Reality Check: Nationwide Martial Law Unlikely to Work in Modern US
Some things bounce around the internet like bad pennies. Some end up being legitimate, like the concerns by plenty of people about the rushed roll-out of COVID precautions and treatments, which ended up not exactly being as promised. And then there are the others, the more wild-eyed concerns, like the UN building internment camps in the United States (of which no one seems to have ever been able to smuggle out even a fuzzy Sasquatch-level photo) or the one that we're seeing a lot right now: Martial law.
The Constitution specifically allows for martial law, of course, and it's a principle that goes back centuries. It's been used - and abused - on many occasions throughout history.
But it's unlikely in the extreme, pronunciations on the internet notwithstanding, that it will happen here any time soon.
Martial law has been declared, and the Consitution completely or partially suspended, six times in the history of the United States. Those cases are:
- 1814: The Battle of New Orleans
- 1843: The Mormon Rebellion
- 1861: Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War
- 1914: The Colorado Miner's strike
- 1918: The Phenix City, Georgia bootlegger's rebellion
- 1941: Hawaii, following the Pearl Harbor attack
None of those were nationwide declarations; none of them involved shutting down commerce and travel across the entire nation, as any such declaration made, say, for a pandemic (real or not) or an invasion (military or irregular) would necessarily have to be, to fulfill its stated purpose.
What's more, a nationwide declaration of martial law is wildly unlikely. Here's why.
A blanket declaration of martial law is logistically and tactically impossible in a nation the size of the United States. Even were we to assume that the entire U.S. military and law enforcement communities were to agree, without argument or dissent, to enforce the declaration, our armed forces and civil police forces combined are insufficient to hold down 80-100 million armed citizens, many of whom are military veterans (myself included). And it is unlikely beyond belief that the military and law-enforcement communities would unquestioningly obey such a declaration. There would almost certainly be massive disobedience, if not outright rebellion, among many of the nation's rank-and-file military members. A significant portion - maybe a majority - would not only go over to the other side but may well take weapons and equipment with them.
The United States (all 50 states) has almost 4 million square miles of land, 4 million miles of paved and unpaved roads, 150,000 miles of railroads, and thousands of miles of navigable rivers. There is no conceivable way that the Imperial government could monitor, much less control, all of the movement of citizens along those routes. The only result of such an effort would be massive civil disobedience. There are not enough drones and satellites in the known universe to monitor this much area.
This is a big one, and one you don't see mentioned a lot: An effective enforcement of martial law would require the Imperial government to shut down the internet and cell phone networks. This would cause untold chaos in every aspect of life, but most notably in the business world. The vast majority of American businesses rely heavily on the internet and cell phone networks for everything from accepting credit/debit card payments to coordinating operations. This action would plunge the economy into a depression that would make the 1928-1941 depression look like a picnic, and the impact would be global; despite the best efforts of the president and his Democrat colleagues, the United States is still far and away the most powerful and influential economy on the planet. And remember, it's not just the private sector that depends on internet communication; the governments, not just of the United States but the entire world (except perhaps North Korea) also rely on internet communication.
The United States Constitution is not clear on the president's authority to declare martial law, but it is clear on Congress's role. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution, Congress has the power "[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions." The current Congress, which is sitting until January 2025, with the House, held by Republicans by a razor-thin majority, will not agree to any such declaration.
But there's more to it than that. Americans are, for the most part, fractious, contentious, and willful people, and I wouldn't have them any other way. A significant plurality, if not an outright majority, of the people would resist, either actively or passively. If businesses were shut down, black markets would spring up. If highways were closed, traffic would move to back roads - or waterways. The only way any government could deal with this would be by the generous application of force. Such force would have to be overwhelming, brutal, and merciless. Bear in mind that this option is likely to fail, as a significant portion of our military would likely refuse to exercise brutality on their fellow citizens. The likely result is far more likely to be civil war than an oppressed and helpless population, and those who would grab this sort of power surely know this.
We have a lot of things at the moment that are a matter of legitimate concern. We have an ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe, and China is becoming increasingly bellicose in the South China Sea, not only around Taiwan but also in the Philippines. There is once again conflict in the Middle East. Our government seems determined to print money and spend us into insolvency, and the supposed leader of the free world is a befuddled incompetent.
So, worry about those things, by all means. But martial law isn't something we should be spending any brain run-time being concerned about.
Post a Comment