President Sends Troops to Little Rock, Federalizes Arkansas National Guard...

NY Slimes ^ | 9/25/1957 | ANTHONY LEWIS

[Bluewater2015]

The 14th amendment to the Constitution prohibits denying blacks full citizenship. Jim Crow laws and government mandated racial segregation, were violation of God given rights.

It was necessary and proper for the United States to intervene.

Homosexual marriage is the creation, out of thin air, of something that never existed before. Then forcing that creation on the people using the courts.

Big difference

---

I’m not arguing the merits of AR government policy in those days. I agree it was wrong. I’m just using what happened—and other historical and military examples—of why it is very difficult to use ordinary soldiers to enforce government will on a recalcitrant population, and why a government would need Old World style “security forces” with no love for the common people to accomplish that.

[Mariner]

Today few would argue that Eisenhower did the wrong thing.

What edifies us now is the knowledge that the National Guard is a militia under the control of the Governor.

The truth is that the National Guard is under the control of POTUS and the Governor has access.

[Bluewater2015]

“Homosexual marriage is the creation, out of thin air, of something that never existed before. Then forcing that creation on the people using the courts”

---

And you are absolutely right about that. When that decision came down yesterday, I almost felt like I lost a loved one, that’s how awful it is.

[ansel12]

[Bluewater2015]

That picture explains why you need a Second Amendment. It’s not just to protect duck hunters and skeet shooters. It’s to protect you from Cossacks, as well.

[Steamburg]

The telling article, is “Congress Split on Use of Troops”, but that’s another story.

[Nextrush]

Its time to remember the tactics of the Civil Rights movement with its nonviolence in the face of military or military style forces.

Thousands sitting in the streets that have to be forcibly removed and offer no resistance while they are removed.

[GreyFriar]

Blue I recommend you read this volume published by the US Army Center of Military History about the Army and the Civil rights movement during the 1950s and 60s. Dr. Paul J. Scheips, CMH Publications Authored ◦The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1945-1992 [30-20] GPO S/N: 008-029-00397-0, Cloth; GPO S/N: 008-029-00400-3, Paper The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1945-1992, the third of three volumes on the history of Army domestic support operations, continues the story of institutional and other changes that took place in the Army during the post–World War II years. Paul J. Scheips adeptly relies on official records and other contextual supporting materials to chronicle the U.S. Army's response to major social events in contemporary American society—the civil rights movement, including the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, and the University of Mississippi; the racial disturbances of the 1960s, especially the civil unrest in Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., following Martin Luther King's assassination; the protest marches during the Vietnam conflict; and the controversies surrounding the Army's role at Wounded Knee and the race riot in Los Angeles in 1992. Despite occasional lapses, the Army has carried out its civil disturbance duties with moderation and restraint—a testament to the common sense, flexibility, and initiative of highly disciplined soldiers at all levels of command. These hallmarks of a trained and ready force are invaluable not only during domestic civil support but also during the full range of military operations so prevalent in today's uncertain times. You can either view and/or download, for free, at this url: http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/030/30-20/index.html This is a case where I can state that I knew the author and that he was fastidious about his research.

[GreyFriar]

My apologies, but none of my paragraph breaks worked in my previous post.

[GreyFriar]

Here is the link to the book:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/030/30-20/index.html

[markomalley]

The point I was trying to get at with posting this little historical ditty is that presidents have deployed the Army to enforce SCOTUS decisions in the past. There is no reason to assume that King Barry wouldn’t do so for this one.

And with the purge he’s done within the military leadership since he’s been in office, I have less confidence on the prospect that the military would never turn their weapons on US citizens than ever before.

My apologies for not making that clearer in the OP comment.

[ansel12]

Presidents have deployed the Army and Marines a number of times within our borders.

[knarf]

"Or perhaps the people of Arkansas should have desegregated the schools before the troops were brought in."

We look back through the lens of history, but the lens of the present dictated THEY were the conscience of the Conservative

I understand your comment ... but I'm able to imagine myself in THAT particular situation

(PS .. I'm from Boston, so imagining me being a Southerner is a pretty good trick)

[knarf]

I like this statement;

"Homosexual marriage is the creation, out of thin air, of something that never existed before. Then forcing that creation on the people using the courts."

[GreyFriar]

Thank you for the clarification.

And in regard to it, tangently, in the volume’s chapter on the Detroit riots it was the Michigan National Guard that was quite loose with shooting back at actual and perceived gunfire. the Regular Army units did NOT fire back a single time. Part of the reason, Dr. Schieps points out was the many members of the 82nd Airborne Division’s brigade that was deployed were combat veterans and knew about fire disciple and had been under fire in actual combat.

[knarf]

Blue I recommend you read this volume published by the US Army Center of Military History about the Army and the Civil rights movement during the 1950s and 60s.

Dr. Paul J. Scheips, CMH Publications Authored ◦The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1945-1992 [30-20] GPO S/N: 008-029-00397-0, Cloth;

GPO S/N: 008-029-00400-3, Paper The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1945-1992, the third of three volumes on the history of Army domestic support operations, continues the story of institutional and other changes that took place in the Army during the post–World War II years.

Paul J. Scheips adeptly relies on official records and other contextual supporting materials to chronicle the U.S. Army's response to major social events in contemporary American society—the civil rights movement, including the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, and the University of Mississippi; the racial disturbances of the 1960s, especially the civil unrest in Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., following Martin Luther King's assassination;

the protest marches during the Vietnam conflict; and the controversies surrounding the Army's role at Wounded Knee and the race riot in Los Angeles in 1992.

Despite occasional lapses, the Army has carried out its civil disturbance duties with moderation and restraint—a testament to the common sense, flexibility, and initiative of highly disciplined soldiers at all levels of command.

These hallmarks of a trained and ready force are invaluable not only during domestic civil support but also during the full range of military operations so prevalent in today's uncertain times. You can either view and/or download, for free, at this url:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/030/30-20/index.html This is a case where I can state that I knew the author and that he was fastidious about his research.

[GreyFriar]

Thank you for the reformatting. :-)

[knarf]

My eyes demanded it !

/8^)

[Bluewater2015]

The point I was trying to get at with posting this little historical ditty is that presidents have deployed the Army to enforce SCOTUS decisions in the past. There is no reason to assume that King Barry wouldn’t do so for this one.

And with the purge he’s done within the military leadership since he’s been in office, I have less confidence on the prospect that the military would never turn their weapons on US citizens than ever before.

My apologies for not making that clearer in the OP comment

---

Actually I think Little Rock is the only time, still least in the modern era, it’s been done to enforce a SCOTUS. And troops would be ill-equipped to deal with a refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, that’s not something military force can deal with. And even if the military is full of pro-Obama senior officers (doubtful) as the example of Novocherkassk (Rostov) shows, you can have the finest soldiers in the world (USSR 1962) refuse to turn their guns on their own citizens, despite what the brass (Kruschev cronies in this case) would like them to do. It’s easy to talk big about shooting someone, but few people have the guts to actually do it, barring the most extreme circumstance.

[Bluewater2015]

Thank you for the clarification.

And in regard to it, tangently, in the volume’s chapter on the Detroit riots it was the Michigan National Guard that was quite loose with shooting back at actual and perceived gunfire. the Regular Army units did NOT fire back a single time. Part of the reason, Dr. Schieps points out was the many members of the 82nd Airborne Division’s brigade that was deployed were combat veterans and knew about fire disciple and had been under fire in actual combat.

---

Exactamundo. And thanks.