On September 30, 1962, the University of Mississippi witnessed what was initially described as an “almost peaceful” demonstration.
It started without hostility, but things rapidly escalated into a violent riot.
A mob unleashed fury on federal officials, hurling rocks and even Molotov cocktails at border patrol agents.
They set vehicles on fire, vandalized streetlights, and ransacked buildings.
Their actions were aimed at thwarting federal enforcement of the law.
This confrontation, notorious in Ole Miss history, erupted when external agitators tried to block the registration of James Meredith, an African American student under federal protection.
In response to the chaos, President John Kennedy deployed federal troops after the Mississippi State Guard was federalized just days before the incident.
Ultimately, he sent in around 31,000 troops, marking a significant show of force.
Fast forward to today, and once again, we see mobs challenging federal authority and laws.
Perhaps we’re on the brink of yet another significant struggle regarding the enforcement of federal warrants in areas that oppose them, alongside questions about the morality of such laws.
This term, “massive resistance,” echoes sentiments from Virginia separatists in the 1950s.
Democrat Harry Bird and his teammates devised a strategy aimed at undermining Brown vs. the Board of Education.
“If we can unite southern states against this order, I believe the rest of the nation will come to see that racial integration isn’t acceptable in the South,” he stated.
In a similar vein, some Democratic leaders and activists appear to hope that the federal government might hesitate to act, favoring a status quo that often disregards law enforcement.
Current opponents are leaning towards a different form of Southern resistance: nullification.
This concept implies that states can refuse to enforce federal laws they view as violating constitutional principles.
While it has a long history, it is often linked to the Southern states, though others now seem to want to adopt it.
Progressive cities and states are among those that have surfaced in this context.
Unlike the sophisticated rationalizations used by John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, today’s proponents seem more focused on practical applications of nullification.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has voiced her stance clearly.
“We need to put an end to the attacks,” she asserts.
“All it does is add to the chaos.”
This viewpoint extends beyond Los Angeles’ designation as a sanctuary city, which involves not cooperating with federal immigration officials, effectively creating zones where they are resisted.
Of course, those against ICE opposition disassociate themselves from the legacy of massive resistance, arguing their cause is fundamentally different from that of the historical South.
However, regardless of the motives, violently opposing law enforcement acting legally is fundamentally misguided (and the implications of large-scale illegal immigration pose real challenges to society).
If enforcing laws is so offensive to progressives, they should work to change those laws instead of resorting to mob rule to dictate the actions of immigration agents.
There’s no rightful place for violent mobs in a democratic society, whether we’re referring to Oxford in 1962, Los Angeles today, or any other place inspired by that troubling history.
