Skip to main content

View Diary: The Law of Unintended Consequences: 29% of the Country Think Armed Rebellion Might Be Necessary (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If this poll is true, very suggestive (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Very Long Range, zett, bruddaone, noway2

    It is proof of a disturbing idea I've had in the wake of Sandy Hook: that the 2nd Amendment really was intended to make it possible for citizens to resist the federal government, and the intense opposition to gun control is due to the fact that many Americans sincerely believe this.

    I could discuss the textual interpretation arguments that support this thesis, but the real proof is in the unfolding of history: one of the most remarkable aspects of the U.S. Civil War is how easily and thoroughly federal authority was swept away in vast parts of the Deep South. The significance of this is rarely highlighted, nor is the fact that having an armed populace, along with state arsenals to arm the militia, made it possible. In other words, the secession of the Deep South is proof of the Second Amendment working as intended: once the population of a State believed that the federal government was becoming tyrannical (by threatening their right to own slaves), the security of a free state (against federal tyranny) was ensured by the fact that the right to keep and bear arms existed.

    That being said, why is this revolutionary (to put it lightly) view becoming more and more prevalent? Because in a similar way in the 1850s, a large part of the population today increasingly  fears they will no longer have control of the federal government, and their liberty/property stakes are threatened. Back then, Southerners were worried that the growth of the free states meant they would lose control of the federal government, which reached its crowning point in 1860 when the Republican Lincoln won the Presidency. Today, the disproportionately white Christian Republicans throughout the country fear they are losing control of the federal government to a coalition of the Other - basically everyone who is not a rich white Christian male; Democrats.

    And like in the 1860s, there's an economic aspect to this fear. Southerners then feared losing their primary source of wealth, slaves. Today, Republicans fear 'socialism', or any policy designed to redistribute (even to the slightest degree) the wealth that they hold. Never mind that for most Republicans, they do not have the wealth of the 1% - notice, most southerners didn't own slaves either! All this talk in the media about how minorities are increasing their numbers politically, the GOPers hear it as clearly as we do, and take 180 degrees the opposite conclusion.

    Now, America is a far different society than it was back then, and even in as red a state as Oklahoma, for example, it is unlikely there will ever be a percentage of the population interested in revolt that comes close to that of the Deep South in 1860. So I don't want to give the impression that I'm screaming the Second American Civil War is right around the corner. But I think this is a case where history matters.

    •  the south has never wanted to be a part of the (3+ / 0-)

      us unless it got its way as to how things were run. the big argument in the run up to the civil war was that the south had only agreed to join the union of states if they got to keep their slaves & the north was violating that agreement by changing the rules & saying they couldn't, so southerners felt they were within their rights to secede.

      it's the same mentality today. listen to the rhetoric coming from rw hate media. there's no compromise. they either get their way or they're taking their toys & going home, so there! and if anyone doesn't like it, too bad. we're not the boss of them, nanny nanny boo boo.

      they believe they're persecuted victims of a democratic process where the majority decides things. they don't agree with the decisions & have tried rigging elections & gerrymandering legislative districts to give them an unfair advantage. armed revolt is their last option. delusional? you bet. but it rakes in the dollars for propaganda factories like fox noise,, drudge, etc.

    •  Traitors don't have to be a majority to start wars (0+ / 0-)

      Secession was pulled off by a rich and powerful minority. The rank and file Confederate citizens routinely said "Rich man's war, poor man's fight". They simply didn't have the political power that a majority would have had if the South had been democratic. Instead they fought back with food riots, desertions, and even militias that controlled territory in opposition to the Confederate government.

      See the book "Bitterly Divided".

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed May 01, 2013 at 10:07:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You forgot the Dem side's view. (0+ / 0-)
      Today, the disproportionately white Christian Republicans throughout the country fear they are losing control of the federal government to a coalition of the Other - basically everyone who is not a rich white Christian male; Democrats.
      That percentage of Dems who are in the 29% are likely looking at things like:
      The LIBOR fraud perpetrated by the big banks, 500 Trillion in size.
      The emerging ICAP fraud perpetrated by the big banks, 380 Trillion in size.
      And all the corporate supremacy that has corrupted the federal government through the public-private revolving door.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site