Something To Ponder
By Clint Grantham
Before the Fires: What Americans Forgot About the Road to Bleeding Kansas—and Why It Matters Now... Americans tend to remember history by its explosions. We remember the burning of towns, the shots fired, the bodies left behind. What we forget, almost every time, is what came before. No Republic collapses in a single moment, and no civil conflict begins with blood. It begins quietly, gradually, and often under the banner of moral certainty. If we want to understand our present moment, we need to look carefully at what happened on the Kansas Missouri border before May of 1856, not just what happened during 1856.
What later became known as Bleeding Kansas did not erupt overnight. The Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 opened the territory to popular sovereignty, effectively outsourcing the question of slavery to local settlers. What followed was not immediate violence but a steady campaign of intimidation. Armed groups crossed the border to influence elections. Polling places were overrun. Ballot boxes were stuffed. Newspapers were threatened. Meetings were disrupted. Men were warned, sometimes politely and sometimes not, that certain beliefs were unwelcome. These actions were deliberate, coordinated, and designed to send a message long before they were designed to shed blood.
The most important thing to understand is that these early actions were not chaotic. They were strategic. They targeted institutions rather than individuals. Churches, presses, town meetings, and civic gatherings became pressure points because they shaped public life. The goal was not persuasion. It was compliance through fear. If enough people could be intimidated into silence, the outcome would take care of itself. This phase of the conflict rarely makes headlines in textbooks because it lacks spectacle, but it is where the damage was done.
By the time pro-slavery forces carried out the Sacking of Lawrence in May of 1856, the ground had already been prepared. Lawrence did not come out of nowhere. It followed years of harassment, threats, and lawless pressure that had trained both sides to expect conflict. The destruction of printing presses and buildings was shocking, but it was also the logical next step in a campaign that had already normalized intimidation as a political tool.
Just days later came the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre, when John Brown and his followers murdered five men in retaliation. These men were pulled from their homes at night with their families screaming. As their wives and children watched, they were savagely killed with broadswords and axes. The method was deliberate: silent, intimate, and meant to terrorize. Firearms were present but largely avoided; the brutality itself was the message.
John Brown and his followers did not strike in a single burst of rage. They moved house to house in a methodical nighttime operation, stopping at five separate farms, dragging one man from each home, and brutally killing him in front of family members. The five men were likely not even involved in the Sacking of Lawrence. Their deaths were not about guilt or evidence but about sending a message. The purpose was intimidation. The brutality was intentional. It was meant to terrorize an entire region into submission by demonstrating that identity alone was enough to mark a man for death.
History remembers this moment because it was brutal and unmistakable. But even this was not the beginning of the violence. It was the point at which the slow boil finally broke the surface. People did not wake up radicalized that week. They had been radicalized for years.
Here is where modern Americans often make a dangerous mistake. We assume that because information moves instantly today, escalation must also happen instantly. That is not how human societies work. Despite telegraphs, newspapers, and railroads, the conflict that began in Kansas in 1854 did not become a full-scale civil war until 1860. Six years passed between the opening of the territory and the first shots at Fort Sumter. The speed of communication did not change the pace of moral hardening, tribal thinking, or justification of coercion. Those things still moved at a human rate. They always do.
What matters is not how fast news travels but how quickly intimidation becomes acceptable. Once people convince themselves that disrupting institutions is justified because the cause is righteous, the descent has begun. Once moral opponents are no longer neighbors but enemies, restraint erodes. Violence does not arrive suddenly. It arrives after people have been conditioned to tolerate smaller violations. That conditioning is the real danger.
That is why Americans should be paying attention not only to dramatic events, but to the quieter ones. When organized groups target symbolic institutions to send a message. When actions are planned, publicized, and documented rather than spontaneous. When intimidation is excused because it stops short of bloodshed. These are not harmless expressions of passion. They are the early chapters of a story this country has already lived.
History shows that the most important work of preservation happens long before fires are lit. A stitch in time really does save nine. In this case, it saves lives. Communities that take small problems seriously, that refuse to normalize coercion, that defend neutral spaces like churches, courts, and civic forums, are the communities that never make the history books. They succeed quietly by preventing escalation rather than reacting to catastrophe.
The tragedy of Bleeding Kansas is not just that Americans killed one another. It is that the warning signs were visible for years and ignored because they seemed manageable, excusable, or temporary. By the time the violence became undeniable, it was already inevitable.
The lesson is neither partisan nor abstract. Republics are not lost all at once. They are lost when intimidation replaces persuasion, when institutions become targets, and when citizens tell themselves that this is different, that this time will stop short. It never does.
Before the fires come the sparks. Before the sparks come the tolerance of intimidation. If Americans want to preserve the Republic, they must learn to recognize the early heat and act while there is still time to cool it.
__________________________
In reading the biography of John Brown, one could conclude that he would kill anybody in order to abolish slavery; even if his victims were only slightly suspicious of supporting the slave industry. They called him a radical abolishonist. Too radical for the era, so when the authorities captured him, they hung him. I think the slaves at the time and the people of today who identify as black, would call him a hero.
Referring to Clint Grantham's essay about the "Road to Bleeding Kansas—and Why It Matters Now". Is it possible that we are on the road to Minneapolis?
The warning signs were visible for years during the Wilson Roosevelt, Clinton, Obama, and Biden Administrations, but ignored because they seemed manageable, excusable, or temporary.
One final thought. While I'm sure Clint will forgive me for plagiarising some of his verbiage, I did say this to him, "If a modern day John Brown were to exist today to abolish abortion, Senator Chuckie Schumer would be his hangman." ~ N.E.H.
