Tucker Carlson – Excerpt 3
This is the third article (of four) on Tucker Carlson. If you are interested in this topic, I suggest you begin with the article I published on October 30, 2025.
In this excerpt, I will introduce one of my ancestors, Sir Francis Burdett. Sir Francis was a member of the English Parliament from 1796 to 1844. He had established a reputation as an anti-establishment reformer. He was imprisoned by Parliament in the Tower of London in 1810 for libeling the House of Commons. He was later imprisoned at Marshalsea in 1821 for “composing, writing, and publishing a seditious libel” concerning the government’s actions during the Peterloo Massacre. Additional information on Sir Francis will be found in the excerpt below and in my book, Sir Francis Burdett: His Last “Make Believe” Interview.
It was the similarities between the Peterloo Massacre and the Capitol Insurrection; and the similarities in how Tucker Carlson and Sir Francis Burdett reacted to these events, that first attracted my attention – resulting in Chapter 6 in BS:3 and the excerpts in this series.
+++ The Start of Excerpt 3 +++
Massacres and Insurrections
All the above is well and good but not necessarily a reason for me to write a chapter on Tucker Carlson in this book. But about the time I was writing about the Peterloo Massacre (Appendix B, pages 240-244), I was also listening to Tucker’s reports on the January 6th Committee. It slowly became apparent to me that there were some similarities between:
· the protests in Manchester, England at Saint Peter’s Field (1819), and the protests in Washington, DC, USA at the US Capitol, on January 6, 2021;
· what were later termed the “Peterloo Massacre” and “Capitol Insurrection;”
· the governments’ responses to the above “massacre” and “insurrection;”
· the governments’ abuse of the “bill of rights” – primarily the freedom of speech;
· the governments’ abuse of the habeas corpus provisions of the law; and
· Sir Francis Burdett and Tucker Carlson.
Let me write about the latter similarity first. Sir Francis Burdett and Tucker Carlson were both creatures of the swamp that had escaped and were searching for better governments.
Swamp Creatures
First as to Tucker, Michael Wolff, in his book Too Famous: The Rich, the Powerful, the Wishful, the Notorious, the Damned, wrote that “Carlson is a Washington swamp creature, a social presence and information conduit at high levels of the Republican bureaucracy” ... who “was mad as hell at modernity, hypocrisy, the encroachments on individual liberty, and the right to obnoxiousness everywhere.” Wolff goes on to tell about Tucker’s “classy Republican pedigree and anti-Trump sensibility.”
I earlier mentioned Tucker’s past work with the likes of CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and The New York Times. By the nature of that work, he wallowed in or near the swamp. But as Wolff noted above, he somehow broke free from the swamp.
As to Sir Francis Burdett, he was a baronet, a member of the aristocracy. He was the ultimate borough-monger, becoming a member of Parliament when his father-in-law bought him a seat.
His swamp was in London – in Parliament. There he could have, if he had chosen, lived off the fat of the land and dined at the king’s court. But he was not so inclined. The borough-monger turned on the system that had rewarded him. Via his education and observations, he became mad as hell at the lack of modernity, the hypocrisy, and the encroachments on the individual liberties promised by the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. He abandoned his classy landowner pedigree and established an anti-establishment sensibility.
Sir Francis Burdett was a thorn in the side of the English Parliament and the monarchy. Tucker Carlson is a thorn in the side of the swamp.
A Comparison
I have attempted in the following tables to compare the Peterloo Massacre in 1819 with the Capitol Attack on January 6, 2021. In a short amount of space I have attempted to fairly compare the two incidents. Most of the information came from Wikipedia.
From a historical perspective, there are still many unknowns about both incidents – starting with questions about what triggered them. Why did the incidents play out the way they did? What could have been done differently to mitigate the violence? Exactly what role did the government have in inciting the protesters? See pages 244-5 for Sir Francis’ view of government spies.
+++ Start of Table +++
[My blog software does not support the tables that I used in BS3: Etcetera, to compare the various aspects of the Peterloo Massacre (PM below) and the Capitol Attack (CA below). What are side-by-side comparisons in the book are now listed sequentially in this article.]
Protest Date
PM: August 16, 1819
CA: January 6, 2021
The Laws
PM: Magna Carta Libertatum (1215); Habeas Corpus Act (1679); English Bill of Rights (1689)
CA: The Constitution (1789); Bill of Rights (1791)
Recent Changes
PM: Habeas Corpus suspended in 1794; Treason Act (1795)
CA: Patriot Act (2001); Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009)
Nature of Protest
PM: The citizens of Manchester, the second largest city in England, had no representation in Parliament. They assembled “for the purpose of taking into consideration the most effectual legal means of obtaining a reform in the representation.” The featured speaker that day was Henry Hunt.
CA: Some of the citizens of the United States were concerned about the integrity and validity of the 2020 election. Some of these citizens met earlier in the day on the Washington Mall to voice their concerns. The featured speaker at the rally was President Donald Trump.
What happened that day? – The Violence
PM: As many as 60,000 citizens were assembled in St. Peter’s Field when the chairman of the local magistrates issued an arrest warrant for Hunt and requested that the local yeomanry and English calvary serve that warrant. The yeomanry entered the crowd first. Then the calvary entered, raising their swords, and galloped into what had been an apparently peaceful crowd.
CA: Some of those assembled later entered or attacked a poorly defended capitol building (?) in what I would term to be a riot – some Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were also there with the apparent intent of disrupting or delaying the Electoral College vote. Glass was broken and some offices were trashed. Apparently little or no damage was done to the statuary in the building. The Capitol was cleared within hours.
Vested Interests
PM: Citizens vs. the Borough-mongers that controlled Parliament.
CA: Citizens vs. the “swamp” that wanted to control the government.
What happened to the protesters?
PM: 9-17 killed. 400-700 were injured, including women and children.
CA: One unarmed woman was shot and killed. More than 1000 people were arrested. More than 100 people were sentenced. Some (e.g., Proud Boys) were convicted of sedition.
What happened to the authorities?
PM: At least two special constables were accidentally trampled by the calvary. Another was beaten to death the next day in a revenge attack.
CA: No deaths on January 6. Five police died later – from a stroke (1) or suicide (4), which were considered by some as related to the attack.
Became Known As?
PM: The Peterloo Massacre
CA: The Capitol Attack; The Capitol Riot; The Capitol Insurrection; The January 6th Insurrection
Government’s Initial Response
PM: The immediate effect was more crackdowns on reform. A supportive newspaper (the Manchester Observer) was closed in 1820. Henry Hunt and eight others were found guilty of sedition and imprisoned. In a little over a month’s time, the government passed more repressive measures that came to be known as “the Six Acts.” Sir Francis Burdett, a member of Parliament, was found guilty of sedition and imprisoned for writing an article critical of the massacre.
CA: The local police and FBI worked diligently to identify and arrest virtually everyone who entered the capitol on that day, regardless of the circumstances of their entry or the actions that they took upon entry – except for the government “agents” that may have been embedded amongst the protesters. Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives for inciting insurrection but acquitted by the Senate. The Speaker of the House established a “select” committee to investigate the attack, with no members “selected” by the minority Republican leadership.
Freedom of Speech
PM: Even more restricted after the “Six Acts” were passed.
CA: Anyone who continued to express concerns about election integrity was categorized as an “election denier” and associated with the rioters.
Habeas Corpus
PM: Habeas Corpus had been suspended in 1794.
CA: Numerous anecdotal stories of citizens arrested, placed in solitary confinement in the DC jail, or otherwise treated in a manner inconsistent with the gravity of the charges.
The End
PM: The parliamentary reforms that Burdett and the protesters sought in 1819 were eventually made in 1832. The people of Manchester are now represented in Parliament.
CA: The final chapter on this incident has not been written. Many questions remain. More arrests are expected, and more trials and hearings will occur. The role of law enforcement (embedded agents?) is still unclear. Tucker Carlson continues to be critical of the government’s possible role in the attack and subsequent response. Unlike Burdett, he has not yet been imprisoned.
+++End of Table +++
Contempt and Sedition
The Peterloo Massacre and Capitol Insurrection both bring forth questions concerning contempt and sedition.
One definition of contempt – my definition of contempt – is “the feeling that a person or a thing is deserving scorn.” Note that, per my definition, contempt is a feeling – like love, happiness, or sorrow. Can one – say a legislative body like Congress or Parliament – outlaw a feeling? If so, what are the repercussions? Is the feeling illegal or just expressions of the feeling? Given the Bill of Rights, when, if ever, are citizens free to express contempt?
Back in the days of Sir Francis Burdett, the British government was very concerned about contempt and sedition. After all, a monarchy still existed in Britain – in the era of the French Revolution. Thus the Treason Act and the so-called “gagging laws” were enacted.
What amazed me the most concerning the two times that Sir Francis Burdett was imprisoned – in the Tower of London during 1810 and in Marshalsea during 1821 – was that Burdett was a member of Parliament on both occasions. If a member of Parliament could not express contempt for the way the government acted, than who could? If a member of Parliament could not express contempt for the status quo, than how could you peacefully introduce and achieve reform? If you ruled out free speech and debate, was only sedition left? Certainly, a tricky set of questions.
Likewise, today we often here of so-and-so’s contempt of Congress. Apparently if one has such a feeling, they better not express it. If you rule out free speech and debate, what is left? Is all that is left sedition? Is that why a protest and a riot is quickly upgraded to the status of an insurrection – because those in power know that that is all that the protesters have left?
Tucker posed the following question on Tucker Carlson Tonight, on or about December 22, 2022, during a commentary on Ukrainian president Zelensky’s speech before Congress, “Is it possible that the more ludicrous the lies they tell you, the fewer questions they can tolerate about – the less dissent they can put up with, because they feel the whole edifice might crumble, if they allow one person to ask one reasonable question?”
+++ The End of Excerpt 3 +++
Excerpt 3 – An Update
I doubt that we (collectively) will ever know what happened on January 6, 2021. I don’t think that the US Congress (as a whole) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (as an institution) want to pursue this issue with gusto. I do find it somewhat amazing that it largely disappeared as a political issue after Trump pardoned the imprisoned. The Democrats have become largely silent on the topic – and their media lackeys have followed their lead.
Fox News may have done Tucker a favor. He had become – and still is, to a somewhat lesser extent, a victim of TDS (add Tucker Derangement Syndrome). By pushing him to the side, at least temporarily, they may have saved him from the legal issues that Sir Francis got caught up in (or worse).