Search

Background: Identifying groups at increased risk for political violence can support prevention efforts. We determine whether "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) Republicans, as defined, are potentially such a group. Methods: Nationwide survey conducted May 13-June 2, 2022 of adult members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. MAGA Republicans are defined as Republicans who voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election and deny the results of that election. Principal outcomes are weighted proportions of respondents who endorse political violence, are willing to engage in it, and consider it likely to occur. Findings: The analytic sample (n = 7,255) included 1,128 (15.0%) MAGA Republicans, 640 (8.3%) strong Republicans, 1,571 (21.3%) other Republicans, and 3,916 (55.3%) non-Republicans. MAGA Republicans were substantially more likely than others to agree strongly/very strongly that "in the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States" (MAGA Republicans, 30.3%, 95% CI 27.2%, 33.4%; strong Republicans, 7.5%, 95% CI 5.1%, 9.9%; other Republicans, 10.8%, 95% CI 9.0%, 12.6%; non-Republicans, 11.2%, 95% CI 10.0%, 12.3%; p < 0.001) and to consider violence usually/always justified to advance at least 1 of 17 specific political objectives (MAGA Republicans, 58.2%, 95% CI 55.0%, 61.4%; strong Republicans, 38.3%, 95% CI 34.2%, 42.4%; other Republicans, 31.5%, 95% CI 28.9%, 34.0%; non-Republicans, 25.1%, 95% CI 23.6%, 26.7%; p < 0.001). They were not more willing to engage personally in political violence. Interpretation: MAGA Republicans, as defined, are more likely than others to endorse political violence. They are not more willing to engage in such violence themselves; their endorsement may increase the risk that it will occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By approaching the Civil War from the vantage point of the American West, this article demonstrates how the wartime collapse of civil administrative and economic institutions upended western life and ultimately accelerated the dispossession and conquest of Native lands. Prior to the Civil War, Indigenous people of the upper Missouri River region relied on treaties and trade to manage their relationships with the United States. The Civil War undermined these structures by disrupting transportation networks, accelerating inflation, exacerbating fraud and deliberate mismanagement by Republican officials, and crippling the fur trade. The region's Native people were plunged into an irreversible state of crisis and found themselves more vulnerable to postwar American empire-building in the 1860s and 1870s. This article builds on previous scholarship connecting the Civil War, the American West, and the Indian wars by emphasizing the profound impact of wartime disruption upon Indigenous communities in the American West. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Imago Mundi is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Historians have traced the mass migration of French Canadians from the St. Lawrence River valley to the United States between the Civil War era and the Great Depression; to a lesser extent, scholars have also studied outmigration in the 1840s and 1850s. Closer scrutiny of available evidence suggests, however, that the roots of Lower Canada's great demographic hemorrhage lie in the early decades of the nineteenth century. As cross-border infrastructure and commerce developed, French Canadians explored new opportunities in the northeastern United States and Great Lakes region. Demographic estimates, signs of an agricultural crisis, and contemporary sources all point to a migratory pattern that anticipated the grande saignée. Further research of this kind stands to change how scholars view not only French-Canadian mobility, but the extent of continental integration prior to the advent of railways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the decades preceding the U.S. Civil War, sectional conflict frequently took place in overlapping continental, hemispheric, Atlantic, and international contexts. Within these broader geographies, northern and southern whites used conceptions of empire to construct a hemispheric, Manichean struggle pitting free labour versus slave labour, democracy against aristocracy and monarchy, and popular sovereignty versus slaveholder sovereignty and the Slave Power. Beginning in the 1840s, and deepening in the 1850s, southern whites forged an imperial ideology which called for the creation of a vast empire for slavery in the Americas. Responding directly to the rise of southern pro-slavery imperialism, northern whites created an imperial ideology based on democratic-republican forms of government and free labour. By the late 1850s, Democratic and Republican imperialists advocated the imposition of their particular forms of sovereignty, race, labour, and republican government onto their sectional rivals as well as onto borderland regions in the trans-Mississippi West, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America. In the 1850s the United States became an empire increasingly divided by antagonistic imperial visions for the broader Americas; by 1860, Democrats and Republicans had become de facto imperial rivals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]