"...few freemen died by the rope when they had arms in their hands..."

"...Mr. Foote considered it an insult to place Mississipi on such a disgraceful position, as calling on her sons to make war on the General Government. When such a time did arise, he would deliberate and decide the question. When his State was assaulted--when she called to arms--when his fireside was invaded, he would have no difficulty in deciding where his allegiance was due. He would not in such a case pause to chop logic upon where his allegiance called him; his heart told him where that allegiance was due. He knew there were a great many persons in Mississipi who would be found to support her ordinances, and he would not consider them traitors for so doing. They might be called traitors, and the General Government might prepare the rope wherewith to hang them; but at this day it ought to be known that but a few freemen died by the rope when they had arms in their hands...."

- "Latest Intelligence", By Telegraph to The New-York Daily Times, XXXIId Congress....First Session, Senate, Washington, Dec. 16th. [The New York Times, Published: December 16, 1851]

"...As the Constitutions, generally, say..."

Shooting In Sport

[Excerpt from an article titled "Shooting In Sport", in the Archives of the New York Times]

"...As the Constitutions, generally, say that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, it seems to be established that laws cannot be passed to forbid men from carrying fire-arms. But most of the States, probably, have laws declaring that these weapons shall not be carried concealed; whoever wears a pistol must wear it openly, so that his neighbors can see that he goes armed and may take care accordingly. Alabama has a stringent law of this kind. One man lately attempted to evade it by carrying in his pocket a pistol which could be taken apart and put together; the cylinder would unscrew from the barrel. He carried the pieces seperate, but they were all in readiness, and could be screwed together and put in order for use at short notice. He said the pieces of the pistol were not a weapon. But the court decided against him. An unloaded pistol cannot be fired, but would any one say that carrying an unloaded pistol in the pocket was not carrying a concealed weapn? Unless some essential part of the pistol is wholly wanting, so that it cannot be made useful, it is a weapon.

The courts continue to take the utmost pains to discourage the pernicious practice of brandishing pistols or pointing guns, whether loaded or unloaded. In Mississippi two men "loafing" in a country store were drawn into a petty quarrel arising from the rudeness of one, who was eating nuts, in scattering the shells about so that they hit the other. When the quarrel grew somewhat serious, the other ran forth from the store into the street. The shell-thrower followed, and, in the race, discharged a pistol. It was quite plain from all circumstances that he did not intend to hurt the runaway, or even to hit him; but meant only to alarm him, or demonstrate his own prowess, Therefore his lawyers argued that there was no criminal assault, for, they said, an intent to hurt is part of the very idea of an assault. The Judges said that this is a difficult question: Shall shooting in sport be judges by the intention of the "shootist" or by the apprehension of the "shootee"? The true rule is that no assault is commmitted when the person at whom the gun or pistol is aimed knows that is empty, and that the assailant does not intend to injure him, but is acting only in fun. But when he does not know these facts--when the circumstances are such as may reasonably lead him to believe that he is in danger--his rights are just as truly violated as if the intent were serious and the danger actual. Also the effect of such conduct to disturb the public peace is equally objectionable. Therefore they pronounced the make-believe shooter guilty.

The New York Times

Published: May 22, 1881

Copyright The New York Times

"The Sale Of Pistols." - Published: June 22, 1874

The Sale Of Pistols.

(From the Archives of the New York Times)

Commenting, in our issue of Saturday. on the murder of Sullivan by Gill, we briefly suggested, as we have frequently done before, the propriety of including pistols in the law against carrying concealed weapons. It is certainly an anomaly that the weapon with which more than half the homicides and deadly assaults in this City are perpetrated should be exempted from the operations of a provision expressly intended to lessen the chances by limiting the facilities of murder. It is of no use to say that men shall not carry knives or slung-shots, if you permit them to carry indiscriminately and freely a weapon more deadly, and, at the same time, more popular, than either knife or slung-shot. Yet it would be useless to deny the existence of a general feeling in the commmunity that a law against carrying pistols would be a virtual disarmament of the law-abiding citizen, who would obey the statute, for the benefit of the lawless, who would persistently disregard it. That opinion was even expressed by a Magistrate on the bench, and is, no doubt, largely shared by the better portion of the community. Theoretically, the citizen has no occasion for weapons of self-defense. Practically we all know he has, and must at times, in any city however well governed and well policed.

The objection that such a law as that suggested would be disregarded by the very persons whom it was chiefly designed to reach, is not, of course, logically speaking, a valid objection. The disorderly and dangerous classes defy all laws, and their opposition is not only to be expected, but constitutes one of the chief necessities for making laws at all. Nevertheless, the objection will have weight with many, and may tend to the continuance of a practice which all good men must deprecate, if they do not condemn. The way to meet this argument has already been indicated in these columns. If it is impracticable to forbid the carrying of pistols outright, their sale should at least be so restricted as to furnish a partial guarantee against their getting into improper hands. This very murder is a striking instance of the danger resulting from the present looseness of the traffic in firearms. Gill quarreled with Sullivan, when by all the testimony, he was more than half drunk. In that condition he went directly from the dram-shop to a neighboring gun-shop, bought a revolver, which the clerk who sold it loaded at his request, and with the weapon so procured, went directly back and shot his victim dead. It is only necessary to state the facts to show the preposterousness of permitting every irresponsible shopkeeper to sell loaded pistols to every drunken and murderous ruffian who applies for them. Our druggists are not allowed thus to vend poison to every applicant, and somewhat the same restrictions should certainly be applied to the sale of firearms, at least to the sale of pistols. Shot-gunsand rifles are not yet here favorite implements of assassination, as in the South-west, and there is little danger that a man who buys them does so with a sinister intent. But pistols cannot safely be committed to every irresponsible hand, and in someway their sale should be regulated and subjected to Police supervision.

Nor need there be any apprehension that the just freedom of the citizen would thereby be infringed. The constitutional right to carry arms does not imply the right of every drunken loafer to bear about in his pocket the implements of murder. It is license, not liberty, that we seek to check, and we are sure that neither any reputable gunsmith, nor any reputable citizen, would object to such a restriction as that we propose. Men whom it was safe to trust with firearms could, without unnecessay trouble, prove that fact to the proper authorities, and obtain a suitable license. The other sort would then evade the regulation at their own peril. Our Police Magistrates would have no difficulty in deciding when a pistol was a"concealed weapon," in the full sense of the present statute, and when a legitimate weapon of
defense.

The New York Times

Published: June 22, 1874

Copyright The New York Times

And thus we see how that the individual Constitutional Right was PUBLICLY and NATIONALLY ADMITTED, as well as how the subversion started....

Now, let us examine the Constitutional FACTS concerning the aforementioned right, shall we?

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.

"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."

- James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and U.S. Supreme Court Justice).

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."

- Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822).

"Two propositions in our constitutional jurisprudence are no longer debatable. One is that the national government is one of enumerated powers; and the other, that a power enumerated and delegated by the Constitution to Congress is comprehensive and complete, without other limitations than those found in the Constitution itself.

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. Being a grant of powers to a government, its language is general; and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces in its grasp all new conditions which are within the scope of the powers in terms conferred. In other words, [Page 199 U.S. 437, 449] while the powers granted do not change, they apply from generation to generation to all things to which they are in their nature applicable. This in no manner abridges the fact of its changeless nature and meaning. Those things which are within its grants of power, as those grants were understood when made, are still within them; and those things not within them remain still excluded. As said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 426, 15 L. ed. 691, 709:

"'It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.'

"It must also be remembered that the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them; putting into form the government they were creating, and prescribing, in language clear and intelligible, the powers that government was to take. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in Gobbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188, 6 L. ed. 23, 68, well declared:

"'As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said.'"

- Mr. Justice Brewer deliver[ing] the opinion of the court, U.S. Supreme Court, [South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)]

Indiana Politics. [N.Y. Times, Aug. 19, 1864]

Indiana Politics.
___

Gov. Morton's Reply to a Treasonable Democratic Address.

The Indianapolis papers publish a paper issued by Gov. Morton of Indiana, in reply to an address put forth by the Democratic State General Committee as an electioneering document.

The Governor says:

"The assumption that there is a well-founded apprehension that those in authority in this State will interfere by military power with the freedom of elections is absolutely and wickedly false. There is not one fact upon which suchan apprehension can be based; not a circumstance can be referred to in the political or military history of the State, during the existence of this war, justifying or suggesting the charge. It is true that this charge has been made before,but always without an element of truth, for the simple purpose of exciting and goading the people into illegal, disloyal and dangerous organizations, and demonstrations against Federal and State authority.

So far as my administration is concerned, I can safely defy the authors of this document to point out a single act giving color to this wicked and infamous charge, or to show a single instance in which I have failed to exercise the executive power for the protection of persons and property and social and civil rights, without regard to parties or politics. While serving as the Governor of Indiana I have endeavored to act for the whole people, and not for a party, and shall so continue, regardless of all assaults or asperations. At the same time I shall not hesitate to vindicate legitimate authority, no difference under what pretence or by what method it may be assailed. So far as the approaching elections are concerned, they shall, to the extent of the power vested in me, be open and free, and every legitimate voter be protected in the unrestrained and deliberate exercise of the elective franchise. This is my purpose, nor has there ever been any reason to doubt it, and I cannot, under the pretence that I am about to violate my duty, tolerate the formation of any dangerous or illegal military organizations, the true purpose of which is to resist the State and Federal authority, overawe the people, control the elections, and thus accomplish the very thing against which it is hypocritically pretended they are to guard. It is true that phrases about "open lawful organizations," "defense against invasions," &c., are introduced in the second clause of the address, but they do not in the least disguise its effect and purpose. It assumes that those in authority are about to violate the law, and urges the formation of military organizations to prevent such violation, they being the judges of the existence, extent and remedy for such violations. Such has been the history of all revolutions and civic troubles. The people have been arrayed against the Government upon the real or assumed pretext that acts of tyranny had been or are about to be perpetrated, justifying and demanding military resistance.

Need I argue to an intelligent people that the state of things recommended by this document would inevitably lead to collisions and civil war, the end and consequences of which no man can predict. While it purports to be addressed to the people of the State generally, it is intended for those only who belong to the political organization which its authors assume to represent. Should its recommendations be followed, men belonging to other political organizations will feel their personal and political safety endangered, and would be driven for purposes of self-defense to resort to similar measures Thus we should have two or more political parties in the State, armed and organized into military bodies, and all hopes of preventing collisions and preserving peace and order would be lost. Military organizations must be under the supervision and control of the constituted authorities of the State. All others are illegal, unauthorized and dangerous to the public peace. The constitutional right of the people to bear arms for their own defense has not been and will not be infringed. But this does not cover the case or justify the formation of military organizations to hold the constituted authorities in check under the pretence that they are about to commit illegal or unconstitutional acts*.....

...Given at the Executive Department, this 16th day of August, A.D. 1864.
O.P Morton, Governor of Indiana.

The New York Times [Archives]

Published: August 19, 1864
Copyright The New York Times

Also See:

Oliver P. Morton to Edwin M. Stanton, "10.000 stand of good arms be furnished as early as possible for the use of our loyal citizens", June 25, 1862

* - REALLY? Care to explain the following then? -

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.

"...Self defence is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish; this primæval principle, the immediate gift of the Creator, obliges every one to remonstrate against the strides of ambition, and a wanton lust of domination, and to resist the first approaches of tyranny, which at this day threaten to sweep away the rights for which the brave sons of America have fought with an heroism scarcely paralleled even in ancient republicks...."

- Elbridge Gerry, Observations On the new Constitution, and on the Federal and State Conventions. By a Columbian Patriot. Sic transit gloria Americana. [Boston: 1788.]

"That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as liberty], on which all the good and evil of life depends; is clearly my opinion; yet Arms...should be the last resort."

- George Washington, 1789 letter to George Mason. [The True George Washington, 10th Ed. By Paul Leicester Ford.]

"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."

- James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and U.S. Supreme Court Justice).

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

"No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens."

- George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.

IMPORTANT FROM KANSAS. [N.Y. Times July 12, 1859.]

IMPORTANT FROM KANSAS.
_______

The Constitutional Convention.
_______

BILL OF RIGHTS.
_______

Correspondence of the New York Times.
Wyandot, Tuesday, July 12, 1859.

The Committee appointed by the Constitutional Convention to prepare and report a Preamble and Bill of Rights, have submitted the following:

PREAMBLE.

Existence was the first gift of Omnipotence to man. It is the end of the institution and administration of Government to secure to every individual perfect freedom to enjoy in safety and tranquility the rights and blessings of that existence; and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to institute a new government, and take measures necessary for their protection and happiness.

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of indiviuals; it is a community in covenant, where the whole people treats with each citizen, and each citizen treats with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is therefore, the duty of the people, in framing their Organic Law, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as an impartial interpretation and a faithful execution of them, that every citizen may at all times find security in them.

We, therefore, the people of Kansas, acknowleging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator and Preserver of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, peaceably and without fraud or violence, of entering into an original. explicitand solemn compact with each other, and of forming a Constitution of civil government for ourselves and our posterity; having the right of admission into the union as one of the American States consistent with the Federal Constitution and by virtue of the treaty of cession by France to the United States of the province of Louisiana; believing that the right of self=governmentis inherent, and should be asserted in accordance with the popular will and Federal Constitution, do ordain and establish the following Constitution as the fundamental law of a free and independent State, by the name and style of the State of Kansas, bounded as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point on the western boundry of the State of Missouri where the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude crosses the same, thence westward on said parallel to the twenty-fifth parallel of longitude west from Washington, thence north on said parallel to the fortieth parallel of latitude, thence cast on said parallel to the western boundry of the State of Missouri, thence south with the western boundry of said State to the place of beginning.

ARTICLE I.

BILL OF RIGHTS.

Section 1. All men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring. possessing, and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining happiness and safety, and the right of all men to the control of their persons, exists prior to law and is inalienable.

Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the People, and all free Governments are founded on their authority, and are instituted for their equal protection and benefit. No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted by the General Assembly which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by a two thirds vote of the same body, and this power shall be exercised by no other tribunal or agency.

Sec. 3 The people have the right to assemble, in a peaceable manner, to consult for their common good, to instruct their Representatives and to petititon the General Assembly for redress of the grievances.

Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security, but standing armies, in times of peace, aredangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Sec. 5. The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate, and extend to persons of every condition; but a jury trial may bewaived by the parties in all cases, in the manner prescribed by law.

Sec. 6. There shall be no Slavery in this State, and no involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crime, whereofthe parties shall have been duly convicted.

Sec. 7. The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed...."

The New York Times [Archives]

Published: July 20, 1859

Copyright The New York Times

__________

Also See:

Letter from Gov. Grimes To President Pierce, N.Y. Times, Oct. 14, 1856

The New Kansas Bill - Speech of William H. Seward, U.S. Senate, July 2, 1856

The New Kansas Bill

Letter from Gov. Grimes To President Pierce, N.Y. Times, Oct. 14, 1856

Letter from Gov. Grimes To President Pierce.

Executive Office, Iowa.

Burlington, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 1856.

(From the Archives of The New York Times)

To His Excellency, Franklin Pierce, President of theUnited States:

SIR: During the last twelve months I have been constantly receiving letters, memorials and affidavits from former citizens of Iowa, now residents of the Territory of Kansas, alleging that they are not protected by the United States' officers in that Territory, in the enjoyment of their liberty and property.

They charge, and the evidence fully supports the charge, that at the first, and at each subsequent Territorial election, armed bodies of men from an adjacent State invaded the Territory, took possession of the polls, deprived the actual settlers of the right of sufferage, and perpetrated gross outrages upon such citizens as professed political sentiments disagreeable to the invaders. By threats and lawless violence, they secured the election of a majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly,--many of whom were then, and are now, citizens of another State. By this Assembly a code of laws was enacted, unparalleled in the history of legislation; laws plainly unconstitutional, and which no man with the spirit of a freeman could obey without personal dishonor and a violation of his conscience.

In this condition of things, and without any attempt tp repel violence by violence, the people of Kansas sought apeaceful remedy for the wrongs that had been perpetrated, by forming a State Constitution, electing State officers, and asking admission into the Union as a sovereign State.

Although the Constitution of the United States declares that treason "shall consist only in levying war," yet a man holding a commission under the seal of the United States, and exercising the office of Chief Justice in that Territory, has declared that the persons who accepted offices under the State Constitution, are guilty of treason.

Under his instructions the State officers have been indicted, arrested and bail denied them, under the pretence ofjudicial proceedings, but without a trial or hearing of any kind. An armed posse has invaded the town of Lawrence, and destroyed printing presses, private buildings, and a hotel. Human lives have been sacrificed, property, to a large amount, has been destroyed, citizens have been driven from the Territory by violence, and anarchy and disorder every-where prevail.

Among the sufferers have been former citizens of Iowa, who went to Kansas in no spirit of propgandism, but with the intention of becoming permanent residents of that Territory. Three of them have been slain by arms said to have been placed by a Federal officer in the hands of a band of outlaws from a remote State. Some have been compelled to flee from the Territory for no offense save that of having emigrated from a Free State; whilst others remain there, stripped of their property, and appeal to their fellow-citizens of Iowa for sympathy and protection.

In my conviction, their appeals should not be in vain. They went to Kansas, relying upon and has a right to expect the protection of the General Government. In this expectation they have been disappointed. Citizenship has been virtually denied them. Their right to defend themselves and "to keep and bear arms" has been infringed by the act of the Territorial officers, who have wrested from them the means of defense, while putting weapons of offence into the hands of their enemies. They have been oppressed by a code of laws unequaled in atrocity in modern times. The character and conduct of theTerritorial judges have shown that an appeal to the judicial tribunal is worse than useless.

The General Government having failed to perform its duty by protecting the people of Kansas in the enjoyment of their rights, it is manifestly the right of the States to adopt measures to protect its former citizens. If the people of Iowa are not permitted to enjoy the rights of citizenship in that Territory, they retain their former citizenship in this State, and are as much entitled to protection from the State while upon the public domain, as they would be if the General Government failed to protect them in a foreign country.

While I write, an army, raised in the State of Missouri, is marching into Kansas with the avowed purpose of driving out all those citizens of the Territory who emigrated from the Free States, and who express a preference for a Free State Constitution. Another armed body of men have placed themselves on the emigrant route from the State of Iowa to prevent, at the point of the bayonet, any further emigration from this State.

The State of Iowa cannot be an indifferent spectator of these acts of lawless violence. She demands that her citizens shallbe protected in Kansas, and stand upon on equality there with the citizens of other States. She will not submit to the closing of the immigrant route through her domain into that Territory.

As the Executive of Iowa, I demand for her citizens in Kansas protection in the enjoyment of their property, their liberty, and their political rights. I ask that the military forces on the line of emigration into the Territory be dispersed.

A compliance with these reasonable requests will tend to restore peace in Kansas and quiet the public mind of this State.In the event of a non-compliance in my view a case will have arisen clearly within the principle laid down by Mr. Madisonin the Virginia resolutions of 1798, when it will be the duty of the States "to interpose to arrest the progress of theevils" in that Territory. I am respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

James W. Grimes, Governor of Iowa.

Copyright The New York Times.

Published: October 14, 1856

Also See:

The New Kansas Bill - Speech of William H. Seward, U.S. Senate, July 2, 1856

The New Kansas Bill - Speech of William H. Seward, U.S. Senate, July 2, 1856

The New Kansas Bill.

_____

(From the Archives of The New York Times)

"...I stand now by my own bill, which I maintain to be preferable to the last bill of the Committee, as it was to the first. Some honor Senators seem to think that it is unreasonable that I do not give up my own bill, and come down and accept the new one, which they are inclined to treat as a compromise between my own bill for the immediate admission of Kansas, under the Topeka Constitution, and the first bill of the Committee on Territories. Why should I surrender my own bill? If it was wise, just, and necessary, when I presented it to the Senate, it is as just, wise, and necessary now. It was wise, just, and necessary then, if the circumstances under which the Constitution of Kansas was adopted were then truly stated and set forth by me, in my argument delivered in the Senate. In making that argument, I had to rely on probable evidence, for no other evidence then existed. Now, a Committee of the House of Representatives, after having diligently inquired on oath, have ascertained and confirmed the truth of the circumstances of Kansas which Ithen assumed. I state those circumstances anew, on the present occasion, in the moderate and guarded conclusions of the Committee of the House of Representatives:

"Spurious and pretended Legislative, Judicial, and Executive officers have been set over them, by whose usurped authority, sustained by the military power of the Government, tyrannical and unconstitutional laws have been enacted and enforced:

The rights of the people to keep and bear arms have been infringed;

Test oaths, of an extraordinary and entangling nature have been imposed as a condition of exercising the right of sufferage and holding office;

The right of an an accused person to a speedy and public trial by an impartial Jury has been denied;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, has been violated;

They have been deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law;

The freedom of speech and of the press has been abridged;

The right to choose their Representatives has been made of no effect;

Murders, robberies, and arsons, have been instigated and encouraged, and the offenders have been allowed to go unpunished;

All these things have been done with the knowledge, sanction, and procurement, of the present Administration." ..."

"....Published July 14, 1856

Copyright The New York Times"

Would highly recommend reading the whole speech of Mr. Seward. As it covers quite a bit of ground as to how a Constitutional Republic can, and has been, subverted....

Also See:

The New Kansas Bill, The New York Times, Published July 4, 1856.

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, "And the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms...", June 28, 1856.

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, "...nor shall the rights of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed...", July 8, 1856.

As well as the following from the United States Supreme Court during the same year as all of the above:

"...More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in
private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went...."

- U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1856 in Dred Scott v.Sandford.

Oh, and before I forget, please take notice how that there is not one mention of the word "militia" in ANY of the above LEGAL historical documents....

The New Kansas Bill.

(From the Archives of The New York Times)

The New Kansas Bill.

______

The New Bill Reported by Senator Douglas for the Government of Kansas. In The Senate Of The United States June 30, 1856.

Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, to whom was re-committed the bill (S. 172) "to authorize the people of the Territory of Kansas to form a Constitution and State Government, preparatory to their admission into the Union, when they have the requisite population," and several amendments proposed thereto, submitted a report, accompanied by the following bill, which was read twice, considered as in Committe of the whole, and postponed until to-morrow: ..."

"...SEC. 18. And be it further enacted, That inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States and the organic act of said Territory has secured to the inhabitants thereof certain inalienable rights, of which they cannot be deprived by any legislative enactment, therefore no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust; no law shall be in force or enforced in said Territory respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition for the redress of grievances; the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized; nor shall the rights of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed. No person shall beheld to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. In all criminal prosecution the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process of obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. The privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusualpunishment inflicted.

"SEC. 19. And be it further enacted, That the following propostions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the people of Kansas for their free acceptance or rejection, which, if accepted by the convention, shall be obligatory on the United States and upon the said State of Kansas, to wit: ...."

- The New York Times, Published July 4, 1856.

Hmmmm, that seems quite a bit like the earlier versions of the bill:

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, "And the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms...", June 28, 1856.

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, "...nor shall the rights of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed...", July 8, 1856.

Although, the excerpt above was entered into the PUBLIC RECORD for ALL to see at that time. Strange, but there isn't one mention of the word "militia".....

The "Right To Bear Arms.", N.Y. Times article of Dec. 5, 1903:

The New York Time Archives

The New York Times, Published: December 5, 1903

The drastic municipal ordinance recommended by Mayor Harrison of Chicago for the suppression of crimes against the person by discouraging and penalizing the ownership and carrying of deadly weapons of offense or defense does not seem to have evoked a chorus of enthusiastic popular approval. It is proposed to license both the seller and the buyer of firearms. Dealers who sell such implements are to be required to give a bond in $500 for a selling license, and every sale must be reported to the police. No person is allowed to own a gun or pistol without a license, and such license to own is not to confer the right to carry. This will be permitted only in the case of persons of attested good character upon a written application giving all the particulars needed for immediate and absolute police identification and upon the showing of a sufficient reason for asking such permission. The pattern and number of every registered weapon is to be recorded, also date of purchase, name of person making the sale, and the name of the buyer. All firearms licenses are to be revocable at the pleasure of the Mayor. There is more in the proposed ordinance to the same general effect, much of which is in apparent contravention of the Federal Constitution, but that is not the aspect in which it assumes popular interest and excites unfavorable discussion.

The objection to local legislation of this character is that it is futile. Persons who want weapons and cannot buy them in Chicago will buy them anywhere in the United States outside the municipal limits. They can keep them indefinitely without making themselves amenable to the penalties prescribed prescribed, since the fact of having them cannot be ascertained by the police without a house-to-house vistitation with search warrants. The most serious aspect of the matter, however, is found in the fact that persons desiring firearms for improper purposes will pay no attention to the ordinance, and law-abiding citizens who voluntarily comply with it will find themselves at a disadvantage in defending their lives and their property against thugs and burglars. That such irresponsible young desperadoes as the car-barn bandits would be deterred from procuring or using firearms by such an ordinance as Mayor Harrison approves and desires to have enacted no one can seriously believe. It is much more probable, indeed, that they would be emboldened by the assurance that those most likely to be selected as victims in their career of mercenary murder would be in all probability defenseless. The reorganization of the Chicago police force would seem to promise much more important results than can be expected to follow action along the lines of Mayor Harrison's suggestion.

Copyright The New York Times