RedState decided to mark the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision by implying that violence might be an appropriate way to respond to legal abortion:
Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.
As Mark Kleiman writes, the Confederacy seceded because they were afraid that Abraham Lincoln's victory might lead to slavery being abolished; they weren't seceding in defense of the personhood of slaves. To the extent that "mass bloodshed" was necessary, it was because the Confederates refused to hew to the potential outcomes produced by democratic institutions, which is precisely what the editors at RedState are threatening. The abolitionists would have been perfectly happy to have gotten the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments without 600,000 thousand Americans giving their lives on the battlefield.
The reason for this bizarre reading of history is that conservatives both lionize the Confederacy's treason in defense of slavery and they want to usurp the moral legitimacy of slavery abolitionists by drawing a direct comparison between the personhood of black people and embryos. This is an impossible task. But the post is disturbing because we have a history in this country of a few abortion opponents deciding that mass bloodshed is precisely the answer, and engaging in acts of violence in order to terrorize doctors out of providing reproductive health services. It's been less than two years since someone decided to "repudiate the Supreme Court" by ending George Tiller's life in a hail of bullets.
Again, this is what Bill Clinton meant by leaving the impression that "violence is acceptable," as opposed to actively inciting it. The impression this post leaves is that under some undefined set of future circumstances in which anti-choice activists are stymied in their ability to make change through the democratic process, that violence could be a legitimate potential alternative. In doing so, they bear a far greater resemblance to Confederates than to abolitionists.
