces.

In Part 7, some views of John Adams will be examined relative to effective voluntary militia and the American Revolution that clarify period American historical reality.

The Origin Of The Second Amendment - Early Sources On America's Armed Civil Population, Part 5

 Josiah Quincy's Thoughts On Free Government And A Well Regulated Militia Spread  Across Revolutionary Era America

Josiah Quincy's May 1774 views on whether a standing army or the armed civil population should be in control of civil society were quoted in Part 4. His view of a well regulated militia was largely copied into a resolve of the Maryland Convention on December 12, 1774. Maryland's definition of who composed a well regulated militia was adopted verbatim later on December 21st by the committee in New Castle County Delaware. Such well regulated militia references became common during the early Revolutionary Era.

George Mason copied Maryland's resolution into a Fairfax County Virginia Committee of Safety resolution on January 17, 1775. Mason's copy is presented here for comparison to Quincy's original ideas quoted in Part 4:

"Resolved, That this Committee do concur in opinion with the Provincial Committee of the Province of Maryland that a well regulated Militia, composed of gentlemen freeholders, and other freemen, is the natural strength and only stable security of a free Government, and that such Militia will relieve our mother country from any expense in our protection and defence, will obviate the pretence of a necessity for taxing us on that account, and render it unnecessary to keep Standing Armies among us - ever dangerous to liberty; and therefore it is recommended to such of the inhabitants of this County as are from sixteen to fifty years of age, to choose a Captain, two lieutenants, and Ensign, four Seageants, four Corporals, and one Drummer, for each Company; that they provide themselves with good Firelocks, and use their utmost endeavours to make themselves masters of the Military Exercise . . ." [Mason Papers, Vol. 1, p. 212]

In fact, many voluntary defensive associations already existed well prior to this period in Virginia. On January 5, 1775 George Washington wrote:

"In this County [Fairfax], Prince William, Loudoun, Faquier, Berkely, & many others round about them, a noble Ardour prevails. Men are forming themselves into independent Companies, chusing their officers, arming, Equipping, & training for the worst Event. The last Appeal!" [Letters of Delegates to Congress, Vol. 1, p. 306]

George Mason began working to establish a voluntary defensive association in Fairfax County in late August of 1774, over four months previous to Washingtons's above observation. While Mason did not originate the widespread American Revolutionary Era well regulated militia definition, he did later condense those longer period definitions into "the body of the people". It was he who later mainstreamed that free government related definition into American bill of rights development as author of  America's earliest constitutional document, the Virginia Declaration of Rights in June 1776.

In Part 6 of this series, Mason's much earlier activity relating to self embodying of the armed civil population will be identified, and the proximate cause of such voluntary defensive activities rapid spread across the American Colonies will be addressed.

The Origin Of The Second Amendment - Early Sources On America's Armed Civil Population, Part 4

The Context Of All Second Amendment Predecessors: Control Of Society By The Armed Civil Population Rather Than Government Paid Armies

Updated

Friction between the townspeople of Boston and British troops increased over time after their arrival in October of 1768. On March 5, 1770, a demonstration at the customhouse against the soldiers got out of hand and resulted in a deadly riot often called the Boston Massacre. The solders were criminally charged, and two lawyers, John Adams and Josiah Quincy Jr., defended them.

Both men were major American patriots. Adams became first vice president in the Washington administration and second president of the United States. Quincy passed away of natural causes at the beginning of the War for Independence and is relatively unknown today. However, both made contributions regarding America's armed civil population that led to eventual development and inclusion of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Adams views will be examined in later posts.

Quincy's May 1774 publication critical of Britain's Boston Port Bill closing the port and subjecting the civil population to rule by the military will be addressed here. The Port Bill and the British fleet and troops scheduled to arrive that month to enforce it were Britain's response to the Boston Tea Party. The full title of Quincy's work was Observations On The Boston Port Bill With Thoughts On Civil Society And Standing Armies. Quincy's thoughts on whether the people or a standing army should be in control lead to three concepts later included in America's first constitutional document, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and specifically Section 13. These concepts were later incorporated into every subsequent American bill of rights related predecessor of the Second Amendment. Their language and context were crystal clear - civil control over government and any armed force it might raise.

Here are Quincy's views on civil society and who should make decisions relative thereto:

"The people who compose the society (for whose security the labour of its institution was performed, and of the toils its preservation daily sustained), the people, I say, are the only competent judges of their own welfare, and, therefore, are the only suitable authority to determine touching the great end of their subjection and their sacrifices." [Quincy,Memoir, p.396-397]

Quincy's views on "free government" and the purpose and composition of a well regulated militia follow:

"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of citizen and soldier in those destined for the defence of the state. The sword should never be in the hands of any but those who have an interest in the safety of the community, who fight for their religion and their offspring, - and repel invaders that they may return to their private affairs and the enjoyment of freedom and good order. Such are a well regulated militia composed of the freeholders, citizens, and husbandmen, who take up arms to preserve their property as individuals, and their rights as freemen." [Quincy, Memoir p.413]

This early Revolutionary Era tract influenced language adopted elsewhere well before any hostilities occurred or new American governments were formed. It was the descriptive vehicle relied on by Americans as they continued to self arm  and self embody as militia at the local level in order to defend their rights and property in an organized manner against claims of unlimited authority from government officials and troops.

The links between Quincy's views and subsequent use of such terminology in American Second Amendment related bill of rights predecessors provide the obvious Revolutionary Era context of their intent. Americans rejected having government be in control of the people. They decided to fight for the opposite proposition and establish it as a constitutional check on government power.

In Part 5, an early example incorporating Quincy's well regulated militia terminology as adopted by the December 1774 Maryland Convention will be examined.

The Origin of the Second Amendment - Early Sources On America's Armed Civil Population, Part 3

The Freemen Of Boston Recommend That Inhabitants Obtain Arms

Updated

As noted in Part 2, Britain began treating Americans as conquered in 1763. The hated Stamp Act, adopted in 1765, had been successfully defeated by Americans associating to boycott British goods in an organized manner resulting in the Act's repeal in 1766. Along with repeal came the Declaratory Act claiming unlimited authority for Parliament over the American Colonies - a right to "bind" Americans "in all cases whatsoever". Most Americans rejected this concept outright.

On June 15, 1768, due to some rioting in Boston relating to the new Townshend Acts including a duty on tea, a request was made that British troops be sent there to protect British customs officials in the performance of their duties.

At a Boston Town meeting held September 12/13 of 1768, the freemen of Boston passed a resolution recommending that the inhabitants who did not possess arms should provide themselves at that time. The resolution noted the English Bill of Rights protecting arms for protestants, and also Massachusetts militia law that required all males 16 to 60 to possess arms and a considerable quantity of ammunition. It cited a possible war with France as the reason for passage, but it was obvious to all as being directed against British threats of armed force. A British fleet with troops arrived at Boston a few weeks thereafter.

Why would there need to be any such vote on this subject if the law was still in effect? Because after the conquest of Canada, British officials were not enforcing existing militia laws that were intended to assure all able bodied males possessed their own arms and ammunition. Instead, they wanted taxes from America to support an army to guard British possessions, help pay for the previous war, and keep the unruly colonials in line. They wanted compliance to their decrees. Parliament referred to Boston's 1768 vote as "illegal and unconstitutional", in spite of the freemen noting the English Bill of Rights and existing law in their resolution.

Based upon the vote described above and the Tea Party information from Part 2, it appears that arms possession by the male population (those who fight for defense and vote on matters relating thereto) was common, and was also understood as a right.

British troops were later involved, on March 5, 1770, in the Boston Massacre, a demonstration that turned into a deadly riot. A number of Americans were killed, and the soldiers involved faced criminal trails for those deaths.

In Part 4, writings of the two patriot lawyers who defended British soldiers involved in the 1770 Boston Massacre will be identified, and their involvement in development of Second Amendment related concepts and language regarding the armed civil population will be examined.

The Origin of the Second Amendment - Early Sources On America's Armed Civil Population, Part 2

What happened at the time of the Boston Tea Party? 

Updated  August 10, 2024

Many Americans died helping Great Britain defeat France and conquer Canada in the French and Indian War that ended in 1763. After that, Britain began treating the American colonists as if they were also conquered. Parliament imposed taxes upon Americans with no input from American legislative assemblies contrary to their rights and past practice. Well before the end of 1773, many Americans were vehemently opposed to British actions and determined to put a stop to them.

On November 29, 1773, one of Boston's selectmen wrote "twould puzzle any person to purchase a pair of p[istols] in town, as they are all bought up, with a full determination to repell force with force." Then on December 18th, he described what happened at the Tea Party two days earlier.

In the morning "a general muster was assembled" at the Old South Church numbering 5,000 to 6,000 men. A unanimous vote was taken that the tea in the three tea ships at the wharf should go out of the harbor that afternoon. Attempts were made by a ship's captain to allow for the three ships' departure without paying the tea tax. The port officer refused. Then he went to another town to locate the governor, who also refused. Very late in the day when the captain returned with this news, there was considerable shouting at the Church, and the meeting broke up with more shouting and three cheers.

Immediately thereafter, about two hundred men appeared who were dressed like indians and marched two by two to the wharf, "each armed with a hatchet or axe, and a pair of pistols". By 9 o'clock, all the tea chests were broken and tossed into the harbor by these native american actors.

The population of Boston in 1773 included a maximum of approximately 4,000 males 16 and older. Assuming that every male over 16 from Boston attended the "general muster", it would have included a minimum of 1,000 to 2,000 men who were from the surrounding small towns.

Period actions like those described above indicate why the Founders understood the body of the people to be the militia and vice versa. In the next post, a vote of Boston's freemen in a town meeting recommending that the inhabitants without arms should arm themselves in September of 1768 will be addressed.

The Origin Of The Second Amendment - Early Sources On America's Armed Civil Population - Part 1

What Did "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean To The Founders?

Updated June 22, 2024

The following short general post is planned as the first of many to examine specific details that directly relate to understanding the historical reality of America's armed civil population and Founding Era period usage of terms in the Second Amendment.

Did the Founders view the Second Amendment's "well regulated militia" language as a government institution reference or as intending the people themselves? There is extensive period source evidence that it was universally understood as applying to the latter - "the body of the people". That very definition is found in five direct American bill of rights related predecessors of the Second Amendment. The final four state ratifying conventions (VA,NY,NC,RI) prior to ratification of the U.S. Bill of Rights all included exactly that language.

Virginia's ratifying convention originated the proposal, which was copied by later conventions. Virginia simply copied verbatim from its own 1776 Declaration of Rights. Both the 1776 and 1788 iterations of Virginia's "the body of the people" understanding of a well regulated militia terminology were written by George Mason, and in both conventions Patrick Henry and James Madison were involved in adopting them. Madison promised in the 1788 convention to push for adoption of Virginia's Bill of Rights proposals and some other amendments by Congress in order to achieve ratification of the U.S. Constitution by his state.

The following year, Madison was able to convince the First Congress to adopt most of Virginia's rights proposals and four of its other amendment recommendations. While Americans refer to all of the first ten amendments as the Bill of Rights, that title was not applied to the amendments by Congress. It is an American oral tradition based on their origin in state ratifying convention bills and declarations of rights.

In the next post, sources from the Boston Tea Party period will be examined regarding period terminology and America's armed civil population.

Historical Error In Current Supreme Court Case NYSRPA vs Bruen Pro Rights Brief

Bay Colony Weapons Collectors, Inc. Brief Misstates Availability Of Documentation From The First Congress Concerning The Bill Of Rights

The specific Bay Colony brief error involves the claim that "speeches in the First Congress were not transcribed". This statement immediately precedes discussion regarding James Madison's notes for a speech introducing the U.S. Bill of Rights amendments in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789.

On the contrary, extensive debate including speeches in the House of Representatives were transcribed and published in 1789. The Gazette of the United States, a period newspaper, published Congressional debates and proceedings in New York where the First Congress met. The Congressional Register was published later that year in New York and contained a collection of such materials transcribed by Thomas Lloyd. These type of period publications were later collected and republished in the Annals of Congress in 1834. Relevant parts were included in a two volume collection edited by Bernard Schwartz entitled, The Bill Of Rights: A Documentary History, published in 1971. Madison's full June 8th amendment proposals were also included in The Papers of James Madison Vol.12, published in 1979.

The Schwartz collection was my source for relevant June 8 excerpts with Madison's full speech published in The Origin of the Second Amendment in 1991. The Bay Colony brief cited The Origin Of The Second Amendment as its source for Madison's June 8th speech notes. The June 8 House debate document begins on the very page Madison's notes for the June 8 speech end (p. 647) beginning with Madison bringing up the subject of the amendments to the Constitution.

Having researched Constitutional Era historical sources for two decades, then edited and self published The Origin of the Second Amendment over three decades ago, a pro rights Supreme Court brief filed in the current Second Amendment related case with such a misstatement regarding the existence of period documents is of serious concern to me. The entire purpose of a collection of relevant Constitutional Era sources like The Origin Of The Second Amendment was to make all of these materials readily available to anyone who needs or wants to study them. I'm pleased the Bay Colony brief cited The Origin of the Second Amendment, and I hope more of those interested in the individual rights nature of the Second Amendment become aware of its existence and make use of the full collection. It is the only one of its kind on the subject.

The Origin of the Second Amendment has been a major help to Federal Courts in discovering and documenting Second Amendment intent. It was extensively cited in the 2001 U.S. vs Emerson decision, which was relied upon for accurate history in the 2007 Parker vs District of Columbia decision, which also cited The Origin of the Second Amendment. The Parker decision was appealed by the District of Columbia to the U.S. Supreme Court as the Heller case that year, and The Origin of the Second Amendment was extensively cited by both sides of the dispute as well as in Justice Scalia's majority Heller opinion. It was the most cited document collection in the case. The fact is that I assisted both the Second Amendment Foundation with historical help for their Emerson case brief, and also Alan Gura in the Heller case. After winning Heller, Alan Gura indicated that The Origin ofthe Second Amendment and my companion narrative history, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, were "the authoritative books on the subject" of "the Second Amendment's history".

Note that the Bay Colony brief makes excellent use of Madison's notes, and does so in an expeditious manner for the particular argument and setting. It was not the purpose of the brief to go extensively into what Madison actually did and said that day. However, the mistaken claim regarding lack of transcriptions of speeches in Congress is a type of error that should not appear in any brief before the Supreme Court, and especially so within a pro rights brief filed in a Second Amendment related case.

James Madison's speech on June 8th, 1789 introducing the Bill of Rights amendments is available for everyone to read. It includes dispositive points on Second Amendment intent that have been the subject of dispute for decades. Some of these points cannot be determined from his notes alone. What are these points? That subject will be addressed in a following post.

Who Wrote The Original Version Of The Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment Has Deep Virginia Roots

The First Congress passed the U.S. Bill of Rights amendments on to the states for ratification in 1789 because a number of state ratifying conventions desired private rights protecting restrictions on the new Federal Government. By identifying who wrote the very first Second Amendment predecessor (one combining both right to arms and well regulated militia clauses), and who improved that language later in Congress, many facts illustrating the development and intent of this most disputed constitutional provision become clear.

Three native sons of Virginia were the men most responsible for developing and/or promoting not only the Second Amendment's language, but also the other provisions of the U.S. Bill of Rights - George Mason, Patrick Henry, and James Madison. The younger of these, Madison, was most prominently involved in passage of the Bill of Rights amendments by the First Congress. All three men were delegates the previous year to the 1788 Virginia State Ratifying Convention, which produced the model for the U.S. Bill of Rights. All three were also appointed as Virginia delegates to the Philadelphia Federal Convention of 1787 that produced the proposed U.S. Constitution, but Henry never attended. In addition, these three men were members of Virginia's Revolutionary Era Convention and on the committee which produced and adopted America's first state declaration of rights and form of government over a decade earlier, prior to the Declaration of Independence. And almost two years prior to that, George Mason and Patrick Henry were intimately involved in activities relating to private arms and defense well prior to any hostilities of the American Revolution. They later protected these activities against violation by the government in Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights Article 13, the first of many American Mason Triads. Its leading well regulated militia declaration was the earliest such bill of rights related usage linking an armed civil population to ultimate control over government raised armed force.

James Madison's contribution was presenting the House of Representatives an improved version of Virginia's model for the U.S. Bill of Rights and pushing for its adoption. His specific original contribution was addition of restrictive language to all rights protections, including 'infringe' based restrictions on First and Second Amendment protected rights. Madison also grouped private rights protections together including both Second Amendment clauses. However, he was not the originating author of Virginia's Bill of Rights model and its Second Amendment predecessor.

The original author of The Second Amendment's two-clause version, as well as the other Bill of Rights protections, was George Mason, Antifederalist chairman of an amendments committee in Virginia's ratifying convention. Mason was assisted in convention by Patrick Henry, whose renowned rhetorical skills helped convince the assembled delegates that a U.S. Bill of Rights based directly upon Virginia's 1776 State Declaration of Rights was essential. Mason's model Bill of Rights, with its novel two-clause Second Amendment predecessor greatly influenced all following state ratifying conventions.

New York's ratifying convention altered Mason's Second Amendment predecessor a month later to make it more clear in the New York Ratification Declaration of Rights, and the following month the North Carolina Convention adopted Virginia's language verbatim along with all of Virginia's other proposals and refused to ratify until a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. It was these last three state ratifying conventions of 1788 that Congress understood as desiring the Virginia model Bill of Rights amendments and its Second Amendment predecessor.

A year prior to these ratifying conventions, Mason and Madison had been very active members of the Philadelphia Federal Convention. Virginia's delegates offered the assembled state delegations the 1787 Virginia Plan for their consideration, and the U.S. Constitution resulted from pursuance of that Plan. A major Ratification Era controversy over the need for a Federal Bill of Rights erupted near the end of the Convention. Mason pointed out that a Bill of Rights was desirable and could be drawn up in "a few hours" by relying on the state declarations of rights. Yet the Convention delegations, in a rush to leave town, unanimously voted down a committee to draw up a Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution. At this time, Madison considered Mason's concern for a Bill of Rights as a relatively unimportant little circumstance, but Americans ultimately agreed with Mason.

George Mason refused to sign the proposed Constitution and left the Federal Convention extremely upset. Before leaving Philadelphia, Mason discussed the need for a Federal Bill of Rights with all three men who later became Antifederalist leaders of the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention Minority - John Smilie, Robert Whitehill, and William Findlay. As a result, the three Pennsylvanians did in in their own ratifying convention exactly what Mason did later in Virginia's - prepared and proposed a bill of rights based on their own state declaration of rights, but it was defeated on a procedural vote. Undoubtedly, the reason Mason used both a Pennsylvania style right to arms clause and his own well regulated militia language as the original Second Amendment predecessor was his contact with the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights supporting leaders. Mason continued on after leaving Philadelphia engaged in a one man information campaign for a Federal Bill of Rights and against ratification of the proposed U.S. Constitution as written.

George Mason was also the primary author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights and Form of Government in June of 1776, early in the American Revolution. This was eleven years prior to his writing the Virginia model for a Federal Bill of Rights. But Mason was not alone in this early Revolutionary Era constitutional endeavor. Both Patrick Henry and James Madison were also members of the 1776 Virginia Convention that formed America's first state constitution, and both were on the committee with Mason that developed and approved the language. Mason's original well regulated militia clause from Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights was copied verbatim by Mason into Virginia's 1788 model for the U.S. Bill of Rights, and its full Mason Triad context was included.

Other states followed Virginia's 1776 lead on their Revolutionary Era declarations of rights. All seven subsequent states to adopt early American declarations of rights relied upon Mason's Virginia original version as a guide. This was especially apparent in their Second Amendment related Mason Triads, which protected an armed civil population, noted danger to liberty from a standing army, and declared government raised force subordinate to the civil power.

The older two Virginians, George Mason and Patrick Henry, were also both directly involved in defensive activities of the early Revolutionary Era clearly related to the Second Amendment and its predecessor Virginia Declaration of Rights Article 13 Mason Triad protection. Almost two years before its adoption in June,1776, both men met with George Washington and other Virginia patriots at Mount Vernon in August of 1774 to discuss claims of unlimited authority by government officials and the threat of military force to compel compliance. This was well over a half year before any hostilities began. The result of that meeting was formation of all-voluntary armed defensive associations in each of the delegates' home counties. Mason helped form and lead the Fairfax Independent Company, and Henry organized and led the Hanover Volunteers. By early 1775, still before hostilities, Mason started referring to his county's voluntary defensive association as a well regulated militia. According to George Washington, many counties in Virginia had such voluntary independent companies of militia by that time.

Voluntary defensive associations were only possible because Americans, largely farmers and frontiersmen, possessed their own arms and ammunition, knew how to use them, and could join together in mutual defense, just as they were capable of individual self defense. Americans individually decided they needed to protect themselves, their rights, their communities and their existing form of government against government officials who claimed unlimited authority, violated their rights, and destroyed their established civil government utilizing armed force.

There are extensive details regarding each of the above periods of time and the commentary of Mason, Henry, Madison, and many others relating to their activities and Second Amendment developmental history. As can be seen in the above narrative, the U.S. Constitution, and even more so the U.S. Bill of Rights, are Virginia inspired documents. George Mason was THE giant of American Constitutionalism, James Madison was also such a giant, and Patrick Henry rhetorically backed up their endeavors with clear and convincing reasoning. The Second Amendment most clearly has deep, deep Virginia roots.

North Central Wisconsin Gun Collectors Association Show

The Fall 2018 NCWGCA Gun Show will be held at its new location in Merrill, Wisconsin on Friday and Saturday September 14 and 15, 2018. The show will be open from 3-8PM Friday and 9AM till 4PM Saturday and will be located at the Merrill Expo Building at 200 Sales Street.

I will be attending this Show and promoting my published research on Second Amendment developmental history including my massive Founding Era document collection and the more recently published definitive history. Paperback copies of TheOrigin of the Second Amendment and copies of The Founders' View ofthe Right to Bear Arms will be available for sale at the Golden Oak Books table for $30.00 per copy. Save Amazon shipping charges and pick up copies in person.

The Origin of the Second Amendment was extensively relied upon in the U.S. Vs Emerson, Parker vs District of Columbia, and District of Columbia vs Heller Federal Court decisions concluding that the Second Amendment was developed as a Bill of Rights provision intended to protect individual rights. In the Supreme Court's Heller case, my then newly published history, TheFounders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, was cited in each pro-rights historical brief filed by those supporting a historically accurate ruling.

Stop by the Golden Oak Books table at this fall's North Central Wisconsin Gun Collectors Association Show in Merrill, Wisconsin to say hello, ask questions, and obtain copies of my self-funded and self-published research, which so heavily influenced the three American Federal Courts that based their decisions on documented American historical reality. Golden Oak Books and my research library are located a little over 100 miles north of Merrill at Ontonagon in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

Note that my web page - secondamendmentinfo.com - has extensive links to many of my short online articles fact checking and documenting the numerous historical errors of those who support gun control and argue against an individual rights understanding of the Second Amendment. At On Second Opinion Blog, these articles include an extensive series on the errors of professional historians supporting Washington DC's gun ban in the Heller case as well as the off base historical views asserted in Justice Stevens' Heller dissent. Locate individual articles with the index at top of page. There is also a direct website link to my article in The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, which itself is a much condensed history of the Second Amendment's development.

Hope to see you in Merrill!

See You At The Central Wisconsin Gun Collectors Association Show Next Weekend

CWGCA Gun Show In Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin April 14 and 15, 2018

     The Central Wisconsin Gun Collectors Association Spring Gun Show will be held at the Fond Du Lac County Fairgrounds on Saturday and Sunday, April 14 and 15, 2018. This is Wisconsin's largest gun show.
     I will be at the show answering questions about Second Amendment historical development and selling copies of The Origin of the Second Amendment and The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms. Alan Gura, winning attorney in the Supreme Court Heller individual rights decision, described these two books as "the authoritative sources on the subject". If you can attend and have thought about obtaining your own copy of the complete Constitutional Era collection of Second Amendment related sources and/or the only history based directly upon that collection and earlier documents, you can stop by and pick them up directly from the author/editor/publisher/researcher. I will be at a table in the entryway annex.
     The Origin of the Second Amendment contains a literal transcript of virtually every relevant 1787-1792 source. These include full documents or relevant excerpts of state ratifying convention debates on every period Bill of Rights related proposal, arms discussion, militia related commentary, as well as all relevant newspaper articles, pamphlets, and private letters discussing those subjects. Included are full copies of proposals for amending the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights proposal to state legislatures from the First U.S. Congress, and the relevant Second Amendment language returned as ratified from state legislatures.
     Remember, knowledge is power.

David Hardy's Latest Law Review Article

David Hardy's latest law review article, Lawyers, Historians and "Law Office History" can be downloaded here. It deals with professional historians' historical errors, largely relating to various arguments about the English Bill of Rights.

Dave's new article includes a link to my blog post, Root Causes of Never-Ending Second Amendment Dispute - Part 10, and notes that this series of posts has twenty four parts. Why so many parts on historical fact checking professional historians? Because, as Dave Hardy documents on other historical matters, they made a lot of mistakes and completely separated the Second Amendment from its actual American Bill of Rights developmental history. The first part of the Root Causes series can be found here.

I like to refer to the activities of the professional historians who provided the Supreme Court a complete historical disgrace in the Heller case as involved with History Office Law. One must always carefully fact check every assertion and citation from professional historians arguing for gun control regarding Second Amendment historical development.

Second Amendment Original Founding Era Sources And History

The Authoritative Period Information

     There is currently a major influx of visitors to On Second Opinion Blog seeking authoritative
information on the Second Amendment. The articles published at this blog and my other writings described below are based directly upon nearly a half century of research into original relevant Founding Era sources. For easy access to the numerous articles at this blog, look at the indexes at the top of this page. The easiest way to access information and links to all of my other printed and online research is at my website, SecondAmendmentInfoDotCom.
     What follows here is a concise description of my readily available Second Amendment historical research. In addition to the many historical fact checking articles published at this blog since January of 2009, I have edited and published the only source document collection with virtually every relevant period source, The Origin Of The Second Amendment(1991, 2001), and I have written and published the only definitive history of the
Second Amendment based directly on all of the relevant documents, The Founders' View Of The Right To Bear Arms(2007). Both of these books were extensively cited to the Supreme Court in the Heller case, and they were the only books that Alan Gura, winning attorney in the Heller case, has described as "the authoritative books on the subject" of the Second Amendment's history.
     My website, in addition to information on the above printed books, links directly to a number of online sources including The American Revolutionary Era Origin Of The Second Amendment's Clauses, my Journal on Firearms and Public Policy article (2011), which is essentially a much condensed version (about 21 pages) of my definitive history, The Founders' View Of The Right To Bear Arms.  The SecondAmendmentInfo website also links to a number of my articles documenting extensive historical errors in several amicus briefs supporting gun control in the Supreme Court's Heller case. These
include  an analysis of the brief from professional linguists that ignored all Bill of Rights context; an article on Chicago's erroneous Heller brief; one on the historically off-track brief from numerous organizations including the Education Fund; and a link to my History News Network Op-Ed (Feb.2008) noting numerous historical errors in the Heller brief filed by professional historians supporting the District of Columbia's gun control laws.
     This blog commenced on January 25, 2009 with the first part of series entitled Root Causes Of Never-Ending Second Amendment Dispute documenting the incredibly large number of historical errors and omissions of essential information in that professional historians' brief. The series runs to twenty-four parts (see Fisking Index above for direct links). I also have two different series of six articles (with takeoffs of selling the Brooklyn Bridge titles) dealing with numerous errors from professional historians' briefs in the MacDonald case where they attempted to re-argue the historical issues in Heller. My analysis of Justice Stevens' Heller dissent runs to six parts currently (more on the way). And there are numerous short articles on various subjects of interest listed in the Post Index above. Among those subjects are these titles:
The Meaning Of 'Shall Not Be Infringed'
The Meaning Of "A Well Regulated Militia"
Commas And The "Original" Version Of The Second Amendment
The Mason Triad Context Of Second Amendment Development And Purpose
     By the way, if you are unfamiliar with Mason Triads, you are most likely unfamiliar with the original American bill of rights context of ALL Second Amendment predecessors preceding Congressional proposals. These include the related provisions in eight early state declarations of rights as well as those in the proposed bills of rights and related provisions voted on in seven of the state conventions called to ratify the U.S. Constitution.
     Finally, note that my document collection, The Origin Of The Second Amendment, is a large collection, a very heavy read, and is intended as a research tool. The much easier read is my history, The Founders' View Of The Right To Bear Arms. The unusual and very extensive Table of Contents in The Founders' View Of The Right To Bear Arms is in fact an extensive outline of essential relevant historical information necessary to understand the full import and meaning of the Second Amendment.

David Hardy's New Book Is Now Shipping

David Hardy informed me today that his new book has been published and is now shipping. The title is, I'm from the Government, and I'm Here to Kill You: The Human Cost of Official Negligence.

The previous post includes my short description of his book with a link to David's book information webpage.

Here is the the link to Amazon's order page.

David Hardy Has A New Book Scheduled For October Publication

Available For Pre-Order Now

Long time legal field Second Amendment scholar, David T. Hardy, has a new book coming out in October (possibly earlier, as the official publication date is set for after the books are distributed to
sellers). The title is, I'm From The Government And I'm Here To Kill You. The book deals with negligence and misconduct of Federal Government employees and the lack of accountability for their harmful actions. Included among the nine chapters are three relating to notorious cases involving arms - Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Fast and Furious. David's writings are always based upon extensive and careful research.

Check out the author's web page promoting his new book.

Amazon's pre-order link with informative description is here.

The Meaning Of "Fisk" and "Fisking"

Updated August 24, 2017
Fisk means fact check, and fisking is the act of documenting specific statements as factually incorrect and publishing the proof, which normally consists of relevant documents directly contradicting the erroneous statement.

On Second Opinion Blog is an excellent example of fisking. It commenced on January 25, 2009 to fisk, or fact check, the Second Amendment related arguments relied upon as authoritative by supporters of gun control. The specific statements that require fisking are those of the fifteen professional historians who backed up Justice Stevens' 2008 District of Columbia vs Heller Supreme Court dissent arguing that the Second Amendment was not intended to protect individual rights.

The initial On Second Opinion article was appropriately titled, Root Causes Of Never-Ending Second Amendment Dispute Part 1, and the series ran to twenty-four fiskings. That there is any dispute today about Second Amendment history and intent is largely attributable to the fifteen mistaken academics who signed the Heller brief written by historian Jack Rakove of Stanford. Sixteen numbered errors of fact are documented in the Root Causes series along with extensive information essential for proper interpretation ignored by the historians and directly contradicting their Heller brief assertions.

At the top of this page is a link, Fisking Index Page, which provides direct access to each of the twenty-four articles in the Root Causes Of Never-Ending Second Amendment Dispute series. There are also other series listed, and one, Justice Stevens' Train Wreck Of American History, includes fisking of Justice Stevens' dissent itself. The historians' error problems carry right over into the Stevens dissent. Every relevant aspect of the historians' Heller brief and Justice Stevens' Heller dissent are based upon fallacious conflation, historical error, and misinterpretation.

The truth is out there - right here. Find out the documented facts of Second Amendment history. See if your belief system is factually founded and can withstand fisking, or if it has no relationship to reality whatsoever, like the Heller historians and Justice Stevens, and you have been brainwashed.

How Professional Historians Destroy Historians' Credibility

Fake Second Amendment History

[Updated April 26&27, 2017]
     Jonathan Gienapp, an assistant professor of history at Stanford University, recently wrote a long article urging all historians to oppose confirmation of Neil Gorsuch as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. What was the basis for this opposition? A disagreement between a "few historians" (including Professors Gienapp, Jack Rakove, and Saul Cornell) and originalists in the legal community regarding which of the two professions can best understand historical materials from the Founding Era. Reading Professor Gienapp's article, one is left with the distinct impression that originalists, such as former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (and now Justice Gorsuch) eschew any reliance upon history in cases involving the language and intent of the U.S. Constitution. Gienapp's view is that such originalists "have escaped history".

"How originalists have exploited their new fortifications to repel historical expertise is best captured in their reaction to the so-called historians’ amicus brief filed for the Supreme Court in conjunction with the controversial Second Amendment case from 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller... That case—which centered on a D. C. handgun ban—ultimately turned on the original meaning of the amendment. And historians reached the diametrically opposite conclusion from the one advanced by Justice Scalia in the Court’s majority opinion...."
[The above link includes my direct response to Professor Gienapp's article.]

     There are multiple historical problems with the views expressed in Professor Gienapp's article, and some of them will be addressed in this post. First is the assumption that the Heller historians not only got the Second Amendment's history right, but also backed up their conclusion with proof based on primary period sources, and took all of the relevant period sources into account in their examination of the subject. Along with that assumption comes the corollary assumption that it must be Justice Scalia and the Heller majority involved in any historical error. The second problem with the article is the assumption that only historians can accurately get at historical reality, with its corollary that everyone else must rely upon professional historians' views because of their academic credentials. A third problem is that, if these assumptions are incorrect, and they are, then reliance upon the historians' Heller brief as poster child for politicized action against a judicial nomination is historically foundationless politicization of the profession, which it is.
     Neither Justice Scalia for the majority of the Court, nor Justice Stevens in his Heller dissent, cited the professional historians' brief for American Bill of Rights history, with Stevens citing it only once about the English Bill of Rights. There are at least two reasons for lack of reliance upon it by the justices in Heller. First, there is very little actual American Bill of Rights history to be found in the historians' brief, and second, the brief contains numerous errors of fact, erroneously conflated history, and extensive irrelevant material as far as the actual historical point in the Heller dispute. Justice Stevens dissent, which largely followed right along with the historians' assertions in their brief, still had to directly contradict it twice regarding specific historical points. The historians' Heller brief was so historically unreliable that direct citation regarding American history was not possible even by its supporters in the Supreme Court's minority.
     One example of that historical unreliability is a multiple error found in just one assertion in the brief regarding how many of the eight early states with declarations of rights made them part of their state's constitution:

“In only two states (Pennsylvania in 1776, Massachusetts in 1780) were they made part of the actual constitutions.”

     This claim in the historians' Heller brief is contradicted multiple times in three of the period sources actually under discussion by the historians. Three states, North Carolina 1776, Vermont 1777, and New Hampshire 1784 copied various features of the two named states making their declarations of rights part of their constitutions. Vermont alone had three different designations to that effect within its constitution. None of the fifteen professional historian signers of the Heller brief were familiar enough with the relevant period sources to recognize their assertion was in direct conflict with historical reality, a point analyzed and documented in this post at this blog.  Is this what Professor Gienapp refers to as "historical expertise"? This intellectual embarrassment of the first order from the historians' brief is just the tip of an iceberg of such errors, and those go hand in hand with a fundamental conflation error mixing up Founding Era Second Amendment Bill of Rights predecessors with entirely unrelated militia powers amendment history, as analyzed and documented in this post.
     Reliance upon the historical accuracy of the professional historians' Heller brief is just as historically risky and illogical as reliance upon the historical accuracy of Michael Bellesiles book, Arming America, for which a Bancroft prize was awarded and later rescinded. The difference between the two situations being the Heller brief historians are not accused of veracity problems. Instead, they are clearly not overly familiar with relevant period sources, and they appear to have sought out and advanced historical claims that support a preexisting belief regarding the disputed point in the Heller case. There is no doubt that the Heller historians believe the faulty information they provided to the Supreme Court to be accurate. There is also no doubt their brief is the perfect example of History Office Law, twisted history in a legal argument from historians. The opposite, twisted history in a legal argument from lawyers is Law Office History.
     The errors, conflated history, and missing essential information of the historians' Heller brief were analyzed and documented here at On Second Opinion Blog in early 2009 in a twenty-four part series, Root Causes Of Never-Ending Second Amendment Dispute. This Blog was established specifically to publicize historically erroneous assertions by professional historians, Supreme Court justices, and various authors concerning the Second Amendment. The Fisking Index Page link at the top of this page provides direct one click access to each of the twenty-four parts of the series for those who really want to know the details of Second Amendment history and how the professional historians managed to make such a train wreck of American history from it.
     The study of history is the study of period documentation. Historians' writings about history are not history, they are historiography, writings or stories about history by historians. Confusing history and historiography is a mistake. The suggestion by Professor Gienapp that somehow Justice Scalia has "escaped history" regarding the Second Amendment in the Heller case is patently absurd. The Origin Of The Second Amendment, the only comprehensive reprint of source period documents on the subject was the most cited historical collection among the briefs to the Court, and it was cited by both sides in the dispute as well as the majority opinion from Justice Scalia. The Origin Of The Second Amendment was cited in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia's Parker decision (2007), which was appealed to the Supreme Court as the Heller case and upheld in the Heller decision, and was also cited in the prior Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. vs Emerson decision (2001). There were over a hundred such citations in the Emerson decision, which itself was cited in the Parker decision. Thus, there is an extensive background of period historical evidence in linked Federal cases that does not appear within the Heller decision itself.
     Also, a newly published history of the Second Amendment, The Founders' View Of The Right To Bear Arms, which was based directly on the period sources reprinted in The Origin Of The Second Amendment, was cited to the Supreme Court in numerous Heller historical briefs. The Founders' View Of The Right To Bear Arms traces and documents every aspect of Second Amendment related terminology and development from Colonial Period use through the Revolutionary and Founding Eras until the final version was ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures.
     All Supreme Court justices in the Heller case had equal opportunity to examine this entire historical record, which was placed directly before them right along with the new, clear history linking the essential information into a logical whole. Most of the justices in the Heller case paid attention to that record, making certain their ruling was consistent with it. By the way, the historical source collection and history described above did not originate with professional historians, but instead with the author of this blog, an avocational historian. This information makes clear it was not the case Justice Scalia "escaped history", but rather that he escaped the faulty historiography and "historical expertise" of professional historians wishing to impose their fallacious opinions upon the Court.
     A more historically accurate view of this affair is that it was Justice Stevens and those supporting his dissenting Heller opinion who "escaped history" by relying on the Heller historians' unfounded assertions and erroneous history. Justice Stevens dissenting opinion suffers from most of the historical defects found within the historian's brief itself, with some of the historical problems made worse. It was the professional historians brief that escaped history and provided the Court with an unsupportable alternative historical outlook that was at odds with American historical reality.
     Professional historians are supposed to study all of the period sources and rely upon them to explicate historical reality. Professor Gienapp, by accepting without question the Heller case brief from Professors Rakove, Cornell, and others, at least as far as the Second Amendment is concerned, is complicit in helping to mold history to fit a certain belief that is at odds with the historical record. Most people wish to understand their country's actual past rather than be indoctrinated with historians' unfounded opinions about it. Completely failing to do what historians are supposed to do is how the profession destroys its own credibility.