Friday, February 23, 2018

When did the political parties shift platforms?

If you spend too long on the cursed website Facebook.com I'm sure you will find someone who gently, and with no ill-motive for sure, reminds The World that the Democrats once supported slavery and ran the KKK. Or maybe your Man-Bun Liberal slides into your DMs and whispers "Oh hey did you know that Republicans were once the party of a large central government that would happily go to war to protect the size and power of the federal government?" Well, gentle reader, you know what? They're absolutely correct. Both are 100% true. Here are the key moments in the history of each side eating the other side's political platform.

Prior to 1854: American politics was fractured, and the once-strong two-party system that George Washington advised against in his Farewell Address was starting to bubble up:
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. 

Washington had seen first-hand the rise of the two-party system and tried to combat it by inviting Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, as his Secretary of the Treasury and Thomas Jefferson, an Anti-Federalist (a term that is oppositional by its very definition), as his Secretary of State. It, uh, didn't work. 

Anyhow, as you well know, tribalism is very real in politics and it didn't take long for political observers to join in with like-minded people about how the country should be run. The War of 1812 saw the end of the Federalist party and the rise of the Democratic-Republicans. James Monroe ran as the incumbent in 1820 and won 231 of 232 electoral votes, losing one vote to John Quincy Adams, who ran as an Independent. Four different Democratic-Republicans received electoral votes in the Corrupt Bargain election of 1824. From 1828-1856 the following political parties were represented by candidates who earned electoral votes (parties in bold were the winning party in that election):

1828: Democratic, National Republican
1832: Democratic, National Republican, Independent, Anti-Masonic
1836: Democratic, Whig, Independent
1840: Whig, Democrat
1844: Democratic, Whig
1848: Whig, Democratic
1852: Democratic, Whig
1856: Democratic, Republican, American (aka Know-Nothings, who simply opposed immigration).

The National Republicans gave way to the Whigs, who went back and forth in winning from 1836-1852. The Whigs promoted federal funding of internal improvements (railroads, canals, bridges, and other infrastructure), which chafed the Democrats. Andrew Jackson shaped this era of the Democrats' policy: the supreme power of the president who can check Congress and body up the Supreme Court; Oh, and if Ohio wants a canal built, Ohio can pay for it, not the federal government. The Whig platform appealed to the growing western population who needed to be connected to the larger markets back east. Abraham Lincoln got into politics as a Whig, and was a Whig longer than he was a Republican.

The Whigs fell apart thanks to the internal debate over what to do about the westward expansion of slavery and the rise of the Free Soil Party, whose sole political platform was the banning of slavery in western territories. The Free Soil Party (slogan: Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, Free Men) never won an electoral vote but were enough of a third-party presence to shift the conversation about slavery). The 1852 election was the last for the Whigs, who tried to thread the needle of internal improvements while also embracing slavery in an effort to get more votes.

Democrats, for their part, were deeply divided in the 1852 election. The four main Democratic hopefuls faced strong opposition from another faction of the party, and a consensus could not be reached during the nominating convention. A nominee needed 2/3 of the delegates to secure the nomination. After 34 attempts, it was clear the Democrats needed to start over. But whoever emerged had to satisfy both the pro-slavery Southern Democrats and the anti-Slavery Northern Democrats. Franklin Pierce secured the nomination and won the election of 1852 running the "most ludicrous, ridiculous, and uninteresting campaign" ever. Pierce was low-drama, and won.

Out of the ashes of the Whig Party came the Republican Party for the 1854 mid-term elections, who absorbed some Whigs, Free Soilers, and anti-slavery Democrats angered by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Months prior to the 1854 election, Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which - in another attempt to avoid civil war - told the people to decide if they wanted slavery in their states (rather than Congress, you know, taking a stand on something). Violence between abolitionists and the pro-slavery crowd arguing for their side brought some foreshadowing to what would go down between 1861-1865.

The early Republican Party focused on stopping the expansion of slavery (not the abolition of slavery where it already existed). The Whigs they absorbed also brought into the party an unhealthy distrust of Irish Catholic immigrants, but at least everyone could agree (in one party, anyway) that the spread of slavery needed to stop. John C. Fremont - the first Republican nominee for president - kept it close. James Buchanan won the electoral vote 174-114, but the popular vote edge was only 500,000 out of about four million votes cast. Millard Fillmore's anti-immigrant Know-Nothing party got almost 900,000 votes

Then came 1860. Because the Democratic Party was fractured between Northern and Southern Democrats, they each nominated their own candidate, splitting their vote. While the two Democratic candidates (John C. Breckinridge and Stephen Douglas) received enough votes to out-gain Lincoln, the Republicans rallied around Lincoln and he won the election despite not winning a single Southern state. South Carolina would secede from the Union soon after and then this fair country would spend the next four years trying to kill each other.

Meanwhile the Homestead Act of 1862 (for populating and developing the West) and the Morrill Land-Grant Act (establishing universities on the frontier) were supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. After the Civil War's end the Radical Republicans, whose aims were to empower African-Americans via the 14th Amendment and a proposed Civil Rights Bill (both opposed by Democrats), oversaw the Reconstruction of the South following the Civil War until 1877. Those efforts came to an end with the Election of 1876. How? 

Democrat Samuel Tilden got about 250,000 more votes than Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. But the Electoral College was much closer. It was an election rife with corruption. Tilden led in the electoral vote 184-165, a nineteen-vote difference. Democrats and Republicans in each of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina reported that their guy won each state and heylookathat, combined they totaled 20 electoral votes. After a prolonged legal battle that involved a special commission of 15 Congressmen and Supreme Court justices, Hayes was awarded all 20 votes (in an 8-7 decision along party lines), giving him a 185-184 edge. Historians generally agree that a deal was made: Give Republican Hayes the victory in the election and the Republicans will pull out of the South, thus ending Reconstruction.

With the Compromise of 1877, Republicans sold out the newly-freed African-American population for the next 90 years in exchange for four years of the presidency. The next major turning point in this gradual platform change came with American politics' version of the Buffalo Bills: William Jennings Bryan. 

Over the course of the 1870s-1880s a populist movement had grown. It started with The Patrons of Husbandry aka The Grange - farmers who organized into a political force - in 1867. They gained in strength after the Panic of 1873 that saw the railroads squeeze the farmers over shipping rates, the Republican-controlled Congress reducing the supply of paper money in favor of the Gold/Silver Standard (negatively impacting farmers and westerners who relied on paper money to go about their everyday lives).

The Populist Party was officially organized on the 116th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The Omaha Platform - their call to arms - challenged the two-party system for failing the people who fed America. They called on the unlimited coinage of silver, direct election of senators (who - to that point - were chosen by state legislatures), public ownership of railroads, more power to voters - they wanted power to shift from the elite to the people. And William Jennings Bryan was their showman.

Bryan ("The Boy Orator of the Platte") won election to Congress as a 30-year old Democrat in 1890, mainly by challenging his opponent to a series of debates, which he won handily. He ran for Senate in 1894 but the Panic of 1893 led to a backlash against Democrats, and the Nebraska State Legislature chose the Republican candidate (something about which the Populists weren't thrilled). Bryan took to the (rail)roads to spread his message. As Bryan leaned more towards the Populists, the Democrats just assumed Bryan's platform into their own for the 1896 Democratic National Convention. It was there that Bryan gave his now-famous (and required reading, if you're one of my AP students) Cross of Gold speech, called "the most famous speech in American political history." Check the closing:

If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. 

The speech made Bryan a star in the Democratic party. At 36, he was the youngest presidential nominee in history. The Democrats had two factions: the Bourbon Democrats (New England and Midwestern pro-business) and Bryan's Democrats (Southern and Western pro-farmer). The Republicans rallied around the gold standard and industrial growth, and outspent the Democrats 5-to-1. Republican William McKinley carried New England and the Midwest while Bryan won the South and West. McKinley took the election 271-176, though the popular vote gave McKinley just a 600,000 vote edge. In the rematch in 1900, McKinley again beat Bryan thanks to the success of the Spanish-American War and the economy's recovery from the Panic of 1893.

Republicans held the presidency until 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt ran as an independent (Bull Moose) because he was mad at Taft. Having to choose between the incumbent Taft and old favorite Teddy, the Republican vote was split, giving the presidency to Woodrow Wilson, who had only received the Democratic Party's nomination after a contentious 46 ballots, securing it after receiving William Jennings Bryan's blessing.

Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" promoted social insurance, an eight-hour workday, and strong federal oversight of the economy. Taft could see the writing on the wall and didn't campaign all that hard on "progressive conservatism." Wilson's - a Democrat, remember - "New Freedom" platform was a nod to William Jennings Bryan (whose support got him the nomination in the first place) based on limited government but also tariff reform, banking reform, and a new anti-trust law. Things got weird when, a month before the election, an assassin shot Roosevelt at close range outside a Milwaukee hotel. Roosevelt insisted on giving his 90-minute speech and opened with a sense of drama:

Friends, I shall ask you to be as quiet as possible. I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot.

He finished the speech. Like a BAWSE.

Wilson won handily (435 Electoral Votes to Roosevelt's 88) and the electoral map showed a shifting nation. It was the first time since 1852 that Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Rhode Island voted for a Democrat. Wilson carried Massachusetts, a state in which a Democrat had never won on the national level.

Wilson realized he needed to appeal to Progressives. Under Wilson's presidency the Democratic Party ushered in reforms first proposed by The Grange and the Populists: A graduated income tax, the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, and the passage of the 17th Amendment which allowed the people to directly elect their senators. The Democratic Party, with a big assist from William Jennings Bryan, was starting to shift. The Republican Party kept on keepin' on. So both parties over the rest of the 1910s and 1920s were virtually indistinguishable in what the role of government should be.

Before we pat Wilson on the back too heavily, let's also note that the Democrat didn't call for an end to lynchings across the South until 1918 and segregated federal buildings,

Then came the Great Depression. Republicans won the election of 1920 largely on the unpopularity of Wilson's League of Nations idea and the race riots which erupted in 1919. The economy was in its typical post-war recession and Wilson had suffered a stroke, leaving him out of the public eye for the better part of a year. Republicans like Warren G. Harding, Calvin "The business of America is business" Coolidge (nicknamed Silent Cal for his allowance of the rapid scaling of the American economy which would precipitate the stock market crash of 1929), and Herbert Hoover fully embraced the laissez-faire maxim of Just Let The Economy Sort Itself Out.

When Hoover received the Republican nomination for president in 1928, he proudly proclaimed:
We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land. The poorhouse is vanishing from among us. 

Well that wasn't a very prescient prediction. Eight months after he took office the stock market crashed, but Hoover promoted his "Rugged Individualism" and "self-reliance" stances - the idea that people in trouble will get themselves out. In a 1931 address to the Gridiron Club, Hoover said:

If, by the grace of God, we have passed the worst of this storm, the future months will be easy. If we shall be called upon to endure more of this period, we must gird ourselves for even greater effort...The question is whether that history shall be written in terms of individual responsibility, and the capacity of the Nation for voluntary cooperative action, or whether it shall be written in terms of futile attempt to cure poverty by the enactment of law. 

Hoover did try to fix the economy once he realized that the stock market crash wasn't just another "passing recession", but the beginning of a 12-year economic disaster brought about by the Republicans' economic policies of the 1920s. But it was too little, too late. Hoover founded government agencies to try to reverse the economy, but still called upon the charity of the private sector to help those in need. Hoover ignored calls from the public - and from Democrats - to fully involve the government in the relief efforts out of fear that forcing fixed prices, hiring unemployed workers, increasing government spending, etc. were irreversible steps towards socialism. Republicans were anti-bailout in this instance.

His opponent in the 1932 election was Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt who campaigned on the platform of "Relief, Recovery, Reform." Hoover got whooped, winning only a handful of New England states and losing in the Electoral College 472 to 59. FDR installed the New Deal, and the Democratic tradition of embracing large government was complete. The New Deal created strict regulation on business as well as an alphabet soup of numerous federal agencies (CCC, AAA, TVA, WPA, etc.) designed to put people to work. Of course the size of the federal government, and the federal deficit itself, exploded in an effort developed by British economist John Maynard Keynes to spend their way out of the Great Depression and the side circus of the Dust Bowl. Democrats were okay with this. Also, it was FDR and the Democrats who pushed for the repeal of Prohibition though Republicans quit trying to defend it. The switch was almost complete.

FDR would get re-elected in 1936, 1940, and 1944. After he died in April 1945, Republicans began working on the 22nd Amendment, limiting the number of terms a president could serve to two.

No area of the country highlights the musical-chairing of the major political parties quite like the South. In the same way that the Democrats absorbed the changing demographic of Western voters, Republicans capitalized on social issues to welcome Southerners into the fold. But it took a branch of the Democratic Party to initiate the shift: the Dixiecrats. New York Governor Thomas Dewey was the Republican nominee for president in the 1944 and 1948 elections. He supported - along with Northern Republicans and Democrats alike - sweeping civil rights legislation with which the Southern Democrats wholeheartedly disagreed. When Truman issued Executive Order 9981 in July 1948 (a few months before the presidential election) desegregating the military, dudes like Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and James Eastland of Mississippi led the charge to break away from the Democratic Party and form their own branch known as the States' Rights Democratic Party (because nothing rings those alarm bells like invoking "States Rights" 83 years after Appomattox. Platform points 4-6 were as follows:

We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates...We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights. 

We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of segregation, social equality by Federal fiat, regulations of private employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.

We affirm that the effective enforcement of such a program would be utterly destructive of the social, economic and political life of the Southern people, and of other localities in which there may be differences in race, creed or national origin in appreciable numbers.

Strom Thurmond was their chosen nominee in 1948. In the election, Democrat Harry Truman won his own term, defeating Dewey 303-189 with about a two million vote edge. Thurmond won 39 electoral votes and 1.17 million votes, winning South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and one elector from Tennessee - all states won by FDR in 1944.

Democrat Adlai Stevenson's only Electoral College wins were in the Deep South in 1952, with WW2 hero General Dwight D. Eisenhower taking the election in a landslide thanks to concerns over the emerging Cold War with the Soviet Union, and who better to face a potential conflict with the Soviet Union than the guy who commanded the entire American force against the Nazis? Two years later Brown v. Board of Education desegregated schools. Eisenhower won re-election in 1956, flipping Louisiana to the Republican Party for the first time since the aforementioned 1876 election, when their electoral votes were given to Rutherford B. Hayes. The South was starting to break with the Democratic Party.

The rematch in 1956 saw the Republican Eisenhower easily win re-election. Southern states were shifting their allegiance to the Republican party, though Eisenhower would send in the 101st Airborne to Little Rock Central High School and force its compliance with Brown. That said, here is the net gain by the Republican Party among Southern states from the 1952 to 1956 presidential elections:

Alabama: +4
Arkansas: +3
Florida: +2
Georgia: +3
Louisiana: +6
Mississippi: -15
North Carolina: +3
South Carolina: +22
Tennessee: -0.8

Kennedy's civil rights bill was based on a similar 1875 attempt at civil rights legislation. Democrat Howard Smith, a Virginia segregationist, killed it in committee. When noted political bully Lyndon B. Johnson first addressed a joint session of Congress - five days after Kennedy's assassination - he said:

No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long.

LBJ pushed the bill through as quickly as he could. Problem is that it was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by James Eastland...who (if you're still awake) was one of the key Dixiecrat figures of 1948. Democrats finessed it so that it went directly to the Senate floor for debate. Upon its arrival, the Southern Democrats were joined by Republican senator Richard Russell filibustered the bill's debate. Russell:

We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.

There it is. The Republicans managed to filibuster for 54 days. Strom Thurmond lost his racist mind about it:

This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise, and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.

It was part of LBJ's Great Society plan. He signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law on July 2. It didn't hurt that 1964 was an election year. Here's the net Republican gain in the presidential election from 1952 to 1964, when Republican Barry Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson:

Alabama: +34
Arkansas: Same
Florida: -7
Georgia: +24
Louisiana: +10
Mississippi: +48
North Carolina: +10
South Carolina: +55
Tennessee: -5

Why did Arizona senator and Republican nominee Barry Goldwater make such massive gains among Southern states in 1964? Look to Goldwater's 1960 book The Conscience of a ConservativeIn it, Goldwater wrote against the "radical, or Liberal, approach" to politics.

(Interestingly enough, Goldwater and John F. Kennedy - opposite ends of the political spectrum - were very good friends and proposed a joint campaign: both sides making the same campaign stops at the same time and debating issues from a Conservative and Liberal standpoint. The CIACubansRussiansMafia, Lee Harvey Oswald ended that wonderful idea for a political experiment.)

Since 1964 there have been 13 presidential elections. The number of times the non-Democratic candidate ('sup, 1968 George Wallace) has won the Deep South, from 1968-2016:

Alabama: 11
Arkansas: 10
Florida: 9
Georgia: 9
Louisiana: 10
Mississippi: 12
North Carolina: 11
South Carolina: 12
Tennessee: 10

It took about 90 years from the 1870s-1960s, but racial tensions of post-Reconstruction America combined with the role of government in the financial sector in the 1920s-1930s, and then back to racial tensions of the mid-20th Century completed the do-si-do of the Democratic and Republican parties. I'll let you interpret the party differences of the 21st Century. 

Monday, February 19, 2018

What's up with Presidents' Day?

Because George Washington was seen as the preeminent Baller of early America, the movement to celebrate his birthday began in 1800 - the year after Washington passed away. A law wasn't passed to officially recognize Washington's birthday (actually February 22) until 1879, but it only gave people the day off in the District of Columbia. It was extended to the rest of the country in 1885. Washington's birthday was only the 4th federal holiday on the calendar, joining Christmas Day, New Year's Day, July 4, and Thanksgiving Day.

In the late 1960s the Uniform Monday Holiday Act sought to put as many federal holidays as possible on a Monday. Labor unions were all for it as they realized it would create more three-day weekends, and stimulate travel and consumer activities. A Richard Nixon executive order put Presidents' Day (lumping in Lincoln's February 12 birthday with Washington's birthday) on the third Monday of the month. Contrarians and other sticks in the mud insist on calling today Washington's Birthday and not Presidents' Day, but whatever.

Notice that Memorial Day and Columbus Day - a topic for another time - also fall on a Monday? Veterans Day was also slated to get a regular Monday appearance (it was celebrated on October 25, 1971), but widespread criticism returned it to every November 11 in 1980.

Sunday, February 18, 2018

A Well-Regulated Militia

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
-Second Amendment

Many Americans in the 1780s and early 1790s believed – as they experienced first-hand – that governments used their military to oppress the people, and should only be able to raise an army when facing a foreign adversary. Otherwise the militia should be in charge of their own town, or state.

The problem is that militias were unreliable and varied in size and skill from town to town. Colonial militia laws required every able-bodied male to join, and also to provide their own weapons. Training requirements for these militias were sometimes just four days per year. After the American Revolution, the United States government reduced its standing army to a grand total of 718 men. The 1786-87 Shays’ Rebellion which, in part, set in plain view the limitations of the Articles of Confederation and was a key factor in justifying the call for what became the Constitutional Convention, leading to debates between the two main factions: Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

The Anti-Federalists preferred much of the government’s power to lie with the states, with a weaker central government. The Federalists preferred a stronger federal government whose power superseded that of the states. Having just experienced a war with England, who used the colonies to enrich itself – the epitome of a strong central government – the Anti-Federalists weren’t interested in replicating that governmental structure when given a chance to design a new country. The Anti-Federalists – mainly from Virginia on south – demanded a Bill of Rights in exchange for their ratification of the Constitution. Of course the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is [insert B-Boy Skeleton voice] part of it.

The Federalists were all for federal control of the state militias. The Anti-Federalists, as you may infer from their actual name, weren’t for a few reasons: They didn’t want the federal government to use the militia to oppress the states; They didn’t want the federal government to check out of its duties in maintaining the state militias which were, of course, the front line of defense for the states; They were concerned that, if the Constitution gave the federal government the power to arm the militia, the federal government would then prevent the states from arming the militia. It was a power struggle, and the Anti-Federalists had very well-defined trust issues. During the Revolution, though, the militias were unreliable, called “a broken staff” who had “an unconquerable desire of returning to their respective homes” by Washington. This was hardly a “well-regulated militia.”

It was the experience of many of the Colonists that a standing federal army was an enemy to democracy – a militarized wing of the federal government. A militia comprised of locals could provide a defense against the standing army. To them, a professional military was nothing more than a gang of mercenaries. You can trust Uncle Jack from the next holler over to help you repel an attack, but maybe not Atticus Standenberg (a name I just now made up, but will now use to try and get a fake ID) from Tarrytown, New York, who had never been to your state, let alone your holler. Militias were also used as a police force – a collection of citizens who cared about their place of residence who would try to catch a criminal in their area.

Anti-Federalists like George Mason and Patrick Henry were concerned that, if the federal government could arm the militia then it could disarm it, as well, allowing the standing army to overthrow the states. Thus, the compromise in the 2nd Amendment: James Madison gave the state militias more power (while leaving the question of who had more authority – the federal government, or state governments – unanswered) but did establish that the government could not disarm its citizens who provided the defense of their land.

The 2nd Amendment has two distinct parts: the federal government has power over the militia, but the states appoint the officers whom, presumably, they could trust to repel an invasion by the federal government. The Militia Act of 1792 made all able-bodied males responsible for their area’s defense, but they also had to arm themselves, since the federal government provided no funding. Because of this, and the rise of the standing military, states allowed their militias to fall by the wayside, good for not much more than an annual parade.

Clearly the role of the “well-regulated militia” has changed since the drafting of the Bill of Rights. So, too, has the technology of weaponry. When the Bill of Rights was written a typical musket held one bullet at a time and, if you were 18th Century Rambo, you might be able to squeeze off three fairly inaccurate shots over the course of 60 seconds (you’d be a “minuteman.”) because just about every Brown Bess and Charleville muskets didn’t have a rear sight to go with a front sight. They had a smooth-bore, as well. The difference between a smooth-bore and a rifled muzzle is basically the difference between facing Roger Clemens and a blind knuckleballer.

Dick Heller was a special police officer in Washington, D.C., authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license to keep a gun at home, but it was denied. Heller then sued the District of Columbia for violating his Second Amendment rights. The result was 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller and the Supreme Court – led by Antonin Scalia – voted 5-4 that “militia” should not be limited to those serving in the military because when the Constitution was ratified the militias were comprised of all able-bodied white dudes aged 16-60. In 2010’s 5-4 ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court extended the Heller decision to the rest of the United States. These decisions are basically the basis of what the Second Amendment currently means to the NRA.

In 1840 the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that “a man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.” It’s pretty clear from this 178-year old ruling that “bearing arms” is meant in terms of military duty, not everyday/recreational use.

The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871, 81 years after Rhode Island became the thirteenth state to ratify the Constitution, by former Union officers who wanted to sponsor shooting training and competitions because their troops’ marksmanship was so God-awful. One official study said that for every 1000 bullets fired by Union troops in the Civil War, only one actually hit a Confederate soldier. For 106 years the NRA typically stuck to apolitical issues, like gun safety, actively advocating for gun control by supporting the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1938, and the 1968 Gun Control Act.

In 1971 an NRA member hiding a large amount of illegal guns was killed by ATF agents. Harlon Carter was a lawyer from Granbury who was hard on immigration through his years in the Border Patrol, which he ran from 1950 to 1957 and in 1954 Carter announced the “biggest drive against illegal aliens in history.” He called it Operation Wetback. At 17 years old Carter shot a 15-year old Mexican kid in the chest with a shotgun and was charged with murder, found guilty, and had his sentence overturned on a technicality. In 1975 Carter formed the Institute for Legislative Action – which soon became the NRA’s lobbying arm. Then, in 1977, in what Jeffrey Toobin called a “coup d’état,” Carter and the ILA overran the NRA’s annual meeting in Cincinnati (known as The Revolt at Cincinnati), got rid of the old guard, and pushed for a new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: individuals, not militias, have the right to bear arms. Carter’s group won and the NRA has been pro-gun ever since.

Chief Justice Warren Burger – a conservative by any measure, appointed by Richard Nixon – described this push by the NRA as “the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word ‘fraud’ – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a 1992 speech, Burger said that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all.”

The NRA’s headquarters in the D.C. suburbs (moved there by Carter after The Revolution at Cincinnati Revolt) have “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed” emblazoned on the building. The first half of the Second Amendment, however, is not.

In the 229 years since the Constitution has been the law of the land the debate over what the Second Amendment actually means has only been up for discussion for about 40 years. Since 1998 the NRA has spent over $200 million on political activities like lobbying and donations to political candidates on the state and federal level. Where they’ve had the most impact, however, is in revising public opinion on an issue that wasn’t an issue until 1977.

Sources:
Department of Defense Selected Manpower Statistics, 1997
The University of Dayton, Professor Vernellia R. Randall.
Journal of the American Revolution
Mount Vernon
PBS.org’s Gun Timeline
National Park Service’s 18th Century Small Arms Manual
Colonial Williamsburg. “Of Rocks, Trees, Rifles, and Militia.”
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment.” Brennan Center for Justice, May 20, 2014.
History.com: “Shays’ Rebellion.” History.com
Tennessee Supreme Court: “Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Volume 21.”
The New Republic: “The Most Mysterious Right.” November 17, 2007
District of Columbia v. Heller.
The New Yorker: “So you think you know the Second Amendment,”
NPR: “The NRA wasn’t always against gun restrictions." October 10, 2017.
Politifact: “Counting up how much the NRA spends on campaigns and lobbying,” October 11, 2017.