Read on Twitter
Question: As Trump's effort to overturn the election sparks secessionist threats that are largely performative (their authors don't expect to succeed), it makes me wonder how performative southern secession threats initially were in 1860? Was their success at all unexpected? https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1337443032636010508
If Paxton's TX lawsuit against PA, GA, MI, & WI succeeded, it would be terrible news for the 17 states that have signed on, who would be subject to lawsuits from other states over their voter suppression. They must have signed on thinking they would lose. But what if they won?
Living through this moment reinforces my belief in the power of contingency in history. Looking back we see the secessionism of 1860 as genuine because it succeeded. But is it possible it was performative for many politicians? Did they get boxed in by politics?
My takeaway from current events is seeing how politicians can advocate for causes they don't believe in because they trust those causes will fail. If those causes unexpectedly succeed, their support will be back-read as intended. Tomorrow's historians might miss today's hypocrisy
