Timeline for How are states supposed to protect themselves when the National Guard is under the federal government?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2018 at 21:18 | comment | added | ChrisW | If you're interested in more detail, of the day and the days before -- Little Rock: An Active Duty Army Participant Remembers (Heath Twichell) from the West Point Center for Oral History. So professional. | |
| Apr 6, 2018 at 18:51 | comment | added | SJuan76 | @notstoreboughtdirt I would say it was more like a rather mediocre theatre play. The governor knew there was a SCOTUS ruling, and that no POTUS could tolerate any state raising a threat of use of the NG against the Federal Army. And of course, the governor knew that the POTUS could just take the NG away with just signing a piece of paper. So, totally pointless unless he was actually thinking about the possibility of starting an open rebellion. But by doing all that posturing he could later claim that he "stood against" the evil Federal Government in the next electoral cycle. | |
| Apr 6, 2018 at 15:04 | comment | added | mbrig | @notstorebroughtdirt by my view, preventing the students from attending was an act of aggression by the state. The supremacy of federal law (and the supreme court) with respect to state law is well established in the constitution. | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 19:53 | comment | added | ChrisW | This video at about time 15:00 tells a different story -- that ultimately the Governor had been persuaded not to defy the federal government, and withdrew the Guard leaving city police (and "the Little Rock nine", the school kids) to face a mob. So the 101st was deployed, not to oppose "State Laws", nor even the board of education, but against mob rule (e.g. lynching perhaps). At time 16:45 there's footage of the Governor saying "we are now an occupied territory" -- but cry more, imo. The interviews with other students at time 21:00 is nice too. | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 18:26 | comment | added | user9389 | @ChrisW State segregation is a freedom taken from Arkansas by federal forces. That is at least potentially dangerous (imagine if the positions were reversed), the militia was there to chose between federal law (and people's freedom) and the state's freedom (and civil war), which is exactly what was hoped for with the second amendment. | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 17:11 | comment | added | ChrisW | @notstoreboughtdirt I'd agree, at least, that it's "the use of armed force" -- would that that were always so non-violent! The video said that it was "President Eisenhower wanting to make sure that the Governor of Arkansas complied with the Supreme Court ruling". The ruling was Brown v. Board of Education -- the Justices ruled unanimously, on the basis of "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution". | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 16:13 | comment | added | user9389 | I would call this federal aggression; using military to enforce national laws in a state. The right or wrong of it isn't relevant to state vs federal military powers. | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 15:45 | comment | added | ChrisW | This also addresses the part of the question which asks, "Do people just trust that in the event of a dispute, the National Guard's loyalty will be to the state and its governor rather than the president?" -- apparently the answer to that may be, "No". | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 15:07 | comment | added | ChrisW | That ("aggression from the federal government") is a hypothetical which I didn't want to address (or which other answers already addressed by mentioning the Late Unpleasantness). Or, the answer is that by obeying federal orders (e.g. the national guard's returning to its home stations when ordered) then there is no aggression (i.e. "the situation stabilized very quickly"). | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 15:01 | comment | added | Philipp♦ | While this story is a very good example for how much authority the federal and state governments have over the national guard, it still doesn't answer the question: How can a state defend itself against aggression from the federal government? Can it at all? The answer by Tal is answering this question. | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 14:53 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 5, 2018 at 16:08 | |||||
| Apr 5, 2018 at 14:50 | history | answered | ChrisW | CC BY-SA 3.0 |