Family of Andrew Jackson, Jr. Christian Koch and his Family — p. There is a West Pearl and also a Middle Pearl in Louisiana, but it is in that high terrace on the eastern side of East Pearl, in Mississippi, that merits historic study.
Arms and the Antebellum Experience a. Arms and the Southern Order p. A History Ignored Conclusion: Self-Defense and the Gun Control Question Today 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, It is a constitutional debate that has taken place largely in the absence of Supreme Court opinion.
The debate over the Second Amendment is ultimately part of the larger debate over gun control, a debate about the extent to which the Amendment was either meant to be or should be interpreted as limiting the ability of government to prohibit or limit private ownership of firearms.
Waged in the popular press,  in the halls of Congress,  and increasingly in historical and p. They argue that, while maintaining a "well-regulated militia"  was the predominate reason for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, it should not be viewed as the sole or p.
They argue that the framers also contemplated a right to individual and community protection. This debate has raised often profound questions, but questions generally treated hastily, if at all, by the community of constitutional scholars.
If the Second Amendment was designed to ensure the existence of somewhat independent state militias immune from federal encroachment, then the question arises to what extent states are free to define militia membership. Could a state include as members of its militia all adult citizens, thus permitting them an exemption from federal firearms restrictions?
If, instead, the federal government has plenary power to define militia membership and chooses to confine such membership to the federally controlled National Guard, does the Second Amendment become a dead letter under the collective rights theory?
If the collective rights theory raises difficult questions, the individual rights theory raises perhaps even more difficult, and perhaps more interesting ones.
Other questions are more elusive, more difficult to pose as well as to answer. At the heart of the individual rights view is the contention that the framers of the Second Amendment intended to protect the right to bear arms for two related purposes.
The first of these was to ensure popular participation in the security of the community, an outgrowth of the English and early American reliance on posses and militias made up of the general citizenry to provide police and military forces.
The framers had firsthand experience with such a phenomenon, but they lived in an age when the weapon likely to be found in private hands, the single shot musket or pistol, did not differ considerably from its military counterpart.
Although the armies of the day possessed heavier weapons rarely found in private hands, battles were fought predominately by infantry or cavalry with weapons not considerably different from those employed by private citizens for personal protection or hunting.
Where should the proper lines be drawn with respect to modern firearms, all of which employ technologies largely unimagined by the framers? In the eighteenth century, the chief vehicle for law enforcement was the posse comitatus, and the major American military force was the militia of the whole.
While these institutions are still recognized by modern law,  they lie dormant in late twentieth-century America. Professional police forces and a standing military p. It is possible that the concept of a militia of the armed citizenry has been largely mooted by social change.
Yet, the effect of social change on the question of the Second Amendment is a two-edged sword. If one of the motivating purposes behind the Second Amendment was to provide a popular check against potential governmental excess, then does the professionalization of national and community security make the right to keep and bear arms even more important in the modern context?
Furthermore, the question remains whether the concept of a militia of the whole is worth re-examining: Did the framers, by adopting the Second Amendment, embrace a republican vision of the rights and responsibilities of free citizens that, despite the difficulties, should somehow be made to work today?
Finally, the Second Amendment debate raises important questions concerning constitutional interpretation, questions that need to be more fully addressed by legal historians and constitutional commentators. It poses important questions about notions of the living Constitution, and to what extent that doctrine can be used to limit as well as extend rights.
It also poses important questions about social stratification, cultural bias, and constitutional interpretation. Many of the issues surrounding the Second Amendment debate are raised in particularly sharp relief from the perspective of African-American history.
With the exception of Native Americans, no people in American history have been more influenced by violence than blacks. Private and public violence maintained slavery.Lynching is the practice of murder by a group by extrajudicial action. Lynchings in the United States rose in number after the American Civil War in the late s, following the emancipation of slaves; they declined in the s but have continued to take place into the 21st urbanagricultureinitiative.com lynchings were of African-American men in the South, but women were also lynched, and white lynchings of.
African-American history is the part of American history that looks at the African-Americans or Black Americans in the United States.. Although previously marginalized, African-American history has gained ground in school and university curricula and gained wider scholarly attention since the late 20th urbanagricultureinitiative.com black history that pre-dates the slave trade is rarely taught in schools and is.
[*]A member of the Virginia State Bar and of several United States Courts, the author received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in , and his Ph.D. in Philosophy from Florida State University in 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, 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.
INTRODUCTION TO THE “MODERN ERA” OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES. In , the Supreme Court declared that under then-existing laws "the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments."Furman v.
Georgetown Law Journal; The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, by Robert J. Cottrol and Raymond T. Diamond.