Dahlia Lithwick, host of Slates legal podcast Amicus spoke to Carol Anderson, Emory University professor and chair of African American Studies, about her book The Second. Anderson's research reveals how the Constitutions Second Amendment was created to oppress Black Americans. It was also enforced in a racist fashion throughout the centuries, leading to everything, from the terrorizing Reconstruction-era Black Americans to today's police killings of legally armed Black citizens. Below is a transcription of a portion of the conversation. It has been edited for clarity and condensed.AdvertisementDahlia Lithwick - I wonder if it would be possible to start by discussing what brought you to the exploration of the link between slavery, the founding and guns.Carol Anderson: It all began in 2016, with the murder of Philando Castile. A Black man was stopped by police in Minnesota. The officer demanded his ID. Castile informs the officer, in accordance with NRA guidelines that he is allowed to carry a weapon. However, he claims he's reaching for his ID. The officer starts shooting and shoots Philando Castile. It is shown on film. It is horrible.AdvertisementAdvertisementA Black man was killed for simply having a gun. He wasn't threatening anyone or brandishing it. The National Rifle Association is the protector of the Second Amendment and it goes almost silent. Then I wondered, "How is the NRA silent about this?" Especially when it called federal law enforcement jackbooted government terrorists at Ruby Ridge and Waco. They were almost silent on this. Journalists started asking: Are African Americans entitled to the Second Amendment? I thought that was a great question and that is what led me to this hunt.AdvertisementYou have included Trevor Noah's quote in the epilogue of your book. He was referring to a series of instances in which police officers confronted a white man carrying a gun. They convince him to disarm, and then they arrest him. Noah argues that the Second Amendment was not meant for Black people. It is not that the Second Amendment has failed, but that it was designed to do something that it does not. You are saying that the Second Amendment does exactly what it was designed to do.AdvertisementAdvertisementIt's exactly. It was perfect.How important was gun ownership and guns in the Colonial era of plantation owners' attempts to control situations where they were outnumbered?As the militia was also central to this, guns were a key component. There was a huge fear of slave revolts and uprisings. Black people were willing to fight for their freedom and would do anything to get it. Each rumored rebellion is accompanied by the rise in legal infrastructure, including laws that ban the possession of guns by enslaved people, and slave patrols and militias to control and limit Black people.AdvertisementSlave patrol was a smaller unit. It did the same routine as the larger units. They went through slave cabins looking for contraband and weapons. The militia was there as a backstop to the slave patrols. If the uprising became too large or more than the slave troop could handle, they could be brought in.You can see that in 1774, 50 percent of the wealth in the 13 Colonies owned guns. This number rose if you look at just the South. 81 percent of the slave-owning states owned firearms. Plantations with large numbers of enslaved persons were 4.3 times more likely than plantations with fewer or no slaves to own guns. It was clear from the Second Amendment's inception that guns were essential for the continuation of slavery-holding lifestyle as the crops. It was just as intricately woven into it that guns were.AdvertisementAdvertisement"With every rumored uprising you see the rise in laws banning the slaved from gun ownership as well as the rise and rise of slave patrols, and the militia to control and curtail Black people." Carol AndersonIt is absolutely woven into it. It is evident in South Carolina's 1739 Stono Rebellion. One group of Black men worked on a road in Stono. They began to figure out the rotation and routine of the guards. They started to find out where the weapons were kept. They killed two guards while they were on Sunday. Then they set out to find Spanish Florida. Florida has no slavery and they wanted to be completely free.They showed that they were willing and able to kill in order to get free. The alarm bell rang on Sunday morning and Stonos white people were at church. As part of their militia work, they grabbed their guns and chased down the rebellious people, killing them as a way to make an example. Laws required that white men have guns. Laws prohibited black people from accessing guns.AdvertisementThe 1740 Negro Act is the next step after Stono. The 1740 Negro Act defined African-descended peoples as slaves and absolute slaves for both those born and those who are already here. It set out what they could and couldn't do. They couldn't be educated. They couldn't have guns and could not move freely. They were subjugated and controlled by whites.AdvertisementLet me briefly discuss what you call a three-part strategy for subjugating slaves starting in Colonial times and ending with the framing of Amendment 2 and how we talk about Second Amendment rights. You have spoken about militias that denied the enslaved their right to arms and self-defense. This, I believe, filters into how we frame these questions today.AdvertisementYes. This is something I have been following historically. It's interesting to see how it changes over time and if the legal status of blacks affects that dynamic. Does that change as we go from being enslaved and becoming denizen, which was the in-between space between a citizen and a slave to emancipated or freed people to Jim Crow and postcivil rights African Americans? No. There is no significant change in how Black Americans in America are treated with regard to access to weapons and surveillance, as well as their right to self defense. The three-pronged control mechanism was developed in Virginia, and it has been very successful. As I looked at each individual's right to bear arms, I also looked at the rights to a well-regulated militia and the right of self-defense. I realized that none of these apply to Black Americans.AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementEven if youre not armed, you still pose a threat. We have all heard stories of Black people being shot because they own a cellphone. A Black man in North Carolina named Jonathan Ferrell, who was in a car accident, was happy to see police as he believed help was on his way. They replied, "We were afraid." He was dangerous. He was dangerous. Philando Castile, who has a license gun, was threatening. He was shot down. It doesn't matter if you own a gun. Your Blackness is the main threat and the default threat to this society. Because of this strong racial bias in stand your ground laws, it states that you can be anywhere you want. If I see a threat in the park, the grocery store, or parking lot, then I have the right use lethal force. Black is perceived as a threat to American society. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission Report, Stand Your Ground, shows that white people who kill Black people with stand your ground are 10 times more likely than Black people to commit justifiable homicide. It is also clear that people who kill Blacks under stand their ground are 281% more likely to walk than people who kill whites. This is because Black Americans are often the victims of these killings.AdvertisementAdvertisementThis moment was crucial at the Constitutional Convention. 25 of the 55 delegates were slave owners, including George Washington. The Second Amendment is a great deal. It wasn't the sole lodestar to freedom. It was a deal. It was a deal. I'm curious if you could explain what it was. And why slavery was an integral part of the Second Amendment.The Constitution was drafted at the Ratification Convention in Virginia. Ratification is taking place, but then it stalls. Virginia is one of the major holdouts. James Madison returns home to Virginia to try and push the issue through. He confronts George Mason and Patrick Henry, who are furious at Madison's decision to place control over the militia under federal control. They were like, "You know the North hates slavery." How can we expect them to protect us and stop the slave rebellion if there is a slave revolt? We will be defenseless. Madison is shaking in his boots, because his arguments don't work. He already says, Look, slavery has been protected. The three-fifths clause has been granted to you. You have already received 20 years more on the Atlantic Slave Trade. The Fugitive Slave clause was already granted to you. They wanted a bill that would protect them. They said that if we don't get it, we would push for a new Constitutional Convention. Madison was concerned that this would return the U.S. to the inapplicable Articles of Confederation. He ran to the first Congress and was obsessed with drafting these amends.AdvertisementAdvertisementThese amendments give you freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom from illegal searches and seizures, freedom to speedy and fair trials, and the right to not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment. Then you get the right of a well-regulated militia to ensure the safety of the state. This is a very unusual clause in the Bill of Rights. This outlier is because it is the bribe that Patrick Henry gave to George Mason to help him with his Southern slaveholders. It is how you limit federal control by making sure the states have control over the militia so they are not vulnerable to the abolitionist whims of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The enslavers will now have control over the militia.AdvertisementOne of your points is that the greater the ability of white people to arm themselves to the teeth, the more black people were unable to do so. This led to these unjust situations where they could not win.Yes, there is an asymmetry in firepower access. Cincinnati saw an 1841 riot, in which white people came to decimate and kill the Black community. They were moving towards the neighborhood but Black people had guns and they fired back. They were asking, "What just happened?" They had the nerve to shoot at us because they were trying to kill us.AdvertisementThey returned with a cannon, a vintage mass-murder machine. Finally, the police move in. But they disarm the Black community thinking that disarming Black people will calm down white people and that rioters won't be happy that Black people don't have guns. The police clearly supported white people and there were no consequences for the killings of Blacks.AdvertisementAfter the Civil War, we see this asymmetry happening again in Colfax, Louisiana. There is an election, and white supremacists won because Republicans won. These Democrats, who are the white supremacist party of the time, were planning to attack Colfax, Louisiana's seat of democracy and expel those who won. Although the Black militia was summoned to defend this bastion of democracy they were outgunned. They ran out of ammunition and were overwhelmed by white fighters. It was a massacre. It was a massacre. About 100 Blacks were killed after surrendering. White attackers set fire to the courthouse where the Black militia had taken refuge to protect themselves.The Supreme Court is now examining the constitutionality and operation of the Third Enforcement Act. This was the law that dealt with domestic terrorist acts of the Ku Klux Klan. This court ruled that the legislation was only applicable to state action and not private action. The killing of domestic terrorists by these private groups was fine. Then we had the Hamburg massacre, which was a reminder of the inequalities and asymmetry in weaponry access. Ulysses S. Grant was astonished. He stated, "What these states have in common isn't Christianity, it is not civilization." It is the right of Negroes to be killed.Listen below to hear the entire conversation or subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Overcast, Spotify or Stitcher, Google Play or wherever else you get your podcasts.
