Bill Of Sale Louisiana Word Document: Fill & Download for Free

Informally and socially, yes. Heck, there was a small amount of discrimination and even informal segregation of Asians against whites back then, such as bi racial Bruce Lee having fallout from teaching martial arts to non Chinese about 1964. Or white man walking in the park in Diamond Bar, California — the police (not Asian generally) will often hassle you, blacks more so. Monterey Park (LA) is not that different even today as we write/read. Could a white guy live in SF Chinatown back then? I have no idea, but sort of doubt it.About Asians, legally, not too much by 1960’s, and only indirectly or by immigration restrictions pre 1965. By this point, it became clear that Asians, particularly North East Asians, were pretty able, not a threat excepting those living under communism (as were white Soviets), and quite a few servicemen were marrying them, settling down to families without big troubles. Even in Mississippi, segregated schools had long since disappeared for Asians (about 1945 I think, posted below), and all of the non southern states allowed Asian/other marriages.It also depended upon your status. Some, like the aging Dr. Mabel Ping-Hua Lee likely had no problems at all, being well connected to society and focusing upon the Chinese community anyway.Some restrictive covenants in the South, and to a degree elsewhere, were paraded in front of the prospective buyer by sleazy real estate people, though such had lost all legal right by the Supreme Court in 1948 or so. Not sure of the laws in all southern states, but in Texas Chinese could marry whites (but not in California as recently as 1946 or so, and this meant Wah Chang - Wikipedia who did Bambi, Pinocchio, and many Star Trek props could marry his beloved Glenn in her native Texas). Massachusetts first prohibited mixed white/other marriages in 1783, the same year they outlawed slavery, one of the first of the latter and the first state law against such unions in the union (US).Also, even today “As at September 9, 2019, eight states required couples to declare their racial background when applying for a marriage license, without which they cannot marry. The states are Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Virginia, New Hampshire and Alabama. As of September 9, 2019, the Virginia law was being challenged in court.” So you have to list yourself as non white, and maybe some states still have something of the one drop rule. I doubt it, and likely only a quarter or more background is necessary to state in the worst case, and one could lie in certain circumstances of appearance I suppose, and finally most certainly if it does not make a difference to your potential spouse the issue is irrelevant. Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States - WikipediaIt was never as bad as the general Black situation during the 20th Century, though at times a person could marry a Black but not an Asian, as recalled in some Pacific Coast states, the WWII internments and 1930 Watsonville riot aside. By 1960, most had drained away outside of the real estate business.In places informal discrimination is part of the US today for Asians, and every other group (including Whites, again, in places), as is the case the world over. In some countries (Ghana, I think), it was illegal for a white person to own property as of about 25 years ago. I, as a caucasian, found it difficult to find a rental in Taiwan, despite having a translator, due to the unsavory reputation of that group in said country, and of course the cultural issues.Washington State, California, and Oregon were easily some of the highest organized segregationists and discriminators against Asians, even more that in the South in places just after WWII. The Mountain States were also fairly strong sometimes, but nothing on average as much as that.In the informal segregation and discrimination, housing looms large. The housing agents, landlords, banks were a large part of this, and some may have even been part of extreme groups, well beyond the Chamber of Commerce that is.In Oregon, the last legal vestiges apparently were the the Public Accommodation Law in public facilities in 1953. The anti Black Oregon State Constitution was only repealed in 1925 List of Oregon ballot measures - Wikipedia “Repeal of Free Negro and Mulatto Section of the Constitution” by a 62.52% majority. This was an intentional oversight, though null by the 1865Black Exclusion Laws in Oregon “Incorporated into the Bill of Rights, the clause prohibited blacks from being in the state, owning property, and making contracts. Oregon thus became the only free state admitted to the Union with an exclusion clause in its constitution.”“The clause was never enforced, although several attempts were made in the legislature to pass an enforcement law. The 1865 legislature rejected a proposal for a county-by-county census of blacks that would have authorized the county sheriffs to deport blacks. A Senate committee killed the last attempt at legislative enforcement in 1866. The clause was rendered moot by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, although it was not repealed by voters until 1926. Other racist language in the state constitution was removed in 2002.”The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1872 or so, but finally passed in Oregon in 1959, as a symbolic change of face.Oregon Remove Constitutional References to Race, Measure 14 (2002) - Ballotpedia by a 71.14% majority. That is a state measure, not US amendment, by the way.So, it was better to some degree, most certainly by the 1960’s Asians were comparably very well off.The Racist History of Portland, the Whitest City in America——————————————————————————————Just found this about Washington State: Alien Land Laws and White SupremacyAlien land laws - Wikipedia and it was officially repealed only circa 1962 in Washington State, apparently. “1923 - The 1921 law is expanded to prevent the U.S.-born children of immigrants from holding land in trust for their parents.””Fujii v. California (1952) — The Supreme Court ruled that California's 1920 Alien Land Law, and others like it, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. “Again, want to move to a white neighborhood? There were Restrictive covenants in many neighborhoods. Covenant (law) - Wikipedia along racial lines were not enforceable by the early 1960’s and flat out illegal in 1968 (Fair Housing Act). Especially in the South, these were used to scare people away, and if the hint was not taken one would take it off the market (and put it back on the market soon as you leave).I think in some states, it was made illegal to put in such items in the court house deed, and certainly was for everyone in the US post 1968. It was likely still going on well past 1968, when the Vice President Agnew called a Japanese American reporter a “fat Jap”, wink, wink, nod, nod, as unmentioned restrictive covenants are still going on, though rarely against Asians and more often for political and possibly religious divides.Even if you find a place willing to sell to an Asian, better have cash as Redlining - Wikipedia was common. And the neighbors would come down on the seller hard, often the entire section of state in sneaky ways. This had fallen away by the 1960’s, especially with mixed marriages where a former or current service man married while stationed in Asia, but was a consideration.(The bit on running freeways through their neighborhoods also happened brutally to lower class white neighborhoods as well, though it greatly tended to be Italian, Eastern European, and such. Studs Terkel writes about this in the book Division Street. Adam Ruins Everything tends to be a bit too left wing for me, though hits the mark often and also included sources.)Wheel chair bound President FDR in the above video’s game, with the 1930’s New Deal banking situation, position was understandable. The Democrat Party then were a small, yet often wealthy minority of liberals (for equality), numerous conservative, racist Southern Democrats (much against equality), and a plurality of large urban city dwellers (almost as much against equality).—————————-For the most part, Asians had considerably more money than Blacks and Indians, and otherwise could have escaped to the suburbs. Not sure when it happened and where, but this changed in most places by 1960’s. Japanese tended to be the wealthiest, but WWII interfered with about a third of these living in the West Coast as they tended to lose almost everything if not that. In Seattle, one online article mentioned that the Japanese were still living in the Black and Indian areas, as well as the Chinese, all going to the same schools into the 1960’s.An exception to the money issue were Cadillacs. That car company had its luxury division pancaking in sales during the early Great Depression. A division manager who was about ready to lose his job thought he had nothing to lose at a board meeting.So he suggested selling the cars to Blacks, some of whom were using Whites to front for them in both the purchase and the service parts, just so they could have the pleasure of owning them. Otherwise, direct sales would not happen. The meeting finished with an agreement, as otherwise the entire division might die. It was a great success, and to this day the line is popular in that sector.The Man Who Saved The Cadillac‘Despite this official discrimination, Dreystadt had noted that an astonishing number of customers at the service departments consisted of members of the nation's tiny African-American elite:’I have no idea about Asians, though, in regards to cars. Sessue Hayakawa - Wikipedia liked big cars and fancy houses, but that was Hollywood and he was a leading star (a romantic idol, incredibly, which fueled racist backlash). My guess is no, as most Japanese in the west coast were farmers, not prone to spending even if having the money, as farmers in general normally are.Hawaiian Japanese were similar, being workers on their way up. One wealthy Japanese guy got leprosy and, IIRC, could no longer drive the expensive car he had shipped to Molokai Kalaupapa Leprosy Settlement and National Historical Park - Wikipedia. A famous specialist doctor’s son, as recalled.He eventually lost his ability to control the car, and had a fellow detainee friend drive it while he gave directions, though there was only about a mile or two of roads on the isolated peninsula, hemmed in by tall mountains. Segregation in Hawaii was mutually wanted and generally not discriminatory, in the sense of only the poorest environments were available.In fact, that was a problem with Takeo Yoshikawa - Wikipedia or another spy of Pearl Harbor. One of them was interviewed years later, taking him back to Hawaii. Eventually recognized, Walter Cronkite recounted how they had to get him out in the next Japan Airlines flight as he was drunk and the other carriers would not take him. Anyway, in 1941, the spy mentioned simply found that the Japanese community had a meeting place which overlooked Pearl Harbor by coincidence, which he used to good effect.They were very mobile in Pearl and could pretty much live where ever, which was limited like all races since most of the islands were owned by very few people, usually missionary families who had often intermarried with royalty. These people did not sell and still own most of Oahu, Niihau island (Robinson family exclusively for 140 years now), etc.San Francisco Chinatown was mostly owned by the Japanese pre Pearl Harbor. This switched completely post relocation.——————————————-Washington State apparently never set a law (the original question details), though though it was attempted a couple of times in the 1930’s. Unofficial segregation there was the rule until the 1960’s in most bigger cities, enforced by dictated order.Not sure how late the color bar was used in the South. I recall reading that by the 1960’s Chinese and especially Japanese were able to use ‘white’ facilities. In the South it was up to the local government and school district. Most or many from the earliest time apparently did allow Chinese to use white schools, but some did not.All accounts seen have that the situation steadily became better, until they became sort of honorary whites (oddly, similar happened in South Africa, especially when one of the few outcast nations was Taiwan, so Chinese had complete rights there, including the legal right of living where ever they wanted, with buying or renting successfully that is.When public drinking fountains were segregated with Whites Only and Blacks Only signs, where did the Asians, Latin@s, Native Americans, etc. drink? • r/AskHistoriansPreviously many Chinese were prevented from attending white schools. This seems to have led to a potential problem later after the refusal of a certain Miss who wanted to attend a Georgian school and was denied the chance. She later grew up to be arguably one of the most powerful women ever, Soong Mei-ling - Wikipedia. (Fact check please. She was in the area at that time going to school, as was her father some 25 years or so previously.)1927 Historic Gong Lum v. Rice Mississippi School Segregation CaseKeep in mind that Rosewood, that school district, was in the delta region, a highly stratified area with overwhelmingly Black majorities (although many areas were able to get rid of the KKK and lynchings, due to the land owners often being northerners.) The Lum family ended up moving from Mississippi, according to this fine article in the New Yorker: The Supreme Court Case That Enshrined White Supremacy in LawA book on it is Water Tossing BouldersWater Tossing Boulders also points out that in Mississippi a case a few years earlier, of a white family’s children being denied to attend public school as whites because, get this, their great aunts were rumored to have married non whites. Their great grandmother was also rumored to be black. This was dis-proven from census and other information. However, the state supreme court stood fast.That book was fascinating, as it described the ins and outs of actual segregation of Asian students inside the school district, which was rather rare and apparently only in the deep South. What Pacific Coast states did, maybe even in Hawaii, is redline districts which were heavily Asian/non white and do it that way — which effectively happens today regarding blacks mainly. In Monterey Park and Diamond Bar and Daly City (all Californian), Asians pay a lot to buy into the area, a reverse of the 1960’s when there probably was more pressure in the other direction outside a major city.By 1931 or so, even in the deepest Delta this slowly slipped away, first with separate schools for Asians and then by 1945 integration everywhere as recalled (for Asians in Mississippi). But there may have been holdouts by 1960, especially informally.Keep in mind that Mississippi only in 1995, the state symbolically ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, which had abolished slavery in 1865. Though ratified 25 years ago, the state never officially notified the U.S. archivist, which kept the ratification unofficial until 2013, when Ken Sullivan contacted the office of Secretary of State of Mississippi, Delbert Hosemann, who agreed to file the paperwork and make it official. Mmm, 2013 to abolish slavery, at least technically (only 75% of states need to agree to make it an amendment, so the issue is symbolic).The first time since the Reconstruction that Republicans controlled the legislature and governorship some 140 years before was pm 2012. the year before. Or that neighboring Alabama until 1966 FACT CHECK: Did a State Democratic Party Logo Once Feature the Slogan 'White Supremacy'?”‘In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “The prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known.” Which is very true back then, and to some degree even now. Towns are very segregated still in the north as well as the south, though technically by way of money.Still, the most outrageous acts were about the South, primarily regarding Black people: “In 1930, the city of Birmingham made it illegal for a black person and a white person to play dominoes or checkers together. In 1932, Atlanta prohibited amateur baseball clubs of different races from playing within two blocks of each other. In 1935, Oklahoma required the separation of races when fishing or boating.”Mountain states were better by that time for Asians, though many not for Blacks. http://stereocandies.blogspot.com/2013/12/nichelle-nichols-dark-side Beyond Uhura, pg 74–76 -of-moon-1974.html (not true — it was in the 1950’s according to her biography, ). Nichols, Uhura on Star Trek, had a night club sponsor — a white who made his fortune in the Alaskan mines — amazed as well, as absolutely no one would let her have a hotel or motel room in a Mormon state, only based upon her ethnic background.Finally an Italian couple agreed. “She’s colored.” ‘Well, what color is she?’ “American and negro” ‘If she doesn’t mind Italians, she is welcome.’ “It would be well into the sixties before integration came to Salt Lake City.” Black people and Mormon priesthood - Wikipedia (prohibited until 1978) .Las Vegas casinos were also barred to Blacks Is there racism in Las Vegas?, but again apparently not Asians much by that point. A Japanese American Wendy Yoshimura - Wikipedia in the SLA was hiding from the FBI with Patty Hearst in North Eastern Pennyslvania and received numerous racist taunts in 1973 in the rural area, so it still happened. Wingshooters author claims 1960 racism growing up as a biracial Asian child in rural Wisconsin, apparently due to the Vietnam War.Back to Madame Chang:What a 71-Year-Old Article by Madame Chiang Kai-Shek Tells Us About China TodayInteresting that she died only 14 years ago in 2003 at New York City, aged 103 years old.Also keep in mind also that modest numbers Filipinos have been in the South for a long time, initially at least since the 1700’s and seem to have been accepted more than either Indians or Blacks, some possibly in the ARW at country founding and many serving in the forces of the US army during the War of 1812, albeit in an area of US with as much French (Napoleonic Code & Parishes) as Anglo influence, thus more tolerant generally to Asians in particular:Manila Village - Wikipedia=========================Although the first Filipino arrived in California in the 16th Century**, “the first documentation of a Filipino residing in California did not occur until 1781, when Antonio Miranda Rodriguez was counted in the census as a "chino". Demographics of Filipino Americans - Wikipedia**1587, in Morro Bay, California, by San Luis Obispo.Filipinos were first-to America - INQUIRER.net USA“Nuestra Senora de Esperanza, comandered by Pedro de Unamuno - Wikipedia”, this being 33 years before the Mayflower and about the same time as the failed Roanoke Colony - Wikipedia . He was just a crewman, I guess, and the English might have visited what is now America in the times of the chartered boat with the last 1497 voyage with John Cabot - Wikipedia (which apparently disappeared, the second one reaching Newfoundland).Still, and interesting detail of how far back it went. Discrimination was not so pronounced until later, of course. My grandfather was a front man for a group of Filipino businessmen in East Los Angeles. By law they had to keep their wives in Baja, unless they were Mexican which then they could move up to Los Angeles. Funny thing was that when they came, Philippines was a colony of the US.———————————————————————-When living near Tacoma in the 1970’s, neighbors of ours were Filipino. He went to Guam from the islands for a few weeks labor contract circa 1952, almost immediately got drafted to Korea, and spent about 8 years in the US Army. Ike’s son reviewed his group in a successful LAWS shot, so he got a medal. Not sure when he got citizenship, but his son became a city councilor of Marysville, the first Asian if recalled correctly.But this was out a ways from the suburbs, near a small Indian reservation, and I think they moved in about 1965. There were only 10 homes on that stretch back then.It was fantastic, on a then quiet road with Mt. Rainier in the background and huge trees (now logged). There should not have ever been restrictions then or any other time, probably, so far from town.———————————————————in WWII, the Japanese were forcibly prevented from moving back to the counties they left 3 years earlier. Truman even got involved, but firmly on the Japanese American’s side to his credit:https://www.quora.com/Did-Harry-Truman-hate-the-Japanese/answer/Thomas-B-Walsh/comment/84803024By 1960, Asian (and Hispanic) servicemen especially found they could talk their way past salesmen trying to restrict the markets, so many moved to the LA suburbs or at least the San Fernando Valley - Wikipedia. I do not think it was so easy in Portland or Seattle, but do your own research on that one.———————————————————Linda Lee Cadwell - Wikipedia married Bruce Lee - Wikipedia in 1964 in Seattle, and her family/friends were very much against the idea considering the prejudice and discrimination still widely in existence around Washington for her and any children. Seems it was easier for servicemen and their Asian wives, though. So she has indicated.‘Fear tactics non-withstanding, the repeal movement captured its long awaited victory against the racist alien land laws in 1966. Asian immigrants making their way to Washington State in the new wave of immigration ushered in by the 1965 Immigration Act would no longer have to jump through hoops to own homes or buy land.’ Or at least it could not so obvious.This was the Washington state’s last gasp of official racism. Plus the federally guaranteed rights and laws about the same time spelled the end of all but the most cloaked racial discrimination, especially around the military bases. Anti base discrimination was another matter.Yes, the state had its share of worst case idiots, done about the same time as the White River banditry in the 1920’s:‘Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project ‘He subsequently sent a letter on July 20, 1923 to Admiral S.S. Robinson on the U.S.S. California requesting that the Admiral grant all regional Navy Klansmen leave to attend a Seattle Klan meeting on July 25.3’Ouch! But that was long in the past by that point for any such overt show.https://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/editorials/article224571325.html‘After the Great Depression, lenders, developers and other power brokers systematically denied people of color and immigrants the benefits of homeownership. A News Tribune story last summer used old redline maps … “No part or parcel of land ... shall be rented or leased to or used or occupied, in whole or in part, by any person of the African or Asiatic descent, nor by any person not of the white or Caucasian race, other than domestic servants domiciled with an owner or tenant and living in their home.”’Red area is for non whites, `Fourth Grade. Note the no color area, which I am not sure what it meant, maybe outside city limits. In the 1980’s: ‘Their real estate agent slipped the covenants to them with an “oh, by the way,”’ which have no legality, but apparently the words were still sometimes used by those who wished to preserve the status quo. Above url source.In Tacoma, this was overwhelmingly against Asians and (American) Indians, particularly the former I think; but interestingly the Puyallup people - Wikipedia Reservation makes almost all of the land to the east of this map, and most of the people living there today are white. Port of Tacoma - Wikipedia only joined the city in 1918, and the Indians were compensated in 1989 with 162 million USD and ‘other benefits’ for the 112 acres taken. Almost all the land is now in white hands, though a fair amount is not.

I suggest my answer to the following question if you want to know how the term well regulated militia was used in other historical documents such as state constitutions, the Federalist papers, and Continental Congress around the time the second amendment was written: Tom Buczkowski's answer to What do the terms ‘arms’, ‘well regulated’, and ‘militia’ mean in the Second Amendment?Historical documents such as state constitutions and the Federalist Papers written around the time of the Second Amendment give clear historical context about what the words “well regulated militia” meant at that time. The difference between the unregulated militia and organized militias today is made clear by federal law.From 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b)The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.All males between the age of 17 and 45 are considered part of the unorganized militia, according to current US law (10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes). As such they are eligible to serve in the organized militia as defined in the same code: “the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia.” They are also eligible to serve in a State defense force, another type of organized militia, though state laws govern the age requirements and some begin at 18.It is not true that any group who are part of the unorganized militia can act as a self-appointed military or police force apart from being called up to do so by a duly elected government. Modern revisionism has spread much disinformation about militias that is contrary to how the term was used at the time the Constitution and Second Amendment were written ( and also could testy to existing state and federal law). To understand how the term was used at the time, you must look at the use of the word in historical documents with the same context. Historical documents of that time, including many state constitutions, make it clear what government officials meant when they spoke of militias. I ask that you take the time research and read for yourself the many historical documents of that time which refer to militias. I will cite a few examples.The term militia was used in two ways. The first defined the broad category of people who made up the militia: all able-bodied men, in most instances with defined age limits, such as abled body men between the ages of 17 and 45. If you fit that description you were technically militia. The second use was in referring to an organized body of militia under the control of a state or local government authority. That authority could call up for service the entire militia or a portion thereof.In Colonial America towns, counties, and colonies organized the militia for defense. In times of trouble, the militia was called up or activated. For example, the Massachusetts Charter of 1691 stated thatthe Governor of our said Province or Territory. . . shall have full Power by himselfe or by any Cheif Comander or other Officer or Officers to be appointed by him from time to time to traine instruct Exercise and Governe the Militia there and for the speciall Denfence and Safety of Our said Province or Territory to assemble in Martiall Array and put in Warlike posture the Inhabitants of Our said Province or Territory and to lead and Conduct themAlmost a hundred years later at the time of the American Revolution the term militia was used in much the same way, but the government authority under which the militia was organized had changed. As each of the colonies determined that they had the right to govern themselves independently from the British Crown and Parliament, each colony and later each state set up laws governing militias in their constitution or in separate legislation, or both.The Militia Act of 1775 formalized the organization of the militia in Pennsylvania and a few adjacent areas, as the existing groups of militia werevery willing to defend themselves and their Country, and desirous of being formed into regular Bodies for that Purpose, instructed and disciplined under proper Officers, with suitable and legal Authority; representing withal, that unless Measures of this Kind are taken, so as to unite them together, subject them to due Command, and thereby give them Confidence in each other, they cannot assemble to oppose the Enemy, without the utmost Danger of exposing themselves to Confusion and Destruction.The section of the Virginia Declaration of Rights June 12, 1776 addressing the militia had similar language to the Second Amendment, but does not mention the right to bear arms:That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.Other state constitutions and documents specifically use the term militia in this manner. In these quoted documents and others written at the time, just prior to the writing of Second Amendment, the use of the term militia as an active fighting force always referred to a body organized under the authority and command of a duly recognized government.Such militias were to be “well regulated.” Both the terms "well regulated militia" and "well regulated army" and “regulating” the militia were often used at that time, and can be found in the Federalist Papers, the Journals of the Continental Congress and various state constitutions.One example is in the Federalist Papers, no. 29, "Concerning the Militia" (The Federalist Papers):The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense.A second is Virginia’s “An Act for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia” passed by they Virginia Assembly on May 5, 1777, which statedThat a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free stateThe last example is from discussions during the Continental Congress, where the term “well regulated” is so used in reference to the making the American army "a well regulated army" (Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 9, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774);Resolved, As the opinion of this Congress that it is essential to the promotion of discipline in the American army and to reformation of the various abuses which prevail in the different departments, that an appointment be made of inspectors general, agreeable to the practice of the best trained European armies:Resolved, That this appointment be conferred on vigilant and experienced general officers, who are acquainted to whatever relates to the general economy, maneuvers and discipline of a well regulated army.To review from time to time the troops, and to see that every officer and soldier be instructed in the exercise and maneuvers which may be established by the Board of War: that rules of discipline are strictly observed, and that officers command their soldiers properly, and do them justice.These and other documents of the time make it clear that when referring to either the militia or the army, “well regulated" meant a militia or army that was properly organized, equipped, drilled, disciplined, and ready to fight. The term was used in conjunction with outfitting a militia or army, training an army or militia through drilling and instruction to prepare them for battle, and making sure officers were trained in tactics and maneuvers that would enable them to direct the militia in battle. In this context, "well regulated" had nothing to do with government regulation of the sale and distribution of firearms to individuals.These well regulated militias were not authorized to use force until a government authority called them into action, usually a state governor, but also local officials. During the American Revolution these local and state militias were called up under various authorities and provided the bulk of the fighting power, particularly until army “regulars” under Congressional control could be outfitted and trained, but also throughout the war.Note that in the documents of the time the term militia never refers to a band of citizens who take it upon themselves to use armed force apart from the authority of a government body. Though in one sense the term militia was used to define all able-bodied men in a municipality, county, or state, the idea of a group of armed citizens from this pool of men banding together and using armed force apart from a government authority was not entertained as legal or healthy to the peace and security of a state or the nation. In fact, it was the fear of such groups that eventually led to the adoption of the US Constitution. Armed insurrections began to occur in the new nation, the most well known being the 1786–87 Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts. This rebellion began in rural Massachusetts as citizens there rebelled against state taxes and bank practices they felt were unfair toward farmers and rural landowners. Though many were sympathetic, state and national officials, including George Washington, became alarmed as a large group of armed citizens through threat of force shut down courts and tax collectors. In historical documents referring to Shay’s rebellion and others incidents, a clear distinction can be seen between a duly appointed militia and an unauthorized band of armed citizens. Participants in Shay’s Rebellion “marched on the federal Springfield Armory (at which weapons were not only manufactured but also stored) in an unsuccessful attempt to seize its weaponry and overthrow the government.” Under the Articles of Confederation, the “federal government found itself unable to finance troops to put down the rebellion, and it was consequently put down by the Massachusetts State militia and a privately funded local militia.”The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791–94 is another example. It began as farmers in western Pennsylvania refused to pay the federal tax on whiskey, took up arms against federal authority, burned the home of a tax collector, and some threatened to declare independence from the United States. To stem the insurrection, President Washington asked several state governors to call up their militias according to the Militia Acts of 1792. This militia force of over 12,000 was federalized by President Washington to march to western Pennsylvania and put down the insurrection. To show this militia was federally sanctioned, President Washington, the hero of the American Revolution, ceremonially led the militia on horseback for a time as they marched west. The 500 or so armed tax resistors were not considered militia, they were considered insurrectionists, in rebellion against the United States.Fries's Rebellion was a similar incident in 1800, and again based on opposition to a federal tax by Congress. In this case, a local group of militia, unauthorized by the state, attempted to detain federal tax collectors. Federal marshals arrested some of the armed group, but later other armed members of the group, under threat of violence, forced their release. President John Adams and Congress used both federal troops and duly authorized state militia to arrest the unauthorized armed group of insurrectionists and bring them to trial in federal court.These incidents make two things quite clear. First, now that the states had become independent and had representative governments, citizens were expected to pay their taxes. Second, unauthorized bands of armed citizens who opposed the laws of the state or federal government by violent means would not be tolerated. In the first incident, under the Articles of Confederation the weak federal government could not act, so duly authorized state militias put down the insurrection.Shay’s Rebellion was one of the reasons the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution, in which the federal government was strengthened to be better prepared to deal with domestic and foreign threats. In the second two incidents occurring after the Constitution had been adopted, the President of the United States and Congress expected citizens of the United States to pay their federal taxes. This was not taxation without representation, as they were represented in Congress by duly elected officials. If they opposed the tax, they had peaceful and legal means to express their opposition. Again, the President, Congress, state governors, and states governments would not allow groups of armed individuals or an unauthorized group of militia to roam the country and use violence or the threat of force just because they disagreed with the the law. Such groups were considered insurrectionists, in rebellion against the United States. The organization of lawful US militia has changed over the years with the passage of several laws, but the basic premise of militias remains the same. The state militias include the National Guard, Naval Militias, and State Defense Forces. All able-bodied men between 17 and 45 are considered part of the “unorganized militia” eligible to be called up to serve, but only if current laws concerning compulsory service are changed, either temporarily or permanently.The modern idea that any armed group can band together and legitimately call themselves a militia is foreign to the ideas held by the founding fathers as expressed in state constitutions and other writings from that time.In my answer to “What do the terms ‘arms’, ‘well regulated’, and ‘militia’ mean in the Second Amendment?” I elaborate on how other terms used in the Second Amendment were used at the time of its writing, including “the people,” citing examples from historical documents. Who are “the people” who have the right to keep and bear arms? In the context of language used at the time, there are only two possibilities. “The people” is used as a collective term to represent all of the people in a state or the nation. It is also used to allude to the collective will of the people expressed by the government through representatives of the people. The Tenth Amendment makes this distinction:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.In the Preamble to the Constitution, “the people” is used in the second sense.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Obviously, all of the people in the United States did not collaborate in the writing of the United States Constitution. Rather, their representatives at the Constitutional Convention entered into debate and discussion to forge and approve the document. It was then ratified by Conventions in each state representing the people of each state.“The people” was used in state constitutions, also. The Virginia Constitution opened with, “A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia.” New York’s Constitution made its declarations, “in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State.” South Carolina’s constitution stated the framers to be Serving as a “full and free representation of the people.” In the Massachusetts constitution you find, “We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts” and in Pennsylvania’s “the people of this State.”The people, then, who have this right are the people of the United States, or in each state, and the governments who represent the will of the people. The Tenth Amendment, which was added primarily to allay the fears of anti-Federalists, makes clear what the Constitution and first nine amendments had already established: In matters of individual and states rights, if any branch of the Federal government using its proper authority had not or could not exercise that authority on a matter of governance or individual liberty, state governments had the right to do so, and if the matter had not been acted upon by the state government, the people retained the right to make their own decision, including their right to address a matter through representative government - be it local, state or federal.The Tenth Amendment was patterned after a similar statement in the Articles of Confederation, Article II:Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.That the Second Amendment speaks of both states and “the people” makes sense, as the context of the Second Amendment and the nine other amendments that came to be known as the Bill of Rights was the resolution of the conflict between the Federalists and anti-Federalists over the authority of the federal government over the states, and the principal that all just governments derive their authority from the people. For various reasons, from trade to slavery to fear of centralized power, individual states wanted autonomy on certain matters. Originally, the binding together of the states came about as each colonial government sought to become independent of British rule. The loosely written Articles of Confederation attested to the reluctance to yield power to a central authority. As it became clear the collective United States needed better protection from foreign powers and internal insurrections, a Constitutional Convention was called so “the people” could “form a more perfect Union” between the state governments.I said all that to again emphasize it would be historically inaccurate to think that the Second Amendment was not written in the context of protecting the rights of state governments duly elected by the people. State governors and state legislatures had the right and duty to protect their citizens, and included in that right and duty was the the establishment, organization, and training of a well regulated militia. Standing armies, like those the British had quartered among the people, were suspect. This was the impetus for the Third Amendment:No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.The best way to keep the necessity of a large standing federal army to a minimum was to have organized, well trained, well outfitted, well commanded state militias available. This was also the best way for each state to protect itself, as deploying a federal force to a threatened region could take weeks. In the case of a threat to the entire nation or an overwhelming threat to one or more states, the federal government at the time, specifically the Executive Branch and the President as Commander in Chief, could call up state militias to be put under federal control, as was done in the case of insurrections, including the Whiskey Rebellion and Fries’ Rebellion.

The U.S. Naval Fleet Enters the First Barbary War (May 13, 1801)After 9/11, many pundits claimed that the first war fought by the United States was against Islam. They were referring to the Barbary Wars of the early 19th century, which were fought by the early republic against the city-states of North Africa that had supported acts of piracy against American shipping and the enslavement of American sailors. To say that it was a war against Islam, however, completely misinterprets the events. Just a few years prior, Congress passed the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) whose Article 11 expressly stated that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." At a time of intense political polarization, this simple statement was unanimously ratified by the U.S. Congress and signed by President John Adams. The reason why the Barbary Wars matter is much simpler, and much more important — and it’s why some historians consider the Barbary Wars the "second American Revolution." This oft forgotten moment in American history was the first foreign conflict that brought together once disparate colonies into a united republic.Mark G. Hanna is the Associate Director of the UC San Diego Institute of Arts and Humanities and author of the Frederick Jackson Turner Award-winning Pirate Nests and the Rise of the British Empire: 1570-1740.The Transatlantic Slave Trade Is Abolished (Jan. 1, 1808)On March 2, 1807, the House of Representatives and Senate passed legislation “to Prohibit the importation of Slaves” into the United States. The law would close the traffic in human chattel imported from “any foreign kingdom, place, or country,” making the international trade in “any negro, mulatto, or person of colour with intent to hold, sell, or dispose . . . as a slave, or to be held to service or labour,” illegal. Yet, the demise of the slave trade was not the demise of slavery, nor was it the demise of slave trading on U.S. soil. As the young nation worked to solidify its independence, this moment instead signified the end of one era in slavery and the beginning of another. Traders shifted their focus to a growing domestic traffic that had been operating since the late-18th century. This legislation, along with new technologies (cotton gin), Westward expansion (Louisiana Purchase), and an emphasis on reproduction through forced breeding, actually fueled the institution of slavery. Three times the number of enslaved people experienced sale through the domestic trade (approximately 1 million souls) than those directly imported on slavers. However, despite this legislation, African “cargo” were illegally brought across the Atlantic until the eve of the Civil War.David Walker Writes His Appeal (Sept. 28, 1829)Most people associate the rise of the radical antislavery movement in the United States with William Lloyd Garrison, a white reformer and journalist, but in fact, the origins of abolitionism lie in the free black community. In the late 1820s, David Walker emerged as the most eloquent spokesperson for those abolitionist activists who called for the immediate end of slavery. His Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World (1829) criticized Americans for failing to live up to the ideals of Christianity and the Declaration of Independence and for what he regarded as the most brutal system of slavery in world history. Walker also called upon free African Americans to "uplift" themselves and to promote the cause of slaves through education and evangelical Christianity, and he predicted a race war if white Americans did not repent of the sins of slavery and racism. Before the emergence of abolitionism, many white leaders of the antislavery movement had promoted colonization—plans for a forced resettlement of free blacks in Africa. Walker forcefully rejected colonization schemes, arguing that blacks had as much right to full citizenship in the United States as did whites.The First Issue of The Liberator Is Published (Jan. 1, 1831)The Liberator set the world aflame. First published in 1831, the newspaper and its editor, William Lloyd Garrison, gave voice to a new type of abolitionism. Unlike earlier proponents of ending slavery, who had advocated a cautious approach, Garrison demanded the immediate and uncompensated emancipation of all enslaved people and full citizenship rights for black Americans. The Liberator provided a platform for black Northerners writing against slavery and racism, and Garrison’s radical critique of slavery, in turn, was deeply informed by the work of black writers and activists. From The Liberator emerged the American Anti-Slavery Society, a national organization that transformed abolition into a mass social movement. For nearly a century after emancipation, historians considered Garrison and The Liberator fringe, delusional and unimportant to the larger politics of the Civil War. But radical abolitionists pushed Southern politicians to adopt a more vigorous defense of slavery, eventually provoking a response from the North. The Liberator set the stage for a sea change in American politics that forced the sectional conflict over slavery to a head.The First Electric Telegraph Message Is Sent (May 24, 1844)By the 1840s, the electric telegraph was a long time coming. Optical telegraphs had been in operation for at least two generations and a series of scientific advancements had gradually created the technology needed for transmitting signals over electromagnetic wires. By the spring of 1844, Samuel F.B. Morse, a fine-arts professor turned scientist, was ready to inaugurate the system he had perfected with the aid of government funding. On May 24, he sent a four-word message over 40 miles of wire, from Washington to Baltimore, where his associate Alfred Vail received it and sent it back. The Old Testament verse Morse chose for the occasion, “What Hath God Wrought,” was fittingly dramatic. The electric telegraph was the first device to effectively separate communication from transportation, enabling information to travel instantly over space and catapulting America into the era of telecommunication. During the second half of the 19th century, it played a crucial role in unifying the country, tying together remote individuals, communities and markets into what became the modern United States.Britain Repeals Its Corn Laws (May 15, 1846)The most important moment of the 19th century for the United States took place across the ocean: the Repeal of Britain’s Corn Laws. The Corn Laws were simply tariffs, or taxes, that Parliament imposed on foreign grain. Though the Earls of Grantham benefited when it came to selling English grain, the poor paid more for food. A British manufacturer named Richard Cobden argued that tariffs, by slowing commerce, impeded freedom. “The progress of freedom,” he said, had more to do with the spread of business than with the actions of governments. The laws were finally repealed in 1846, after the Irish Famine dramatized their injustice.The repeal cracked England’s class structure. Once the tariff wall tumbled, others gradually weakened, including those holding back workers or women. Commerce begat freedom, just as Cobden predicted. Liberal, open Britain inspired others the world over. In the 1930s, a U.S. Secretary of State known as “Tennessee’s Cobden,” Cordell Hull, helped President Franklin Roosevelt break down high tariffs, reducing the Great Depression’s damage. After World War II, U.S. policy moved toward free trade. Today, the world’s stronger economies are more Cobden than Corn Law—all because of abolition of an English grain tariff.Women's Rights Activists Meet in Seneca Falls, N.Y. (July 19, 1848)In 1848, a handful of women activists, including Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, issued a call for a “Woman’s Right Convention,” in Seneca Falls, N.Y. Most attendees were politically active; Frederick Douglass participated. Perhaps the most important result of the meeting was embodied in “The Declaration of Sentiments,” a feminist document modeled on the Declaration of Independence. The authors asserted that “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal.” Signed by 68 women and 32 men, the document not only insisted on the still-radical idea that women are equal to men, but also that society rather than nature held women back. “The history of mankind,” the authors pointed out, “is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.” The Declaration of Sentiments also called for women to have the right to vote, something that would take another 72 years to accomplish. Women’s activists still cite the Declaration of Sentiments as a crucial statement in the long fight for women’s rights.In January 1854, when Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas introduced his bill to organize the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, he admitted privately that it would “raise a hell of a storm.” Many in the North were sure to be outraged at the bill’s repeal of the Missouri Compromise ban on territorial slavery above the 36°30′ parallel. But how long would the storm last? Led by Ohio Senator Salmon Chase, a handful of antislavery leaders in Washington were determined to make the most of it. Their manifesto, “The Appeal of the Independent Democrats,” declared that the Kansas-Nebraska bill was part of an “atrocious plot” to convert the entire West “into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves.” A masterpiece of propaganda, the “Appeal” circulated widely, channeling Northern outrage away from a narrow defense of the old Missouri Compromise, and toward a much stronger commitment to oppose any extension of slavery whatsoever. Within a year, that commitment became the basis of the new Republican Party, whose uncompromising antislavery stand revolutionized American politics for good