Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:07:59 -0700 From: Jeff Chan To: Jack Rakove, Stanford History CC: "Clayton E. Cramer" Subject: Conference thanks, responses to your questions Hello Professor Rakove, It was a pleasure to get a chance to speak with you at the Second Amendment Conference today, if however briefly. I apologize for not introducing myself properly. I feel a bit awkward attending events such as these essentially as an interested lay person who has done some personal research. You posed two questions to me: provide examples of unorganized militia successes, and show that guns were not scarce or mostly imported around the time of the War of Independence. We also briefly raised the issue of what types of arms would be protected for militia use. I'm carbon copying Clayton Cramer who I understand is currently performing extensive research on the domestic manufacture of firearms around the the time of founding. I'm not sure if he's ready to provide any preliminary results, but I expect that he will have something interesting to say when his study is complete. I also believe it may run counter to some of Michael Bellesiles' findings on this subject. One of Cramer's earlier papers, "Gun Scarcity in the Early Republic?" touches on this: http://rkba.org/research/cramer/GunScarcity.pdf Bellesiles suggests that gun manufacturing and gunsmithing were scarce activities in antebellum America: "Most communities lacked gunsmiths and had to rely on blacksmiths to make the necessary repairs to guns...." [73] [...] Cuming lists two gunsmiths in 1807 Pittsburgh.[74] Fearon includes a table of "Manufactories in and near the city of Pittsburgh, in the State of Pennsylvania, in the year 1817" listing 14 men employed as "Gun-smiths, and bridlebit-makers" with a yearly value of $13,800. [75] The most complete statement of firearms manufacturing comes from the 1810 manufacturing census. Inconsistencies in the data clearly demonstrate that this survey was haphazard and incomplete. As an example, Massachusetts manufactured 19,095 guns classified as "other"--but listed no gun manufactories, and no gunsmiths. Only nine of the seventeen states are listed as having made any guns at all, and there is no firearms manufacturing listed in any of the five territories, or the District of Columbia. Only Maryland, South Carolina, and the territories of Orleans and Louisiana reported any gunsmiths. In spite of the 1807 and 1817 data from Fearon and Cuming for Pittsburgh showing a growing community of gunsmiths there, there are no gunsmiths listed in Pennsylvania at the 1810 manufacturing census. New York, at the time one of the great manufacturing states of the Union, showed no gun manufacturing or gunsmithing at all. Even with these clearly incomplete records, however, there were 117 "Gun manufactories" in the U.S., 37 gunsmiths (a severe undercount, based on Fearon and Cuming's reports for 1807 and 1817 for Pittsburgh alone), and 42,853 firearms manufactured. [76] 73 Michael Bellesiles, "The Origins of Gun Culture in the United States, 1760-1865," 443 74 Fortescue Cuming, Sketches of a Tour to the Western Country Through the States of Ohio and Kentucky; A Voyage Down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.... (Pittsburgh, 1810), 222. 75 Henry Bradshaw Fearon, Sketches of America: A Narrative of a Journey of Five Thousand Miles Through the Eastern and Western States (London, 1818; reprint New York, 1969), 203. 76 Albert Gallatin, A Statement of the Arts and Manufactures of the United States of America (Washington, 1812), 11. Secretary of the Treasury Tench Coxe's admission that the manufacturing census was very incomplete can be found in Margo J. Anderson, The American Census: A Social History (New Haven, Conn., 1988), 19. This paper was written in response to Bellesiles' Journal of American History 83:2 paper "The Origins of Gun Culture in the United States, 1760-1865." Cramer's response was submitted to the Journal of American History, who rejected it 2 years later apparently for a lack of timeliness! As an aside I'm a bit disappointed that neither Cramer nor Stephen Halbrook were at the Conference. Both are well versed in Second Amendment and firearms history. While they are not currently professors, neither is Mr. Mathew S. Nosanchuk, Litigation Director and Legislative Counsel of the Violence Policy Center who sat on the third panel. I note also that the VPC is hardly neutral on the issue; it advocates and lobbies for firearms restrictions. Without suggesting bias in panel selection, would it have been as acceptable to include an NRA official? It was of course interesting to hear VPC's plans and positions, but I felt a lack of counterbalance. I assume you are aware that Halbrook successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Printz that the Brady Law gun purchase background check was an unconstitutional unfunded mandate on the states. Halbrook may participate when Emerson goes to the Supremes, and he has previously spoken at Stanford. Regarding the actions of an unorganized militia, I can think of three possibly tenable positions. First, and likely unprovable, the presence of an unorganized militia has acted as a palliative, preventing the expression of tyranny and therefore obviating the need for active resistance. This principle is addressed in Federalists 29 and 46 and in the debates about the ratification of the Federal Constitution. Second, since the Whiskey Rebellion the Federal government has established its supremacy over states and individuals along with the need for a standing army to enforce its will. This view would seem to elevate anti-Federalist concerns. Third, organized armed resistance to tyranny has happened on a smaller scale, and it is not well known. There are accounts of community-based, small-scale armed opposition to corrupt local governments, particularly in the South. One example is the Battle of Athens, Tennessee where WWII Veterans armed and acted against a corrupt local Sheriff who had confiscated ballot boxes. Al Gore Senior reportedly spoke favorably about this event: http://www.state.tn.us/sos/bluebook/online/section6/modern.pdf Returning servicemen and women helped to bring about a crisis of the old political order in Tennessee. In the town of Athens on August 1, 1946--primary election day--a pitched battle occurred between ex-GIs and supporters of the entrenched political machine in McMinn County. For over six hours the streets of Athens blazed with gunfire as armed veterans laid siege to the jail where the sheriff and fifty "deputies" had holed up with the ballot boxes. The so-called "Battle of Athens" actually represented an opening salvo of a statewide political cleanup, in which a reform-minded opposition challenged local bosses and machine politics. The GI victory demonstrated to Congressman Estes Kefauver and other up-and-coming politicians that the old strategies of boss control in Tennessee had finally become vulnerable. A History of Tennesee, 421-422 (Official state pages) For a more complete account, see also: http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm Another event occurred during the Civil Rights Era wherein black citizens of Monroe, North Carolina in reponse to KKK raids formed an NRA-affiliated gun club to train and arm themselves. They successfully repelled the KKK and the attacks ceased: http://www.founders.howard.edu/moorland-spingarn/civils-z.html RALPH J. BUNCHE ORAL HISTORY COLLECTION (S-Z) WILLIAMS, Robert F. (n.d.) RJB 588 Former director of the Monroe (North Carolina) National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Former president, Republic of New Africa. Chronicles the discriminatory treatment he experienced while serving in the Marine Corps. Traces the history of Monroe (Union County), North Carolina Blacks' armed resistance movement to white racism from the 1940s through the 1960s. Describes his role and mission as leader of a "fighting branch" of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored people (NAACP) in that community, which advocated militaristic Black self- defense tactics and an uncompromising civil rights position. Describes the activities of the branch, its programs, organizational structure, membership, and conflicts with NAACP national leadership figures (particularly Roy Wilkins and Daisy Bates). Describes numerous violent encounters of Blacks with white supremacist groups and police, specifically recalling four attempts on his life. Relates the situation that led to his 6-month suspension from the NAACP and the branch's being cut off from NAACP support. Contrasts white and Black media coverage of the conflict in Union County, and describes The Crusader, a publication published by Black activists there. Notes the supportive international coverage his group received, the far-flung responses to their calls for material aid, and visits from foreign journalists. Explains how and why Blacks in Monroe formed a National Rifle Association-chartered gun club and resorted to openly carrying weapons. Assesses the effects of the presence of white and Black pacifists who organized a nonviolent demonstration in Monroe in August 1961. Gives his account of the riots that followed when white hate groups mounted a united assault on the protesters, a situation that led to his fleeing North Carolina and going into exile to avoid federal prosecution. [...] From a 1995 speech at Yale by then NRA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa: http://rkba.org/comment/metaksa.yale.12sep95 Monroe, North Carolina. 1957. The Monroe chapter of the NAACP feared intimidation and violent attack at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan. Bravely, the Monroe NAACP members continued their role in the civil rights struggle. They exercised their civil liberties. Their voting rights. Their right to speak out. To assemble. To associate with one another. But the Ku Klux Klan kept pushing -- and they were armed, and they were illegally using those arms. In retaliation for a resistance effort organized by the chapter's vice president, the Klan set about driving through black neighborhoods and firing guns at homes. They targeted particularly the home of the chapter vice president, Dr. Albert E. Perry. So, the Monroe, North Carolina, chapter of the NAACP decided to exercise another of their civil liberties. The right to keep and bear arms. In 1957, sixty members of the Monroe chapter of the NAACP affiliated with the National Rifle Association of America and received firearms training. Many posted themselves at the home of Dr. Perry, their vice president. When the Klan motored in for another night of tyranny, they came face to face with the Second Amendment. In the words of one participant, "An armed motorcade attacked Dr. Perry's house which is situated on the outskirts of the colored community. We shot it out with the Klan and repelled their attack and the Klan didn't have any more stomach for this type of fight. They stopped raiding our community." The terrorists failed, because one right prevailed. Additional references: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/122.html http://www.netside.com/~lcoble/2ndamend/whyfight.txt This incident says things about the NRA that are seldom heard. Don Kates might argue that gun ownership is ultimately a liberal ideal. A question to the second panel (and me) about what arms are protected through the Second Amendment is incisive and key. As Justice McReynolds wrote in Miller: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense. [...] The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. The status of a short barreled shotgun as military equipment was not within judicial notice because no defense was presented, but the key test here is that "ordinary military equipment" would appear to be protected. (Short barreled shotguns were used in the trenches of World War I, but with no defense to present that information judicial notice could not happen, i.e., no one told the court.) Note also that "supplied by themselves" entails private ownership and not state provision. A strong case could probably be made that rifles are "ordinary military equipment" and therefore protected, for example. As to the type of rifle, given that semi-automatic firearms existed prior to the bolt-action rifle, I don't consider it unreasonable to argue for fundamentally century-old technology. I hope you can find time to respond, even if it's simply to acknowledge that this message successfully reached you. If you're so inclined, I would welcome and look forward to a continued conversation. Thanks again for organizing an interesting, if brief, conference that allowed a variety of viewpoints to be heard. It served the issue well. On a personal level, I'm greatly heartened this issue is once again seeing the light of reasoned discourse. Sincerely, Jeff Chan -- Jeff Chan http://rkba.org/