{"id":105232,"date":"2024-10-26T23:30:34","date_gmt":"2024-10-27T04:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?page_id=105232"},"modified":"2024-10-26T23:30:34","modified_gmt":"2024-10-27T04:30:34","slug":"warren-burger-was-wrong-19th-century-sources-confirm-the-2nd-amendment-protects-an-individual-right","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?page_id=105232","title":{"rendered":"Warren Burger Was Wrong: 19th Century Sources Confirm the 2nd Amendment Protects an Individual Right"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
Kostas Moros on X<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
For anyone who frequently discusses the Second Amendment, there is no avoiding the debate over whether it protects an individual or collective right. The prevailing view accepted by the Supreme Court in 2008 is that the amendment protects every individual\u2019s right to keep and bear arms. But many detractors, especially gun-control advocates, still argue the Second Amendment only covers a collective or militia right. They therefore believe that pretty much all gun control, and even complete bans on guns, do not violate the Second Amendment, because it is not an individual right. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
In the social media sphere, the argument is typically simplified into a picture of former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger accompanied by a quote arguing against the “gun lobby’s” interpretation of the Second Amendment. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
For example:<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n

\"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
This is actually a compilation of different quotes from Justice Burger. The first portion was taken from his comments <\/span><\/p>\n
in a 1991 PBS interview<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

that \u201c[t]he gun lobby\u2019s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime.” Many have never stopped repeating this sentiment, such as a <\/span><\/p>\n

2014 article<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

by Michael Waldman in Politico Magazine which began with that quote from Burger, then went on to claim that: <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
From 1888, when law review articles\u00a0first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun….Then, starting in the late 1970s, a squad of attorneys and professors began to churn out law review submissions, dozens of them, at a prodigious rate. Funds\u2014much of them from the NRA\u2014flowed freely….This fusillade of scholarship and pseudo-scholarship insisted that the traditional view\u2014shared by courts and historians\u2014was wrong. There had been a colossal constitutional mistake. Two centuries of legal consensus, they argued, must be overturned.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
These sentiments continue today. Burger’s famous quote was cited in a <\/span><\/p>\n
2023 amicus brief<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

submitted by Global Action Against Gun Violence and several professors to the Supreme Court. They urged the Court to reverse <\/span>Heller<\/span> and with it, recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
It is thus accepted orthodoxy in the antigun academic sphere that from the founding until the 20th century, the Second Amendment was never intended or understood to include an individual right. But then, pro-gun extremists funded by the NRA put forward a “fusillade” of scholarship to shift opinions, and a conservative Supreme Court adopted the radical view for the first time in 2008. The “fraud”, as Justice Burger called it, had succeeded. The trouble is, Warren Burger and the activist academics who cite him are just plain wrong. Justice Burger was ignorant of (or lied about) an overwhelming number of historical sources from before 1900, which confirm that the Second Amendment was always understood to recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
This was not a controversial view at the time. As this article will show, it appeared in political speeches, the Congressional Record, treatises, abolitionist pamphlets, legal handbooks, and even primary school textbooks for children. Often, it was stated matter-of-factly, as the authors did not feel they were writing anything controversial. The various writers sometimes disagreed on what degree of gun control was acceptable, but they all began with the premise that the Second Amendment recognized a individual right. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
In sum, the 19th century commentary thoroughly disproves the idea that the individual right theory of the Second Amendment was invented by the NRA in the 1970s. Quite the opposite, it was the widely accepted interpretation before 1900. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Several notes before I begin spouting off source after source:<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
  1. \n
    This article is an adaptation of my pinned historical sources <\/span><\/p>\n
    thread<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    , as well as some sources from <\/span><\/p>\n

    another thread<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    done by <\/span><\/p>\n

    @2aHistory<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    , who continued to find more and more sources long after I had mostly moved on and stopped updating my thread as frequently. The thread became quite unwieldy and hard to read, prompting me to put it in this article form. I’ve done my best to give this some semblance of organization by the type of person being cited (political figure, scholar\/judge, etc.) <\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n
    I have not included every source, because some are just too obscure and repetitive. But I have included many, and certainly all of the high profile examples. If you want total comprehensiveness, the threads are still your best option. For this article, I focused mostly on commentary from prominent people of the era. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  3. \n
    The original plan was to have images for every source, like the thread does. Unfortunately, I learned that there is a limit on how many images a Twitter article can have, so now only some of the entries have images. Almost every entry has a clickable link to the full text, plus also a link to the author’s biographic information on their bolded name (save for a few obscure writers for whom a biography could not be found online). <\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  4. \n
    This article will not be much fun to read, frankly. It is much too long to be all that readable. Treat it more like a reference, or a tool to win arguments with the latest person who cites Justice Burger’s famous quote or makes similar arguments. I have made every effort to make it as readable as possible, and include links to the sources. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  5. \n
    Founding-era commentary and court rulings are not the focus here. That has been written about extensively elsewhere, and covered in <\/span>Heller<\/span> and <\/span>McDonald<\/span>. Much less attention has been paid to 19th century Americans and what they thought. That said, many of the earliest commentators were contemporaries of the founders, and sometimes were appointed to positions of power by them. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  6. \n
    This is not an original idea. As I would find out <\/span>after<\/span> I spent hours on Google Books digging up sources, <\/span><\/p>\n
    @davekopel<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    did similar work decades ago, and wrote a masterful scholarly article on the topic which can be read <\/span><\/p>\n

    here<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    . <\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n

  7. \n
    I had worked with <\/span><\/p>\n
    @StephenGutowski<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    to coauthor <\/span><\/p>\n

    an article<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    on this topic in 2022 on his excellent website, the Reload. If you don’t have time to go through this behemoth of an article, just go read that one and you’ll get a decent understanding in a much easier to read form. But this article will include more sources than that one did. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n

  8. \n
    Finally, if you appreciate this work, I hope you’ll <\/span><\/p>\n
    become a member and\/or donate to CRPA<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    . They are why I am privileged enough to be able to do what I do. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \n
    Alright enough with the housekeeping. Let’s get started! <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    Commentary from politicians, generals, and other political figures.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    Much of the commentary on the Second Amendment comes from political figures of the 19th century. Usually, it is stated matter-of-factly, as if it was a matter beyond any debate or controversy. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    Tench Coxe<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    actually <\/span>was<\/span> a founding father (albeit a lesser-known one), serving as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Pennsylvania. He would also serve in the Washington administration as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury from 1789-1792. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    In 1813, he <\/span><\/p>\n
    wrote<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    that the \u201cmilitia\u201d referenced in the Second Amendment \u201cembraces all the free white males of the proper ages.\u201d Calling this \u201cthe army of the constitution\u201d, Coxe explained that \u201c[t]hey have all the right, even in profound peace, to purchase, keep and use arms of every description.\u201d But Coxe also made clear this was not a right only for white males of the proper age. He referred to the \u201cright to own and bear arms\u201d as one of the constitutional liberties \u201cextended to all the people of the United States.\u201d He said as much repeatedly:<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    What is most persuasive about Coxe’s words here, as well as those of others writing in the early years of the 19th century, is that many other founding fathers were still alive, including Jefferson, Adams, and Madison. If they disagreed with Coxe’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, they could have challenged it. There is <\/span><\/p>\n
    no shortage<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    of letters and other writings from the aging founders in this time period, in which they debated ideas and discussed their reflections on the system of government they had created. This provides strong evidence that the Second Amendment recognized an individual right, and this was so uncontroversial a view that it was barely discussed.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    William Rawle<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    is another early example. In 1791, President Washington appointed Rawle United States district attorney for Pennsylvania, a position he served in from 1791 to 1800. After that, he would serve as the first chancellor of the Pennsylvania bar association, and in 1805, he argued before the United States Supreme Court that slavery was unconstitutional. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    In his 1825 book <\/span><\/p>\n
    A View of the Constitution of the United States of America<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    , Rawle explained that the Second Amendment prohibited congress from disarming the people. He contrasted the right from its much more limited English version, complaining that the latter had effectively disarmed most of its subjects. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    Rawle would go on to note that carrying arms in a manner that would make people fear an unlawful use of them could be banned, so he was certainly not closed off to the idea of regulating the Second Amendment right. But it was to Rawle clearly an individual right.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    Representative Adam Seybert<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    of Pennsylvania, a member of Congress from 1809-1815 and 1817-1819, wrote in his 1818 <\/span><\/p>\n

    book<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    that the constitution “guarantees to every citizen” the right to keep and bear arms, which other countries do not do. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    William Seward<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    was our 24th Secretary of State, serving under Presidents Lincoln and Johnson. He was also a Senator and Governor of New York. He considered the right of the people “at all times, to keep and bear arms” to be one of the two fundamental principles of government the framers meant to secure. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    \n
    Representative Edward Wade<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    of Ohio, an abolitionist, gave a <\/span><\/p>\n

    speech<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    in the House of Representatives in 1856 during the events now known as “Bleeding Kansas”. In that speech, he complained that Kansas settlers who opposed slavery were having their right to keep and bear arms violated by the current administration. As we’ll see later in the thread, abolitionists spoke often about the individual right to keep and bear arms. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    Likewise, <\/span><\/p>\n
    Senator Charles Sumner<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    \u2019s 1856 speech “<\/span><\/p>\n

    The Crime Against Kansas<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    ” bristled at the mere suggestion that citizens in Kansas who opposed slavery should be disarmed of their Sharps rifles by the proslavery government: \u201cNever was this efficient weapon more needed in just self defence, than now in Kansas, and at least one article in our National Constitution must be blotted out, before the complete right to it can in any way be impeached.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    Governor John B. Weller<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    of California (also previously a Senator from 1852-1857) wrote in an 1860 <\/span><\/p>\n

    letter<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    to the legislature that homicides were too high, casting blame on people in the habit of carrying deadly weapons. But he acknowledged that there was not much that could be done, because the Constitution secured the right to keep and bear arms.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    \n
    John J. Crittenden<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    has perhaps the most extensive resume of any source presented here. In reverse chronological order, he served as a Representative from Kentucky (1861-1863), Senator (1855-1861), Attorney General for President Fillmore (1850-1853), Governor of Kentucky (1848-1850), and Secretary of State of Kentucky (1834-1835). <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    Crittenden wrote that no law can take away the right to bear arms, as it is a natural right guaranteed by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    \n
    Representative Clement Laird Vallandigham<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    of Ohio, who served in Congress from 1858-1863, gave a <\/span><\/p>\n

    speech<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    opposing civil war-era restrictions on the sales of arms, powder, lead, and percussion caps, citing the Second Amendment for why the restrictions were unacceptable. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    General Davis Tillson<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    , who after the civil war served with the Freedmen’s Bureau until late in 1866, <\/span><\/p>\n

    wrote<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    that all men, regardless of race, have the right to keep and bear arms to defend their homes, families, and themselves. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    Also in 1866, <\/span><\/p>\n
    Brigadier General Rufus Saxton<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    , a Medal of Honor recipient and Assistant Commissioner for the Freedmen’s Bureau after the Civil War, wrote that the seizure of arms from freedmen violated their Second Amendment rights. This was printed in the<\/span><\/p>\n

    Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction in the thirty-ninth Congress<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    .<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    General George Henry Thomas<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    , in charge of overseeing Tennessee, <\/span><\/p>\n

    wrote<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    in 1866 that the governor of the state asked him for permission to disarm black people based on dubious speculation that they would revolt if they continued to be armed. The General said no because that would be “unjust and unconstitutional”, and President Johnson agreed. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    \n
    President Ulysses S. Grant<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    complained in a letter to Congress in 1872 that the Ku Klux Klan’s objectives were “by force and terror, to prevent all political action not in accord with the views of the members, to deprive colored citizens of the right to bear arms…and to reduce the colored people to a condition closely akin to that of slavery.” <\/span>See<\/span> H. Journal, 42nd Cong., 2d Sess. 716 (1872).<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    Commentary from judges and legal scholars.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    Another large portion of Second Amendment commentary of the 19th century comes from judges and legal scholars (and many of the people listed below were both). <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    St. George Tucker<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    was a lawyer, military officer, and law professor at the College of William and Mary. He wrote an <\/span><\/p>\n

    American version<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    of Blackstone\u2019s <\/span>Commentaries on the Laws of England<\/span>, the first of its kind in the United States and a valuable reference work for many American lawyers and law students of the time. In 1813, President James Madison appointed Tucker to the federal bench, making him a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Virginia, where he served until he resigned in 1825. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    Tucker referred to the American Second Amendment as the “palladium of liberty”, and he criticized the English version for being limited to Protestants and otherwise undermining the natural right to bear arms it ostensibly was meant to protect. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    Elisha Hurlbut<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    , who would later serve as a New York state court judge, wrote<\/span><\/p>\n

    Civil Office and Political Ethics<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    (1840). There, he described the Second Amendment as arming “the citizen” to protect against foreign aggression and be the “sentinel of his liberties.” <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    Henry Flanders<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    wrote several books on law between 1852 and 1871. As to the Second Amendment, his view expressed in his 1860 book <\/span><\/p>\n

    An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    was that the very fact the people were armed served as a check on an invasion of their rights. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    George Washington Paschal<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    was an interesting character for his era. After law school, in 1832 he served as an aide to General John E. Wool, who was removing Cherokee Indians to Indian territories. While on that expedition, he married a Cherokee woman. In 1837 Paschal moved to Arkansas and, before he was thirty, was appointed by the Arkansas legislature as associate justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court. But he resigned a year later to represent the Cherokee in various claims against the US government. He also had an unsuccessful run for Attorney General of Texas, and edited an Austin newspaper, frequently commenting against secession. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    Thanks to that, during the Civil War he was jailed, threatened by a mob, and held for trial by a court-martial because of reports of his Unionist sympathies. In response, he retired to his home and devoted his time to writing. The books that brought him fame were <\/span>A Digest of the Laws of Texas<\/span> (1866) and<\/span><\/p>\n
    The Constitution of the United States Defined and Carefully Annotated <\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    (1868). It is the latter we are interested in, as it includes his brief commentary on the Second Amendment, in which Paschal explains that the Second Amendment exists so the people can resist a tyrannical government. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    \n
    Joel Prentiss Bishop<\/span> <\/a><\/div>\n

    was an esteemed lawyer, abolitionist, and legal treatise writer. <\/span><\/p>\n

    His take<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    on the Second Amendment, written in 1868, was more limited than many of his contemporaries. He read the provision as applying only to weapons useful for warfare, not those used in “brawls”. But he still clearly saw it as protecting an individual right. Interestingly, like his fellow abolitionist Horace Greeley, he was also ahead of his time in arguing the Second Amendment also was binding on state governments, a minority view at the time. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    Timothy Farrar<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    was a judge of the New Hampshire Court of Common Pleas from 1824 to 1832, and also briefly served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1854. His <\/span><\/p>\n

    1872 book<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    listed the Second Amendment (described simply as “a right to keep and bear arms”) as one of the “many natural and civil common-law rights” that are “expressly reserved” by the people.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    Benjamin Vaughan Abbott<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    , a lawyer who served as the secretary of the New York Code Commission (which drew up the state\u2019s penal code in 1864), <\/span><\/p>\n

    explained in 1879<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    that the Second Amendment \u201cdoes not extend to carrying bowie knives, fire-arms . . . concealed upon the person; or prohibit legislative regulations of the manner in which arms may be carried. . . . The constitutional provision means such weapons as are used for the purposes of war.\u201d <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    Of all the commentary cited in this article, Abbott may be the writer most in line with modern gun control advocates, as he rejects the idea of the Second Amendment being for personal self-defense. Yet even he is clearly talking about an individual right to own arms, but those arms must be useful to the militia. Of course, modern gun control advocates would hardly want to cite Abbott, because in today’s terms, he’d support the right to own an AR-15 but not a small handgun. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    \n
    Robert Desty<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    was elected to the California State Senate in 1879, but was denied his seat because he was born in Canada. Like most writers of his time, his <\/span><\/p>\n

    1881 commentary<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    viewed the Second Amendment as protecting a preexisting natural right, but only from federal infringement. Also like most of his contemporaries, he cited the anti-tyranny purpose of the Second Amendment. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    Dr. Herman Von Holst<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    was a German-American historian and author. He emigrated to the United States and wrote extensively on the Constitution of the United States, largely from an anti-slavery perspective.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    His <\/span><\/p>\n
    1887 book<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    explained that while some argue the arms the Second Amendment protects are only those used by the militia, “it must not be inferred from this that the right is restricted to those citizens who belong to the militia.” <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    John Norton Pomeroy<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    was a law professor, and <\/span><\/p>\n

    one of the most important<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    text book writers of the last third of the nineteenth century. His work <\/span><\/p>\n

    An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    (1888) shows how the objective of securing a well-armed militia is hardly mutually exclusive with an individual right. Instead, it is wholly dependent on it.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    \n
    Henry Campbell Black<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    is most famous for being the original author of <\/span>Black’s Law Dictionary<\/span>, which is still updated to this day. His <\/span><\/p>\n

    1895 work<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    considered the Second Amendment an individual right, albeit one that only applied to the arms of “modern warfare”. “It does not tend to restrict the right of the citizen to bear arms for lawful purposes, but only punishes a particular abuse of that right.”<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    \n
    Thomas Cooley<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    was one of the most influential legal minds of his time, and served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan from 1864 to 1885. A modern law school is named after him (<\/span><\/p>\n

    Cooley Law School<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    in Lansing, Michigan). <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    The 1898 edition of his book, <\/span><\/p>\n
    The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    (first published in 1880) says of the Second Amendment that its meaning “undoubtedly is” that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission to do so. This also enables the government to have a militia. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    Commentary from abolitionists. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    Abolitionists frequently wrote about the Second Amendment and how it further undermined the philosophical basis for slavery. Many of them were already covered above in other categories. But a small handful of others were not.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    Joel Tiffany<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    , a prolific writer of the 19th century, wrote in his work<\/span><\/p>\n

    A Treatise on the Unconstitutionality of American Slavery<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual to defend themselves. And this right belongs to everyone, because no limit on it is included. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    Lysander Spooner<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    , now considered an early libertarian writer, was an abolitionist, entrepreneur, lawyer, essayist, natural rights legal theorist, and political philosopher. <\/span><\/p>\n

    He considered<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    the individual right interpretation the “obvious” one. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    \n
    Horace Greeley<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    , the famous American newspaper editor, abolitionist, and briefly a member of Congress, <\/span><\/p>\n

    wrote<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    that not only did the Second Amendment protect an individual right, but it also could not be infringed by any state. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    This was a minority view at the time, as the Bill of Rights was seen as limiting only the federal government. Several rights in the Bill of Rights have now been applied to the states through a process called incorporation through the 14th Amendment. That happened for the Second Amendment finally in 2010 with<\/span><\/p>\n
    McDonald v. City of Chicago<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    . <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    It’s also interesting to look at a pro-slavery perspective in this context. While someone like<\/span><\/p>\n
    Thomas G. Polk<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    would find little in common with abolitionists, he did <\/span><\/p>\n

    apparently agree<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    on the individual right view of the Second Amendment:<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    Commentary from school textbooks for children and teenagers.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    On the one hand, textbooks are the least-prestigious source for 19th century commentary on the Second Amendment’s status as an individual right. Yet they are persuasive in their own right because they demonstrate how uncontroversial the idea was if it was even being taught to schoolchildren. Given these are schoolbooks, the authors have a lower degree of prominence and thus not all of them have readily available biographies I could find. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    Samuel G. Goodrich<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    had a brief political career, serving in both the Massachusetts State Senate and House of Representative for a short time in each. In terms of the Second Amendment, <\/span><\/p>\n

    he wrote<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    in his book for young people that it contrasted from the practices of despotic governments.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    Daniel Parker<\/span> wrote <\/span><\/p>\n
    The Constitutional Instructor For the Use of Schools<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    (1848). He viewed the Second Amendment as abundantly clear:<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    \n
    Edward Deering Mansfield<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    wrote in <\/span><\/p>\n

    his 1861 textbook<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    that it is “scarcely necessary to say” that the right to bear arms is the foundation of the people’s liberties. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    Andrew White Young<\/span> was an author of various books about government. One was <\/span><\/p>\n
    The Government Class Book: A Youth’s Manual of Instruction in the Principles of Constitutional Government and Law<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    (1880) The book said the Second Amendment allowed citizens to own and use “warlike weapons” in order to prevent tyranny. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    Anna Laurens Dawes<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    was the daughter of a United States Senator. She was a pretty prolific writer and accomplished in her own right, serving as a correspondent for various newspapers. Her opposition to women’s suffrage may be part of the reason why she has fallen into obscurity today.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    On the Second Amendment, Dawes <\/span><\/p>\n
    wrote<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    in her 1885 textbook for young people that prohibiting people from bearing arms entirely would go too far because it would take away all possibility of resisting injustices. That said, she said the right did not cover concealed carry.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    Edward R. Shaw<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    ‘s 1893 <\/span><\/p>\n

    handbook<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    for teachers says that even first graders should know that the militia consists of all able-bodied men in the nation.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    \"Image\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    \n
    Laura Donnan<\/span> <\/a><\/div>\n

    was a teacher and civic activist. In 1900, her book <\/span><\/p>\n

    Our Government Brief Talks to the American Youth on Our Governments, General and Local<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    said of the Second Amendment that it does not mean that only the militia may bear arms, but that every citizen may do so. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    Conclusion.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    Considering my research on this topic all started because of seeing the Warren Burger quote posted one too many times and getting annoyed by it, I think I can definitively say I have thoroughly beat this dead horse (judge?) into the ground. The plethora of commentary above, especially when paired with the founding era history and various court rulings, is overflowing evidence that the Second Amendment recognizes and protects an individual right. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    But even if <\/span>all<\/span> of these commentators were somehow wrong, at minimum, they prove that Warren Burger’s claim of “fraud” by the “gun lobby”, repeated by antigun activists to this day, is completely false. The individual rights view was the prevailing view of Americans in the 19th century. It was absolutely not a 20th century invention. Anyway, that’s enough of that. I do not rule out that I may edit in more sources in the future. But for now, I can close the book on this long-running project. Again, if you want to see many more sources, check out the <\/span><\/p>\n
    original thread<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    . Or <\/span><\/p>\n

    this one<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

    .<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Kostas Moros on X For anyone who frequently discusses the Second Amendment, there is no avoiding the debate over whether it protects an individual or collective right. The prevailing view accepted by the Supreme Court in 2008 is that the amendment protects every individual\u2019s right to keep and bear arms. But many detractors, especially gun-control … Continue reading “Warren Burger Was Wrong: 19th Century Sources Confirm the 2nd Amendment Protects an Individual Right”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-105232","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/105232","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=105232"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/105232\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":105233,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/105232\/revisions\/105233"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=105232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}