Let us return to the unfortunate dead days of 1840-1860, the days leading up to the Civil War. The United States had two political parties, the Democrats and – toward the end fading out of existence – the Whigs. We had a series of Presidents, most mediocre.
At the start of the period, each party had a northern and a southern wing, the two wings being not wildly different in strength. Both wings of both parties were united on the key issue of the day, this being the preservation of the Union. Before that issue, all other issues of the day were, it was then believed, obliged to give way. In support of this end, northern and southern wings of each party had to remain somewhat moderate on the slavery issue.
Then matters began to go downhill. A series of events gave proof to antislavery advocates in the North that The Slave Power, the South, was advancing to overwhelm the Union. The Kansas-Nebraska Act overturned the Missouri Compromise. The Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Act created popular dissent. Southern postmasters censored the mails, keeping abolitionist writings out of Southern hands. Less obviously, the balance between the northern and southern wings of the Democratic Party weakened, so that southern pro-slavery Democrats tended to dominate. The more they dominated, the more radical their party became, the less northern support was at hand, and the more the Southern Democrats dominated. An endless spiral set in.
A consequence was that northern anti-slavery supporters drifted into abolitionist parties, notably the Free Soil Party. Now there was something that had not existed before, namely a partisan rather than a sectional disagreement over slavery. There could still be agreement between sections on issues; for example, tariff bills passed with overwhelming southern as well as northern support. To obscure the political landscape, anti-immigration groups such as The Order of the Star Spangled Banner became politically active. Republican candidate Fremont almost won the 1856 election. He lost because he lost Pennsylvania and New Jersey, apparently due to a whispering campaign that he had converted to Roman Catholicism.
And now we reach John Brown. In late 1859, he and a small group of followers seized the Federal Arsenal at Harper’s Ferry. Brown believed that vast numbers of slaves would rally to his cause, allowing him to lead a servile insurrection that would sweep across Virginia and the rest of the South, thereby ending slavery. He had been warned by Frederick Douglass that nothing of the sort would occur, but went ahead with his plans anyhow. Douglass’s warnings proved correct; the slaves of Virginia did not rise in rebellion. As also seen during the Civil War, Harper’s Ferry was surrounded by high hills and therefore indefensible. Brown was captured, tried, and hanged.
The consequence, as noted by historian David Potter, was that the South simply ceased to listen to the North, and to a lesser extent vice versa. The country was now hopelessly divided. Matters rolled downward until 1861, when Fort Sumter was fired upon.
Now we advance to 2021, and the storming of the Capitol. There was a large, peaceful assembly well away from the Capitol building. Out from this assembly, a violent group numbering in the hundreds or low thousands assembled and stormed the Capitol. Like John Brown’s insurrectionists, these insurrectionaries would appear to have had no possibility of accomplishing their apparent objectives.
And, like John Brown’s insurrectionaries, the Capitol insurrectionaries drove a deep wedge into American politics. Like the South before the civil war, liberals and Democrats revolted by the insurrection are simply ceasing to listen to their political opponents. Instead of postmasters censoring the mail against abolitionists, we have private firms blocking the voices of conservatives.
This situation is not a positive outcome for our country.
George: In their effects. Each created an inability of factions to hear each others’ opinions.
I would say the extensive, months-long Antifa/BLM riots of 2020 did far, far more to create that “inability to listen” than did the Non-Insurrection of 1/6 (which was vastly more peaceful).
If you use comments to insult someone, your comments will be thrown in the trash.
Before 1858, south and north were still listening to each other. We had the Compromise of 1850. In 1856, Buchanan carried not quite all states south of the line of the southern New York border, Millard Fillmore was on the ballot in most states, and the Republicans came close to winning. In 1856, each political party managed to have a national convention, though the Republicans were just emerging after the Ripon convention and only organized in the North. After 1858, there was a great sea change in Southern opinion. Lincoln had a clear position on slavery, but was not heard or believed by the slaveholders.
The John Brown invasion and the 2021 Capital riots are, with the respect to points I am making, fundamentally the same. A group that decided they did not like a political outcome, so they attempted to use force to get their way. In doing so, they massively antagonized the people they were trying to use force against. Whether you happen to like the positions of one group or the other is of no consequence relative to the point I am making. I have no idea why you think that I believe that the slaveholders or the Trump fanatics were oppressed minorities, but for the purpose of political discussion I do not think that descriptor matters, but whether or not they were oppressed minorities is of no consequence with respect to what I was saying.
1. Motives are very important in this situation….
2. So the part where I explained how the tensions were already there and one side was already not listening and had a history of violence trying to suppress the opposition in order to protect their capital…means nothing? If slavery was illegal, now a the rich have to now pay people to do the labor they used to get for free, which is why they were more prone to violence to protect their profit. Its odd you are trying to paint both Slavers and Conservatives as the oppressed minorities in both of these outcomes when they are both the ones with the power and control in both situations.
I’d appreciate not having my arguments literally thrown in the trash this time 🙂
In their effects. Each created an inability of factions to hear each others’ opinions. Readers unaware of the drastic change in southern feeling after John Brown’s raid should read Potter The Impending Crisis, Road to Disunion, or Rhodes’ History of the United States. The motives of Brown or the rioters are irrelevant to my point.
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY COMPARING THE JANUARY 6TH INSURRECTIONISTS TO JOHN BROWN?
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was decided in the North’s favor, though. California (added in 1850) offered to send one pro and one anti-slavery US Senator. But then Minnesota (1858) and Oregon (1859) were admitted as free states and anti-slavery advocates in Kansas won decisively in 1858, which made Kansas’ admission as a free state inevitable. The North already had an advantage in the House and the admission of those states gave it an advantage in the Senate. The power of the South had been broken at the federal level. The Fugitive Slave Act and that other crap would have been repealed and slavery ended. And the South knew it.
And the South couldn’t even add new territory because they were just about out of land. That’s why several Southerners launched invasions with private armies into several countries to the south, where they attempted to set up pro-slavery governments with hints that they would later be taken over by the US and become slave states. See William Walker’s invasions of Mexico (failed in 1853 – 1854), Nicaragua in 1855 (successful in that he became President for 10 months, before Cornelius Vanderbilt sent his own private army to Nicaragua to oust him), and Honduras in 1860 (captured by the British, executed by the Hondurans.) Or the Knights of the Golden Circle, who wanted to invade Cuba, Mexico, Haiti, and down into South America, all with the intent on making them pro-slavery US territories.
The Knights of the Golden Circle are particularly relevant to this post. Per wikipedia:
“Several members of President James Buchanan’s administration were members of the order,[8] as well as Virginia’s secessionist Senator James M. Mason.[1]:?102–104? The Secretary of War, John Floyd and of Treasury, Howell Cobb, were members of the circle, in addition to Vice President John Breckenridge. Floyd received instructions from the Order to “seize Navy-yards, Forts, etc. while KGC members were still Cabinet officers and Senators”.[8] The plan was to prevent Lincoln from reaching Washington by capturing him in Baltimore. Then they would occupy the District of Columbia, and install Breckinridge as president instead of Lincoln.[1] Floyd used his position as Secretary of War to move munitions and men to the South towards the end of Buchanan’s presidency. His plot was discovered, and led to greater distrust of secret societies and Copperheads in general. This distrust was the result of a confirmed plot to overthrow the federal government, rather than general discontent.”
My definition of conservative is probably broader than yours. I am not myself a conservative, so I am not obliged to support claims that some people are not really conservatives. I would include the likes of Vox Day and the person who owns Gab as being conservative. I am also paying attention to what Matt Taibi is revealing on FaceBook.
This is an interesting comparison. I’m sorry to see you adopt the framing that conservatives have somehow been censored, though, unless you’re using a pretty idiosyncratic definition of conservative. The most popular and most shared political accounts on Facebook and Twitter are and have been conservative ones for a long time. Facebook algorithms downplayed accounts like Mother Jones. Most of the accounts that were suspended or banned were not conservative by any traditional definition of the word.