Individuals, yes, but I think we need to start regarding some of these groups, like the “Proud Boys” (which still strikes me as more of a good name for a Village People tribute band than a white nationalist group) as inherently dedicated to insurrectionist activities. It is one thing to hold objectionable political or social views; it is quite another to conspire to mount an attack deliberately intended to delay or interfere with the democratic process.
Stranger
Adding groups to the watch list is one thing. Making sure they don’t cause trouble is something else entirely.
Yeah, that whole “let’s wear kilts and paint ANTIFA SUCKS on our asses” stunt definitely had a Village People vibe to it.
I wonder whose idea that was, and if he did all the ass-painting himself.
He might not have even been a Proud Boy, maybe just some dude that they met in their hotel lobby that wanted to have some fun. Conservatives are so gullible.
You should read this link, then come back and tell me there was not an organised coup - the only thing left to debate is, where is the line between rigging and election and an outright coup - seems to me that its a continuum that starts with disenfranchisement and ends with hijacking of the of the reins of power.
Well, the Presidential residence, but, yeah, Hamilton (according to Toll) had force in mind.
The Civil War was worse, in almost every way, but it wasn’t a threat to American democracy. Lincoln didn’t cancel elections or abrogate the constitution. Hamilton had in mind a small scale military coup, removing the President by force. Trump sort of wanted that, but didn’t have the influence – or brains – to put it together.
Exactly.
It’s something a lot of people have forgotten in the near hagiography he enjoys at the moment (or rather, probably never knew in the first place), but Hamilton for all the work he did to help set up the US, was a real social climbing asshole in a lot of ways. And that’s the polite version.
Of course, several other Founding Fathers were also decidedly not saints, though that doesn’t excuse some of the things they did.
Trove of cellphone data suggests riot may have started with Trump rally.
(In case there is still some doubt)
I don’t follow or watch Fox News so I was unaware of this. But…
Fox News Host: Trump's Call for January 6 Protests a 'Type of Anarchy'
A couple of days before the riots occurred, one of the hosts warned that what Trump was calling for his followers to do was dangerous and could lead to anarchy.
Even they could see trouble was coming. There was nothing spontaneous about this.
Okay, so I did some historical reading - just a few things on le Internet. It dug up a few terms I vaguely recall hearing but didn’t recall much about.
During the earliest days of the nation, starting before the Constitution, there were a string of rebellions against the federal government, primarily over taxation issues that arguably struck the poor and Westerners more than wealthy and industrialists.
In 1786 and 1787, Shay’s Rebellion was a group of 4000 men who tried to capture a federal armory and overthrow the government. This contributed to the need to form the Constitutional Convention and replace the Articles of Confederation. Big impact to the very existence of the fledgling United States.
The Whiskey Rebellion occurred during George Washington’s presidency. Pennsylvania locals resisted a tax program using assaults and threats on federal agents and anyone who paid the tax. A band of 500 men attacked the home of a tax collector looming for the federal Marshall staying there. This caused Washington himself to form a contingent of militia 13,000 strong to march on Pennsylvania insurrectionists. He managed to get the issue resolved through negotiation before it led to a confrontation of forces. Eventually everyone was pardoned, though a few people were killed in the attack.
Under John Adams’ presidency, again armed resisters in Pennsylvania protesting a tax threatened federal officials and “arrested” tax assessors. Led by John Fries, this is known as the Fries Rebellion. Federal troops had to march in and carry out mass arrests. Several were tried and convicted of treason, though Adams then pardoned them, choosing a strict definition of treason.
All of these occurred in the earliest days of our nation’s history as a nation, before the power structures were in place and while we were still figuring things out. In some ways they were a bigger deal, by measure of possible impact on the shape of federal powers.
Yet I have to agree with LSLGuy, these efforts, if successful, still likely would have led is to somewhere similar for democracy. In the end, their result was primarily the shift of power from the Federalists to the Democratic-Republicans.
(Side note - someone had the Democrats and Republicans on the same side then. 
)
Whereas Trump has been moving the country away from pluralistic democracy and toward greater autocracy. And the Trump Insurrectionists like the Proud Boys have an agenda to bypass politics and resort to violent overthrow, eliminating the will of the country as a whole by negating the process of democracy itself. And the Republican Party has been chasing the same goal, though through mostly legal and bureaucratic means rather than outright violence. They want to reduce voters to prevent Dems from being able to win, rather than reach out to a wider demographic.
Fries’ Rebellion seems to qualify.
Hamilton was the head of the Federalist Party, John Adams’ party. He wrote a pamphlet titled, “Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq. President of the United States, [24 October 1800]”. In it, he argues that John Adams, the sitting President, is unfit for office. His doing so helps undermine Adams’ reelection and leads to Thomas Jefferson replacing him.
By the way, that letter is extremely verbose, as is the style of the time. Some of the sentences are longer than my whole post. I tried to parse through it in hopes of summarizing his claims, but I just get lost in the lengthy, repetitious, cumbersome writing. The one detail I could glean is that Hamilton felt Adams was vain and pompous and too self-aggrandizing. Sound like anyone else?
From your cite:
Historians are agreed that the Federalists overreacted and mishandled a small episode.
And from the cite more generally, “small episode” seems an apt description; this was something that happened in a few counties in Pennsylvania, and doesn’t seem like it amounted to a meaningful threat to the stability of the new Republic.
My WAG is that this is why we learn about Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion in school, but not Fries’ rebellion, which I’d never heard of before your post.
Maybe it’s on the curriculum in Pennsylvania schools.
That’s quite a claim. Citation needed.
Writing a public letter critizing the president, even if it were the sole reason for losing an election, is in no way any type of coup, especially a military coup as was the claim.
Why Not?
In 2016, after conceding to Trump, Hillary Clinton and many of her supporters observed out loud that if the election was decided by the popular vote she would’ve won.
And apparently that’s exactly the same thing as losing both the popular vote and electoral vote by large margins, repeatedly insisting that you won by a landslide and amassing an actual army, weapons and all, to attack Congress and attempt to kill enough people to keep the rightful winner out of office.
ETA - My autocorrect is psychotic, it changed “vote” to Vietminh. If that latter is a word I’ve never typed it. It’s a wonder I can type anything coherent.
Your autocorrect has a long memory! ‘Vietminh’ is a word that hadn’t crossed my mind in decades.
I already cited, upthread: “Six Frigates” by Ian W. Toll. It’s a darned good book, covering the origin of the U.S. Navy, and he throws that factoid in by way of passing. He doesn’t go into enough detail. Fortunately, Irishman, above, was able to do some detailed resarch, for which thank you!
Yeah, ‘citing’ to something we can’t read, and which is just one writer who may or may not represent any sort of consensus. Fuck that shit with a pitchfork. Quote the pertinent text, tell me what sources he cites. That sorta shit. And then cite (with quotes) other historians who cover that period. Just because one guy says he thinks A. Ham. considered removing Adams by force, doesn’t make it so.
And nothing Irishman said supports your claim. Oh, Hamilton wrote a letter to try to keep Adams from being re-elected? Wow, coup!
ETA: All the more reason to be skeptical. If Hamilton had really considered removing Adams by force, and there were the receipts to show it, that would be a Big Fucking Deal in American history, rather than an aside in one book.
You can’t read a book? Interesting.
You expect someone to buy a book just to check your cite? Stupid.