Violence against elected government justified?

Here's a debate that occurred in mid-April on Facebook between me and two guys named Kent and Graeme. We were posting comments simultaneously, so it isn't quite in perfect order, but you get the idea.

25% of Tea Pottiers think it is okay to commit violence against the government--CBS Poll.

Tea Pottiers...I like it.Kent:  Here is the exact question and the results: "Do you think that it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?" General public response: 16% justified, 79% unjustified; Tea Party: 24% justified, 71% unjustified.

So, I guess this DOES prove ONE thing for sure. Tea Partiers are more familiar with the HISTORY of our country than the general public....When was the last time Americans were justified in taking violent action against their government, Kent? Don't say the Revolutionary War because that was the British government, not an American government operating under the Constitution.Graeme:  And what if it is determined that the American government is no longer acting within the confines of the Constitution? I'm the furthest thing from a Tea Partier, I find their general outlook reprehensible, but Kent is right that the actual question was a theoretical one, and the Tea Partier results weren't far off from the responses from the general population. The question said "the government," not any specific kind of government. If you take out "American" and "constitutional," how many of us would say "always unjustified?" I wouldn't.

Kent:  Valid question Rob but that was not the point or why I posted it. It was a headline (and question) designed to make a point that the Tea Party crowd are stupid and violent--neither of which is true. You asked a question of a bunch of people that are focused on the founding fathers and a return to fundamental government honesty so of course they would reflect back mentally to defending liberty.If you're thinking Native Americans had a legitimate excuse to blow up Congress and the White House to protect themselves against the US's genocidal policies, I'm with you there. Is that the kind of historical example you're thinking of?Graeme:  That's one, sure. Or slaves rebelling against the government enforcers of their slavery, workers fighting against government repression, etc. I'm also thinking of many illegitimate and unjust governments around the world today, many of which are supported by the US, not coincidentally.

I think the Tea Party ideology is both stupid and violent, but that doesn't mean all of its followers are. Many have legitimate grievances, but their anger and resentment is being misdirected by extremists and Republican front groups.

Kent:  I think the intention of the question/survey is more aimed at armed insurrection instead of Terrorist style violence. When seen from that perspective, I think they were justified in their actions; they were entitled to the same protections as ALL Americans.

No examples since Revolutionary War?

I acknowledged that violent action against a government is justified when it doesn't represent the people under a duly ratified constitution. As in the case of the Revolutionary War.

But neither of you could come up with a single example of a violent action justified against the US government since then? Thanks for proving my point, people.

My counter-question is valid since Kent made the dubious claim that Tea Pottiers know US history better than other people. Actually, we're all familiar with the Revolutionary War, Kent. We learned about it in kindergarten.

Until you come up with another example, your claim is false. There's zero evidence that the typical Tea Pottier knows US history better than a typical kindergartner.

In short, now that you've explained why you ducked my question, go ahead and answer it. To repeat: When was the last time Americans were justified in taking violent action against their government?

"Fighting against government repression" is suitably vague. Government repression could mean the North enforcing its slave-free way of life on the South, or the National Guard integrating Southern schools at gunpoint. Or it could mean disagreeing with a black man who was elected president with 53% of the vote.

One person's "armed insurrection" is another person's "terrorist-style violence." Which is why I asked for specific incidents in US history where violence against the government was justified. List the incidents first and then we'll discuss whether they're armed insurrections or terrorist-style violence.

Kent claimed the Tea Pottiers know US history better than the rest of us. Again, list some specific events in US history that the Tea Pottiers know better. Not general types of events, specific events.Kent:  No intention to duck it--The survey question was: is it "EVER justified" not "WHEN was" it justified.

You said: When was the last time Americans were justified in taking violent action against their government, Kent?

Are you trying to imply that I would say something positive about a RW fringe group? Is that what you were fishing for because my views are to the right of yours? A bit insulting don't you think?

At any rate, your question/statement has NOTHING to do with the discussion.

I was never trying to point out an example of justifiable violence--you asked a hypothetical re Native Americans and I answered.

The point of the Rev war was just that--when people legitimately believe that their government is not doing it's job AS DEFINED in the governing documents and all other avenues are exhausted then ANY people of ANY country MUST reserve the right to seek redress.

The founding documents were written to prevent the "Tyranny of the Mob" and add checks and balances to protect us FROM the government, no matter how well intentioned.

Tea Pottiers thinking of slave revolts?

It would be interesting to do some follow-up questioning for the Tea Pottiers who approve violence against the government. For instance:

"Black slaves sometimes killed the white government overseers who kept them enslaved. Some of these overseers were your ancestors. Even though slavery was legal in the South, were these slaves justified in killing your ancestors?"

I'd answer yes, but I'm guessing the typical Tea Pottier would answer no. In other words, I'm guessing that's not the type of anti-government violence the Tea Pottiers are thinking of. Which again proves my point.Kent:  Oh--Based on the poll being bandied about, IF you believe that Americans that consider themselves sympathetic to the Tea Party are "better educated" than most Americans then...basic logic would say that they know US history better than a typical kindergartner. I realize that this is not a scientific poll specifically about that but IF you can generalize that all "Tea Partiers" are stupid (or what ever it is you believe and are welcome to believe) then we can extrapolate from the given data we do have.You made the ridiculous claim that Tea Pottiers know history better than other people, Kent. The issue you raised certainly is part of the discussion.

Apparently you're not going to answer the question I asked. I'll take that as an implicit admission that you were wrong.

"Tea Partiers are more familiar with the HISTORY of our country than the general public"...false. As I've demonstrated with my questions and your lack of answers.Kent:  What question please?

The actions of slaves are not relevant to the discussion--those are crimes."When people legitimately believe that their government is not doing it's job AS DEFINED in the governing documents and all other avenues are exhausted then ANY people of ANY country MUST reserve the right to seek redress." Yes, but that doesn't apply to the situation today. Or to any situation in US history since the American Revolution, judging by your lack of answers.

Which means the Tea Pottiers don't know our history any better than a typical kindergartner. Indeed, I suspect the typical kindergartner would do better on my slavery follow-up question than the typical Tea Pottier.Graeme:  Not sure what it proves. The violence you mention was in pursuit of a moral good, as you (and I) see it. It was also launched against legitimate (as seen at the time) authority "under a duly ratified constitution." The USSR also had a "duly ratified constitution"; I wonder if you think anti-government violence in that state would ever have been justified.

I haven't tried to come up with a case in more recent history (I mentioned workers, and was thinking of early-20th century miner repression and the like), though I could. What about violently resisting county or even state police departments in the US South 50 years ago, police departments that were often party to lynch mobs? That's not the federal government, but it's still government. Or AIM's resistance of federal occupation of Native land in the Dakotas, that was only back in the '70s. Even some of the more radical leftist groups blowing up military recruiting centers in the early '70s. I don't think most of those campaigns worked, but were they justified? The US government was waging a genocidal war in Southeast Asia at the time; I think the case can be made that such violence was justified, yes. It's easy to go on. What makes you think either the government or violence have changed so much in the past 150 years?

Rob tries one more time

For the third time: When was the last time Americans were justified in taking violent action against their government, Kent? Name the most recent event in US history where you think Americans were justified in taking violent action against their government.

I agree with your examples, Graeme. But I strongly doubt the typical Tea Pottier a) knows these historical incidents and b) was thinking of them when he claimed violence against the government is sometimes justified.

Again, this goes to the issue Kent raised: that Tea Pottiers know US history better than the rest of us. No, they don't.

When I see the first Tea Pottier take an anti-war, pro-minority, or pro-union stance, then I'll reconsider my position. Until then, I'd say they're as ignorant as kindergartners.

For more on justified killings by Indians, see Justified Killings at Richland Creek and Was Jamestown Massacre Justified? For more on gun-wielding Tea Pottiers, see Imagine a Black Tea Party and Klansmen, Militias, and Teabaggers.