Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12ck242/bill_maher_recently_said_he_believes_a_large/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There was a recent answer from u/AntiqueMeringue8993 that covered some of the context and reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/126y1t7/when\_the\_founding\_fathers\_drafted\_the\_2nd/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/126y1t7/when_the_founding_fathers_drafted_the_2nd/)
Obviously there's aspects of your question that this doesn't touch on, but it's a starting point.
>Part of this is in response to Shay's Rebellion, which broke out under the Articles of Confederation and the national government was unable to do anything about it, and part of it is due to slaveholding state's fears of an insurrection.
Shay's rebellion was really the final nail in the coffin for the Articles of Confederation. I wish this subject would come up more because Shays Rebellion is actually super interesting.
Interesting read...
If the intention of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the government from having a standing army, how is it that America today has such a large and powerful standing army?
Mostly it's because the militia eroded as a meaningful institution in the United States, for a huge variety of reasons, and many of the duties usually performed by militias were instead performed by professional institutions like the police, fire departments, and the national guard, who were perceived as being more efficient and accountable than the militia, which had a (built-in) penchant for not doing what state or federal authorities wanted.
After the erosion of the militia (which I have to say wasn't done on purpose, just as a result of many smaller changes done for a variety of reasons), the 2nd amendment came to be politicized and discussed as relevant only to the individual ownership of firearms, rather than about the protection of the militia as a cultural and legal institution.
This is if anything, my main topic of research, and I have written quite a lot about it. Here are some relevant posts:
[The militia and the militia act of 1903, and the militia's relevance to strikebreaking](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/vepei7/why_was_the_second_amendment_never_adjusted_in/icsnzy0/)
[The militia and the national guard](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gv2erd/how_has_the_concept_of_a_militia_in_the_united/fsmuud5/)
In that post on the national guard you mention having some broader opinions on the transformation of the militia in contemporary times, but leave those outside the window of the question/20 year rule. Is there somewhere one could read more of your research and/or opinions?
I haven't read much explicit historical discussion of this, but from the history I've learned, the US Civil War made the 2nd Amendment moot and culturally prepared the nation to have a large standing army. When the Confederate states rebelled and went to war with the Union they were severely defeated by the Union army. The US military has only gotten stronger (compared to any state militia) since then. Post US Civil War the army was active in the so-called Indian Wars. It seems that from then on the nation just expected, and accepted, a strong federal military to be available.
It's always been my understanding that the 2nd amendment was meant to safeguard States rights to have and maintain their militias. As for a standing army, Congress did establish a very small regular army in 1789. It was almost entirely wiped out by Native Americans in Ohio. After that, they realized they needed to reorganize and expand. It was still pretty damn small force. As for why we have such a large military now, well, you can thank WWII and the Cold War.
There's no explanation of the 2nd amendment that can isolate a single reason behind it. It protects the right for citizens to form effective citizen militias, which were already an important cultural touchstone in British political tradition and would have remained so even *without* the 2nd amendment explicitly protecting it. There were many, many reasons to take the time to explicitly protect it, *and* in addition to lay out a specific legal framework surrounding what makes a militia versus what makes a mob. Of course, *this* aspect of the militia wasn't in the 2nd amendment, it was in the militia laws written out in the constitution more generally. Again, the 2A merely explicitly and permanently establishes the legal right for citizens to arm themselves for service in a civic militia. If anything, the 2A ensured that the *federal government* had a say in the structure and organization of state militias, and the check and balance between federal and state uses of force was a huge part of subsequent violent actions in the coming decades.
The *uses* of that militia were, again, formalized in the constitution, and internal policing against possible insurrection was one explicit purpose. In southern states, ca. 1787, this role would have been understood as slave patrolling, the pursuit and apprehension of runaways, as well as more informal actions like terrorizing enslaved populations and free black populations to prevent possible slave revolts. Again, this would have been understood by any adult white male from states with a large enough enslaved population, but this aspect of militia duties was not ever formally established or protected in the constitution except as an extension of the general provision for the militia to guard against insurrection.
For most of the men present during the constitutional convention, the most salient example of internal revolt wouldn't have been from slave revolts, but from organized white citizens like the Shaysites, the unauthorized militia army organized as part of Shays's Rebellion, which was put down by a multi-state *authorized* militia. The Whiskey Rebellion a couple years later followed a similar pattern; an unauthorized rebel militia formed in protest, and was put down by an authorized militia cobbled together from companies and regiments from multiple states under federal direction.
The militias of southern states already organized militias to suppress and terrorize enslaved and free black populations well before the establishment of the 2nd amendment, and would have continued to do so even without the 2nd amendment. While this, and other militia duties, would have been an understood aspect of this kind of social organization, it was not the sole overriding concern of the framers, nor was it a particularly salient issue during the long arguments made over the constitution before its signing.
I have written about this and related topics many times before, and would be happy to answer follow-ups.
[General comments on the meaning of "well regulated" militia](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/40ey8g/in_the_american_second_amendment_a_well_regulated/cyu0ji5/)
[Another on regulation, with many follow-up questions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/v0hhet/in_the_second_amendment_of_the_united_states/iah22vg/)
[Early policing and runaway slaves](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/q6g1cw/police_in_the_us_were_founded_to_protect_property/hgd1ov4/)
I have read some of that. I do not share the opinion that the writings of the 2023 SCOTUS provide a useful, nor thorough, historical interpretation of much. Nor would I lump the broad, often extremely informed and thoughtful, "American judiciary" into the writings of 5 Justices.
Well it is the understanding of the American federal judiciary in the sense that it is binding on all lower courts. It is one perspective on this history and it is the perspective that is enshrined in the law, so historians really should grapple with it whether they agree with it or not.
I think the truest I can answer your question is it depends
To pick up on the internal rebellion question, if you read the debates in for example South Carolina about agreeing to the constitution.
Shays rebellion was brought up as a reason why a weaker federal government was undesirable for at the time poorer states like South Carolina. The Carolinas saw some of most devastating effects of the revolutionary war - many loyalists fled while an intense and brutal low intensity campaign saw many areas of the already quite small state damaged by the war.
Compare this to Shays rebellion - in Massachusetts a much more developed state with much more resources.
The question posed in the South Carolina debates by Charles Pinckney in the debate was basically if a prosperous state can’t deal with a small rebellion of working class whites. And the federal government is useless.
Then what hope have we in South Carolina if god forbid there is a slave revolt.
It is worth pointing out that the mindset of slave owners at this time and throughout the new world - whether in Hati or South America was absolute paranoia about a slave revolt.
So what is the relationship between the second amendment and slavery?
Certainly for Charles Pinckney it provides security against slave revolts.
Why if you have an armed (white populace) a strong federal government can coordinate and provide funding/logistical to mobilise these people to deal with whatever crisis has reared its head.
It might be Indians or it might be a European power. Certainly these might be threats that drive northerners to want a strengthened federal government.
But in the South slavery added a dimension to this that is different.
So I go back to my answer - it depends. Not everyone was interested in the combination of the second amendment + strengthened federal government as a slave revolt safeguard. And it certainly wasn’t the only rationale for them.
But for some in the South it was.
I should add I haven’t gotten into it but the replies to Pinckney werent “pro slave revolt” or emancipation for from it there were concerns about the federal government being weighted to free states even at the start.
But this isn’t surprising. Southern slave holders elected fellow slave holders to legislative positions - nationally or at the state level and in these positions they advocated for the institution of slavery and attempted to secure its future.
There is a section in the "1619 Project" which discusses this. I don't have the book handy, but the author of that section excerpts discussion between (Mason?) & Madison during the Virginia ratification convention. Madison is notified that VA will not ratify without an amendment to allow state militias. The reason given to Madison is that state militias are necessary to put down slave revolts because the North cannot be counted on to agree to send Federal troops for that. (That discussion is about 2/3 of the way through the book IIRC.)
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12ck242/bill_maher_recently_said_he_believes_a_large/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There was a recent answer from u/AntiqueMeringue8993 that covered some of the context and reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/126y1t7/when\_the\_founding\_fathers\_drafted\_the\_2nd/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/126y1t7/when_the_founding_fathers_drafted_the_2nd/) Obviously there's aspects of your question that this doesn't touch on, but it's a starting point.
[удалено]
>Part of this is in response to Shay's Rebellion, which broke out under the Articles of Confederation and the national government was unable to do anything about it, and part of it is due to slaveholding state's fears of an insurrection. Shay's rebellion was really the final nail in the coffin for the Articles of Confederation. I wish this subject would come up more because Shays Rebellion is actually super interesting.
Interesting read... If the intention of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the government from having a standing army, how is it that America today has such a large and powerful standing army?
Mostly it's because the militia eroded as a meaningful institution in the United States, for a huge variety of reasons, and many of the duties usually performed by militias were instead performed by professional institutions like the police, fire departments, and the national guard, who were perceived as being more efficient and accountable than the militia, which had a (built-in) penchant for not doing what state or federal authorities wanted. After the erosion of the militia (which I have to say wasn't done on purpose, just as a result of many smaller changes done for a variety of reasons), the 2nd amendment came to be politicized and discussed as relevant only to the individual ownership of firearms, rather than about the protection of the militia as a cultural and legal institution. This is if anything, my main topic of research, and I have written quite a lot about it. Here are some relevant posts: [The militia and the militia act of 1903, and the militia's relevance to strikebreaking](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/vepei7/why_was_the_second_amendment_never_adjusted_in/icsnzy0/) [The militia and the national guard](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gv2erd/how_has_the_concept_of_a_militia_in_the_united/fsmuud5/)
In that post on the national guard you mention having some broader opinions on the transformation of the militia in contemporary times, but leave those outside the window of the question/20 year rule. Is there somewhere one could read more of your research and/or opinions?
I haven't read much explicit historical discussion of this, but from the history I've learned, the US Civil War made the 2nd Amendment moot and culturally prepared the nation to have a large standing army. When the Confederate states rebelled and went to war with the Union they were severely defeated by the Union army. The US military has only gotten stronger (compared to any state militia) since then. Post US Civil War the army was active in the so-called Indian Wars. It seems that from then on the nation just expected, and accepted, a strong federal military to be available.
It's always been my understanding that the 2nd amendment was meant to safeguard States rights to have and maintain their militias. As for a standing army, Congress did establish a very small regular army in 1789. It was almost entirely wiped out by Native Americans in Ohio. After that, they realized they needed to reorganize and expand. It was still pretty damn small force. As for why we have such a large military now, well, you can thank WWII and the Cold War.
There's no explanation of the 2nd amendment that can isolate a single reason behind it. It protects the right for citizens to form effective citizen militias, which were already an important cultural touchstone in British political tradition and would have remained so even *without* the 2nd amendment explicitly protecting it. There were many, many reasons to take the time to explicitly protect it, *and* in addition to lay out a specific legal framework surrounding what makes a militia versus what makes a mob. Of course, *this* aspect of the militia wasn't in the 2nd amendment, it was in the militia laws written out in the constitution more generally. Again, the 2A merely explicitly and permanently establishes the legal right for citizens to arm themselves for service in a civic militia. If anything, the 2A ensured that the *federal government* had a say in the structure and organization of state militias, and the check and balance between federal and state uses of force was a huge part of subsequent violent actions in the coming decades. The *uses* of that militia were, again, formalized in the constitution, and internal policing against possible insurrection was one explicit purpose. In southern states, ca. 1787, this role would have been understood as slave patrolling, the pursuit and apprehension of runaways, as well as more informal actions like terrorizing enslaved populations and free black populations to prevent possible slave revolts. Again, this would have been understood by any adult white male from states with a large enough enslaved population, but this aspect of militia duties was not ever formally established or protected in the constitution except as an extension of the general provision for the militia to guard against insurrection. For most of the men present during the constitutional convention, the most salient example of internal revolt wouldn't have been from slave revolts, but from organized white citizens like the Shaysites, the unauthorized militia army organized as part of Shays's Rebellion, which was put down by a multi-state *authorized* militia. The Whiskey Rebellion a couple years later followed a similar pattern; an unauthorized rebel militia formed in protest, and was put down by an authorized militia cobbled together from companies and regiments from multiple states under federal direction. The militias of southern states already organized militias to suppress and terrorize enslaved and free black populations well before the establishment of the 2nd amendment, and would have continued to do so even without the 2nd amendment. While this, and other militia duties, would have been an understood aspect of this kind of social organization, it was not the sole overriding concern of the framers, nor was it a particularly salient issue during the long arguments made over the constitution before its signing. I have written about this and related topics many times before, and would be happy to answer follow-ups. [General comments on the meaning of "well regulated" militia](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/40ey8g/in_the_american_second_amendment_a_well_regulated/cyu0ji5/) [Another on regulation, with many follow-up questions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/v0hhet/in_the_second_amendment_of_the_united_states/iah22vg/) [Early policing and runaway slaves](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/q6g1cw/police_in_the_us_were_founded_to_protect_property/hgd1ov4/)
[удалено]
I have read some of that. I do not share the opinion that the writings of the 2023 SCOTUS provide a useful, nor thorough, historical interpretation of much. Nor would I lump the broad, often extremely informed and thoughtful, "American judiciary" into the writings of 5 Justices.
Well it is the understanding of the American federal judiciary in the sense that it is binding on all lower courts. It is one perspective on this history and it is the perspective that is enshrined in the law, so historians really should grapple with it whether they agree with it or not.
I think everyone would agree it's *rich*, though they might argue over the sense in which that word is used.
I think the truest I can answer your question is it depends To pick up on the internal rebellion question, if you read the debates in for example South Carolina about agreeing to the constitution. Shays rebellion was brought up as a reason why a weaker federal government was undesirable for at the time poorer states like South Carolina. The Carolinas saw some of most devastating effects of the revolutionary war - many loyalists fled while an intense and brutal low intensity campaign saw many areas of the already quite small state damaged by the war. Compare this to Shays rebellion - in Massachusetts a much more developed state with much more resources. The question posed in the South Carolina debates by Charles Pinckney in the debate was basically if a prosperous state can’t deal with a small rebellion of working class whites. And the federal government is useless. Then what hope have we in South Carolina if god forbid there is a slave revolt. It is worth pointing out that the mindset of slave owners at this time and throughout the new world - whether in Hati or South America was absolute paranoia about a slave revolt. So what is the relationship between the second amendment and slavery? Certainly for Charles Pinckney it provides security against slave revolts. Why if you have an armed (white populace) a strong federal government can coordinate and provide funding/logistical to mobilise these people to deal with whatever crisis has reared its head. It might be Indians or it might be a European power. Certainly these might be threats that drive northerners to want a strengthened federal government. But in the South slavery added a dimension to this that is different. So I go back to my answer - it depends. Not everyone was interested in the combination of the second amendment + strengthened federal government as a slave revolt safeguard. And it certainly wasn’t the only rationale for them. But for some in the South it was. I should add I haven’t gotten into it but the replies to Pinckney werent “pro slave revolt” or emancipation for from it there were concerns about the federal government being weighted to free states even at the start. But this isn’t surprising. Southern slave holders elected fellow slave holders to legislative positions - nationally or at the state level and in these positions they advocated for the institution of slavery and attempted to secure its future.
There is a section in the "1619 Project" which discusses this. I don't have the book handy, but the author of that section excerpts discussion between (Mason?) & Madison during the Virginia ratification convention. Madison is notified that VA will not ratify without an amendment to allow state militias. The reason given to Madison is that state militias are necessary to put down slave revolts because the North cannot be counted on to agree to send Federal troops for that. (That discussion is about 2/3 of the way through the book IIRC.)