Then & Now

[Editorial]

There is a difference between Selma and Los Angeles — both involved the use of troops, but for very different purposes. In one case, troops were used to protect a protest; in the other, they were used to block it.

On March 7, 1965, during what became known as “Bloody Sunday,” civil rights marchers were brutally attacked by Alabama state troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. In response, federal troops were sent in to protect the marchers and ensure their right to protest was upheld.

Now compare that with Los Angeles yesterday: the military was deployed to suppress citizen protest, treating it as a threat rather than a constitutional right. Yes, there was unrest, vandalism, and firebombs however the city had the situation under control. Arrests were being made, and neither the city nor the governor requested federal assistance. Nevertheless, Trump intervened.

Selma was about upholding constitutional freedoms. Trump's action is about threatening them.

He used a law that hadn’t been invoked since the Little Rock desegregation crisis in 1957, when President Eisenhower sent in the National Guard to enforce school integration. But in that case, troops were used to protect civil rights—not to silence them.

Here is what NPR reported (Is there any wonder why Trump wants to get rid of them? In depth reporting and not parroting Trump & Company)

One of my worries... that many in the National Guard will retire or leave the service and that will only leave those who relish bashing heads more than the Constitution.

[/Editorial]