(October 6, 2017 at 5:38 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I think the idea that the militias were to put down slave revolts is myopic. The biggest threat to the nascent US wasn't slave revolts, but those could happen, so they were on the list of things the militia would respond to. Hyperfocusing on this one line in the list is agenda-driven.
That is why I said the 3/5ths language was mixed. Washington threatened the whiskey makers with a his "militia" and back then no blacks even if free owned businesses. So yea "militias' were used to pressure even white property owners as per the Whiskey Rebellion.
The Civil War however WAS literally 100% about keeping slaves for the South.
When people point to the fact that the founders own slaves they are still not wrong that the language was put in to allow slave owners to keep their property. But I would also say that with the founders, many of them were conflicted because of their writing of concepts of rights. I do still think even with their flaws, that conflict set the stage for slavery to end in the North as a majority by the time Adams and Jefferson died and set the stage for what Lincoln did.
But skin color aside, I don't see how a musket age law with the words "well regulated" even if your attempt was to keep blacks as property, how that would mean an individual's right to turn a hotel room into a doomsday bunker and commit mass murder?
The 2nd was used to prevent a slave revolt, but I agree, it was also used to prevent a property owner revolt as well.
The Civil War was 100 percent about keeping the idea of owning other humans. That is the difference between the two wars.
