John Adams
John Adams is frequently quoted as having written:
-
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at
individual descretion, in private self-defense."
In context the words would be accurately rendered if cited as:
-
To suppose arms in the hands of the
citizens, to be used at individual
discretion, . . . , is to demolish
every constitution, and lay the laws
prostrate, so that liberty can be
enjoyed by no man is a
dissolution of the government.
Fuller context is provided in Potowmack Institute amicus curiae brief in US v. Emerson. Adams was quite forceful that the militia was under the laws and not some anarchic self-appointed institution.
The words can be used as the situation requires. See Stephen Halbrook's sham scholarship with these words in Appendix I in the Potowmack Institute amicus curiae brief in US v. Emerson. Halbrook has submitted briefs to the Supreme Court and other federal courts and argued before the Supreme Court.
Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper No. 28
Alexander Hamilton is quoted as writing:
-
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."
— Alexander Hamilton (Federalist #28)
This is a favorite quote. The words are lifted out of John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, § 168. Here is the full context:
-
§ 168. The old question will be asked in this matter of prerogative, "But who shall be judge when this power is made a right use of?" I answer: Between an executive power in being, with such a prerogative, and a legislative that depends upon his will for their convening, there can be no judge on earth. As there can be none between the legislative and the people, should either the executive or the legislative, when they have got the power in their hands, design, or go about to enslave or destroy them, the people have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no judge on earth, but to appeal to Heaven; for the rulers in such attempts, exercising a power the people never put into their hands, who can never be supposed to consent that anybody should rule over them for their harm, do that which they have not a right to do. And where the body of the people, or any single man, are deprived of their right, or are under the exercise of a power without right, having no appeal on earth they have a liberty to appeal to Heaven whenever they judge the cause of sufficient moment. And therefore, though the people cannot be judge, so as to have, by the constitution of that society, any superior power to determine and give effective sentence in the case, yet they have reserved that ultimate determination to themselves which belongs to all mankind, where there lies no appeal on earth, by a law antecedent and paramount to all positive laws of men, whether they have just cause to make their appeal to Heaven. And this judgement they cannot part with, it being out of a man's power so to submit himself to another as to give him a liberty to destroy him; God and Nature never allowing a man so to abandon himself as to neglect his own preservation. And since he cannot take away his own life, neither can he give another power to take it. Nor let any one think this lays a perpetual foundation for disorder; for this operates not till the inconvenience is so great that the majority feel it, and are weary of it, and find a necessity to have it amended. And this the executive power, or wise princes, never need come in the danger of; and it is the thing of all others they have most need to avoid, as, of all others, the most perilous.
Locke's right paramount to the laws of men was an "appeal to Heaven" not a civil right of private individuals secured by government.
Federalist Paper No. 29
Alexander Hamilton is quoted as writing,
"The best we can hope for concerning the
people at large is that they be properly armed"
from Federalist Paper No. 29. The
full context of the words are provided in
Appendix I of the
Potowmack Institute amicus.. In context
Hamilton was advocating a select militia, anathma to
gun rights advocates. It was Hamilton's ill-conceived
whiskey tax when he was Secretary of the Treasury that
provoke the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. Hamilton
supported the suppression of the militiamen who took
up arms against federal authority in the Whiskey
Rebellion.
Noah Webster
A favorite quote from Noah Webster's very influential pamphlet,
"An Examination into
the Leading Principles of the federal
Constitution" (1787) is:
-
Before a standing army can rule, the people must
be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom
in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the
whole body of the people are armed, and
constitute a force superior to any band of
regular troops that can be, on any pretence,
raised in the United States.
The full context is provided. Noah Webster understood that for the people to be disarmed meant that the conscript militia had to be untrained, unregulated, unofficered or even disbanded leaving the regular army as the military force. This is very different from the civil rights of private individuals. Webster was a strong federalist. There is no record that he objected to the enrollment and inventory requirements of the Militia Act.
Webster's thoughts on government are found in his earlier pamphlet, "Sketches on American Policy" (1785) which was influential in the period leading up to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. His arguments which are derived from John Locke's The Second Treatise of Government follow similar reasoning to the Potowmack Institute amicus in Emerson.
Another favorite Webster quote is from his 1828 dictionary for "bear". Webster used the example "to bear arms in a coat." The coat here was a coat of arms not a garment.
See:
.../noahweb.html for full text from the dictionary.
Also,
.../garwills.html#webster.
.../emertjf.html#webster.
This quote is one subject of discussion in Jack Rakove's
Tench Coxe
A favorite Tench Coxe quote:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people
before them, may attempt to tyrannize, as the military
forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our
country, might pervert their power to the injury of
their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by
the article in their right to keep and bear their
private arms.
The right was in the context of the citizen soldier
of the conscript militia. In the eithteenth century
private arms were never strictly private. The public
had a claim for public purposes. Coxe was a strong
Federalist. He was employed in Hamilton's Treasury
Department during the Whiskey Rebellion. He expressed
no concerns that the enrollment and inventory
requirements of the Militia Act would infringe on
right of the people to keep and bear their private
arms.
"The Second Amendment: The Highest Stage of Originalism,"
Patrick Henry
The favorite quote from Patrick Henry is
"That every man be armed". Stephen
Halbrook used these words for the title of
his 1984 book which some people cite as ground
breaking scholarship. The full text of
Henry's quote is provided in
Appendix I to
the Potowmack Institute (Md.) amicus curiae
brief in US v. Emerson.
George Mason
George Mason is quoted: "I ask, sir, who are the militia?"
These words are quoted in the
District Court opinion in
US v. Emerson, p. 10..
We address them in our
Appendix I of our Emerson amicus brief.
Another rendition is quoted by the NRA's demagogic flunky Attorney General John Ashcroft in his letter to the NRA, May 17, 2001, conveniently timed for demagagic purposes to coincide with the NRA's convention, "I ask. Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." The same rendition is quoted by the editor of the NRA's publication, America's 1st Freedom, Mark Chesnut, in his article "Justice in Flames," February, 2003. The sham is so parallel and so brazen that we can legitimately wonder is the NRA wrote Ashcroft's letter for him except maybe Ashcroft's footnote about "compelling state interest" and "peaceable citizens." It is a good guess that the NRA's lead intellectual charlatan Stephen Halbrook wrote Chesnut's article and Ashcroft's letter. The NRA, Chesnut, Halbrook, and Ashcroft share the same anti-state, anti-government, anti-rule of law political cynicism. They do not have to worry that they will receive any challenges from what the NRA calls the "rabidly antigun" Washington Post, CBS News' "Sixty Minutes", or NPR's Diane Rehm.
Mason, of course, did say these words in the Virginia ratification debates. In the first part of the quote, Mason was concerned that the militia would degenerate from a universal militia obligation through conscription into a more selective force as groups and classes sought exemption for themselves. The give away is "except a few public officers". Those were the ones exempted from conscription. Under the militia system exemptions were generously provided. Men with money could buy themselves out of their obligation or pay a substitute.
The second half of the sentence, which is fraudulently conflated with the first half, expressed a different concern. The two halves came from the Virginia ratification debates. The first half was on June 16, 1788. The second half was two day before on June 14. These are separated by 45 pages in Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 and two days:
The first half of the quotation:
Elliot's Debates, Vol. 3, Page 425
. . .
The other clause runs in these words: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." They are restrained from making war, unless invaded, or in imminent danger. When in such danger, they are not restrained. I can perceive no competition in these clauses. They cannot be said to be repugnant to a concurrence of the power. If we object to the Constitution in this manner, and consume our time in verbal criticism, we shall never put an end to the business.
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and
Page 426
rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered.
The second half of the quote from two days before:
Page 380
No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,— yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,— what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man,* who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use. I am not acquainted with the military profession. I beg to be excused for any errors I may commit with respect to it. But I stand on the general principles of freedom, whereon I dare to meet any one. I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power.
The militia in these passages were the state military institutions which maintained a military balance against the perceived dangers of a regular army, modeled after the British Army, at the disposal of the Federal Government. It was not an anarchic, self-constituted collection of privately armed individuals which today would have to include the NRA's "armed citizen guerrillas". The Ninth Circuit's Judge Reinhardt addressed the difference between the militia as a military organization and the militia as just a collection of privately armed individuals in Silveira v. Lockyer.
The Federal Goverment's regular army did not become a feared instrument of political intrique. The conscript militia of citizen soldiers died out as an institution in the early Republic because it served no political purpose as a balance against the regular army. The concept of the citizen soldier universally conscripted into public duty was resurrected in the twentienth century Selective Service Acts which combined what were in the early Republic the opposing, antagonistic concepts of the citizen conscript militia and the voluntarily enlisted professional regular army. The exemptions under the Selective Service Acts were much more stingy and much more strictly enforced.
If the NRA's "libertarian republicans" oppose universal conscription they should take the matter up with the libertarian republicans over at the Libertarain Party Platform.
Jack Rakove addresses Ames' comment on Madison's bill of rights in footnote 12 of "The Highest Stage of Originalism" in the
Chicago-Kent symposium.
The fuller text of the quote is from a letter to Thomas Dwight, June 11, 1789:
Upon the whole, it may do some good towards quieting men, who attend to sounds only, and may get the mover [Madison] some popularity, which he wishes.
From Works of Fisher Ames as published by Seth Ames, W. B. Allen edition (1983), p. 641-2.
The right "of changing the government at pleasure" is interesting. The words are not in the Bill of Rights. The issue was addressed as a constitutional issue in the
Dorr Rebellion in the 1840s
Fisher Ames' thoughts on the matter were previously expressed
in his reaction to and comments on Shays' Rebellion in
seven essays published between
October, 1786 and March, 1787. The repudiation of Halbrook's anarchic purposes is quite severe.
Story was adamantly and vigorously opposed to the
actions of the Dorr Rebels in Rhode Island in the
1840s. He did not live to participate in Luther v. Borden (1849).
When Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1980 election one of the orders of business was to produce a gun lobby tract that could be referred to as an impartial study under the imprimatur of the Senate Judiciary Committee as if Strom Thurman and Orrin Hatch ever did anything impartial in their careers and as if congressional committees decide the contours of civil liberites. The report is cited with great effect by gun lobby promoters. It is never mentioned that the report was written by gun lobby advocates Stephen Halbrook and David Hardy. Mary Jolly the Judiciary Committee staff director who assembled the documents left the Judiciary Committee immediately to take employment as an NRA lobbyist. She took the whole first print run with her. The report tells us:
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the
second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its
interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century
after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a
private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." — United
States Senate, Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the
Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,"
Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).
The full chapter is provided at
http://www.potowmack.org/gandhi.html.
Fisher Ames
On page 76 of That Every Man Be Armed the NRA's leading pseudoscholar Stephen Halbrook writes:
Risum teneatic amici? [Hold your laughter, friends. The question mark should be an exclamation point.]
Joseph Story
The favorite quote from Supreme Court Justice
(1811-1845) Joseph Story is that gun ownership
is the "palladium of the liberties of a republic."
In context Story was describing the conscript
militia as the palladium of the liberties of a
republic not the civil rights of private individuals.
The full context is provide in
Appendix I of the
Potowmack Institute amicus curiae brief
in Emerson. There are also passages
on what Story thought about treason as a constitutional issue.
Dorr Rebellion
Senate Judiciary Committee
The Constitution & Firearms
"What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear— and
long-lost— proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as
an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful
manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms." — Preface by Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the
Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,"
Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).
The full text of the report can be found at:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
Mohandas Gandhi
A quote advanced to support the armed populace fantasy is from Mohandas Gandhi, the leader of nonviolent resistance to British rule in India. His objective of Indedepence was achieved in 1947. Gandhi wrote in Chapter XXVII, "The Recruiting Campaign," in his autobiography, My Experiments with Truth:
'Among the many misdeeds of the British
rule in India, history will look upon the
Act depriving a whole nation of
arms as the blackest.'
"Arms" in this context were military arms not
the personal weapons of private individuals.
The context of "depriving of the whole nation
of arms" was the refusal of the British to conscript
Indians into the British Army during the First
World War. Gandhi was an extreme anti-militarist.
The statement is odd coming out of him, but he
used the circumstance for political purposes to
advance the cause of Home Rule and Independence.
The quote list is very long. This is only the beginning.
The Potowmack Institute will provide more sources and context as
they are developed.
[PotowmackForum], interactive posting
[TOP]
[HOMEPAGE].
[NRA v. Reno (July, 2000)]
[US v. Emerson PAGE]
[Printz and Mack PAGE]
[US v. Lopez PAGE]
[ARCHIVE]. Potowmack
Institute Files
[RESOURCES].
Newspaper, magazine, journal articles, books, links
© Potowmack Institute