‘Militia’ issue tied up in protecting slavery
Thank you for your editorial dated Feb. 4 concerning the Arkansas Legislature expanding the carrying of guns and firearms by the general public.
Some gun advocates dismiss that crucial portion of the Second Amendment that states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” The “well regulated militia” that the amendment first addresses was a serious issue throughout the South of suppressing periodic uprisings by the large slave population.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both known slave owners, demanded this amendment as a requirement of their support of the new Constitution. Several Southern states, by statutory legislation, required all white males to serve in these stand-by militias. The militias would periodically search all slave housing and slave quarters to confiscate any items that could be used as weapons during any uprising. The states of Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina passed legislation creating slave patrols with a mandatory participation requirement.
More information can be found on this subject in a book titled “Slave Patrols Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas,” by Salley E. Had-den, published by the Harvard University Press, Copyright 2001.
Questions about voting,
challenges of bond issue
In a recent letter to the editor, Sam Emerson makes some valid points about the Fayetteville bond election scheduled for April 9. He and I might disagree as to whether it is a continuation of a tax or a new tax, but in my opinion, that is not something we should quibble about.
Like Mr. Emerson, I believe very few will turn out to vote. However, if the city administration is interested in encouraging its citizens to vote, I believe it is evident that fewer voting places will make it less convenient to vote. Given the dollar magnitude of the bond issues on the ballot, the increase in the cost of having more voting places seems paltry in size. Thus, unless the city wants to further reduce the number of citizens who will vote, it should not reduce the voting places.
In seeking to justify more than $213 million in bonds, the ordinance says that amount is needed to pay for Fayetteville’s critical needs. (The other $12,200,000 is to pay off the existing bonds.) Some supporting the bond issue have sought to justify it in the following manner. They point out the bond issues in Rogers and Springdale and say Fayetteville needs to follow their lead. That argument is reminiscent of a child seeking permission to do something by saying: “Mom and Dad, others are doing it. Why can’t I.”
As for the “critical” need for $213 million, if that is the necessary dollars, it is destined to be insufficient in size. There will of necessity be legal fees and underwriting expenses. While the funds required to cover these expenses are not mentioned in either the ordinance or any of its 10 questions it will be there and should it be 3 percent, it will reduce the funds for “critical” needs by $6,781,950.
Making informed decisions with respect to voting for or against each of the questions will be tedious at best. The verbiage in what appears to be one of the shorter questions is approximately 150 words. Even if one can read at a high speed, to digest that number of words and decide whether to vote “yes” or “no” on $3,170,000 for that particular bond issue will take a while. In order to facilitate voters to make informed decisions it would seem to be imperative to do all that is reasonably possible to make copies of the ballots available to the citizens well in advance of April 9.
Like others, I find what has been done to Rolling Hills Drive is totally unacceptable. However, it is what it is. Apparently, you and I will have to learn to live with it. But you might want to keep in mind that the people who are responsible for reducing the number of voting places, and thereby making it more difficult for you to vote, are the same ones that will be making the ultimate decisions about $213 million of the people’s money if the majority of the votes is “yes.”