Domestic Terrorism – Some Brief Thoughts
To follow up on my comments yesterday, here are some quick thoughts on domestic terrorism. Arguably, it existed for much of our history. While examples exist on both the left and the right, it seems to be more often than not a methodology chosen by those on the left rather than the right.
While some have argued that the Boston Tea Party in 1773 was our first act of domestic terrorism, I don’t think I would characterize the tea party as terrorism. Vandalism, certainly, but the act was against property, and it while it was politically motivated and intended to force political change, it did not intend to threaten the life and limb of loyal British citizens.
John Brown’s anti-slavery crusade certainly puts him in the camp of domestic terrorists. The fact that his cause was one most of us find agreeable makes Brown a problematic figure. Murdering three pro-slavery settlers in 1856 to avenge the sack of Lawrence was a starting point, the Harper’s Ferry Raid in 1859 was intended to start a slave uprising and insurrection to abolish slavery. Brown was legitimately convicted and hanged. Brown’s politics probably don’t fit a left – right axis well, but he is probably more closely associated with the left than the right in modern political terms.
The Ku Klux Klan, formed in response to Reconstruction after the Civil War, certainly qualifies as an organization fostering domestic terror. The KKK is probably one of the few right wing organizations to be long lived and have a large base of public support. It also has had the largest murder rate, largely prior to World War I.
The May 4, 1886 Haymarket Bombing was never really solved, though several anarchists were executed for the bombing, though it is unlikely any of them were the actual bomber. The deaths of several policemen and bystanders at a radical anarchist meeting in Chicago helped turn public sentiment against radical politics.
Western Federation of Miners killings. The radical leadership hired an enforcer who used dynamite to even old scores and agitate for union demands. Victims included two mid level mine manager and 13 non union miners killed by bombs in a 1903 – 1903 strike in Colorado, and the murder of the former governor of Idaho, also with a bomb. A skillful defense by Clarence Darrow resulted in the acquittal of the first defendants and dropped prosecution, later evidence showed the state was correct, and the leadership had hired a killer. After his acquittal, “Big Bill” Haywood went on to found the Industrial Workers of the World, and then emigrate to the USSR.
The October 10, 1910 bombing of the Los Angeles Times building killed 21. It was the work of a pair of union organizers.
The September 16, 1920 bombing outside the J. P. Morgan offices on Wall Street killed 38 and wounded 400. It has never officially been solved, but evidence strongly implicates an Italian anarchist.
An Italian anarchist group has also been implicated in bombings that continued until 1932.
The Weather Underground of the 1960s and 1970s has been mentioned before. William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are perhaps its best known alumni. The Symbionese Liberation Army, and Black Panthers engaged in violence for political ends as well.
Earth First! and PETA sympathizers have been implicated in property destruction and bombings in the 1980s and 1990s.
Abortion clinic violence has existed for thirty years, but it probably should be examined more closely to compare with the actions of EarthFirst! and some of the environmentally motivated violence.
The rise of eco-terrorism, threats and violence intended to intimidate people does not receive a lot of front page attention in the media. However, the FBI has found this to be a serious problem in the last 15 years, and there have been some successful prosecutions.
A very quick overview is not a solid historical study. But the quick overview shows that, excepting the Ku Klux Klan, and the anti abortion terrorists, domestic terrorists are more often than not either admitted leftists, or in closer alignment with the political left than the political right.
First, her name is not “Bernadette” but “Bernadine.”
Second, there are omissions: unsolved anthrax attacks in the U.S.–something that is nicely avoided by the near maniacal blubbering of Cheney. Others, Murrah and Kaczynki, et al (forgive me if I dont bother reading your prior article).
Third, I know that keeping score is of no benefit. Terrorism is terrorism, whether local of international. It is a cowardly attack upon the defenseless and should be condemned by everyone no matter their political leanings. What benefit would there be to characterize the shootings in the Virginia area as right or left?
Finally, unionists are not necessarily and automatically on the left. Those supporting workers who have committed acts of violence dont need to be leftists. Most, I believe, would consider the anarchists of the late 19th century to be on the right.
Things change: anarchists are anti-government. Leftists are considered by the present U.S. rightwingnuts to be socialists who want government to do everything by interfering with personal preferences.
Many academics code them that way, but since most academics are liberals, it is hardly surprising that they would code any group that is “bad” or violent as on the right. For example, they also code both Nazis and Stalinists as being on the right in spite of the underlying socialist origins of both.
Basically, the ideological left has a record of manipulating definitions and coding rules to make their side look innocent and the other side look guilty. But those of us who see through the charade should not be bound by its rigged categories just because “most” academics are complicit in them.
hey kids…
while your historical overview is accurate what is missing, from the perspective of the left,
is that following the national realignment that occured during the presidents ford carter phase, the left has been following a non-violence strategy that appears to be more effective than violence as an act for political motivation. the example of the large no-nukes movement and the housing now coalitions between labor and the grassroots…
i dislike labeling myself but i found your comment to be rather uninformed. i mean this in a good way…for irrespective of our personal ethical center i feel that it will take us all at our best to provide as we should for the women and children of the seventh generation…
with love and prayers,
sasha
The extreme left has embraced eco-terrorism as a way to intimidate their opposition. Unfortunately they define “Earth rapers” as anyone benefitting from the Earth’s resources and animals, which means they’re at war with all of us.
There’s a good piece listing the worst crimes of eco-terrorists, where people were killed or injured, at http://www.furcommission.com/resource/perspect999cj.htm At the end of that article is a chronology of many of the more serious crimes committed. It is not complete by any means.
compassion is not terrorism…
Of course the mine owners also used armed thugs to terrorize the miners. Both sides in that dispute used terrorism to further their ends. Less than 10 years prior at Cripple Creek the state militia had to be called out to protect the miners from armed thugs hired by the owners. That was of course a very different time and does very little to inform us about the relative violence of one side or the other. Neither does a partial listing of some terrorist events dubiously attributed to one side or the other. Anarchists, libertarians, trade-unionists, etc are not easily categorized as right or left wing in today’s also dubious dichotomy. To try to stuff these groups into these ill fitting labels serves little if any real purpose. The only reason I can think to do so is to try to score political points.
Both are totalitarian but neither fit neatly into an American political categorization. If one were forced to shoehorn them into that system then the communists would be most closely allied with a fringe of the left. Nazis, if similarly shoehorned, would by most closely allied with a fringe of the right. Anarchists on the other hand would be most closely allied with the libertarians and would have plenty to hate about both sides as they stand now.
These days, at least, anarchism is a wide ranging set of philosophies. There are both left and right anarchists, just as there are both left and right libertarians.
Orson: I highly expect someone to come stamping in soon to remind you that the KKK’s membership was high among Democrats.
Exactly so. It is difficult enough to attempt to fit our current set of political philosophies neatly into a left right dichotomy. When one attempts to do this over such a long period of time the results are not generally useful.
These exercises make me wish more and more for a system that could accommodate more political parties. The only possibility I see of making that a possibility is instant runoff elections. Are there any compelling arguments against instant run off elections?
I do feel that the term terrorism is getting thrown around pretty easily these days. In mind its one thing to have a group that vows violences and one of it members commits violence; its another thing when a group disavows violence (thought their rhetoric may be harsh) and someone following them commits violence. Its the latter example that I have difficulty with as an act of terrorism.
I think that delineates terrorist organizations and non-terrorist organizations rather than terrorism and non-terrorism.
The difficulty with the term terrorism is that it is intimately tied to motive and so without an explicit statement by the perpetrator(s) that can be difficult to determine.
With all due respect to Orson Buggeigh, his comments regarding John Brown the abolitionist are almost entirely incorrect. First, it is mere assumption that Brown’s “anti-slavery crusade certainly puts him in the campu of domestic terrorists.”
How is this a given when the political definition of terrorism that Mr. Buggeigh uses is itself racist? How can he write about “domestic terrorism” as if what was being systematically done to black people was not part of the domestic reality of the USA, and as if only what white people experienced and perceived defines our history. This bias poisons the typical view in which Brown is so labeled.
Second, Brown and his men killed five (not three) “pro-slavery settlers” NOT to “avenge the sack of Lawrence [Kan.]” but to remove local terrorist collaborators who were seeking to bring the same pro-slavery terrorism to Brown’s free state area. Why is it, Mr. Buggeigh, that Brown’s efforts are domestic terrorism, but what happened to Lawrence was a mere “sacking,” as if you’re talking about a football game? Don’t you realize that pro-slavery thugs defined, extended, and brought their violence to the point of domestic terrorism before John Brown ever set foot in Kansas? Again, your viewpoint is biased and factually erroneous.
Then Mr. Buggeigh writes that Brown’s “Harper’s Ferry Raid in 1859 was intended to start a slave uprising and insurrection to abolish slavery.” This is only partly true. Brown definitely did NOT want to start an insurrection because insurrections were by definition widely violent and presumed the deaths of slavemasters. Buggeigh does not understand Brown was trying a minimalist campaign, leading enslaved people away and fighting only in self-defense were his intentions.
Buggeigh concludes that “Brown was legitimately convicted and hanged.” Does Buggeigh believe that anything a court does is legitimate? Legal scholars know that Brown was rushed to trial, falsely indicted for treason (he was not a Virginian), and that in general his case was to legitimize the intention of the state to execute Brown and all of his men. The fact that Brown had attacked a federal armory suggests that he should have had a federal trial as well. Buggeigh should have written that Brown was “expediently and conveniently hanged” by the South, because that’s what really happened.
The one thing that I agree with Mr. Buggeigh about is that John Brown’s politics really “don’t fit a left-right axis well, but he is probably more closely associated with the left than the right in modern political terms.” That is well said. I am a biographer and student of John Brown. I care little for people’s political reading, or even their personal opinions, but it annoys me when writers use Brown with half-baked facts and gross errors and misreading in order to advance their ideas.
Domestic terrorism was not fathered by John Brown. He was one of its major opponents. Domestic terrorism was fathered and multiplied by white Americans in their quest for land, money, and power. That’s neither a Left nor Right opinion, but I think John Brown would agree with me.
Several points:
1. Terrorism was first employed by the state, was first called terrorism in the context of state terror, and until fairly recent times was understood to be primarily a tool of the state. Any discussion of terrorism that ignores this fundamental fact is unenlightening at best.
2. The Western Federation of Miners probably did use terrorism in its early days–they were “Wild-West men”, accustomed to working with dynamite, and when they fought they used the weapons that came to hand–but to assert that its officers “hired an enforcer” (presumably the mine-owners’ stooge and agent-provocateur Harry Orchard) is uncritically to accept highly tainted testimony presented by the state, which the jury clearly rejected. It was not “a skillful defense by Clarence Darrow” that resulted in the WFM officers’ acquittal, but, as in all such cases, the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Suggesting that only the skill of the defense lawyer produced the acquittal indicates a very cynical view of our legal system.
3. Most terrorism is intended as a form of coercion, which is the defining characteristic of the political Right. Some terrorism is intended as “propaganda of the deed”, which is supposedly intended to inspire and encourage rebellion against the state (or some other authority), and as such has been employed from time to time by misguided Anarchists and other Leftists; but the author’s contention that terror is primarily a tool of the Left is wildly contrary to fact.
4. The only terrorism at work in connection with the Haymarket affair was the terrorism of the state in launching a violent police riot at a peaceful assembly, and in arresting and murdering well-known Anarchists with no connection to the event.
5. Louis De Caro’s defense of John Brown is quite fanciful. Clearly the slavery system involved systematic terrorism against the enslaved population, but that is beside the point in evaluating Brown’s actions. Brown was precisely the James Charles Kopp of his day, believing himself “a sword in the hand of God”, divinely appointed to take bloody revenge on sinners. The five Southerners murdered by Brown and his klan at Pottawatomie Kansas were guilty of nothing but the crime of being Southern and holding sinful opinions–they were neither slaveholders nor “border ruffians”. The raid on Harper’s Ferry was not an act of terrorism: it was an insane attempt to inspire rebellion (which the slaves of Virginia and Maryland wisely declined); but the Pottawatomie murders were clearly acts of terrorism, absolutely equivalent to the murders of abortion clinic personnel. The state’s response was also terroristic, of course, but Mr. De Caro betrays his prejudice when he ascribes it to “the South”, as if only “the South” defended slavery or opposed radical abolitionism. Federal and federalized State soldiers killed Brown’s men and arrested Brown. Brown might have had a federal trial, but under the federal law and constitution of the day, requiring the U. S. government to protect and defend the States against insurrection, his fate would have been exactly the same. Slavery was an American crime, not just a Southern crime, and opposition to it should not automatically confer sainthood.
J. D. Crutchfield
Long Island City, NY
I know this is a very short article, but no mention of ALF or ELF? These guys are true modern day domestic terrorist.
Thanks to all who have read and commented. When its busy, I don’t always get a chance to respond promptly.
Hank Browne, thanks for catching the error; I’ve corrected Dohrn’s given name.
The Western Federation of Miners became more militant in the 1890s and early 1900s. The comment about the earlier strike against the mine owners in Cripple Creek helps make an important point. Labor often had substantial support in the community for strikes, but once violence broke out, sympathy shifted in favor of the mine owners and the state government. The bombings the WFM leaders hired harry Orchard to perform damaged support for the union, in part because they did instill fear in the community. Having read four different books on the subject (yes, one is Orchard’s autobiography), and much contemporary reporting but not the full court record, I don’t buy the argument that Orchard was an agent provocateur for the mine owners. Ugly as it may be to admit, the union hired a hit man. The farmers on the Caldwell jury weren’t willing to railroad anyone to the gallows, and they declined to convict anyone but Orchard. However, it is worth noting that Lukas makes a fairly compelling case that in 1911 some influential Socialist organizers knew the truth – that the WFM leaders hired Orchard, and feared it would damage their political cause.
John Brown is a challenging case. His Kansas killings really do seem to be pure terror tactics. I agree that Harper’s Ferry is more problematic to characterize as an act of terror. Still, his reasoning seems chillingly similar to that of the man who allegedly killed Dr. Tiller. The other problem Jon Brown presents us is the tendency to allow the end to justify the means. Many of us from modern times idolize Brown for striking back at slavery. Do we really want to go there? Isn’t the logic of Brown and the few people who openly approve of the bombings of abortion clinics very similar?
I do not agree with Mr. DeCaro’s assessment of Brown and the politics of slave abolition. While I don’t agree with J. D. Crutchfield’s assessment of the WFM, I think he is correct about Brown. Brown was engaging in revolution against a lawful government that was protecting the legal right to own slaves. Brown could expect only two possible outcomes – a successful insurrection, or failure and death. It is worth noting that European tolerance of slavery was diminishing, but the practice was still widespread in 1859. I don’t find it helpful to apply 21st century legal and philosophical values to Brown’s 1859 actions in order to understand his actions.
I agree that ELF and ALF should have received more coverage than a vague mention as a short paragraph on eco-terrorism. The Chronicle of Higher Education has had some coverage of the attacks on labs and animal researchers. Less reported, but no less problematic are the attacks against plant biologists working with hybrid plants. I am personally aware of some of these incidents, and know that some of the biologists have taken to having unlisted telephone numbers, post office boxes for mail, and similar precautions.
Thanks for responding all.
To say that in 1859 “European tolerance of slavery was diminishing” is a bit of an oversimplification, and it suggests some kind of moral advancement that the backwards Southern U. S. somehow rejected. (Mr. Buggeigh doesn’t explicitly make this argument, but his comment seems to echo the arguments of others who do.) The change was not in moral advancement (there had always been anti-slavery organizations in the Southern U. S., for example) but in shifts of political power and economic interest.
England, for example, having been forced to extend the franchise to propertied city-dwellers, could no longer muster a majority in Parliament to protect the *competing* interests of the slaveholding nobility and gentry. France had lost most of its slaveholding colonies, and had destroyed the nobility, which had been the principle slaveholding class. The new ruling class in each of those countries (the industrial bourgeoisie) had economic interests directly opposed to those of the slaveholding class, and they used their new dominance to deprive the slaveholders of a major source of their wealth and remaining political power.
Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe at the same time serfdom was being *reintroduced* on a large scale. Chattel slavery was also thriving in other American countries, such as Cuba and Brazil, and I imagine there was considerable West-European capital involved in that.
Getting back to the issue of terrorism, it’s not clear to me in what respect Mr. Buggeigh disagrees with my characterization of the WFM. The only characterization I made was that they were “Wild-West men”, which I think is pretty obvious to anybody who reads their history.