President Abraham Lincoln is often remembered for his resolve in conducting the presidential election of 1864 even as the Civil War raged on. Yet it is sometimes forgotten that the Confederates who refused to accept the outcome of the 1860 election had already broken away from the Union.

In much the same way, the aftermath of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination in Utah last week has prompted some Americans to hope for a path of reconciliation. But that hope collides with the reality that many of Kirk’s fiercest opponents—whose relentless rhetoric critics say helped inspire the alleged assassin—show no inclination to repent. The question becomes unavoidable: how does one continue to share a nation with those who openly vilify the dead?

That tension was on full display Friday in the House of Representatives, where Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York—better known as AOC—delivered a pointed denunciation of Kirk’s legacy. Speaking in opposition to a resolution honoring the conservative firebrand, Ocasio-Cortez repeated familiar accusations about Kirk, dismissing him as a figure defined by ignorance and bigotry.

Her remarks began with a procedural objection. The House, she argued, should have adopted a simple resolution condemning Kirk’s murder and political violence more broadly. “Instead,” she said in a clip posted on X, “the majority proceeded with a resolution that brings great pain to the millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of bigotry today.”

From there, her criticism turned personal. “We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was,” she continued. “A man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a mistake, who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi claimed that ‘some amazing patriot’ should bail out his brutal assailant.”

Historians note that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not itself grant the right to vote—that authority rested in the 15th and 19th Amendments, with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 serving to enforce those protections in the South. But Ocasio-Cortez pressed forward, intensifying her rebuke.

“His rhetoric and beliefs,” she concluded, “were ignorant, uneducated, and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans, far from the ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ asserted by the majority in this resolution.”

Meanwhile, users on X have circulated multiple videos challenging and attempting to debunk the claims made by Ocasio-Cortez and others. Those videos, which seek to counter what supporters describe as reckless mischaracterizations of Kirk’s record, can be viewed below.

Conservative reactions on X to Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks have been swift and intense. Gunther Eagleman, a high-profile supporter of former President Donald Trump with an audience of more than 1.5 million followers, captured the mood succinctly, warning his followers that the congresswoman’s speech would “make your blood boil.”

Similarly, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, offered a stark assessment in her response on X, writing that there is “no way forward with these people.”

Did Greene have it right? Do we truly face “no way forward with these people”?

Consider this: fifty-eight Democrats voted against the resolution honoring Kirk. They remain our fellow citizens. So do the thousands of progressives who openly celebrated his murder online and elsewhere. Ocasio-Cortez remains a fellow citizen. So does former President Barack Obama. So does former late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. And so do the many others on the left who, in the view of conservatives, maligned Kirk and his supporters.

Kirk, for his part, made efforts to engage. He sought out debate and conversation, however combative, with those who opposed him. Yet the collective response to his assassination—less a moment of reflection than a wave of scorn—suggests that many of his critics had no real interest in dialogue. Instead, they chose to distort his record, even in death.

In that sense, “these people,” much like the Confederates of Lincoln’s era, have spiritually seceded from the Union. The challenge now is not only recognizing that fact, but determining how to coexist with them while they remain physically within it. For in abandoning honest discourse—the very foundation of politics—they have rejected the common ground on which a shared national life depends.