A Look at Some History of Current Events

by Mark Wynn

In 1856 a guy named Preston Brooks was a member of the House of Representatives from South Carolina, a Democrat. We all heard the story of when he beat the Republican Senator from Massachusetts with a cane for saying something he couldn't handle. Hopefully we remember that was over slavery and preceded the civil war.

I always thought it weird how the ideology of the two party system flipped. In 1896 Democrat, William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power - traditionally at that time, a Republican stance. That's why Lincoln was a Republican. Lincoln was the big government guy of this time. Obviously the whole reason to allow a govt to exist is to make life better. That's why they both claimed it as their creeds. Before this, the party of the incompetent was clearly the pro-slavery, small government Democrats.

If you heard of a congressman beating another congressman today wouldn't you assume it was a Republican beating a Democrat? So when the party ideology flipped early in the 1900s the belligerent Democrats of the 1800s became the belligerent (or obtuse) Republicans of the 21st century. They traded ideology but kept the violent personalities. I think there's something fascinating in this. What causes a party to completely change its platform but keep the aggressive desperation to defend the indefensible? I'm not saying Dems wouldn't defend the indefensible, but you would never hear a Dem mention the 2nd amendment as an option. That's just fucking stupid. Are the egos attracted by individuality of the Republican party incapable of admitting a mistake?

Have you heard the quote, "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent"? I think the reason you would assume it is a Republican attacking a Democrat if you heard about a fight in Congress today is because like in 1856, the division between parties has left one side with no defense against the facts and sensing their inevitable defeat.

This should leave the intelligent Republicans speechless but it will allow the incompetent of the party to resort to the only option available. AND since the leader of the Republicans is one of these incompetents, it spells trouble for the future. It seems to me the reason the right strangely place so much importance on the 2nd amendment is they know their limitations to defend their positions.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with defending the country against an out of control govt with no checks or balances, because that's their guy. They have swallowed the conditioning to be self defeating in that respect. I don't see any other reason some cling to guns other than they know they are incapable of defending themselves with logic, exactly like Preston Brooks was unable to do in 1856. Not all gun owners are weaklings but no one wants a gun quicker than a weakling.

PS... While the Senator from Massachusetts took 3 years to recover from the beating, Preston Brooks was dead in like 6 months.

Rate this submission

Plot:
Dialogue:
Characters:
Wording:

You must be logged in to rate submissions