Transfer of power

[cos]

Until now, the US had a very long history of peaceful democratic transfers of power. That is very decidedly over. This violent coup attempt failing will not change the fact that this transfer of power will not have happened peacefully, even though we get the legitimately elected government at the end of it.

Comments

[netmouse]

Actually there were quite a few violent transfers of power in the immediate post-reconstruction period when the Union army pulled out and the whites to the South back. Murders, lynchings, mass uprisings followed by the installations of new city governments, contrary to election results. Less than 150 years ago.

Not to mention the violent removal of John and Bobby Kennedy from power through their assassination and the assassination of many other civil rights leaders. Why don't those count, in your book? Just because the same Party held the highest office?

Re: transfer of power

[cos]

[oops, didn't notice I was logged out]

Reconstruction era political violence definitely counts, but does not contradict what I wrote - there's "a very long history" since then.

I was _not_ counting an assassination of a president in office, who is then succeeded by their legitimately elected VP, and the regular democratic and legal process determines transfer of power. You could legitimately quibble with that, but I think it's quite different from a violent coup attempt and belongs in a different category. And, as far as I can tell, nearly all use of that phrase ("peaceful transfer of power") in politics and public life has taken the same view I'm taking.