Luigi Mangione and the Dangers of Vigilantism
Vigilante justice has a chaotic and dangerous history
Luigi Mangione, the suspected shooter of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, studied at some of America’s finest schools and came from a wealthy family. From an elite prep school in Maryland, where he was valedictorian, to the Ivy League at the University of Pennsylvania, Mangione appeared to have it all — intelligence, motivation, and ambition.
While we still don’t know all of the details about his motive, he appears to have had at least one fatal flaw — he thought he knew better. Assuming he is the shooter who murdered Brian Thompson in cold blood on a Manhattan street, Mangione likely thought his actions would fix the problem. He thought that his version of vigilante justice would at least send a message, one similar to those inscribed on the shell casings found next to Thompson’s body: “deny, defend, depose.”
He may have succeeded in his messaging to a degree. Numerous people flooded social media with messages supporting his vigilantism. Others felt the need to vocalize that they had “no remorse.” Almost nobody discussed vigilante justice more broadly, the societal implications, and its chaotic and dangerous history.
Let’s do that here through three historical examples from various eras: 18th-century France, 19th-century America, and 20th-century Russia. While some have written excellent articles on how this moment rings the alarm bells of America’s Gilded Age, the more apt comparisons for those supporting, excusing, or defending vigilantism start in 18th-century France during the French Revolution.
The “Reign of Terror” in France
If you’re American like me, you’re a beneficiary of revolution. Back in 1776, a bunch of colonists decided to revolt against the King of England because, among other reasons, they wanted “no taxation without representation.” Americans were united in the same revolt against one distinct foreign power.
The French Revolution, by contrast, was very different. Wealth inequality had soared and anyone with even a mere association with aristocracy was a target. Within France itself!
This led to some 16,000 French civilians being executed in what was later referred to as the “Reign of Terror.” There was no due process, regardless of whether you were Marie Antoinette or someone perceived to be “aristocratic” or a “counter-revolutionary.” Some 300,000 more were arrested, while many others died awaiting trial or were summarily executed.
This was the outcome of vigilante justice in 1790s France. A group of revolutionaries played judge, jury, and executioner with no respect for the rule of law.
I am certainly not one to argue that no good came from it. In fact, this revolution likely had a more profound impact on the spread of democracy across Europe than the American Revolution that preceded it. But many unnecessary and unfortunate outcomes may have been prevented had the French Revolution not been as bloody, indiscriminate, or filled with vigilantism.
Enter Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon seized power in a military coup in 1799, bringing the revolutionary period to an end. And while Napoleon is celebrated as one of the greatest military commanders in history and should be acknowledged for abolishing the vestiges of feudalism, his wars also devastated Europe for decades.
Napoleon may have been a catalyst for political change and the development of nation-states that gave rights to citizens, but he also declared himself Emperor and abolished the free press. He exiled and jailed critics and political dissidents. He brought slavery back to most of France’s colonies.
It raises the question — would the world have experienced Napoleon had it not been for the bloody vigilantism of the French Revolution? Had the revolution been filled with more civil disobedience and less indiscriminate bloodshed, reforms may have taken longer, but Europe may have avoided decades of unnecessary war and suffering.
John Brown and American vigilantism
While Napoleon reinstated slavery in most French colonies, John Brown made it his mission in life to abolish slavery in 1850s America. He decided that all peaceful efforts to abolish the scourge of slavery had failed and said the following of abolitionist pacifism:
"These men are all talk. What we need is action – action!"
In May 1856, Brown and his sons killed five supporters of slavery in the Pottawatomie Massacre. Brown then led battles and raids into multiple other locations, all of it culminating in the raid on the federal armory at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia in 1859. His goal was to start a slave liberation movement that would spread throughout the southern United States.
Brown seized the armory, killing seven people and injuring more. He tried to arm slaves with weapons from the armory, but only a few joined in, and eventually they all were stopped by Robert E. Lee’s U.S. Marines. Brown was charged with treason, murder, and inciting a slave insurrection. He was convicted on all counts and was hanged in late 1859.
If Brown’s slave liberation movement happened today under the same facts and circumstances, many would probably cheer him on as they have Luigi Mangione. Many likely cheered on Brown at the time, as the story was widely covered in national newspapers.
What the Brown movement led to, however, was escalated tensions between the North and South. Southern slaveowners were terrified of copycats or those inspired by John Brown. They feared more slave rebellions.
In direct response to John Brown, southern states reorganized its militia system. By 1861 when the first shots were fired on Fort Sumter, the militias formed the foundation for the new Confederate Army.
It raises the question — had John Brown not taken the law into his own hands by trying to eradicate slavery through vigilantism, would the Civil War have happened the way it did? There likely would have been far less tensions between the two sides, and the future president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, would not have been so fearful of “thousands of John Browns.”
It’s also unclear whether slavery ever could have been eradicated without the Civil War. But we will never know what could have happened if John Brown chose civil disobedience like Mahatma Gandhi instead of a violent slavery liberation movement.
The Russian Revolution and the “Red Terror”
Starting in 1917, Russia abolished its monarchy and adopted a socialist form of goverment following two revolutions and a civil war. The Bolsheviks were the victorious political party and to secure their power they established the Cheka. This was a secret police force instructed to find “enemies of the people” in various campaigns called the “Red Terror”, which was inspired by the “Reign of Terror” from the French Revolution.
Russia erupted into a bloody civil war, with many innocent perceived dissidents and other “enemies of the people” succumbing to the new vigilante authority. The Bolsheviks even murdered the former monarch and his family in 1918.
This, of course, led to the establishment of the Soviet Union and many years of autocrats like Joseph Stalin who terrorized and murdered many of his own people. From orchestrating famines to sending political prisoners to the gulag, Stalin continued his own “Red Terror” throughout the Soviet Union and the world for decades.
It raises the question — had the Russian Revolution been more of a “Red Peace” instead of a “Red Terror", would the Soviet Union and the world have experienced the likes of Joseph Stalin? The lawlessness, vigilantism, and senseless violence detrimentally affected not only Russia, but the region and the world for decades.
We cannot excuse, support, or defend vigilante justice
In this moment where many have cheered Luigi Mangione, we must remember the lessons of history. Vigilante justice may sound effective if you think all peaceful actions have failed, as John Brown thought with his slave liberation movement. Or perhaps suspected counter-revolutionaries and those even falsely associated with them were simply collateral damage towards a greater goal, as they were in the French and Russian Revolutions.
What we saw in the aftermath of all three historical events, however, was a world thrown into chaos. Napoleon. The U.S. Civil War. Stalin and the Soviet Union.
The problem with vigilante justice is that it has no real authority. Each person’s version or definition of justice is subjective and therefore different. Regardless of whether that person is Luigi Mangione or John Brown.
Vigilante justice has no higher or central authority.
Civil disobedience, by contrast, works within an existing system to affect positive change. It refrains from violence because those who practice it know that with violence only brings more chaos. As we saw from these three major historical events.
Imagine a modern day “Reign of Terror” or “Red Terror.” Imagine a modern day John Brown out to “cleanse” corporate America of oppressors. These vigilante events and people create more choas than positive change because they use indiscriminate violence without due process, moral purity, or legal authority.
We cannot effectuate positive change with unclean hands.