What do you think?
Rate this book
Madison's Militia: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment
This engaging history overturns the conventional wisdom about the Second Amendment--showing that the right to bear arms was not about protecting liberty but about preserving slavery.
In Madison's Militia , Carl Bogus illuminates why James Madison and the First Congress included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. Linking together dramatic accounts of slave uprisings and electric debates over whether the Constitution should be ratified, Bogus shows that--contrary to conventional wisdom--the fitting symbol of the Second Amendment is not the musket in the hands of the minuteman on Lexington Green but the musket wielded by a slave patrol member in the South.
Bogus begins with a dramatic rendering of the showdown in Virginia between James Madison and his federalist allies, who were arguing for ratification of the new Constitution, and Patrick Henry and the antifederalists, who were arguing against it. Henry accused Madison of supporting a constitution that empowered Congress to disarm the militia, on which the South relied for slave control. The narrative then proceeds to the First Congress, where Madison had to make good a congressional campaign promise to write a Bill of Rights--and seizing that opportunity to solve the problem Henry had raised.
Three other collections of stories--on slave insurrections, Revolutionary War battles, and the English Declaration of Rights--are skillfully woven into the narrative and show how arming ragtag militias was never the primary goal of the amendment. And as the puzzle pieces come together, even initially skeptical readers will be surprised by the completed one that forcefully demonstrates that the Second Amendment was intended in the first instance to protect slaveholders from the people they owned.
In Madison's Militia , Carl Bogus illuminates why James Madison and the First Congress included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. Linking together dramatic accounts of slave uprisings and electric debates over whether the Constitution should be ratified, Bogus shows that--contrary to conventional wisdom--the fitting symbol of the Second Amendment is not the musket in the hands of the minuteman on Lexington Green but the musket wielded by a slave patrol member in the South.
Bogus begins with a dramatic rendering of the showdown in Virginia between James Madison and his federalist allies, who were arguing for ratification of the new Constitution, and Patrick Henry and the antifederalists, who were arguing against it. Henry accused Madison of supporting a constitution that empowered Congress to disarm the militia, on which the South relied for slave control. The narrative then proceeds to the First Congress, where Madison had to make good a congressional campaign promise to write a Bill of Rights--and seizing that opportunity to solve the problem Henry had raised.
Three other collections of stories--on slave insurrections, Revolutionary War battles, and the English Declaration of Rights--are skillfully woven into the narrative and show how arming ragtag militias was never the primary goal of the amendment. And as the puzzle pieces come together, even initially skeptical readers will be surprised by the completed one that forcefully demonstrates that the Second Amendment was intended in the first instance to protect slaveholders from the people they owned.
336 pages, Hardcover
Published March 28, 2023
8 people are currently reading
92 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
August 1, 2025
Checkmate, “originalists.” Madison’s Militia thoroughly lays out the history leading up to and following the writing of the 2nd Amendment, demonstrating how it was based in the militia and military and in the control of slaves, NOT a license for individuals to own arms for their own personal, private use. The so-called originalists currently in the judiciary system would have a lot to learn from this text; their so-called research and historical analysis is to the contrary of Bogus’s argument, and, given what I’ve read, should hold as much legal merit as would interpreting the 2nd Amendment to mean that citizens have the right to the appendages of grizzly bears (maybe RFK Jr can become an advocate here). The book is another piece of evidence that demonstrates how the current conservative legal project picks its desired political outcomes and cherry picks evidence and contorts history to their whims; it’d be akin to calling it a day after finding a quote of James Madison saying “I like guns,” pointing to it and saying “see? This proves we should all have bump stocks and rocket launchers in our garages.” The history isn’t beautiful, it isn’t obvious (Bogus engages in a lot of research and solid interpretation here), and it sure doesn’t always give you the outcome your benefactors want you to rule for. But that’s not why you’re on the court, is it?
November 12, 2023
An excellent account of the Congressional discussions regarding the adoption of the Second Amendment. Extremely well researched. Highly recommended for anyone wanting to learn the origin of the Second Amendment.
April 6, 2024
Originalism, Founding Fathers intent, textualism. While these legal theories and how they apply today with regards to the Second Amendment, Madison’s Militia goes deep in intent, context, and exact words leading up to and including the ratification of the Second Amendment.
I found the book to be fascinating and well researched and documented. Above all, it makes sense. The story arc primarily covers the period from the 1770’s through the 1820’s, including the debates, political environment, and eventual ratification of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The book also has some military history in it that helps to illuminate the thinking of the era.
So much of how the US thinks about gun rights today flows from the Second Amendment and, after reading this book, I can only hope that the Originalists read it too. Strong recommend for those that are curious about the Second Amendment and its history and origins.
I found the book to be fascinating and well researched and documented. Above all, it makes sense. The story arc primarily covers the period from the 1770’s through the 1820’s, including the debates, political environment, and eventual ratification of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The book also has some military history in it that helps to illuminate the thinking of the era.
So much of how the US thinks about gun rights today flows from the Second Amendment and, after reading this book, I can only hope that the Originalists read it too. Strong recommend for those that are curious about the Second Amendment and its history and origins.
July 14, 2023
I really enjoyed the book. It was both entertaining and informative. It takes a look at the 2nd Amendment, 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, from a very different perspective. The book comes from a doctoral thesis the author wrote about the 2nd Amendment and how it came about. He sets out to prove that the 2nd Amendment was actually in the Bill of Rights as a measure to help keep slavery under control and to quash slave rebellions. I believe the author proved his point. But he stated even though James Madison, a Virginian and Southerner, wrote the 2nd Amendment that it probably meant different things to those states north of the Mason-Dixon line. The northern states view it as a means to resist central government tyranny in such cases as the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania and Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts. If you want an in depth look at history and politics that shaped our country in its formative years this book is for you.
February 4, 2024
Pretty good historical treatment demonstrating that the 2nd Amendment is NOT all about the individual right to bear arms, but the right of state governments to organize and direct a "well-regulated militia" - mainly for the purpose of suppressing enslaved people in the slave-holding states - not for the purpose of repelling invading armies. Even "well regulated" militias were no match for trained and disciplined regular troops, as was demonstrated repeatedly to the "founding fathers" and their contemporaries in the Revolution, wars of genocide against native people, the War of 1812, etc. The self-styled right-wing "militias" of the 21st century are nothing more than armed gangs. Today's equivalent of what were called "militias" in the 18th century would be the State National Guards.
March 19, 2024
This was such an interesting book about the origins of the real reasons why James Madison put the Second Amendment in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. I learned so much from this book, and had no idea the Second Amendment was primarily put into the Bill of Rights for slave patrols and the purposes of controlling slave populations, and trying to prevent slave rebellions/insurrections. Bravo to Carl T. Bogus for his fascinating dive into the history of America's Founding Fathers, including the fierce rivalry between Patrick Henry and James Madison.
August 22, 2023
Couldn't get past all the details, quotes and breakdown of the arguments. This book is hypothetical history.
February 5, 2024
Hard to read, but in doing so quite informative. The historical chapters give an interesting incite into the minds of our revolutionary fathers complimented by the issues of the times.
October 29, 2024
Bogus' book argues that the 2nd Amendment was originally intended to protect the states' ability to arm, maintain and control a militia. It was not intended to protect the right of individuals to possess firearms. This could be argued although it was the accepted interpretation for two hundred years.
A reason for this might involve the concerns about having a standing army. Bogus points out that, while reliance on the militia system was ideologically popular, it was a fiction. Poorly trained part time soldiers could not defeat a foreign invader. A series of disasters before and after the Revolution showed this.
Militias were effective at controlling domestic uprisings. Below the Mason-Dixon line this meant slave rebellions. Although rare, the possibility of such an event was constant concern. Slaveholders were concerned that if the Federal government took over arming militias it could also disarm them. This concern was part of a general unease that as Northern states emancipated their slaves and grew in population, they would take control of the Federal government and mandate emancipation.
A reason for this might involve the concerns about having a standing army. Bogus points out that, while reliance on the militia system was ideologically popular, it was a fiction. Poorly trained part time soldiers could not defeat a foreign invader. A series of disasters before and after the Revolution showed this.
Militias were effective at controlling domestic uprisings. Below the Mason-Dixon line this meant slave rebellions. Although rare, the possibility of such an event was constant concern. Slaveholders were concerned that if the Federal government took over arming militias it could also disarm them. This concern was part of a general unease that as Northern states emancipated their slaves and grew in population, they would take control of the Federal government and mandate emancipation.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews