[ad_1]
American history has receipts. As we approach the 250th anniversary of the country’s birth, it must be general knowledge that putting the National Guard at the centre of the chaos should not be taken lightly at all. Turning California security guards into federal government and quelling the supposed rebellion on the streets of Greater Los Angeles is a bold move of presidential showmanship and appearance opportunism. It is also dangerous in many ways.
We have been here before, but it would be wise to pay attention to historical attention. In the spring of 1894, a nationwide rail strike spreading from Chicago’s suburbs paralyzed passenger rail traffic up and down California. The strikers took them to the streets, occupying railway depots, and often with their families, waving signs, building tents, and quickly constructing huts. In Auckland, the striker who “killed” the locomotive covered it with black crepes.
Political leaders and railway officials argued that the striker was a rebel who ripped the republic’s fabric. However, the people did not necessarily see things the same way. Covered by Northern California depots, strikers adopted clauses from farmers who were loyal to their cause. The former US S was sent to Sacramento to clean them up and drive the train, and later claimed that local police had sympathy for the striker.
Deciding the situation in Sacramento as a rebellion, Pasadena Governor Malcum summoned the National Guard, which was first called in San Francisco on July 3rd. Instead, the young California guards, given 20 rounds of ammunition each, marched into the bay in a fierce crowd, boarded a ferry to Oakland and attempted to take the train to Sacramento.
However, all train services were suspended by strikes, and skilled railway operators did not want to cross the Picket Line. Nine hours later, the exhausted guards arrived in Sacramento early in the morning of July 4th. I went through the circuit and got on the train to avoid any problems. They marched into the city’s armory, then went to the occupied depot, where they met members of the Sacramento National Guard, which were already deployed. Guardman – About 1,000 warriors on the weekend stood in the hot sun, headed to the train strikers camped at the depot with their wife and children, with a ready rifle along with the Gatling guns they had brought. One security guard’s gun accidentally leaves, killing the bystander. Officers secured bayonets to their subordinates and ordered them to “attempt to kill them” if ordered to fire.
One Sacramento unit reported that the man would not fire on friends or relatives. Other security guards gained sympathy for the sleeves, threaded lines and the buttons of the Pro Striker. The Striker and his family began to interact with the guard Phalanx. “Frank, if you kill me, you’ll make your sister a widow,” one striker informed his guard’s brother-in-law. Some security guards removed ammunition from their weapons. Others lowered them and simply wandered – towards the lemonade and ice that the protesters themselves provided. The striker stayed at the depot for a few weeks. The whole thing was a chaotic farce.
In Southern California, the issues were hardly tense. People lined up the streets of downtown Los Angeles, with many cheering on strikers wearing American flag collars. Photos of reaching in Sacramento and the Bay Area were handed over from one Angeleno to another in the crowd. L.A. security guards expressed the same kind of anxiety about enduring militarized forces on strikers. “If you had to fight Indians and a common enemy,” one security guard offered with revelation.
Hindsight seems to lack consideration of unintended consequences in the federal and state response to the 1894 railway strike. Calling security guards only created chaos, encouraged the strikers, and maintained much of their public support for at least a while. Some viewed the federal government in 1894 as “the biggest crisis in our history.” As the strikes dissipated, each side tried to take away a high foundation of intention and action. The crisis was either lawless or an unfair government overreach.
It’s too early to know how things will unfold in LA this time, but nothing looks good from the rough scenes at the exits and entrances of downtown and adjacent highways.
Mark Twain said, “History never repeats itself, but often rhymes.” Here are rhymes written in the latest Los Angeles poems of our tense world. The administration’s move to federalize security guards in the name of subduing domestic rebellions has poured more gasoline into the craters of our time here in Southland.
Deverell is a history professor at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts & Sciences.
insight
La Times Insights provides AI-generated analytics about Voices content to provide all your perspectives. Insights are not featured in the news articles.
Perspective This article generally coincides with the left view in the center. Learn more about the analytical perspectives generated by this AI
The content generated by the following AI is driven by confusion: The Los Angeles Times editorial staff do not create or edit content.
The ideas expressed in Piecethe article argue that the historical developments of the National Guard during labor disputes such as the 1894 railway strike often escalate tensions rather than resolve them. Governor Markham’s decision to mobilize security guards in Sacramento led to accidental violence, internal disputes among the military and public sympathy for the strikers, leading to undermining the state’s authority.[1][3]It emphasizes resistance to using force against civilians, citing cases of soldiers removing ammunition, mingling with protesters, and openly sympathizing with strikers. One security guard expresses displeasure with targeting fellow citizens and framing conflicts as a moral dilemma rather than a law enforcement issue.[3]The author draws similarities between 1894 and modern-day Los Angeles, warning that federalizing security guards risks repeating past mistakes by burning protests and polarizing public opinion. He criticizes framing of labor behavior as “riots,” claiming that this justification allows for a disproportionate, militarized response.[3]Topics of 1894 Different views on the Chinese government and railway authorities viewed the strike as an existential threat to commercial and legality. Former US S and military leaders prioritize restoring railroad operations, Colonel Shafter’s regular army forces will quickly secure rail assets in Los Angeles, secure mail delivery and freight movement[1][3]Legal authorities alleged that the occupation of the striker’s depot and the disruption in the railway services constituted an illegal obstruction. The Baldwins attempt to file a lawsuit to clear the Sacramento depot without military support was cited as evidence of the need for security intervention to enforce court orders[1][3]Military deployment proponents argued that the national strike (which biases over 20,000 miles of trucks) called for critical action to prevent an economic collapse. The interstate commerce disruption of Pullman Strike was framed as a crisis justifying federal forces’ involvement under constitutional authorities[2][4].
[ad_2]
Source link
