Slave Insurrection of 1741, in which mix of black and white slaves and indentured servants purportedly organized a campaign of arson, which in turn sparked mass hysteria, mass arrests, a protracted series of capital trials and executions... and did nothing whatsoever to address the fundamental underlying tensions that led to this uprising in the first place - an ongoing war (the War of Jenkins's Ear) with Spain that depleted the availability of soldiers who ordinarily would have deterred such events and contained them professionally, general fear of infiltration by Spanish agents to stir up the slaves, an economic depression, a very cold winter, real fear of hardship, even starvation amongst the poor. Conditions that would again and again resurface in American history, here and there, sometimes generally.
Philadelphia Election Riot of 1742, in which intense partisan rivalry between the Anglicans and the Quakers broke out into election day violence, the Quakers atypically fighting back, hard as a group of sailors acted as vigilantes on behalf of the Anglicans. The incident would greatly discredit the Anglicans and do much to prolong Quaker dominance of Pennsylvania despite the latter's waning numbers as the Germans, who were also attacked in the riot, became more sympathetic to the Society of Friends. Partisan strife? Intense distrust? Employment of vigilantes, ostensibly unaffiliated with the party that benefits from their actions? Charges of the violent instigators of illegal voting by immigrants? Let me know when this sounds familiar.
Paxton Riots of 1764 was an insensate vendetta by a group of Scots-Irish toughs against the remnants of the Conestoga people, who had long since settled to peaceful (an Christian) coexistence with the whites. They wiped out one village, even invading a jail in Lancaster to kill off the survivors of the original attack. Later on, as 140 Conestogas fled to Philadelphia for protection, the Paxton Boys send a band of 250 men to chase after them, and had to be stopped by British troops and colonial militia under the command of Ben Franklin, who negotiated their witdrawal. Ostensibly, the Paxton Boys were avenging the Enoch School Massacre... but that had been conducted by Delaware warriors, and for some reason the distinction did not matter very much to the vigilantes. We will see this particular mode of violence resurface in American history again and again - a refusal by some portion of the population to refrain from genocide (and in latter days persecution) against the least harmful persons in their midst - because Lord knows the Paxton Boys were not prepared to fight th Delawares (who were quite capable of fighting back), never mind the Pennsylvania militia and the British Army. So file this mode of insurgency under 'violent bullies'.
Boston Massacre of 1770 was the culmination of an episode of general violence and unrest in the city of Boston which had been placed under virtual martial law to enforce the Townshend Acts which, you might say, were not very popular with the locals. This is what Kent State, centuries later, could have been.. and the parallels between the two have not been overlooked by either conservatives nor liberals. However, as we will see in the many incidents of American history, not all such sparks light a bonfire. Interestingly enough, the right has been shopping for its version of Kent State for quite some time... and the best they could get was Waco. Maybe it's just me but they are looking to venerate David Koresh among their martyrs, well, they sure are welcome to it.
The Battle of Alamance in 1771 was the Paxton Boys writ large, involving 1,000 North Carolina colonial militia on one side and about 2,000 Regulators, a militia formed to protect the western counties from raids by tribes. The War of the Regulation, of which this was the final and decisive battle, is one which I imagine few North Carolinians and proportionally far fewer Americans in general know about. Which is odd, given that the unrest lasted for seven years.
The chief cause of this rebellion was rampant corruption by county officials in the western parts of North Carolina, who would tax the locals heavily, deliberately lose tax documents, then repeat the levies illegally. The colonial government in New Bern did not want to lose the support of these men, so turned a blind eye to such outrages so long as funds kept coming. The construction of the Tryon Palace in New Bern, in part funded by such taxes, further incensed the westerners who rose up in great numbers. At the time the richest 5% of North Carolina colony held near total control of politics, wealth and power and they were not in the least bit interested in sharing. For some reason the other 95% took issue with this but the eastern counties remained quiet, perhaps as they were not nearly so harshly treated by officialdom, and never took part in the uprising save as targets for Regulator minor acts of violence, which did not help expand the rebellion.
Ultimately the superior training, organization, leadership and (rather important) armament of the state militia prevailed in routing the Regulators, who were gradually brought back into the fold save for several of the top leaders who were, as such things go, hanged. Of some interest is that in later years many of the Regulators would go on to become Tories in the Revolution, though that's a very interesting tale unto itself.
So, we have four pre-Revolutionary uprisings that (save for the one in Boston) many of you may not have even heard of.
We often focus on the Civil War as the metric of what happens when angry reactionaries (or others) get their lather up and bloodshed ensues, when American history is replete with minor uprisings and massacres, insurgencies and civil war-lets that arose from conditions of political, economic and/or social outrage - or just simple genocidal hatred - that make current conditions of discomfort, distrust, disdain and dissatisfaction laughable in comparison.
However, the fundamental issues that can divide a nation remain
Distrust of institutions. Those who would have us trust corporation and the wealthy save us had their chance. They failed. Yet these same persons continue to undermine efforts to undo their own decades of propaganda against their own government. This messaging must be countered, and efforts to actively oppose contructive use of government, nonprofit and community resources (including unions) need to be dealt with, also.
Distrust of incumbents. Those who would have us trust Republicans and their allied voices in the media, in the clergy and elsewhere had their chance. Many of these incumbents have been removed. These same persons would have the consequences of the past two election cycles invalidated - that the increasingly powerful and proud majority of the American people somehow got it wrong, and therefore for their own good need to have their representation checked, if not removed outright. That sort of talk and behaviors closely associated with it is entirely entirely unacceptable. This must not be abided without comment and contradiction.
Distrust of processes. Those who would have us believe that the recent elections are flawed, that in so many words "too many" people voted had their chance ni 2000 and 2004. That game, of gaming elections at the expense of liberty and for the profit of the few, is done. The American people figured out a way to outcontribute, outorganize and outfight the mightiest political machine the world has ever seen. And rest assured that machine, the Republican Party, is still quite robust and capable of fighting, but it's learned something it never thought possible before - it can bleed. It learned that it is mortal. And mortal creatures know fear and behave poorly when panicked.
So it is our job to fortify trust of the electorate in the voting and campaign contribution process, and in the system of justice and law enforcement, from surveillance and arrest, trial and prosecution, sentencing and serving one's debts to society, and those most important purposes of justice - rehabilitation and return of those who have done their time back home. We need to restore trust in other processes as well - that banks and insurers will honor their side of the deal, that your credit card bill will not explode just because your bank's bets on real estate loans did so. That your child won't be denied care just because too many other policyholder's didn't die before they got treatment. We need to learn how to trust these processes too, because they directly affect life, liberty and property. And when those things are impacted, people get fighting mad sometimes.
Distrust of partisans. Those who would have us believe that only Republicans are really American, and the rest of us are at best Republicans who lack the fortitude to commit to our own heritage, had their chance. And they blew it. It is the turn of the Democrats now...and there is no small appetite for repaying in kind for decades of insults and humiliations. It is this that Republicans fear and distrust greatly - that now is it time they got what they dished out at the expense of liberals for quite some time.
The level of partisan enculturation has been very deep and broad among the right for a very long time. I used to think of it in terms of three generations. Now I see a persistent thread of conservative partisanship, almost a shadow civilization within the vast and mighty progressivism of the American Republic, that has been around for at least ten generations. Or, perhaps a superior explanation is that this modern-era lens of conservatism has infected my own perceptions - and is retroactively creating a nationalism separate from that of the overall American historical experience.
Either way, it stands that not only how Republicans increasingly see themselves - a nation apart - and how I and other "outsiders" do - that they are a nation apart - is a meme that must be discredited. Absent that, it is a condition that must be mitigated, if there is ever to be lasting reconciliation, for if we are truly speaking of two Americas defined by ideology and culture, increasingly separate and suspicious to one another, then we have a dreadful and daunting task ahead.
Ultimately, there is no monopoly, hardly, on distrust in this country held by any faction, grouping or community available for inspection at this time.
And that, my friends, is why the hard talk from our brethren in the right is so dangerous.
Not only because they do not trust us.
But because we do not trust them, either.
And we all have a long way to go and a long way that we must go to become one great nation again.
Else we will begin to see the little wars, here and there, as the Colonials did long ago for many years.
As the Americans of the Antebellum did, for many years.
We will have time to fix our gates and mend our fences, but we will also face many checkpoints where our progress - toward a Great Reconciliation or a Great New Strife - will be sorely tested.
And perhaps, it is hard to recognize our place on the current stretch of history. Are we toward the start of a time of changes, when the risk of some new civil war is low and the need to take precautions difficult to jusify, in the middle where it's really unclear and our ears are subjected to loud and conflicting counsels, or closer toward the end, where the destination is very obvious but there is scarce little to do about it?
Ultimately, I think the true warning signs to look for are
- insincerity in negotiations
- endless demands for concessions
- refusals to concede anything in return
- abusive, demonizing language
- also, rhetoric that speaks of struggle, of war, of a higher or special breed of patriotism, of special destinies, of deserving high office (or not) regardless of the electoral process or outcome, and material evidence of plans to engage in rebellion and disruptions of the peace, or actually doing so.
But that's kind of the problem isn't it?
We're hearing this sort of thing a lot, and we have for quite some time.
Comments are closed on this story.