Journals of the Continental Congress,
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1787.

Congress assembled. Present as yesterday.

...[Report of Secretary at War on removal of military stores from Springfield ²]

[Note 2: 2 Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 151, pp. 243--254, read March 13, 1787. See March 8, 1787.]

The Secretary of the United States for the department of War, to whom was referred the Motion of the Honorable Mr. Grayson respecting the removal of the Arms, and Military Stores from Springfield in the State of Massachusetts,

Reports

That he humbly conceives it will be necessary, in order to form a right judgement of the measure proposed, to examine, whether Springfield possesses those qualities, which are essential to a permanent national deposit of the United States. To take into consideration the number and convenience of the buildings erected there. The expence that would be incurred in removing the ordnance and Stores, and also, to enquire into the existing political circumstances of Massachusetts, as they may affect the safety of the federal property at Springfield.

If the local situation of Springfield be examined relatively to the Country east of Hudsons River, excepting the remote parts of Massachusetts formerly the province of Main, it will be found, to be well placed as common centre, whence might be issued such warlike apparatus as national objects should, from time to time require; Being a considerable distance up on Connecticut river, it has the benefits of a water transportation by boats, and a perfect security against a marine enemy.

In the year 1777, the United States in Congress assembled, decided on Springfield, as one of their important deposits of Ordnance and Stores. A lease of 10 acres of ground in an eligible situation, was purchased of the town for 99 years, on which were erected, a variety of large wooden buildings for the reception of the Stores, and accomodation of the troops and artificers, a laboratory, a foundery for casting of brass cannon, and a spacious and well constructed brick Magazine.

The returns on the files of Congress will show the numbers of Cannon, and small arms, and the variety of Stores deposited at Springfield, the whole weight of which amounts by estimation to 450 or 500 Tons.

The expence of removal would depend on the distance and circumstances of the place to which they should be removed, but in almost any case, a considerable sum would be required for the purpose.

If the political state of Massachusetts be investigated it will appear, that a rebellion has arisen within that state, and that it is in a train of being effectually suppressed by the vigor of the government.

That in the commencement, and progress of the rebellion, the executive government of said State, manifested the highest degree of attention to the safety of the federal Arsenal and Magazine.

That on the first application of your Secretary to the Governor of said State, on the 19th. September 1786, he instantly issued an order to the Major General of the division of Militia in the vicinity of Springfield, directing him, to furnish such a guard for the protection of the Stores, as your Secretary should judge necessary.

Although circusmtances rendered it prudent to pospone the immediate execution of said order, yet in consequence thereof, a large body of militia were in constant readiness, to march to the Arsenal on the shortest notice.

That when the executive government of said State decided on the employment of troops, against the insurgents as the last remedy, the security of the federal Arsenal, was considered as a most important object, and accordingly, Major General Shepard of the Militia, was directed to take post at the same, with 1200 men, two days before the troops assembled in the vicinity of Boston. That a large body of armed insurgents, did make their appearance before General Shepard, on the 25th of January, who repulsed and dispersed them by discharging cannon against them.

That after the said 25th. of January, an adequate guard was stationed at the federal buildings by the officers of said State, untill relieved on the 24th. of February by a detachment of the troops of the United States, raised in Connecticut, amounting to about 120 men.

That however just, the apprehensions which may have been entertained for the safety of the Stores at Springfield; yet the power, and dispositions of the government of Massachusetts to protect the same, have been amply evinced.

That the guard now stationed at Springfield will be sufficient to protect the Stores against any small parties of desperate men, and a large body of such cannot be collected without the circumstance being known, and time given to assemble a sufficient reinforcement of the well effected militia of the neighbourhood.

That certain block houses and defences were constructed, and partly executed, by General Shepard which Colonel Humphreys is finishing, and which will afford considerable security to the buildings.

That your Secretary is decidedly of opinion, that no Arsenal or Magazines of the United States, can be deemed perfectly secure, unless guarded by a military force bound to obey the orders of Congress.

Impressed with the Idea, that in proportion to the freedom of government is the danger of faction, your Secretary apprehends, that all the States in the Union, are liable in different degrees, to be agitated with similar commotions to those which have manifested themselves in Massachusetts, but that the issues may be dissimilar. He therefore is utterly at a loss to point out any place, where the stores will be more secure than at Springfield, unless at the fortified post of West-point on Hudsons River.

But in the opinion of your Secretary there is an insuperable objection to West Point as a national Arsenal. The bold navigation of the river, renders it continually liable to be insulted, or injured by the caprice or interest, of any foreign marine power. The importance of the place in a military point of view, is particularly reported and submitted to Congress¹ on the 31st. July 1786.

[Note 1: 1 Journals, vol. XXX, pp. 447--449 and vol. XXXI, p. 467.]

Besides its insecurity against a foreign invasion unless strongly garrisoned, it would be highly injudicious, in addition to the numerous Ordnance and Stores already there, which are but indifferently accomodated, to crowd those which are at Springfield. The accidents to which powder, or other combustible matter is perpetually liable, should ever prevent too great an accumulation of stores at one point.

Should the disorders of Massachusetts extend themselves, West Point with its advantages might tempt some daring usurper to possess himself of it, in its present weak situation, to the extreme injury of the public. Anxious to guard against such an event, your Secretary has ordered the recruits of Massachusetts from Boston to Springfield in order to releive the recruits of Connecticut who will be ordered to West-Point, Provided that Massachusetts will furnish the necessary means to march their recruits to and subsist them at Springfield; and that the means can be obtained for the same purposes for the Connecticut troops at West Point, and provided also, that the same should be conformable to the intentions of Congress.

Convinced as your Secretary is of the probable comparative security of the Arsenal at Springfield for the present, he cannot report in favor of removing them--a measure, the expenses of which, would be great and immediate, the consequences at least equivocal, if not politically injurious.

Your Secretary has had under his consideration for a long period, a system for the establishment of permanent national Magazines, and Arsenals, throughout the United States. He has not brought it forward because the state of the public treasury has been such, as to preclude any expences, but those which are essential to immediate existence. In the report, which will be submitted on this subject, four places are pointed out, at which it may be proper to establish the principal national deposits. Vizt.

1. Springfield in Massachusetts. To supply all the Country east of Hudsons River.

2. At some suitable place on the Delaware not lower than Coriels ferry nor higher than Easton, for all the Country westward of Hudsons river to the Potowmak inclusively.

The public are in possession of a variety of brick buildings at Carlisle in Pennsylvania, constructed and erected specially for the purpose of a national deposit. The returns on the files of Congress will show that the military stores now there are inconsiderable. Were the river Susquehannah navigable for Boats, and also the Creek which runs through Carlisle, the stores in Philadelphia might be transported to that place. But as the navigation of the said Creek and River is not a probable event, at an early period, it would be fortunate if the said buildings could be sold to any tolerable advantage. It would require a larger sum of money than can probably be furnished for the object, to transport the stores by land to Carlisle. But the expence of the first transportation is not so great an objection as the amount of the successive transportations and re-transportations during a period of forty or fifty years. The probability of the navigation of the Delaware being completed in a few years from the falls of Trenton to Easton, renders the place beforementioned between Coriels ferry, and Easton, much more eligible than Carlisle. But its relation to the Country between Hudsons River and the Delaware, The facility with which stores could be transported to Christiana Bridge and thence by a portage of 12 miles to the head of Elk render the Delaware decidedly superior to Carlisle. The Stores in Philadelphia, are liable to be destroyed by fire and they are not well deposited being in common buildings in different parts of the City, the rent of which, annually amounts to a considerable sum of money.

3d. At on near the point of Forks on James River, to serve Virginia and part of North Carolina.

4th. At or near the junction of the Congaree and Wateree with the Santee, to serve part of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

A deposit might be formed at Fort Pitt for all the posts on the Ohio; and the posts on the lakes might be supplied from West point on Hudsons river, by the way of the Mohawk river and Wood creek.

The aforesaid proposed principal deposits will enjoy the great advantages of a water communication with the Ocean without the danger of being injured by a hostile navy. Circumstanced as the United States are and as they probably will be for a long period in future, the means of defence ought to be secured from a sudden approach of a foreign enemy.

It will be proposed, that the number of one hundred thousand arms, shall be deposited in the respective Arsenals, a train of battering Artillery and every kind of Stores necessary thereto, field Artillery and every necessary equipment for an army of every species of troops.

That the respective Arsenals and Magazines should contain Arms, Ammunition and other stores in proportion to the population of the districts they were intended to supply. But that the trains of battering Artillery with their apparatus and Ammunition should be equal at each Arsenal and Magazine.

That the Ordnance, Arms, and Stores at present in possession of the United States should be distributed to the Arsenals in proportion to the numbers and quantities to be deposited at each according to the directions of Congress. The Arms Ordnance and Stores deficient, should be manufactured and produced if practicable within the United States, as soon as the finances of the same would admit agreably to the orders and appropriations of Congress.

All which is humbly submitted.

H. Knox.

War Office March 13th. 1787.

[Report of committee on resolution of Virginia ¹]

[Note 1: 1 Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 20, II, p. 325, in the writing of Mr. William Blount. Read March 13 and question taken and lost May 8, 1787. See February 26 and March 1, 1787.]

The Committee [consisting of Mr. William Blount, Mr. James Mitchel Varnum and Mr. William Grayson] to whom was refered the Resolution of the State of Virginia of the 13th January 1786 passed in Conformity to a Resolution entered into by the State of Maryland in the same year and to whom was refered the Resolutions of the said State of Virginia of the 22d. November 1786 report the following Resolve

That Congress do consent to the Annual Meetings of Commissioners as proposed in the said Resolutions for the purposes therein expressed for the Term of seven Years. unless some general Regulation of Congress shall sooner take place.²

[Note 2: 2 March 13, 1787. According to indorsement and Committee Book, Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 190, p. 140, the letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, October 23, 1786, was referred to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to report. According to the indorsement it was referred to the Secretary to report particularly on Mr. Jefferson's request to be permitted to travel on account of his health and on what respects the Marquis de Lafayette. See March 8, 1787.]

Now, let's examine the facts of the matter more closely, shall we? First, how were all those “insurgents” able to be “armed”? Second, it is obvious that the “Secretary” apprehended that “that all the States in the Union” “are liable in different degrees, to be agitated with similar commotions”. How would that be possible UNLESS THE PEOPLE IN ALL OF THOSE STATES WERE ARMED? Which would mean that the following is true:

"...This law of nature, being coeval [existing at the same time - ed.] with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original...."

"...Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered [permitted] to contradict these...."

"...The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765–1769.

Yes, that's right. It was a PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL RIGHT of the British-American “subject” to have “arms for their defense”. And, let it be remembered that the right of the “subject” existed ANYWHERE within the realm of the British empire. However, it was contingent upon local ordinances by condition(s) and degree(s). It is clear that the founders of our present Constitution considered the Right as belonging to EVERY new American citizen, as evidenced:

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

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.

In addition, the dramatically improved right of the new American citizen was NOT intended to be subjected to the same condition(s) and degree(s) as was the British Right. To Wit:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."

"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

"...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..."

- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803).

And, Mr. Hamilton's and Tucker's opinion was NOT an isolated one:

“Who are these militia? [A]re they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

- Tenche Coxe, using the pseudonym "a Pennsylvanian", Feb. 20, 1788, Pennsylvania Gazette.

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

- Tenche Coxe,'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' using the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

Mr. Coxe was a prominent Philadelphian and political economist who was named assistant secretary of the treasury in 1790, commissioner of revenue in 1792, and purveyor of public supplies in 1803. Whose series of newspaper articles were very much approved by both Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison.

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829). (Appointed by President George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania in 1791).

And, this sentiment is echoed clearly by two men whom were AT the debates on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. One of whom later became President, and the other a United States Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:

"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."

- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]

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

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

As well as by another very respected American legal authority and President. Who played the major role in writing the Declaration of Independence:

"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."

- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith.

"Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established, however, some although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright. [Washington ed. vii, 356. < M. 1824 >. 1728. CONSTITUTIONS (American), Characteristics of. -- JCE1728. The Modern English Collection at the University of Virginia Electronic Text Center.]

With the huge amount of evidence available, there is NO possible way that any politician or judge can honestly claim the Second Amendment doesn't mean PRECISELY that which was written. Any attempt to do so would be an outright fallacy, and provide just cause for removal from public service. “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed”. Not by ANY form of positive American government. All 'gun control' laws are clearly and perversely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Therefor, those 'laws' are null and void; without meaning, substance, depth nor weight – unenforcable according to the TRUE rule of Constitutional law. To Wit:

"Now, in questions of this sort, precedents ought to go for absolutely nothing. The constitution is a collection of fundamental laws, not to be departed from in practice nor altered by judicial decision, and in the construction of it, nothing would be so alarming as the doctrine of communis error, which offers a ready justification for every usurpation that has not been resisted in limine. Instead, therefore, of resting on the fact, that the right in question has universally been assumed by the American courts, the judge who asserts it ought to be prepared to maintain it on the principles of the constitution."

John Bannister Gibson, in dissent in Eakin v. Raub, 12 Sergeant and Rawle 330, Pennsylvania 1825.

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

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

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

- Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803).

"...No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid...."

"...It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A CONSTITUTION is, in FACT, and MUST be regarded by the judges, as a FUNDAMENTAL law...."

“...That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission...”

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78.

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).

I rest my case.

 Also See: