Leaving aside the childish framing of "bloodbath" versus "craven capitulation"...

[cthulu2016]

I have a question about the BLM stand-off and history.

Not whether the right thing was done this weekend, which is of limited interest to me, being a single event.

But this. As a question.

Do recent instances come to mind when the federal government has backed off (halted, delayed, side-tracked, changed the course of, etc..) an official action or activity in direct response to armed intimidation by a political faction.

The government routinely responds to over-arching practical realities. That isn't the question. For instance, not everyone at a 1960s Vietnam protest who did not disperse could be arrested. Not enough jail cells in all of DC for that. And if enforcement of some mass-eviction would dump 100 people out of an apartment building on the coldest night of the year a way would be found to delay the action out of humanitarian interests public safety concerns.

The question I am asking here is not whether the government should be rigidly murderous in its autocracy, like a Judge Dredd comic.

It should not. Obviously.

The question is historical... about the efficacy of armed intimidation by a political faction.

And the point of this OP is not to say that the government should have done some particular different thing x—I doubt any of us know enough about the practical circumstances get into particular options—but to note that what happened was extraordinary.


It is not that the government wussed out or that the government did just the right thing. The point is that the radio-right (my new term for them, encompassing both AM talk radio followers and "the CIA put a radio in my head" types) created a situation that forced a very unusual thing to happen.

The whole "what tactical response should there or should there not have been" argument is a sideshow to the real topic.

Whether BLM's response was right or wrong, the fact remains that the radio-right, the militia nuts, acted, tactically, in such a way that something extremely unusual happened.

Assuming it was wise and prudent and all of that, it still happened.

The issue is not "did the government do right?" Stipulate that it was the right and wise decision. The issue is, the nut-right has found a tactic where the right and wise decision, the right answer, the mandated government course of action is to delay or alter performance of an official activity in the face of armed intimidation by a rebellious faction.

And that is a new development, in recent history. I am not tlaking about the war of Jenkin's Ear or the Whiskey rebellion here. I am talking about contemporary America.

Stipulating that the government did the right thing (I think they probably did), the militia whackos found a mode of operation wherein it would be the right thing for the government to defer to organized armed intimidation.

It is, thus, a very noteworthy tactical advance, and a very noteworthy degeneration of the solidity of the implacability of federal authority.

[treestar]

1. This was a civil matter

These can always be settled short of armed conflict.

[cthulu2016]

2. What's your point?

All sorts of things are civil matters. Integrating the schools in Little Rock was a civil matter.

The OP is about an advance in a mode of armed rebellion, not about the wisdom of a particular mode of government response.

The first step to any discussion of the thing is to grasp two things: 1) A bloodbath would not have been desirable. 2) What happened was extraordinary.

Stipulate that the narrow action or inaction was the right thing to do.

The federal government is not typically met with armed intimidation by a rebellious political faction of such a character that it is the right thing to do.

It (the militia call to arms, not the government response) is a game-changing development with far-reaching implications.

[treestar]

3. Giving into them doesn't kill anyone

At least, temporarily. Had they taken hostages it would be different. Here they were unlawfully grazing cattle. They hadn't harmed anyone to start. Why risk the lives of BLM or other agents?

[cthulu2016]

4. I agree.