My (perhaps poorly expressed) point is that, as events transpired, we can't well theorize the merits of one (Mr Brown) over the other (Mr Lincoln). The former was important, and the latter was important.
Hard to overstate what a novelty John Brown was when he popped onto the scene in Kansas. An abolitionist willing to fight! It really shocked people. Many parallels to the cowering liberals I see around me.
You could probably make a case where Lincoln doesn't win the 1860 election without the Harper's Ferry raid hardening the southern Democrats and forcing the division that ultimately secured the EC victory for Lincoln. Im not sure I believe it but its for sure plausible.
I utterly sympathize with this sentiment and feel the same way 80% of the time. The other 20% I think how GOP losing its mind to resentment and revenge after 2012 caused everything that happened since and I am afraid of that happening to “our” side, whatever that may be.
We're in an incredibly dangerous period of time. You cannot sustain a political order in which only one side agrees to be bound by the law. It's becoming very evident that's where we are now.
Comments
Four. Four! Chief politics for the upcoming years.
I'm inclined toward @microlocaltourist.bsky.social's observation.
a-moulderin' in a T-45
a-moulderin' in a T-45
But his power-fist keeps pumpin' on!