The First and Second Amendments were allied by
the colonists in a special way. Because they recognized
that these rights, before all others, were absolutely
critical to the survival of their new republic,
without these rights liberty was not possible.
We know that the Founding Fathers were well
aware of the significance of an event that had
occurred 56 years earlier, in 1735 (when Jefferson
and Madison were yet to be born and George Washington
was only three years old). That event was the
trial in New York City of John Peter Zenger, printer
of the New-York Weekly Journal, for seditious
libel based upon a series of attacks Zenger had
made in his paper upon the character of William
Cosby, governor of the colony of New York. The
trial judge accurately instructed the jury that,
under the common-law definition, Zenger's printed
criticisms were considered seditious libel. But
after hearing the defense's argument that the
cause of liberty demanded the press have the right
to speak and write the truth, the jury ignored
the judge's instructions and found Zenger not
guilty. His acquittal was to become a dominant
symbol of the colonist's right to maintain a free
press.
And how free (and freewheeling) these colonial
newspapers were! Today, for fear of lawsuits,
our newspapers and television networks generally
opt for safety and blandness. But the early colonial
newspapers ― chief among them the Boston
Evening Post, Boston Gazette, Boston Newsletter,
Providence Gazette & Country Journal, New
York Courier and Enquirer, New York Statesman
and Evening Advertiser, New York Gazette
and Mercury, and Pennsylvania Gazette
― were aggressive, rude, unabashedly partisan,
and tremendously influential.
"The influence and circulation of [colonial]
newspapers is great beyond any thing ever known
in Europe," an English visitor wrote. "Newspapers
penetrate to every crevice of the [country]."
And these newspapers were carrying not only news
about America but crucial editorial commentary
about America's new government.
English editor and censor Roger L'Estrange
cautioned in 1663, "A public newspaper makes the
multitude too familiar with the actions and counsels
of its superiors, too pragmatical and censorious,
and gives them, not only an itch, but a kind of
colourable right and licence to be meddling with
the government.
"In the decade leading up to the American
Revolution," wrote Mitchell Stephens, "a hostile
press certainly created unrest and helped dissolve
whatever union of opinion had existed between
British officials and their American subjects.
But the true power of the pre-Revolutionary press
is not to be found in its ability to wound the
British. The true power of this press was its
ability to enfranchise and unify the Americans.
...It helped the inhabitants of the colonies imagine
themselves Americans."
The colonial newspapers were to become the
most powerful weapon in the struggle to persuade
the people to join in what John Adams called "the
real American revolution," a conviction later
to be echoed by these words of James Madison:
"A popular government without popular information,
or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue
to farce or a tragedy."
Of course, in colonial times there was no
radio or television. Newspapers ― particularly
those in the major urban centers of Boston, New
York, and Philadelphia ― were the only means
for literate members of the population to acquire
news and informed opinion. Throughout the entire
colonial period, major newspapers enjoyed substantial
circulation growth, year after year, and there
is ample evidence that their pages were avidly
read and discussed. Of particular interest to
readers were editorials on the debates then being
conducted ― debates over whether the Constitution
should be amended to include a Bill of Rights,
and more specifically, debates over an amendment
restricting the federal government from forming
select militias and at the same time enunciating
the right of free and law-abiding citizens to
keep and bear arms.
Here is a representative sampling of commentary
on Second Amendment issues that appeared in the
popular press at the time.
BOSTON JOURNAL OF THE TIMES
Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior
of the military conservators still multiply
upon us, some of which are of such nature, and
have been carried to such lengths, as must serve
fully to evince that a late vote of this town,
calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves
with arms for their defence, was a measure as
prudent as it was legal... It is a natural
right which the people have reserved to themselves,
confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights to keep
arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone
observes: it is to be made use of when the sanctions
of society and law are found insufficient to restrain
the violence of oppression.
1768
BOSTON EVENING POST
(Unknown author, defending a vote
by Boston colonists requesting their fellow citizens
to purchase arms)
Nor is there a person either in or out of Parliament,
who has justly stated and proved one single act
of that town, as a public body, to be, we will
not say treasonable or seditious, but even at
all illegal.... For it is certainly beyond human
art and sophistry, to prove the British subjects,
to whom the privilege of bearing arms is
expressly recognized by the [English] Bill of
Rights, and who live in a Province where the law
requires them to be equipped with arms, &c.
are guilty of an illegal act, in calling
upon one another to be supplied with them, as
the law directs.
April 3, 1769
NORTH CAROLINA GAZETTE
(NEWBURN)
[I]t is the Right of every English subject to
be prepared with Weapons for his Defence.
Ju1y 7, 1775
BOSTON INDEPENDENT CHRONICLE
It was absolutely necessary to carry arms for
fear of pirates, &c. and ... their arms were
all stamped with peace, that they were never to
be used but in case of hostile attack, that it
was in the law of nature for every man to defend
himself, and unlawful for any man to deprive him
of those weapons of self defence.
October 25, 1787
NEW YORK JOURNAL
(Unknown author, writing under
the
pseudonym "Brutus")
When a building is to be erected which is intended
to stand for ages, the foundation should be firmly
laid. The constitution proposed to your acceptance,
is designed not for yourselves alone, but for
generations yet unborn. The principles, therefore,
upon which the social compact is founded, ought
to have been clearly and precisely stated, and
the most express and full declaration of rights
to have been made....
... The common good, therefore, is the end
of civil government, and common consent, the foundation
on which it is established.
To effect this end, it was necessary that
a certain portion of natural liberty should be
surrendered, in order that what remained should
be preserved. ...
But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that
individuals should relinquish all their natural
rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot
be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of
conscience, the right of enjoying and defending
life, &c. [S]o in forming a government on
its true principles, the foundation should be
laid in the manner I before stated, by expressly
reserving to the people such of their essential
rights, as are not necessary to be parted with.
November 1, 1787
BOSTON HERALD AMERICAN
(Unknown Anti-federalist author,
writing under
the pseudonym "John DeWitt")
It is asserted by the most respectable writers
upon the Government, that a well regulated militia,
composed of the yeomanry of the country have ever
been considered as the bulwark of a free society....
. . . Every writer upon government ―
Locke, Sidney, Hamden, and a list of others ―
have uniformly asserted, that standing armies
are a solecism [mistake] in any government, that
no nation as ever supported them, that did not
resort to, rely on, and finally become a prey
to them...
... [T]he first policy of tyrants has been
to annihilate all other means of national activity
and defence, and to rely solely upon standing
troops....
…Pisistrarus in Greece, and Dionysius in
Syracuse, Charles in France, and Henry in England,
all cloaked their villainous intentions under
an idea of raising a small body for a guard to
their persons.
December 3, 1787
CONNECTICUT COURANT
(HARTFORD)
(Unknown author, writing under
the pseudonym
"the Republican")
In countries under arbitrary government, the
people oppressed and dispirited neither possess
arms nor know how to use them. Tyrants never feel
secure until they have disarmed the people. They
can rely upon nothing but standing armies of mercenary
troops for the support of their power. But the
people of this country have arms in their hands;
they are not destitute of military knowledge;
every citizen is required by law to be a soldier;
we are marshaled into companies, regiments, and
brigades for the defence of our country. This
is a circumstance which increases the power and
consequence of the people; and enables them to
defend their rights and privileges against every
invader.
January 7, 1788
PENNSYLVANIA GAZETTE
(PHILADELPHIA)
(Tench Coxe, writing in support
of the proposed
Constitution, under the pseudonym
"a Pennsylvanian")
The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania,
is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen,
it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE
IN THE HANDS OF
THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY.
The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled
and accustomed to their arms, when compared to
any possible army must be tremendous and irresistible.
Who are these militia? [A]re they not ourselves.
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms
each against his own bosom. Congress have
no power to disarm the militia. Their swords,
and every other terrible implement of the soldier,
are the birthright of an American. . .
. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in
the hands of either the federal or state governments,
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain,
in the hands of the people.
February 20,1788
WINCHESTER GAZETTE (VIRGINIA)
There are other things so clearly out of the
power of Congress, that the bare recital of them
is sufficient. I mean "rights of conscience, or
religious liberty ― the rights of bearing
arms for defence, or for killing game ―
the liberty of fowling, hunting and fishing .
February 22, 1788
FREEMAN'S JOURNAL
(PHILADELPHIA)
The freemen of America will remember, that it
is very easy to change a free government
into an arbitrary, despotic, or military one:
but it is very difficult, almost impossible to
reverse the matter ― very difficult to regain
freedom once lost.
March 5, 1788
PENNSYLVANIA GAZETTE
(PHILADELPHIA)
(Unknown author, writing under
the pseudonym
"Philodemos")
Every free man has a right to the use of the
press, so he has to the use of his arms.
[B]ut if he commits [libel], he abuses his privilege,
as unquestionably as if he were to plunge his
sword into the bosom of a fellow citizen.
March 8, 1788
STATE GAZETTE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
(CHARLESTON)
(Unknown author, writing under
the pseudonym
"MT. Cicero")
No free government was ever founded, or ever
preserved in its liberty, without uniting the
characters of the citizen and soldier in those
destined for the defence of the state. . . . Such
are a well regulated militia, composed of the
freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take
up arms to preserve their property, as individuals,
and their rights as freemen.
September 8, 1788
PENNSYLVANIA GAZETTE
(PHILADELPHIA)
(Reverend Nicholas Collin, writing
under the
pseudonym "Foreign Spectator")
While the people have property, arms in their
hands, and only a spark of a noble spirit, the
most corrupt congress must be mad to form any
project of tyranny.
November 7, 1788
FEDERAL GAZETTE (PHILADELPHIA)
(Tench Coxe, writing in support
of the proposed
Bill of Rights, under the pseudonym
"a Pennsylvanian")
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the
people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize,
and 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 next article [the
Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear
their private arms.
June 18, 1789
FEDERAL GAZETTE (PHILADELPHIA)
(Unknown author, writing under
the pseudonym
"One of the People")
Let these truths sink deep into our hearts: that
the people are the masters of their rulers and
that rulers are the servants of the people ―
that men cannot give to themselves what
they own from nature ― that a free
government is no more than a few plain directions
to a number of servants, how to take care of a
part of their master's property ― and that
a master reserves to himself the exclusive care
of all that property, and of every thing else
which he has not committed to the care of
those servants.
July 2, 1789
PHILADELPHIA INDEPENDENT
GAZETTEER
(Samuel Bryan, prominent Anti-federalist,
writing under the pseudonym "Centinel")
It is remarkable that this article (the Second
Amendment) only makes the observation "that a
well regulated militia, composed of the body
of the people, is the best security
of a free state;" it does not ordain, or constitutionally
provide for, the establishment of such
a one. The absolute command vested by other
sections [of the Constitution] in Congress over
the militia, are not in the least abridged by
this amendment. The militia may still be subjected
to martial law...may still be marched from state
to state and made the unwilling instruments of
crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty.
September 9, 1789
GAZETTE OF THE UNITED STATES
(NEW YORK)
(Extract of letter from Fayetteville,
North
Carolina, dated September 12,
1789)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms
has been recognized by the General Government;
but the best security of that right after all
is that military spirit, that taste for martial
exercises, which has always distinguished the
free citizens of these States.... Such men form
the best barrier to the liberties of America.
October 14,
1789
BOSTON INDEPENDENT CHRONICLE
(Reporting a speech delivered
by George
Washington to Congress on January
7, 1790)
A free people ought ... to be armed ...
January 8, 1790
PROVIDENCE GAZETTE &
COUNTRY JOURNAL
(Reporting on the proposed Bill
of Rights)
... that the right of the citizens to bear arms
in defence of themselves and the State, and to
assemble peaceably together ... shall not be questioned.
July 30, 1790
PROVIDENCE GAZETTE &
COUNTRY JOURNAL
(Reporting on the proposed Bill
of Rights)
... the people have a right to keep and bear
arms … [and]... that a well-regulated militia
include[s] the body of the people capable of bearing
arms.
July 5, 1790
PHILADELPHIA
INDEPENDENT GAZETTEER
(Unknown author, writing under
the pseudonym
"a Farmer")
Whenever people ... [e]ntrust the defence of
their country to a regular, standing army, composed
of mercenaries, the power of that country will
remain under the direction and influence of the
most wealthy citizens.
January 29,1791
|