Slavery could not be abolished during the Revolution, simply because Congress required a vote 100% to secede from Great Britain, and there remained a number of holdouts touting the good graces of being under King George's one-sided taxation laws. There were benefits to this -- but I have no idea what those benefits might have been. ...And, while treason remained a relatively short word, it also remained a hanging offence -- and that's a hanging with little hope for a fair, unbiased trial beforehand.
"Gentlemen of the Congress. We must all hang together in this -- or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
-- Statesman Benjamin Franklin, our 1st United States Postmaster General, working to ratify the Constitution of the United States of America
The required by law stipulation for Militia participation was grounded in this as well, but it remains that there was no standing Military to secure the new nation, and the already functioning Militia program fit the bill just fine. In some states, though, I'm sure there were the expected exceptions to this law, such as age of consent (pretty young in some states, allowing for 13 and 14 year olds to marry -- in a good family-merger sort of way) and mental cognizance. Not in all, but in some. I just can't see some white baby armed and patrolling his crib.
Things were different, and people thought different, but we're supposed to be smarter, now, more open to new ideas and new processes. I find it hard to believe a workable consensus still cannot be reached on the matter.
Flame » in reply to Belonging to a militia used to be required by law
True, but in varying degrees . . .
The whole thread (28 posts)
- The Second Amendment
- Your argumentdoesn't hold water.
- Hence forth and ever more, let it be known across the land . . .
- You've been asking for a timely discussion about guns. How do you expect that when you start with insults. n/t
- No . . .
- Regardless of the reason, and whether we like it or not,
