History Shows How Using Troops to Police U.S. Cities Can Backfire

In recent weeks, the Trump Administration has ordered National Guard troops into Los Angeles and Washington, D.C, to combat violent crime and support the government’s stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws. Hailing the purported success of these missions, the president has promised to occupy Chicago; New Orleans; Memphis; Portland, Ore.; and other American cities in similar fashion.

There is a long history of using the military to police American cities. After the Civil War, for example, Union soldiers occupied the former Confederacy for more than a decade. In the 20th century, presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to George H.W. Bush deployed armed forces to enforce civil rights laws and respond to urban riots. Yet, the historical episode that most resembles the current moment goes back to just before the founding of the U.S.

Beginning in the late 1760s, King George III deployed troops to enforce British law in the face of fierce resistance from North American colonists. By the Revolutionary War’s conclusion, the king’s troops had marched through the streets of every major North American city. As the conflict wore on, British leaders sought to use troops not just as police, but to intimidate would-be rebels and re-assure the crown’s American supporters. While in most places these efforts succeeded in the short term, over time the lived realities—particularly the everyday violence—of military rule undermined support for the royal cause, dooming efforts to resuscitate the British Empire in America.

Reeling from debts accrued during the French and Indian War—which ended in 1763—and seeking to consolidate power over Britain’s overseas territories, the king’s government tightened regulations and imposed new taxes on colonial trade. As part of these reforms, the Royal Navy impounded dozens of merchant vessels for allegedly evading customs duties, enraging merchants as well as mariners, shipwrights, stevedores, and others in port cities whose livelihoods depended on foreign commerce. During the summer of 1768, a riot broke out in Boston, led by laborers, tradesmen, and sailors protesting against these unjust policing practices. The angry mob looted the homes of customs agents, harassed those agents’ families, and even burned a small pleasure boat belonging to one unfortunate tax collector on the Common.

To protect royal officials and crack down on lawlessness, Parliament ordered two regiments of redcoats to encamp in the city, hoping that the show of force would overawe any protest and encourage adherence to the law.

At first, the army did bring order to the streets and quieted public protests. However, tensions quickly arose between the army and the civilians they were sent to police. Two thousand soldiers—many of whom arrived with families in tow—exacerbated the city’s housing shortage and drove up prices for food and firewood. The soldiers’ pastimes of drinking, gambling, and brawling also offended many Bostonians, who retained the piety of their Pilgrim ancestors. As the months wore on, the relationship between the troops and the townspeople grew more and more strained.

The situation turned deadly on a snowy afternoon in March of 1770. After a small crowd outside Boston’s customs house pelted redcoats with rocks, snowballs, and insults, the soldiers opened fire, killing five and wounding 12 more. Accounts of the attack—accompanied by an engraving produced by local artisan Paul Revere—reached the other colonies and added fuel to the brewing uprising. Rather than conciliate a wavering citizenry, two years of occupation had instead inspired tens of thousands of other colonists to join the resistance to British rule.

When that resistance exploded into open warfare in 1775, the royal army’s mission shifted from enforcing the law to defeating the rebellion. Over the course of the eight-year Revolutionary War, British forces seized control of New York; Newport, R.I.; Philadelphia; and Charleston — along with Boston, the five most populous cities in the fledgling U.S. In addition to the military importance of these towns, royal officials hoped to convince colonists that only their side could restore law and order and bring economic prosperity back to the colonies. They hoped that a show of force would prompt townspeople to cooperate with British efforts and redouble their allegiance to the crown.

Early in the war, many colonial Americans actually embraced occupation. As late as 1776, only a third of colonists supported the Revolution wholeheartedly; a roughly equal amount remained loyal to the crown, and the remainder had yet to make up their minds. The appearance of redcoats in the streets convinced many of those in the latter camp, along with some former revolutionaries, to side with the British cause. In New York and Charleston, thousands publicly signed loyalty oaths to the king within months of the army’s arrival.

In each occupied port, local merchants renewed their standing orders with suppliers in Britain, anticipating a commercial boom sparked by the arrival of the troops. Imported luxuries like tea and sugar began to reappear in colonial shops, theaters re-opened to bumper crowds, and taverns rang once again with raucous laughter — signs that the populace expected things to return to normal. Security and prosperity proved strong enticements to accepting imperial rule, even if those benefits came at the point of a bayonet.

Yet, these successes proved short-lived. Colonists soured on military occupation during the war for many of the same reasons Bostonians had rejected it. Everywhere it went, the military competed with locals for food, shelter, and firewood, exacerbating the difficulties of wartime life. As in Boston, soldiers on garrison duty continued to drink, gamble, and fight. The thefts, assaults, and rapes that resulted from these vices often went unpunished, as British commanders prioritized prosecuting the war over protecting civilians. Those at the margins of society—the enslaved, domestic servants, and the laboring poor—found themselves especially vulnerable to abuse.

As months and years passed, townspeople in city after city realized that the army that had promised to restore order had instead made their lives more dangerous. This realization prompted many to question their allegiance to King George for the first time.

Indeed, the occupation undermined loyalty to Great Britain even among its most ardent supporters. When the British army evacuated its posts in North America at the end of the war, only roughly 75,000 of an estimated 500,000 Americans who had sided with the crown during the war fled into exile, while the rest made their peace with the new republic. Many survivors of occupation left no doubt of why they stayed. One of those erstwhile loyalists wrote to a friend in the waning days of the occupation of Philadelphia that “the British army have used me in such a way that I must not trust myself to speak of their Conduct on paper.” Turning his back on royal government, the Philadelphian embraced revolutionary rule, pledging that “I am (if permitted) likely to become a perfect American.”

The trauma and alienation experienced by those who endured military occupation at our nation’s founding suggests the peril of regularizing military rule in American cities today. While troops can bring short-term peace and stability, over the long haul the very nature of military occupation can undermine even the most laudable goals. Military occupations spark resistance and alienate even supporters of the occupying regime. Today’s leaders would be well advised to consider these lessons before turning the army into a tool of domestic police.

Donald F. Johnson is associate professor of history at North Dakota State University and author of Occupied America: British Military Rule and the Everyday Experience of Revolution

Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

The post History Shows How Using Troops to Police U.S. Cities Can Backfire appeared first on TIME.