“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” —Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” —Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
Yesterday I published an essay (When Thinking Becomes Unthinkable: Motivated Reasoning and the Memory Hole) in which I reflected on something I had said earlier in the day on social media. I had just heard a reporter say that never in American history has a Republican President sent troops to a Democratic city. This reporter said it with so much confidence. Fascinating, I thought, how historical memory can be so easily erased among those who are supposed to be knowledgeable about American history. After all, they’re commenting on American history from a big platform, so one would think they would have some knowledge about what they’re talking about.
As I explained in that essay, not only has a Republican President sent troops to a Democratic city before, but Republican presidents have sent troops to Democratic cities on numerous occasions throughout the history of the nation. So have Democrats. In this essay, I follow up on yesterday’s essay to expand on the facts of this history. This is essay is one of several essays in which I argue that President Trump’s deployment of federal troops to cities across the nation is Constitutionally authorized and, moreover, an obligation, under certain conditions, as asserted in Article IV of the US Constitution, Sections 1 and 4, which I quoted at the top of this essay. (See Our Constitution and the Federal Authority to Quell Rebellion; Concerning the Powers of the US Constitution—And Those Defying Them; Posse Comitatus and the Ghosts of Redemption.)
When Illinois Governor JB Pritzker says (quoted in this New York Times article), “We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s invasion,” he is using more than highly charged political language. The phrase frames former President Donald Trump not as a political opponent or policy actor, but as an aggressor against the nation itself. However, Trump is the duly elected President of the United States. He is sworn to faithfully execute the Office of President, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. His military commanders take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Calling something an “invasion” implies a hostile, external force—an enemy rather than a domestic participant in legitimate governance. This means Pritzker is assuming the doctrine states’ rights in the same way the Southern states that formed the Confederacy assumed states’ rights in rebellion against the Union.
The public must see that this rhetoric echoes older and destructive actions and patterns in American history. During the Civil War, Confederate leaders routinely described actions by President Lincoln and the Union Army as an “invasion” of the South. They used that word to suggest that the federal government had become an occupying force, violating the sovereignty of the states. In doing so, they cast themselves as defenders of their homeland rather than what they were: rebels against the United States.
By referring to Trump’s actions as an “invasion,” Pritzker is mirroring that same rhetorical structure—depicting a national leader as a violator of the country he was elected to serve—of the Confederate rebel. It’s a reversal of legitimacy, a linguistic move that portrays the federal executive not as the protector of the nation but as an internal enemy. This is not accidental. It represents the neoconfederate politics of governors like Pritzker and Newsom. This is ANTI-American.
Pritzker’s choice of language reflects a broader trend in contemporary American politics, where Republicans are framed not as rivals within a shared system but as existential threats to it. The reality is that neoconfederacy is an existential threat to the Republic. More than rhetoric, segments of the judiciary are manifesting neoconfederate rhetoric in action.
Bottom line: Pritzker’s words carry more than a historical echo of Confederate rhetoric. The Democrats are neoconfederates, transforming political conflict into a struggle over the very identity and survival of the nation.
The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Republic. States are subordinate to the federal government. The federal government under the authority and obligation provided to it by Article I, Section 8, and Article IV, must deploy military troops to suppress insurrection and rebellion. This is why the Articles of Confederation were scrapped and replaced by the US Constitution. The US Constitution created a powerful executive to carry out the nation’s laws and secure domestic peace and tranquility.
You may be hearing a lot about the Redemptionist law Posse Comitatus Act, passed by Democrats in 1878 at the end of Reconstruction to thwart federal troops in their work to protect recently freed slaves. This law generally prohibits the use of the US military (Army and Air Force) to enforce domestic laws within the United States, UNLESS expressly authorized by the Constitution (see Article I, Section 8, and Article IV) and statutory law.
Statutory law on the matter is found in the 1807 Insurrection Act (10 USC. §§ 251–255). This Act is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. It authorizes the President to deploy federal troops within the US to suppress civil disorder, domestic violence, insurrection, rebellion, unlawful combinations, or conspiracies that hinder the enforcement of federal law or deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, particularly when state authorities are unable or unwilling to maintain order.
Additional statutory provisions permit military involvement in maintaining peace and order under specific circumstances. Among these is 10 USC §§ 271–284, the military may provide support to civilian law enforcement agencies, including assistance in counterdrug, counterterrorism, and border security operations, as well as technical, logistical, and intelligence support, though not direct law enforcement activities. Collectively, these statutes form the legal framework under which the President may deploy military forces domestically to preserve public order, enforce federal authority, or protect life and property when civilian agencies and state governments are unable to maintain control.
This is how 1957 (Little Rock, Arkansas, when President Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to enforce desegregation orders, sending in federal troops) and 1992 (Los Angeles riots, when President George Bush Senior invoked it to restore order after the Rodney King verdict) were possible.
Even Democrats have used the military in this fashion. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy intervened in the integration of James Meredith at the Ole Miss. The state of Mississippi, led by Governor Ross Barnett, resisted the federal court order requiring Meredith’s admission. President Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, deployed US Marshals and later federal troops to ensure Meredith could enroll. On September 30, 1962, violent riots erupted on campus, leaving two people dead and many injured as federal forces battled mobs opposing desegregation. Kennedy addressed the nation, urging respect for the rule of law and emphasizing that “observance of the law is the eternal safeguard of liberty.”
No rational people would establish a legal framework that allows for civil disorder, insurrection, rebellion, or states to fail or refuse to follow the federal law or protect federal buildings and installations. If you think Antifa is engaged in righteous action, you are entitled to that view. But you also have to recognize that a state adequate for guaranteeing peace and tranquility on the home front will enforce the nation’s laws.
freedom and reason 