4 ms·

>American white southerners were scared out of their minds about the possibility of a rebellion comparable to the Haitian Revolution, which was contemporaneous

>American white southerners were scared out of their minds about the possibility of a rebellion comparable to the Haitian Revolution, which was contemporaneous with the Bill of Rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution That's not accurate. The Bill of Rights was passed by Congress two years prior to the Haitian Revolution.

jacobolus 4y ago
Virginia voted the Bill of Rights into effect in November/December 1791. The Haitian Revolution was in August. Both (a) worries about a national government changing the status of slavery against local landowners’ wishes and (b) worries about slave revolts were important for Virginian antifederalists. Maintaining a local militia was a hedge against both. You are right that the ideas in the Bill of Rights come from earlier. The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) was the main source of the text of the 2nd amendment: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” Likewise, the Haitian Revolution was not the first slave revolt.
- ameister14 4y ago
  When Virginia finally ratified, they didn't modify the words. The words were the same from years earlier. I read her book, by the way; I ended up also reading two others over the last week that I think were more compelling, and made her points in a more definitive way. She's totally right that, especially in the Carolinas, slave revolts were one fear that led people to want guns; in fact, a part of the revolution becoming so bloody there was due to that fear; the British governor took the powder away. The people interpreting her (this was not something she said, at all) are not correct in thinking that this created the full foundation of antifederalist thought, but there was definitely an undercurrent of it in the deep south and to a lesser extent in Virginia. Unfortunately, she misrepresented some things that appeared to support her conclusion, including the data around gun ownership in the 18th century. No fabrications, just not telling the whole picture. It's a problem endemic to pop history. I'm still going through my old notes from the letters between the major political players from 1785-1790 and looking for references there so I'm not ready to concede the Henry stuff or that this is the reasoning behind the 2nd's inclusion.

jacobolus 4y ago

Virginia voted the Bill of Rights into effect in November/December 1791. The Haitian Revolution was in August. Both (a) worries about a national government changing the status of slavery against local landowners’ wishes and (b) worries about slave revolts were important for Virginian antifederalists. Maintaining a local militia was a hedge against both. You are right that the ideas in the Bill of Rights come from earlier. The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) was the main source of the text of the 2nd amendment: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” Likewise, the Haitian Revolution was not the first slave revolt.

ameister14 4y ago
When Virginia finally ratified, they didn't modify the words. The words were the same from years earlier. I read her book, by the way; I ended up also reading two others over the last week that I think were more compelling, and made her points in a more definitive way. She's totally right that, especially in the Carolinas, slave revolts were one fear that led people to want guns; in fact, a part of the revolution becoming so bloody there was due to that fear; the British governor took the powder away. The people interpreting her (this was not something she said, at all) are not correct in thinking that this created the full foundation of antifederalist thought, but there was definitely an undercurrent of it in the deep south and to a lesser extent in Virginia. Unfortunately, she misrepresented some things that appeared to support her conclusion, including the data around gun ownership in the 18th century. No fabrications, just not telling the whole picture. It's a problem endemic to pop history. I'm still going through my old notes from the letters between the major political players from 1785-1790 and looking for references there so I'm not ready to concede the Henry stuff or that this is the reasoning behind the 2nd's inclusion.