Francisco "A.J." Camacho
The Tennessean
February 5th 2021
The plotting began in late November. It was the culmination of months of frustrations. Some had been warned for years that this would happen—that the great tyranny of the system would finally suppress the civil and political rights of the common man.
But only now did enough people decide to take a stand.
A simmering rage
Throughout December the planning continued. How would they stop this slight on the will of the people? How could they restore democracy to this land? Secret correspondences were exchanged. Of course, officials knew that these people were talking and that they were discontent, but they never imagined the destruction that would result.
Finally, the time was ripe. They gathered to hear their organizer, their leader. After some speaking, the leader proclaimed that the meeting could do nothing further to save the country and that he knew everyone would soon be marching to patriotically make their voices heard. This, they knew, was the signal.
So the people marched eastward to another part of the city. What happened next depends a lot on who you ask. Some will call it a “protest” and others a “riot.” Some will say they wore costumes to disguise their identity. Some will call them “patriots” and others “terrorists.” But if they did wear costumes, all still knew who they were. And if it was a protest, it was still destructive.
They weren’t allowed inside, but that didn’t stop the mob from breaking in and destroying what they found. To them, it did not matter if it was private or public – the property’s destruction would make their point. Hearing of the attack, few cared about the monetary cost. It was the audacity of the event that captured the public's attention.
Unheeded warnings
Law enforcement might have tried to stop them, but they weren’t prepared. Those warning signs were never taken as a serious threat, so officers could do little but let the mob satisfy themselves.
Whether or not their leader helped incite the event is disputed. Some say that he did not intend for such destruction but wanted to organize opposition to the tyranny more peacefully. Regardless of his intent, he immediately worked to defend the mob. He said they were “very special” and expressed his love for them, arguing that they were frustrated and acting as they did was their last resort.
Even those politicians considered by the mob to be friends in the fight against tyranny were appalled, and this act united both parties against the mob and reduced political will to contest the established system.
Meanwhile, many, though not all and probably not most, of the disgruntled population praised those in the mob as patriots. Sometimes they qualified it to save face with others, but many believed that the protesters were acting righteously, defending their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,” as a particular founding document stated.
How the Capitol insurrection differed from the Boston Tea Party
Often have I heard it told that history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. It should be no surprise, then, that the events described took place at two different locations at entirely different times: Once in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021, and once in Boston on Dec. 16, 1773. There is but one tangible difference when adjusting for place and time. In one case, the tyranny the mob feared was real. In the other, it was a manufactured fiction .
What makes a patriot?
Was the Boston Tea Party patriotic? Were those who stormed the Capitol patriots? Is it actions or intentions the define one’s character? Can a riot be patriotic and its leader egocentric?
Regardless of my personal conclusions, these are difficult yet important questions to ask. All Americans should take this unique opportunity in our history to consider what it means to be a patriot and whether being patriotic is necessarily good.
Comentários