True, but your interpretation of the Militia Acts under the US Constitution is what is under consideration.
IMO, The part of the Militia Acts that fail to recognize the equal rights of all people are unconstitutional. "Democracy and demography did the same for the other hopes and plans of the Founders. All of the prominent early leaders thought that the liberal principles of the Revolution would eventually destroy the institution of slavery. When even Southerners like Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Henry Laurens publicly deplored the injustice of slavery, from "that moment," declared the New York physician and abolitionist E.H. Smith in 1798, "the slow, but certain, death-wound was inflicted upon it." Of course, such predictions could not have been more wrong. Far from being doomed, slavery in the United States in the 1790s was on the verge of its greatest expansion. Indeed, at the end of the revolutionary era there were more slaves in the nation than had existed in 1760. But such self-deception, such mistaken optimism, by the revolutionary leaders was understandable, for they wanted to believe the best, and initially there was evidence that slavery was dying out. The Northern states, where slavery was not inconsequential, were trying to eliminate the institution, and by 1804 all had done so. The Founders thought the same thing might happen in the Southern states. Not only were there more antislave Societies created in the South than in the North, but manumissions in the upper South grew rapidly in the years immediately following the end of the War for Independence. Many thought that ending the international slave trade in 1808 would eventually kill off the institution of slavery. The Founders so readily took the issue to slavery off the table in the 1790s because of this mistaken faith in the future. They simply did not count on the remarkable demographic capacity of the slave states themselves, especially Virginia, to produce slaves for the expanding areas of the Deep South and the Southwest. Whatever wishes the revolutionary leaders might have had for ending slavery were nullified by the demands of ordinary white planters for more slaves." Gordon S. Woods, The Greatest Generation, New York Review of Books 3/29/01. (Emphasis mine) https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/03/29/the-greatest-generation/
True, but not in the service of the militia. Given this, the Militia Acts have no bearing on slavery.
Again, if the fundamental human rights of all the people, listed in the BOR had been protected, including the right to bear arms, slavery would have been over in the US.
So are you agreeing that the fundamental rights of all of the people include the right to bear arms for self defense?
They did under the clear language of the COTUS, unless you are saying that the slaves were not people. For instance: "Text of the 2nd Amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Did they act like that was the interpretation? They certainly know what they wrote and they know what they meant by it. Fed Rocinante yet, Don Quixote?
The Founders knew that slavery was wrong and would have to be eliminated. Lincoln won election in large part by documented that fact during his Coopers Union speech. "In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up." 46 Abraham Lincoln, "Cooper Institute Address," 27 February 1860. Did the language of the COTUS make those who ratified it hypocrites? Absolutely, and they knew it.
Some Founders felt that way - they didn't want slaves counted for determining congressional representation at all. Other Founders felt that they should count as a full person for representation. In any case, both sides in Congress approved wording in the Constitution that indicated that slaves weren't full persons or Citizens in Article 1, Section 2: "Although the Constitution did not refer directly to slaves, it did not ignore them entirely. Article one, section two of the Constitution of the United States declared that any person who was not free would be counted as three-fifths of a free individual for the purposes of determining congressional representation. The "Three-Fifths Clause" thus increased the political power of slaveholding states. It did not, however, make any attempt to ensure that the interests of slaves would be represented in the government. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/docs2.html Lincoln was not a Founder. You should go back in time and chastise them. Absent that you're pursuing the mootest of moot points.
I did not say that Lincoln was a Founder. The Founders, as Lincoln documented, chastised themselves. They acknowledged that slavery contradicted the Declaration of Independence and the COTUS.
Good thing we ratified the 13th Amendments, then, isn't it? What do you expect this line of discussion to actually do?
This question has already been well answered. I am not going to write a reply, because most likely no one will read it. I can give this short explanation to you however. Historically each state maintained their own militia. This was a time before standing armies were a big thing in the colonies. Today in the U.S. the militia has been fashioned into the "National Guard". That is a legacy of the state militias. The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was originally meant to apply only as a limit against the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, but you have to understand separate state Constitutions existed before then and continue to exist. Later Supreme Court rulings decided that it should also apply against the states, but this was probably not the original intention. You can read for example in the First Amendment that it specifically refers to "Congress". Unfortunately all this could have implications that both gun rights supporters, and liberals on the Left, would not be happy with. Which is why I think it goes mostly ignored. Also most people have a really difficult time understanding historical context and exactly how the Constitution works and how different pieces fit together. "well regulated" meant it was the state's job and proper role to be the one to regulate their militia. It was meant to help guarantee powers and rights to the states, and provide an explanation which would help guarantee that right and explain how the system should function. Keep in mind most of the wording was meant to try to set some limits on federal power and establish limits on the role the new federal government should take. I'm sure most people reading through this thread will just ignore this or not wrap their brains around it. People ask the questions but never want to read the real answers when it is more complicated than they want.
