America has always consisted of two different peoples. There were people who believed that power is secured by fear, and the others believed that power is secured through persuasion. One group reaches for the torch, the mob, the boycott, the humiliation ritual. The other group reaches for the argument, the institution, the ballot, the covenant.

This divide is older than the Constitution, political parties, and older than the republic itself. In fact, the art of persuasion, rhetoric, is 3-4-thousand years old. It was used in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, and Greece. Rhetoric as originally used was a means of persuation, and of course it follows that persuasion (rhetoric) has two sides. One for, and one against. These two sides, for and against can be described as factions. James Madison described what he called factions in the Federalist #10, and described a faction as:

“A number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” (“Commentary on Federalist 10 – Teaching American History”)

This view largely depends on what side you’re on as both would view the other side as wishing to destroy the Republic.

Since the founding of our great country, parties have gone by various names, but they have carried two distinctive styles in their exercise of power. These were two different temperaments of people.

One has a temperament of violence across centuries. You will find the same behavioral grammar repeating across centuries under numerous different banners. In the 18th and 19^th centuries, we found mobs enforcing orthodoxy, slave patrols enforcing racial hierarchy, political lynchings, and intimidation of dissenters.

In the late 19^th and 20^th centuries, there were: Night Riders, cross burnings, terror campaigns to suppress votes, mobs attacking journalists and reformers. In the mid-20^th century, segregationist mobs assaulted peaceful marchers, used fire hoses, and unleashed dogs on citizens. Activists were beaten for attempting to vote and use state-backed intimidation masquerading as order.

In the 21^st century, we have: Harassment in public places, mobs surrounding private citizens, ideological purges in the workplace, and property destruction framed as justice.

Different slogans, different justifications, different enemies, same temperament.

“If you don’t comply, we will make you afraid.”

This is the American shame that never dies; it only changes costumes.

The Respectful Temperament: The Quiet Backbone of the Republic

Running parallel to that violent lineage: we have another American tradition—quieter, less theatrical, but morally sturdier. This lineage believes that dignity is not optional, political opponents are our neighbors, violence is a civic betrayal, institutions exist to prevent chaos, and persuasion is the only legitimate tool of a free people.

This temperament built the constitutional order, the peaceful transfer of power, the expectation of civil disagreement, and the idea that private life is sacred. It is the temperament that says, “I will not become what I oppose.” “We’ll take our extremists and throw them under the bus.” “Our trash belongs in the dump, not in public discourse.” Violence is a contagion, and we will have none of it.

The Hard Truth: America’s Violent Temperament Has Always Been the Same People

The same cultural lane that once used violence to enforce a racial hierarchy now uses confrontation to enforce ideological purity. The targets have changed, the stories have changed, the moral language has changed, but the method—intimidation, humiliation, coercion—remained constant. This temperament has existed all these years. It is a temperament that cannot stop using force to get its way.

My Restorationist Judgement

Political violence is not a political identity. It is a moral failure. A Republic cannot survive if one of its temperaments believes that fear is persuasion, mobs are justice, humiliation is accountability, and violence is speech. A republic cannot survive if the other temperament refuses to call them out. The Restorationist position is simple:

A free people must reject the temperament of intimidation — no matter what banner it flies. A free people must defend the temperament of restraint no matter how unfashionable it becomes.

Violence is not activism, humiliation is not courage, and chaos is not justice. Any movement in any era that relies on these tools is unfit to steward a Republic.

America must choose which temperament will define it. A temperament that burns, loots, shouts, shames, and terrorizes, or the temperament that restrains, respects, and persuades. One temperament believes opponents must be broken, the other believes opponents must be tolerated.

One temperament treats disagreement as war, the other treats it as the price of freedom. Only one of these temperaments can sustain a Republic, and history has already shown which one destroys it.