Posted on 10/28/2025 11:25:12 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
America again flirts with its own “Bleeding Kansas”—a cycle of partisan violence and defiance where lawless zealots are hailed as patriots and the rule of law bleeds away.
In the late 1850s, “Bleeding Kansas” was the term used to describe the escalating cycle of violence, when surrogates for the Union and soon-to-be Confederacy fought each other over whether Kansas would be admitted as a free or slave-owning state.
As the assaults and killings increased, radicals set the agenda. The logical next step was the nightmares of Fort Sumter and Bull Run.
Those calling for restraint and peaceful resolutions were considered weak and traitorous. The thuggish and violent, instead, were praised as the true idealists and patriots, the real “base” of their respective parties.
We have witnessed a growing wave of left-wing assassins and would-be assassins in the last few years: James Hodgkinson, Luigi Mangione, James Crooks, Ryan Routh, Elias Rodriguez, and Tyler Robinson, who have targeted Republican House leaders, CEOs, Donald Trump, Jews, and Charlie Kirk. For months, leftists vandalized or torched anything to do with the Tesla brand, and with virtual impunity, they sometimes went after individual Tesla owners. Jews walked in the shadows on campuses, where mobs cheered Hamas killers.
From June through October 2020, Antifa- and BLM-led rioting led to 35 deaths, $2 billion in damage, 14,000 arrests, and 1,500 injured police. On January 6, violence left five dead, four from the protesting side. But whereas the federal government immediately and often excessively jailed both violent and peaceful 2021 protesters, almost all of the 14,000 protesters and rioters of 2020 were released by left-wing blue-city and federal prosecutors and judges.
ICE officers and facilities remain under siege in a number of major cities. In this current left-wing legitimization of violence, the Democrat Party is now embracing an eerie channeling of an earlier,...
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
Because the R’s have no cajones and will not stand for anything.
“.....................when surrogates for the Union and soon-to-be Confederacy fought each other over whether Kansas would be admitted as a free or slave-owning state.
As the assaults and killings increased, radicals set the agenda. The logical next step was the nightmares of Fort Sumter and Bull Run.”
It begs the question.
Were the slave owning populace the radicals?
Were the abolitionists the radicals?
Without that being defined it causes a problem. In our time 2025, the radicals are those who want non-Americans to vote. The radicals are those who want to increase our taxes to give our money to other people against our will/without our consent. The radicals are those who want to spy on us and limit our speech.
It strikes me that both sides of that mess had radicals.
If the Rats get the congress next year and the WH in 28, this country is going to experience a violent pogrom against normal people the likes of which no one living now in American can imagine.
democrat Brownshirts everywhere and 95% of LEO whistling and looking the other way as they beat people on the streets. Leftist judges locking up anyone who defends himself with a weapon.
Bleeding Kansas is not the right analogy. Kansas truly was a military / terrorist conflict by both sides that escalated into the Civil War. The better analogy is the 1950s and 1960s Democrats who used the power of the state - and their paramilitary co-travelers like the KKK - to fight against federal law. Like Democrat Bull Connor said, they make their own law down here.
The Leftwing nuts see themselves as the new John Browns of this era...........
In VDH's article, the radicals were the ones on either side committing or pushing for violence against the other side. Today only one side, the left, commits violence against the other.
Thank you.
Then, using Bleeding Kansas as an analogy probably doesn’t work.
When “their side” has radicals, by that I mean Communists, progressives give them a prominent spot on CNN as commentators such as Van Jones or Michael Moore.
When “our side” has radicals, by that I mean someone like Nick Fuentes, our side is quite decidedly not in favor of having him around. Also there are grifters like Alex Jones who spew nothing but conspiracy theories (including September 11th) and guys like him also have a huge difficulty getting traction.
Compared to the embrace of Moore and Jones. So B.C. doesn’t work I think.
Sadly, I would have to agree.
The pinnacle of conservatism was a little over a decade ago. The Tea Party.
When every person willingly sat down and put down their flags and signs, the United States suffered a grievous loss. It’s very easy to be a republican. It is crucially difficult to be a conservative.
In almost (maybe all) cases the “sanctuary cities” today are in places controlled by the Democratic Party. In 1860, they were all with the Repubs. New England today has zero Repub house seats. In 1861, the area had only 2 or 3 Dem seats. VDH misses this near perfect reversal of roles.
Pritzer, et al, only want to selectively deny sovereignty to DC (keep the fed moola coming). That’s a completely different thing than a complete separation - something VDH misses. He’s not a stupid man, so has to be intentional. It’s clear he never read Jefferson Davis’ farewell address to the U.S. Senate where he carefully explained the difference between secession and (selective) nullification.
Were the slave owning populace the radicals?
Were the abolitionists the radicals?
The abolitionists didn't trust an election to decide the free vs. slave state status in their favor. So, instead of allowing democracy to function (and let the chips fall where they may), they recruited "settlers", equipped and supplied them - and most importantly, they *armed* them - and sent them down to Kansas to tip the election.
There are some modern parallels to be drawn, but it does seem that the abolitionist side was more radical than the "Missouri ruffians".
In the late 1850s, “Bleeding Kansas” was the term used to describe the escalating cycle of violence, when surrogates for the Union and soon-to-be Confederacy fought each other over whether Kansas would be admitted as a free or slave-owning state. That’s ancient history...my family immigrated here from Germany in 1837.
Mine came from Germany just after the Civil War. Four Lutheran Pastors and one house painter.
“The abolitionists didn’t trust an election to decide the free vs. slave state status in their favor. So, instead of allowing democracy to function (and let the chips fall where they may), they recruited “settlers”, equipped and supplied them - and most importantly, they *armed* them - and sent them down to Kansas to tip the election.”
____________________________________________________________
The problem with your framing is that the actual Civil War was initiated against the US military, after South Carolina voted a Resolution of Secession immediately after Lincoln was elected because he opposed the expansion of slavery.
Funny how Lincoln said the war was not about slavery.
“Funny how Lincoln said the war was not about slavery.”
____________________________________________________________
Funny how the South Carolina Resolution of Secession says slavery was exactly the issue being fought over.
Slaves were nothing more than a commodity product in the South before the war. Since they were simply “property,” the property interference claimed by South Carolina and the other Confederate states in rebellion didn’t want that human property interfered with in any way.
Read it when you want to really know what happened.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
My comment was not intended to explain what sparked the wider conflict, but to broadly describe the anti-slavery radicalism that led to incidents like the Pottawatomie massacre and others which turned the Kansas-Missouri border into a war zone long before Lincoln was elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.