|
- |
INOTE THAT THE FREE LANCE-Star's series on the Bill of Rights continues to draw interest. I was prompted by the series to revisit the events of the period that led up to the Constitutional Convention and have been recounted by some excellent historians. I particularly enjoyed Catherine Drinker Bowen's "Miracle at Philadelphia" and "A Biography of the Constitution" by Broadus and Louise Pearson Mitchell, especially the Mitchells' recounting of the many facets of the passionate political philosophies of the delegates and their views on the primary issue--the powers to be given to the new federal government. (Both books are in the Central Rappahannock Regional Library.)
This story began in 1774 when representatives of the 13 colonies came together in convention as the Continental Congress in Philadelphia and created in July 1776 a Declaration of Independence.
Then, having realized the unheard of feat of winning the rebellion against their mother country, they faced the daunting task of governing themselves. Fearful of a too authoritative central government, their first effort in 1784 was a weak confederation incapable of dealing with matters of national defense, international commerce, or even revenues for operation. (We can surely relate to these issues even today.)
A convention called in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation evolved instead into an effort to draft a constitution. But though it resulted in a landmark document, the issue of the powers that a central government should have remained unresolved and passionately debated. Ratification was not assured.
This resulted in the drafting of a Bill of Rights, originally proposed as 12 and then reduced to 10 amendments, to be presented to the Congress by James Monroe and a select committee, who sorted through dozens of proposals from the states.
Only a brilliant strategy and a careful diplomatic tactician could have accomplished it. The goal was a pragmatic one--to get the Constitution ratified by the requisite number of states. The miracle is that they did it.
Some state leaders wanted no amendments. Some wanted so many that there was danger of having to call another convention. Some wanted changes integrated into the main document. All were eloquent.
I wish we could all visit this eventful time and envision the debate, which is described in many books, rather than accepting hindsight commentary. What I concluded was that the First Amendment was the all-important one, debated down to the last word; it was the one that defined our new country's basic principles.
The Fourth through the 10th Amendments were "safe" to propose because there were already state declarations and constitutions protecting these very rights for their citizens (one of the reason the drafters of the constitution had not found it necessary to include them). So they were not as remarkable as they might seem, though they certainly were careful statements of the limitations on national authority.
This leaves the Second and Third Amendments, which, to me, are in a category all by themselves. They were deferential acknowledgments of the strongly held concerns or grievances of the powerful delegations of Virginia and New England. The Third Amendment forbidding the quartering of soldiers in civilian homes is today little mentioned--a historical anachronism.
One thoughtful scholar also has termed the Second Amendment obsolete, because its language survived to be interpreted in a context beyond the original intention of the drafters. Based on George Mason's article in Virginia's Declaration of Rights--written before independence had even been declared--it was intended to protect the states' control over their militias.
As the new constitution already included provisions for utilizing state militias "to suppress insurrections and repel invasions," this amendment was to assure Mason on his most passionate point.
In Colonial Virginia, all able-bodied white men not expressly excused were members of the militia, subject to call for service by the governor, usually for periods of three months. It was not voluntary membership and gun ownership was not a requirement.
Unfortunately, Madison did not include a definition of the term "militia," possibly because he thought that a deferential nod to the powerful Virginia leader was all that was necessary. Thus, the original definition of militia as "the people" still pertained after the Constitution and the Second Amendment were ratified, and they could still be summoned for active duty.
In 1794, the militias of four states (one of them Virginia) were summoned by President Washington to quell the rebellion in Pennsylvania against federal taxes on whiskey. (Spotsylvania and Fredericksburg supplied units and Dr. John Wellford served as surgeon for the mission; his diary has been published.)
In the War of 1812, states were informed of their quotas in 1812, 1813, and in 1814. The original call up for Virginia was for 12,000 men. Under the provisions of the national militia law, all able-bodied white male citizens were still enrolled unless expressly exempted.
This definition of "the militia" as the people is of course now obsolete, though Madison surely never anticipated the arguments over its interpretation by later generations who were unaware of its original intent. Repealing the Second Amendment, as the scholar suggested, would perhaps clear the way for an amendment or federal law using language which more appropriately covers the usage of the ownership of guns today.
Although I have studied the events from 1774 through 1792 to relate them to our local history, I found that revisiting the Bill of Rights to study them in the context of their creation was an eye-opening experience. I would like to see more comments from students who study the amendments for themselves and relate them to the history of the times.
PAULA S. FELDER is a Fredericksburg historian.
