logo
Contributor: California's long history of National Guard overreaction to peaceful protesters

Contributor: California's long history of National Guard overreaction to peaceful protesters

Yahooa day ago

American history has the receipts. As we approach the 250th anniversary of this nation's birth, it ought to be common knowledge that putting the National Guard into the center of turmoil is not to be taken at all lightly. Federalizing the California Guard to quell a supposed insurrection on the streets of greater Los Angeles is a bold move of presidential showmanship and look-tough opportunism. It is also risky on many fronts.
We have been here before, and we would be wise to heed history's caution. In the spring of 1894, a nationwide railroad strike, spreading out from the outskirts of Chicago, paralyzed freight and passenger rail traffic up and down California. Strikers took to the streets, occupied railroad depots, often with their families, waved signs, and erected tents and hastily constructed shanties. In Oakland, strikers who had 'killed' a locomotive covered it in black crepe.
Political leaders and railroad officials insisted that the strikers were insurrectionists ripping at the fabric of the republic. But the public did not necessarily see things the same way. Strikers who were hunkered down in Northern California depots took in provisions from farmers loyal to their cause. A U.S. marshal sent to Sacramento to clear them out and get the trains moving was beaten up and insisted later that the local police force was sympathetic to the strikers.
Judging the Sacramento situation as an insurrection, Gov. H.H. Markham of Pasadena called up the National Guard, which mustered first in San Francisco on July 3. Some elderly Civil War veterans volunteered for duty but were politely turned away. Instead, young California guardsmen, each given 20 rounds of ammunition, marched to the Bay amid a jeering crowd, took a ferry to Oakland and tried to get to Sacramento by train.
But all train service had been interrupted by the strike, and skilled rail operators did not want to cross the picket lines. After nine hours, the exhausted guardsmen arrived in Sacramento early on the morning of July 4 — having taken a train through a circuitous route to avoid trouble. They marched to the city armory, then on to the occupied depot, where they were met by Sacramento members of the National Guard who were already deployed. Guardsmen — about 1,000 weekend warriors — stood in the hot sun, rifles at the ready alongside the Gatling gun they brought, facing the railroad strikers camped out in the depot with their wives and children. One Guardsman's gun went off accidentally, killing a bystander. Officers ordered their men to fix their bayonets and, if ordered to shoot, to 'aim to kill.'
One Sacramento unit reported that its men would not fire on their friends and relatives. Other Guardsmen wore their sympathies on their sleeves and lapels: pro-striker buttons. The strikers and their families began to mingle with the phalanx of guardsmen. 'Frank, if you kill me you make your sister a widow,' one striker informed her brother-in-law in the Guard. Some guardsmen removed the ammunition from their weapons; others lowered them and just wandered away — toward the lemonade and ice that the protesters themselves provided. The strikers stayed in the depot for weeks. The whole thing was a chaotic farce.
Matters were hardly any less tense in Southern California. People lined the streets of downtown Los Angeles, chanting and cheering for the strikers, many of whom wore American flag lapels. Photographs of goings on in Sacramento and the Bay Area got passed from one Angeleno to another in the crowd. Guardsmen in L.A. expressed the same kind of trepidation about bringing militarized force to bear on the strikers. 'If we had to fight Indians or some common enemy,' one guardsman offered in a revelatory admission, 'we might have some fun and excitement. But this idea of shooting down American citizens simply because they are on strike for what they consider their rights is a horse of another color. All of the boys are against it from first to last, and many are in sympathy with the strikers.'
In hindsight, the federal and state response to the rail strike of 1894 appears to have lacked some consideration of unintended consequences. Calling in the Guard only created chaos, emboldened the strikers and, for a time at least, sustained much of the public's support. The federal government, with some seeing 1894 as 'the greatest crisis in our history,' allied with the rail corporations in a set of legal maneuverings that led to the deployment of federal troops across the country. As the strike dissipated, each side tried to take the high ground of intention and behavior: The crisis was lawlessness or it was unwarranted government overreach.
Though it is too soon to know how things will play out here in L.A. this time, nothing looks good from the rough scenes in downtown and the adjacent freeway exits and entrances.
Mark Twain said that 'history never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.' Here we have that rhyme written in the latest Los Angeles verse of our tense world. The administration's move to federalize the Guard in the name of quelling a domestic insurrection has poured more gasoline onto the tinder of our times here in the Southland.
Deverell is a professor of history at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts & Sciences.
If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rallyers in Denver demonstrating against ICE arrests march down the middle of Lincoln Street
Rallyers in Denver demonstrating against ICE arrests march down the middle of Lincoln Street

CBS News

time15 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Rallyers in Denver demonstrating against ICE arrests march down the middle of Lincoln Street

A large gathering that started out at the Colorado State Capitol to rally against the growing numbers of deportations of people in Colorado and the country illegally became a march down a Denver street on Tuesday evening. Demonstrators march down the middle of Lincoln Street in Denver on Tuesday night. CBS Hundreds of protesters first gathered at the Colorado State Capitol at the start of the evening. By 6:15 p.m. they started a march down the middle of Lincoln Street. The march made it temporarily impossible for all lanes of traffic to get through. The White House has directed Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to step up daily arrests. CBS News reports the goal is to make 3,000 arrests a day nationwide. Protesters have also taken to the streets in other cities, including Dallas and San Francisco, and Los Angeles is in the midst of a fifth day of protests over federal immigration raids. On Monday evening in California, tensions boiled over following a day of peaceful demonstrations. President Trump has doubled the number of National Guard troops being sent to patrol the city to 4,000 -- a number that Los Angeles city officials say vastly outnumbers the protesters -- and has said they will remain there indefinitely. There were security concerns leading up to Tuesday's demonstration in Denver, but everything has been peaceful so far. Groups have been protesting ICE for months now, but their message is even louder given the recent events in L.A. In a protest in Aurora on Monday organizers said they want to show solidarity with what's happening in California. Organizers say they're demanding an end to what they call targeted raids in immigrant communities that are tearing families apart. Some people in Denver called for ICE to be abolished altogether, while others want state and local law enforcement to stop cooperating with federal immigration agents. Many in Colorado held signs and chanted against immigration enforcement. One protester said she knows the pain of deportation personally. "My dad was deported a couple years back and I know how it feels to have family separated and struggle with that. And I don't want anybody else to go through that. Because I know my mom suffered. I suffered, and it's really traumatic and I don't want anyone to feel that way," she said. Denver police, Colorado State Patrol, and other agencies say they're monitoring the protest and are ready to respond if necessary.

Republicans advance measure to ban noncitizens from voting in local DC elections
Republicans advance measure to ban noncitizens from voting in local DC elections

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Republicans advance measure to ban noncitizens from voting in local DC elections

WASHINGTON — The House advanced a bill to ban noncitizens from voting in local elections in Washington, D.C., marking the latest step from Republicans to crack down on city policies they view as too liberal. Lawmakers voted 268-148 largely along party lines to advance the measure, sending the bill over to the Republican-led Senate for consideration. The bill managed to garner some bipartisan support after 56 Democrats voted in favor. However, the legislation's future is uncertain as it would require seven Democrats to buck party leadership and support the proposal. 'The right to vote is a defining privilege of American citizenship,' House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said in a speech on the House floor. 'Diluting that right by extending it to noncitizens — whether here legally or illegally — undermines the voice of D.C. residents.' The bill would overturn the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, a bill passed by the D.C. Council in 2022 that permits undocumented residents living in Washington to vote in local elections. City lawmakers have defended the measure by pointing to a 'long history of the U.S. allowing noncitizens to vote in local (or) state' elections. Lawmakers also note many of the undocumented residents pay local taxes, support businesses, and attend district schools — arguing that should qualify them to have a say in local elections. However, Republicans have argued that allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections sets a dangerous precedent that could negatively harm local governments. 'Some may wrongly dismiss these as local elections. The reality is local elections are a vital part of our democratic process and have a significant impact on communities,' Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, who led the bill in the House, said in a speech. 'Local elections determine matters such as taxation, the criminal code, and the election of city council members who create essential ordinances, including those that dictate voting rights.' Additionally, Republicans have criticized the law as a way to dilute 'the voice of American citizens.' 'It's also important to acknowledge that many local elections are decided by razor-thin margins underscoring their significance and importance of active participation,' Pfluger said. GOP lawmakers also cited opposition from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who withheld her signature from the ordinance but allowed it to take effect. 'Why would my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want foreigners to vote in local elections in Washington, D.C.? What's the purpose?' Pfluger said. 'Free and fair elections are prerequisites for the healthy republic our founding fathers envisioned, with the District of Columbia as the epicenter.' House Republicans passed a bill in 2023 seeking to repeal the D.C. law allowing noncitizens to vote. The bill was spearheaded by Republicans but 52 Democrats ultimately joined all Republicans in approving the bill despite efforts from Democratic leadership to quash the proposal. However, the legislation was never considered in the Senate, which was controlled by Democrats at the time. Despite not being a state, Washington is permitted to operate as an independent city government under the D.C. Home Rule Act. However, local laws are still subject to congressional approval before they can take effect, occasionally setting up showdowns between Congress and local lawmakers. The vote on Tuesday is the first of three bills being considered this week by the House to rein in some of D.C.'s local ordinances. Other proposals being considered would rescind D.C. Council policies allowing city employees to not comply with requests from the Department of Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Fact check: Trump makes multiple false claims to the troops at Fort Bragg
Fact check: Trump makes multiple false claims to the troops at Fort Bragg

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Fact check: Trump makes multiple false claims to the troops at Fort Bragg

President Donald Trump made a series of false claims to members of the military on Tuesday in a partisan and combative speech at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Trump lied again about the 2020 election. He repeated a long-debunked story about a Minnesota National Guard deployment in 2020. He again distorted the history of his first administration's fight against the ISIS terror group. He revived a fictional tale about immigration during former President Joe Biden's administration. And he exaggerated the military's recruiting challenges under Biden. In addition, Trump made a series of vague assertions about the protests in Los Angeles for which he presented no evidence. Here is a fact check of some of his checkable false claims from the speech – plus a false claim he made in remarks about California at the White House earlier in the day. The 2020 election: Trump repeated his long-debunked lie that the 2020 election 'was rigged and stolen.' Trump legitimately lost a free and fair election to Biden. The National Guard and Minneapolis: While bashing Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Trump revived a false story that CNN debunked nearly five years ago. Trump wrongly claimed that it was him, not Walz, who sent the National Guard to Minneapolis in 2020 amid the civil unrest that followed the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. Trump said: 'I'll never forget in Minnesota: that city was burning down, Minneapolis, it was burning down, it was gonna burn to the ground, and he wouldn't call the guard. And I waited for a long time, and I called the guard, and I saved it.' In reality, publicly available evidence proves that Walz first deployed the Minnesota National guard more than seven hours before Trump publicly threatened to deploy the guard himself. While Walz was criticized by many Republicans and some Democrats for not sending in the guard faster, it is indisputable that Walz, not Trump, was the person who deployed the guard. You can read more here. Trump and the battle against ISIS: Trump repeated his regular false claim that even though 'they said it would take five years to defeat ISIS, we did in four weeks, four weeks.' The so-called ISIS 'caliphate' was declared fully liberated more than two years into Trump's presidency, in 2019, not 'in four weeks.' Military recruiting under Biden: Trump, boasting of the military's recruiting performance during his second administration, falsely claimed, 'Just think of this: six months ago, we couldn't recruit anybody to join the military. Nobody wanted to join. That was six months ago.' Even granting that words like 'nobody' can be used less than literally, it's simply not true that 'nobody wanted to join' the military at the end of the Biden administration. The ongoing uptick in recruiting actually began under the Biden administration. The Defense Department announced in October 2024, before Trump's second victory, that recruitment was up more than 12% in the 2024 fiscal year compared with the previous fiscal year; reported in October 2024: 'After years of negative recruiting news and headlines, all the military branches managed to eke out wins this year and meet their recruiting goals – largely aided by new programs and policies that allowed them to sign up recruits who would have been disqualified in previous years.' The Army, for example, added just over 55,000 recruits, up substantially from just under 45,000 in fiscal year 2022. Migrants, prisons and mental institutions: Trump made his frequent assertion that foreign countries deliberately placed prisoners and people with mental illnesses in the US as migrants during Biden's presidency. 'Many of them came out of prisons and jails – the most heinous people, they came from all over the world. They came from the Congo in Africa, they came from Asia, they came from the prisons of these places, they were put into the United States and allowed to stay here,' Trump said at one point. At another, he said, 'Their countries would bus them or drive them right to our border and say, 'Go in there. If you ever come back, we're going to kill you.'' Trump has never presented any evidence of any foreign government transporting their criminals to the US border under Biden. Nor has he corroborated his stories about foreign governments deliberately emptying prisons and mental health facilities to somehow facilitate migration to the US, which even his 2024 presidential campaign could not prove. His allegations about prisons in 'the Congo' have been rejected as baseless by independent experts, human rights organizations, and the governments of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo. California, fires and water: At the White House earlier on Tuesday, Trump again wrongly asserted that the January wildfires in Los Angeles 'started because they wouldn't allow water into LA, they wouldn't allow water into California' – and added that he then turned water 'around,' and 'now we have billions of gallons of water flowing down.' None of this is true. First, nobody has broadly refused to allow water into Los Angeles or into California as a whole. Second, experts on California water policy and firefighting have repeatedly explained that there is no basis for Trump's claims that the January wildfires were caused by water being used for environmental protection in northern California rather than being sent to Los Angeles. Third, Trump did not actually send water to Los Angeles earlier this year. Rather, in what experts widely described as a waste and a stunt, he had about two billion gallons of fresh water sent from one part of California's Central Valley to another part of the valley in late January and early February.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store