Protests broke out across the United States and around the world, calling for justice in the killing of George Floyd. Minneapolis Police killed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nine minutes while detaining him for using a counterfeit $20 bill.
The protests are for the large part nonviolent. However, some violence broke out among protestors, resulting in police agencies responding with violence of their own. Several states, including Minnesota, also called upon their National Guard divisions to quell unrest.
As the protests demanding justice for George Floyd continue, the United States Federal Government has considered action in attempting to stop them as well. The United States has already deployed military police in Washington DC to prevent protestors from threatening government leaders.
Government officials are considering expanding the role of the military in suppressing protests. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) proposed using the military in all states which need it to stop these protests. The federal government can use the military in this power by invoking the Insurrection Act (1807). This act, in conjunction with the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), allows the President to use the military with the approval of either the Governor of the state in which the military is deployed or a majority of both houses of Congress to put down insurrections.
For his part, Pres. Donald Trump (R) has also cited the Insurrection Act and floated the idea of using it. With so much focus on the Insurrection Act, interrogating its history is key to decide if it should be used, and what effect it might have.
Strikebreaking
The first time the Insurrection Act was invoked (after the American Civil War) was during the 1946 Railroad Strike. During this strike, railroad workers of all types stopped working across the country to demand better pay and working conditions.
After several months of this strike with little sign of it ending, Pres. Harry Truman invoked the Insurrection Act. In use of this act, he ordered the Army to take control of and run the railroads.
This use of the Insurrection Act, for its credit, was largely peaceful. However, it demonstrates a willingness on behalf of the United States Government to use the threat of violence to force its way. Furthermore, this use of the Army to break industrial action highlights the fact that the Insurrection Act does not only deal with stopping violent uprisings. It set the precedent for its use to put down peaceful protests.
Indigenous Action
The Insurrection Act was again invoked during the Wounded Knee Incident of 1973 (not to be confused with the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890). During this incident American Indian Movement members occupied the town of Wounded Knee, South Dakota on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. This organization protested the United States’ failure to uphold its treaties with the Indians.
Approximately one month into this protest, the US deployed the Army to eliminate the protestors. Historical accounts describe the Army’s tactics as particularly violent. One observer, Kevin McKiernan, wrote about, “Automatic gunfire from Armored Personnel Carriers…. In minutes there are sounds of shooting all over town.”
In total, 2 protestors were killed and 14 were injured. This incident highlights one fact about the US Army: its inherent violence. Calling in the Army to quell the protests only caused them to become more violent. This invocation of the Insurrection Act effectively gave the Army the power to attack protestors as they wish. This highlights the violent nature of the US’ response to protests.
Race Rebellion
The most recent use of the Insurrection Act closely parallels George Floyd’s case. In 1992, the Army and the Marines were called in to suppress the Los Angeles Uprising. During this uprising, thousands of Angelenos rose to protest the acquittal of several police officers in the Rodney King case. These officers were accused of unnecessarily beating King but were acquitted due to their position.
On the fourth day of protests, President George H. W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act and sent in troops from the Army and the Marines. These troops remained for several days after the protests subsided, ostensibly to maintain order. However, many accounts, even official ones, found that the presence of the military did not merely maintain order, but actively led to the protests’ end.
This indicates that the Insurrection Act does not only have the effect of preventing rioting and violence. It likely also results in protests ending for fear of violence. This soft suppression of free speech was likely the intent of the Insurrection Act’s invocation and indicates that the use of the army does not only prevent violent insurrection, but nonviolent protest as well.
The Insurrection Act and George Floyd Protests
Pres. Trump’s citation of the Insurrection Act, although not fully en force, has had real consequences. Pres. Trump has already threatened to deploy the military to states without their Governors’ approval as well as positioned troops at Forts Bragg and Drum in the capitol region. For his part, Sec. of Defense Mark Esper (R) has stated that he does not wish to use the military to suppress protests.
However, if given the order, Sec. Esper would probably not put up much more than a token resistance. Given this, we must examine how the military would be used if it were to be deployed.
The military cannot be trusted to handle protests in a way which prevents violence but protects the right to protest. As seen during the Los Angeles Uprising, military presence has the effect of suppressing all protests, violent and nonviolent. Furthermore, as seen in the Wounded Knee Incident, protesters who continue to protest are likely to be injured or killed by military forces.
The invocation of the Insurrection Act would not only result in an escalation of tensions between protestors and the government but would likely further violence against protestors. Lasting change is necessary to address systemic racism and violence in police departments. Responding to this with more violence would only further the problem, and make incidents like George Floyd’s even more common.