I'm posting this journal because I've read far too much violent rhetoric on this site and seen far too many people making excuses for this sort of behavior. The Civil War was more than a conflict between the Union and Confederate armies, and militia groups were responsible for many of the worst atrocities. I fear that many people are far too eager to see a repeat of this brutal and ugly conflict.
History books tend to describe the Civil War through a series of battles between the Union and Confederate armies. Although those battles certainly happened, they ignore a large part of the violence that took place.
Today, the rivalry between the Missouri Tigers and Kansas Jayhawks is one of the most bitter in all of college sports. Until the mid-2000s, the rivalry was officially referred to as the Border War. Although many rivalries use the word "war" in their names, this rivalry is unique in that much of the tradition around the rivalry traces its history to an actual war. Both the Tigers and Jayhawks are named for Civil War militia groups. The University of Kansas campus in Lawrence includes Mount Oread, which is a large hill where one militia group organized before burning Lawrence to the ground. To this day, this event is unofficially referenced by many fans.
Missouri and Kentucky were somewhat unique during the Civil War in that their government officially remained loyal to the Union while illegitimate shadow legislatures voted to secede. Slavery was legal in Missouri, but it is misleading to suggest that the state was uniformly loyal to the Confederacy. In fact, Saint Louis was a Union stronghold, as well as many other cities around the state such as Columbia.
The Old Courthouse in Saint Louis is the site of two trials where Dred and Harriet Scott sued for their freedom from slavery. In the first trial, their request was denied. They requested a retrial where they were awarded their freedom from Irene Emerson. Following the second verdict, Emerson appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court which overturned the circuit court decision and sent Dred and Harriet Scott back into slavery. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in 1857 to deny freedom to Dred and Harriet Scott. This ruling also invalidated the Missouri Compromise, meaning that slave owners could continue to own slaves even after moving to states where slavery was illegal. Today, the Old Courthouse is maintained by the National Park Service and has exhibits about the Dred Scott case. I've visited the courtroom where Dred and Harriet Scott were initially awarded their freedom before higher courts ruled that they were the property of Emerson.
Much of the conflict in Missouri and Kansas was between militia groups. Some of these militia groups were organized to fortify and defend cities while many others roamed through the states committing acts of violence. Militia groups that supported the Confederacy were known as Bushwhackers. There were also militia groups that organized in Kansas in support of the Union, and they were known as Jayhawkers. Both the Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers were known for conducting brutal raids and engaging in lawlessness.
One well-known raid occurred in 1861 when James Lane organized a group of Jayhawkers to sack the town of Osceola in western Missouri. The town was burned to the ground, nine residents were court-martialed and executed, and 200 slaves were freed. Lane and his militia plundered from Osceola, stealing food and resources. The Jayhawkers were known for their brutality and were harshly criticized by Union commanders. In 1862, Union Major General Lorenzo Thomas wrote about Charles Jennison's group of Jayhawkers that they were "no better than a band of robbers; they cross the line, rob, steal, plunder, and burn whatever they can lay their hands upon. They disgrace the name and uniform of American soldiers and are driving good Union men into the ranks of the secession army."
One of the responses to Lane's raid was conducted by William Quantrill, a Bushwhacker who organized a group of raiders that included "Bloody Bill" Anderson to go into Kansas and attack the town of Lawrence. On a night in August 1863, a group of about 450 raiders organized near Mount Oread before entering Lawrence to burn it to the ground. Banks and stores were looted, 150 men and boys were killed, and the town was completely burned by the raiders. Prior to the raid, Quantrill compiled a list of people purported to be in Lawrence whom they planned to capture and execute, though some on the list such as James Lane successfully fled and avoided being put to death.
Jennison was also known for brutal raids in western Missouri, where his raiders devastated five counties. In many cases, all that was left from Jennison's attacks were stone chimneys known as Jennison monuments, where the houses had been burned to the ground and only the chimneys remained.
Many Bushwhackers not only conducted raids in Kansas but also against Union strongholds in Missouri. In September 1864, "Bloody Bill" Anderson and his group of Bushwhackers massacred the city of Centralia, which is located in central Missouri, about 15 miles northeast of Columbia. Anderson's band of raiders that attacked Centralia included Jesse James, who would go on to be a particularly famous outlaw. Concerned that Columbia would also be targeted by Bushwhackers, Congressman James Rollins organized a militia known as the Columbia Tigers in support of the Union to fortify the city and protect it against Bushwhacker raids. Anderson and his raiders never attacked Columbia, and the Tigers are often credited with discouraging Bushwhackers from raiding the city. As far as I can tell, history remembers the Tigers favorably, and unlike the other militia I've discussed, they were not associated with lawlessness and brutality.
Much of the conflict in Missouri and Kansas was not between the Union and Confederate armies, but between militia groups on both sides. Both the Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers were known for looting, arson, and mass murder. The conflict was much more complicated than Missouri being a slave state and fighting against Kansas, which was a free state. In fact, a significant portion of Missouri was loyal to the Union and faced many brutal raids by the same Bushwhacker militia groups that attacked Kansas.
Not all militia groups were associated with lawlessness, and some were organized by people protecting their homes and cities against raiders. However, many of these groups on both sides of the conflict were incredibly brutal and indiscriminately killed people. Although the Jayhawkers supported the Union, many of the atrocities they committed were just as horrible as the raiders conducted by Bushwhackers.
When modern militia groups stockpile weapons and prepare for combat, these are not necessarily idle threats. There is historical precedent in the Civil War of these militia groups looting, burning cities to the ground, and committing mass murder. Violent rhetoric is unacceptable, whether it's sarcastically calling for attacks on NRA leadership or wishing for the deaths of fifty million progressives. I have no problem with people using guns for self defense to protect themselves from being attacked by criminals. The problem is that there are many people and militia groups arming for war, and we should not treat this as an idle threat. If we're going to learn from history, we need to remember that the Civil War was incredibly brutal, and many of the worst atrocities were committed by militia groups using their political affiliation as an excuse to engage in lawlessness.
When people are stockpiling weapons, conducting paramilitary training, and promoting anti-government ideas, we would be fools to dismiss this as hyperbole. There is no place for violence or violent threats, serious or otherwise, in civilized society. I'm posting this because I'm very troubled by some of the awful comments and journals that have been posted here recently. I fear that many people are eager to repeat the atrocities of the Civil War, and none of us will benefit if that happens. This needs to stop.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by owl on Tuesday May 09, @01:09PM
Are you sure that is the goal?
You are mostly on the right track. Social media echo chambers, and social media engagement algorithms contribute significantly to the outcome, but were the engagement algorithms put in place with a goal of "violent uprising" -- or is "violent uprising" simply an unintended consequence of a different goal for those algorithms?
Consider that the point of social media and news publishers is to earn money from advertising payments. Those social media companies and news publishers then have a direct incentive to find ways to increase engagement because increased engagement directly leads to more advertising revenue.
One way to increase engagement is to create click-bait headlines and false boogeymen to generate a sense of urgency or fear in readers to get them to engage. I.e., there is a reason why grocery store tabloid (i.e., National Enquirer and the like) headlines and stories are written the way they are. Cultivating a false sense of insecurity or urgency creates an interest in learning what in the world is going on (i.e., "engagement"). This just plays on primal survival emotions.
So social media, and as well much of the news/press, has an incentive to create "National Enquirer" style headlines/stories because those types of headlines/stories grab eyeballs and increase engagement.
Now, combine that with the last 10-20 years of the internet and browsers and the ability of website analytics to report to a publisher (be that publisher a social media company or a news org) very fine grained data on "engagement" with their published items. I.e., if you let the analytics javascript run, it can not only report that you viewed a given page, it can report how long you were on the page, whether you scrolled down to read below the fold, if you did a search within the page for some words, etc.
The result of this level of "engagement analytics" is that over the course of years we get a feedback loop going. Publisher produces batch of stories, analytics reports which stories get more "engagement" (these being those that are more on the "rational enquirer" click-bait side). Those stores with more engagement generate more ad revenue. Publisher wants more revenue, so next batch of stories is a bit more "sensational" than the last, because that is what generated more engagement last time. The additional "sensationalism" itself generates more engagement -- which generates more revenue. Repeat the cycle daily over ten plus years and you have all these "social media" and "news orgs" creating sensational stories with false boogeymen to drive ever more ad revenue.
All of which occurred without ever having a goal of "violent uprising". Now, an unintended consequence of all of this is that some of the more gullible of the general population start believing that the boogeymen created by the click-bait publishers is real, and you begin to have the situation we see now, where the fringe is getting riled up enough that they might be becoming a danger -- not because the publishers set out to rile them up (i.e., it was never the goal) -- but because the chasing of ad revenue through engagement metrics resulted in them becoming riled up, and no one in the publishing houses has cared to notice the result of their chasing ever more ad revenue through ever more sensational stories. Their focus is simply on the next quarter's stock-market report.