The Double Standard of the American RiotKELLIE CARTER JACKSON THE ATLANTIC
![]()
The nationwide protests against police killings have been called un-American by critics, but rebellion has always been used to defend liberty.
Those who rebuke violent responses to injustice should ask themselves: How should the oppressed respond to their oppressors? (Phobymo)
Since the beginning of this country, riots and violent rhetoric have been markers of patriotism. When our Founding Fathers fought for independence, violence was the clarion call. Phrases such as “Live free or die,” “Give me liberty or give me death,” and “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” echoed throughout the nation, and continue today. Force and violence have always been used as weapons to defend liberty, because—as John Adams once said in reference to the colonists’ treatment by the British—“We won’t be their Negroes.”
Black rebellion and protest, though, have historically never been coupled with allegiance to American democracy. Today, peaceful demonstrations and violent riots alike have erupted across the country in response to police brutality and the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery. Yet the language used to refer to protesters has included looters, thugs, and even claims that they are un-American. The philosophy of force and violence to obtain freedom has long been employed by white people and explicitly denied to black Americans.
Think back to March 5, 1770, when Crispus Attucks, a man of African and Native American descent, became the first casualty of the American Revolution. Attucks was one of a handful of protesters killed by British forces during the Boston Massacre. The lawyer tasked with defending the British soldiers in their American criminal trial was none other than Adams. When presenting his case, Adams described the men those soldiers killed as “a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes and molattoes [sic], Irish teagues and outlandish jack tarrs.” He built his defense of the British soldiers on the charge that Attucks struck the first blow and led the “dreadful carnage.” Adams concluded that the “mad behavior” of Attucks provoked the soldiers’ response, saying that Attucks’s group was “under the command of a stout molatto fellow, whose very looks, was enough to terrify any person.” Some 250 years later, Adams’s words still underline a central truth in American disobedience: Freedom through violence is a privilege possessed only by whites. Seminal moments in U.S. history that historians have defined as patriotic were also moments that denied patriotism to black people.
Read: When police view citizens as enemies
If violence is a political language, white Americans are native speakers. But black people are also fluent in the act of resistance. Attucks stood up to British tyranny. The numerous slave rebellions led by Gabriel Prosser, Charles Deslondes, and Nat Turner were all attempts to gain freedom with force. Throughout the 20th century, black Americans armed themselves in the face of white mobs and organized protection for their freedom marches. Accordingly, when George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and so many others were killed by police, black people and their allies chose to rise up.![]()
Protests at Philadelphia City Hall on May 30, 2020 (Phobymo)
Americans like to harken back to the civil-rights era as a moment of nonviolence and civil disobedience. But that movement was an orchestrated response to violence. Violence at the voting booth. Violence at the lunch counter. Violence that bombed a church with four little black girls inside. Violence that left a bloated black boy in an open casket. Violence that left a black husband and father murdered in his driveway. The movement ended with the violent death of Martin Luther King Jr. And his death ignited riots in more than 100 cities.
Read: The American nightmare
It is easy to dismiss the rock thrower; Attucks himself was accused of throwing sticks. But those who rebuke violent responses to injustice should ask themselves: How should the oppressed respond to their oppressors? How should the nation respond to political dissent? How do the oppressed procure power? Throughout history, black people have employed violence, nonviolence, marches, and boycotts. Only one thing is clear—there is no form of black protest that white supremacy will sanction. Still, black people understand the utility of riotous rebellion: Violence compels a response. Violence disrupts the status quo and the possibility of returning to business as usual. So often the watershed moments of historical record are stamped by violence—it is the engine that propels society along from funerals to fury and from moments to movements.
![]()
In December 1866, the famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass wrote an essay for The Atlantic in which he reflected on the benefits of rebellion: “There is cause to be thankful even for rebellion. It is an impressive teacher, though a stern and terrible one.” He then concluded, “The thing worse than rebellion is the thing that causes rebellion.” Many people are asking if violence is a valid means of producing social change. The hard and historical answer is yes. Riots have a way of magnifying not merely the flaws in the system, but also the strength of those in power. The American Revolution was won with violence. The French Revolution was won with violence. The Haitian Revolution was won with violence. The Civil War was won with violence. A revolution in today’s terms would mean that these nationwide rebellions lead to black people being able to access and exercise the fullness of their freedom and humanity.The other night, I was watching the copious news coverage of the protests. I wanted to be out there. I felt helpless. But I’d just had a baby and had no business being out in the streets. I called my mother for encouragement. She said, “I was in college during all of the ’68 riots. Just keep on living; there’ll be another chance.” History has taught me she is likely right. A riot may be temporary violence, quick and dirty, but it could become a revolution. And though slow and long-lasting, when it is fully mature, a revolution is irrefutable change.KELLIE CARTER JACKSON is an assistant professor of Africana studies at Wellesley College, and the author of Force and Freedom: Black Abolitionists and the Politics of Violence.
Trump Will Mobilize US Military to Put Down Violent Protests Nationwide
The president said he was already dispatching “thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers” in Washington, D.C.
J. Clara Chan | June 1, 2020
President Donald Trump threatened to deploy the U.S. military to extinguish protests around the country if cities or states do not do what’s “necessary to defend the life and property of their residents.”
“If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” Trump said before reporters on Monday. “I am mobilizing all available federal resources, civilian and military, to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights.”
Trump called on governors to utilize the National Guard, which the president said he wanted to “dominate the streets” across the country. In Washington, D.C., Trump said he was already dispatching “heavily armed” forces.
“As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults and the wanton destruction of property,” he said. “We are putting everyone on warning. Our 7 o’clock curfew will be strictly enforced.”
Also Read:Trump Advocates for 'Retribution' Against Protesters in Call With Governors
The president left without taking any questions. He then walked to St. John’s Church holding a Bible, but law enforcement officials fired tear gas and rubber bullets into a crowd of peaceful protesters to clear a path.
Protests across the country have continued this week in response to the killing of George Floyd. Though many of the protests have been peaceful, police have violently clashed with protesters in numerous cities, frequently using tear gas, rubber bullets and arresting hundreds. In Los Angeles, businesses across the county have also been vandalized and looted by some demonstrators.
Earlier on Monday during a private call with the country’s governors, Trump advocated for “retribution” against protesters, whom he called “terrorists,” “anarchists” and “radicals,” and said governors needed to “dominate” them.
“It’s a movement. If you don’t put it down it will get worse and worse,” Trump said, according to a recording of the call obtained by the New York Times. “The only time they’re successful is when you’re weak. And most of you are weak.”
“Someone throwing a rock is like shooting a gun. You have to do retribution,” he also said.
Last week, Trump also faced pushback for tweeting and writing in a Facebook post, “When the shooting starts, the looting starts” — a phrase with a racist historical context. Twitter placed a content-warning label on the tweet for “glorifying violence,” but Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg said his platform wouldn’t remove or otherwise mark the post because “people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force.”
AN INSURRECTION ACT FOR THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
Thaddeus Hoffmeister*
Better twenty-four hours of riot, damage, and disorder than illegal use of troops.
President Theodore Roosevelt, as quoted in Clayton D. Laurie & Ronald H. Cole, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1877–1945, at 179 (Ctr. of Military History, U.S. Army 1997)
https://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/document/an-insurrection-act-for-the-twenty-first-century.pdf
I. INTRODUCTION
Hurricane Katrina, with 140 mile-per-hour winds, was one of
the deadliest natural disasters to ever strike the United States.2
It impacted more than 93,000 square miles, caused approximately
$100 billion in damage, and displaced more than 770,000 people.3
Worse still, it killed more than 1,300 people, leaving many families devastated.4
* © 2010, Thaddeus Hoffmeister. All rights reserved. Assistant Professor of Law,
University of Dayton School of Law. LL.M., Georgetown University School of Law; J.D.,
Northeastern University School of Law; B.A., Morgan State University. The Author is
currently a Major in the Army National Guard. Before joining the University of Dayton
School of Law faculty, the Author served as a Legislative Director, Counsel, and Subcommittee Staff Director in the United States House of Representatives for four years. He also served as a Judge Advocate General (JAG) in Korea, Japan, and Washington, District of
Columbia, and clerked for the Honorable Anne E. Thompson in the United States District
Court of New Jersey. This Article benefited from the helpful suggestions provided at legal
conferences conducted at both Wake Forest School of Law and Ohio State University
Moritz College of Law. A special thanks goes to Professors William C. Banks, Chris Brown,
Jeannette Cox, Eric Chaffee, Jackie Gardina, and Jason Mazzone for their useful and
constructive suggestions. The Author would also like to acknowledge the work of his
research assistant, Ashley Russell. Of course, any mistakes in this Article are solely the
responsibility of the Author. Finally, this Article was made possible by a generous summer
research grant from Dean Lisa Kloppenberg of the University of Dayton School of Law.
1. President Theodore Roosevelt, as quoted in Clayton D. Laurie & Ronald H. Cole,
The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1877–1945, at 179 (Ctr. of Military History, U.S. Army 1997).
Using the Insurrection Act and Executive Power to Respond with Force to Natural Disasters
ABSTRACT
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Congress amended the Insurrection Act of 1807. The Act enables the President to deploy the military “to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The amended Act expands the
language of the original Act to include natural disasters, epidemics, or other serious public health emergencies, terrorist attacks or incidents, or other conditions. Opponents of the amendment, most notably all fifty governors, criticize the amendment as a presidential power grab aimed at suppressing the power of the states and increasing the role of the military in domestic affairs.
This paper argues that the amendment to the Insurrection Act does not affect the President’s existing powers to deploy the military domestically. Instead, this paper argues that the amendment merely clarifies the situations that justify the use of the military to respond to domestic disorder.
An analysis of the historical use of the Act and the Act’s language indicates that justification for presidential action prior to the amendment focused on the extent, rather than the source of the domestic disorder. The changes made in October of 2006 provide explicit examples of situations that may lead to events of public disorder justifying the President’s invocation of the Act’s authority. In addition, political and historical limitations, along with limitations in the Act itself, will restrict presidential abuse of the power. Thus, the uproar over the recent changes to the Insurrection Act and the fears of martial law are unfounded
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/resources/disasters/Crockett.pdf
Better twenty-four hours of riot, damage, and disorder than
illegal use of troops.
President Theodore Roosevelt, as quoted in Clayton D. Laurie & Ronald H. Cole, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1877–1945, at 179 (Ctr. of Military History, U.S. Army 1997)
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/06/an-insurrection-act-for-twenty-first.html
