Overblown Threats of Terrorism, Then and Now
Three days before the Clamshell Alliance peaceably occupied the nuclear plant construction site in Seabrook in 1977, New Hampshire Governor Meldrim Thomson called me a terrorist.
“Our advance information indicates that the planned demonstration of April 30 is nothing but a cover for terrorist activity,” he said, quoted in a front-page, above-the-fold article in the Manchester Union Leader.
The governor’s “advance information” was absurd. In fact, the Alliance had been openly planning the demonstration for months and was circulating a set of “guidelines” for any planning to join. The first guideline, printed on a mimeographed sheet, said, “All occupiers must have preparation in non-violent action before taking part in the April 30 occupation.” The guidelines also specified that no one would carry weapons, that there would be no damage to property. By the day the demonstration began, nearly 2000 people had gone through nonviolent training sessions in which they learned and practiced how to respond to arrests or provocations without retaliation. Organizers delivered a letter to the Seabrook police pledging their non-violent intent.
On May 1, at the governor’s order, a massive police force moved in and arrested more than 1400 people, every one of whom remained peaceful. A nationwide “No Nukes” movement, built on nonviolent protest, took off from there.
It’s not the only time public officials have confused plans for peaceful protest with plans for violent insurrection. Consider the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, known now primarily for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech.
At the time, the idea of tens of thousands of African Americans marching peacefully through the nation’s capital was hard for members of the white power structure to imagine. On “Meet the Press” the Sunday before the march, one of the panelists cited authorities who “believe it is impossible to bring more than 100,000 militant Negroes into Washington without incidents and possibly rioting.” Historian Taylor Branch writes, “President Kennedy and his military chiefs were poised with pre-drafted proclamations that would trigger suppression by 4,000 troops assembled in the suburbs, backed by 15,000 paratroopers on alert in North Carolina.” A week later, the FBI, which was stepping up its surveillance of King and his associates, called King’s speech “demagogic” and labeled him “the most dangerous Negro of the future in this nation from the standpoint of communism.”
Looking back, the 1963 march is seen as one of our country’s great patriotic events and Dr. King as a hero of democracy. J. Edgar Hoover, who headed the FBI, is seen as an official who suppressed democracy rather than protecting it.
How will our times be seen? In recent months, Donald Trump has unleashed the Justice Department to go after his political opponents amid charges of “domestic terrorism” and declared U.S. cities would be training grounds for U.S. military forces, in essence declaring the American people to be enemies in the gunsights of the Department of War.
So far, it looks like millions of Americans are refusing to be intimidated and instead are insisting on practicing our rights to peaceably assemble, petition our elected officials for redress of our grievances, and exercise free speech.
For the recent No Kings protests, which took plaice in more than 2000 communities and may have drawn more than 8 million people, organizers stated, “All No Kings events adhere to a shared commitment to nonviolent protest and community safety. Organizers are trained in de-escalation and are working closely with local partners to ensure peaceful and powerful actions nationwide.”
If the anti-Trump resistance can maintain its nonviolent posture even in the face of provocation, history will show who were the terrorists and who was upholding democracy.
