Considerations about Mississippi University

[wolfigor]

on the 30th of September there was an important anniversary:
50 years since the same day in 1962 when hundreds of federal marshalls and thousands of army and national guards troops intervened to quell resistance against de-segregation laws.
The day after, James H. Meredith, their first black student, enrolled at the university of Mississippi.

I admit already now that I know relatively little about the civil rights movement in USA, so a lot of details may elude me... I have no doubt there will be plenty of people ready to correct me in this forum.

Anyway I'm digressing...

Reading about this anniversary it was immediately clear what huge progress were made in the last 50 years, it may seem a long time but society rarely changes any faster.

50 years ago, the enrolment of a back in a university in south USA meant people killed and hundreds injured due to the strong reaction of local population against defending the status-quo and the central government pushing hard to make law being respected.

It was assign of a local society that was still racist, but also a country as a whole that wasn't.
A country that was ready to use force to impose laws; a country that was ready to fight for what the majority considered just and fair.

Now, 50 years later, the federal government doesn't need to use force to impose racial equality.
Even if some racism may still exists, it is a far shadow of what it was and society as a whole look with disdain at anything racist.
The culture has changed and a military force had to be used to impose such change.

I have the feeling that the USA of today wouldn't be bold enough to employ force to such extent on its own citizens to impose a different culture.
Large part of the society of today would frown at using force to impose a culture change on its own citizens.
Would today USA use force to impose de-segregation?
I have the feeling that today there would be endless talks and attempts of dialogue with a part of the society that will never listen, that will never agree to change.

What do you think?

 

[Bugfatty300]

It seems the federal government stepped it down a few notches after the Waco siege, but post-9/11...

There didn't seem to be much qualms about deploying combat troops in New Orleans to enforce order.

 

[wolfigor]

It seems the federal government stepped it down a few notches after the Waco siege, but post-9/11...

There didn't seem to be much qualms about deploying combat troops in New Orleans to enforce order.

In my view New Orleans during Katrina is very different from the Mississippi state in the '60s.
In New Orleans there was widespread violence and looting, in Mississippi the army intervened to push a cultural change.
The two cases are not comparable.

 

[Bugfatty300]

There was widespread violence against blacks during the civil rights movement as well. The MU rioters were heavily armed and violent hence the use of troops. In a more famous case, the governor of Arkansas threatened to use his soldiers to prevent de-segregation hence the occupation of Little Rock by the 101st Airborne to discourage him from trying that.

So the troops were there mostly to keep order rather than to enforce cultural change. If there was no violence or threats of armed rebellion then it's unlikely they would have been there at all. Just like New Orleans.

So, as per your question:

Yes, the Feds would use armed force if it seemed necessary to them, especially post-9/11.

 

[wolfigor]

There was widespread violence against blacks during the civil rights movement as well. The MU rioters were heavily armed and violent hence the use of troops. In a more famous case, the governor of Arkansas threatened to use his soldiers to prevent de-segregation hence the occupation of Little Rock by the 101st Airborne to discourage him from trying that.

So the troops were there to mostly to keep order rather than to enforce cultural change. If there was no violence or threats of armed rebellion then it's unlikely they would have been there at all. Just like New Orleans.

So, as per your question:

Yes, the Feds would use armed force if it seemed necessary to them, especially post-9/11.

Thank you, now it's more clear

 

[Cutlass]

The feds might use force if law and order were truly breaking down and violence was widespread or in an emergency where authority had simply broken down. But I don't see them doing so in most other situations. Liberal political thought and strength was ascendent in the 1950s and 60s. Conservative shrinking. That's reversed now. So it wasn't just the ability to act, not just the willingness, but the consensus. And that is gone now.