U.S. Representative Jason Crow, a decorated combat veteran from Colorado, recently called on military personnel to refuse illegal orders, drawing a parallel to historical events such as the Sand Creek Massacre. Crow’s stance, shared in a video with five other veteran lawmakers, comes amid a heated exchange with former President Donald Trump, who labeled the group as traitors following their comments.
In the video, Crow emphasized, “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.” The response from Trump was swift and incendiary, with a social media post suggesting violent repercussions against the legislators. Although Trump later claimed he did not advocate for their deaths, his comments have raised significant concerns, especially as Crow and others reported receiving death threats in the aftermath.
The legal framework concerning military orders is complex. Joseph Jordan, a former U.S. Army officer whose law firm specializes in defending service members, referenced the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He noted that military personnel are obliged to follow orders unless they are “patently illegal,” such as those ordering the commission of a crime. However, disobeying orders can lead to serious consequences, including court martial proceedings.
In an analysis for the New York Times, attorney David French, who also served in Iraq, highlighted the challenges faced by military leaders under Trump’s directives. He pointed out that while certain actions, such as shooting a prisoner, are clearly illegal, the legality of orders related to military engagement with suspected drug traffickers remains ambiguous. French criticized Trump for creating an untenable situation that compromises the integrity of military leadership and burdens the conscience of service members.
The historical context of Crow’s remarks evokes the Sand Creek Massacre of November 29, 1864, when Captain Silas Soule and Lieutenant Joseph Cramer defied orders to attack a peaceful encampment of Cheyenne and Arapahoe natives in Colorado. At that time, the U.S. government had not fully acknowledged the rights of the tribes who had inhabited the area for generations, leading to rising tensions and violence.
Colonel John Chivington, who led the assault, had previously participated in peace negotiations but opted to attack the encampment, resulting in the deaths of approximately 200 individuals, many of whom were women and children. Despite the atrocities committed, Chivington was initially celebrated as a hero upon his return to Denver.
Soule and Cramer’s refusal to engage in the massacre was a significant act of moral courage. They later wrote to their commanding officer, Major Edward Wynkoop, condemning the actions taken against the natives. Tragically, Soule was assassinated in Denver the following year before he could be fully vindicated.
The aftermath of the Sand Creek Massacre reveals a complex legacy. Reports from both Northwestern University and the University of Denver in 2014 examined the roles of political figures, including Governor John Evans, in the events that unfolded. Both reports concluded that Evans played a crucial role in creating conditions that led to the massacre.
As discussions around military ethics and obedience to orders continue to unfold, the historical parallels drawn by Crow and his colleagues serve as a poignant reminder of the profound moral implications faced by those in positions of power. The ongoing dialogue reflects the necessity for military personnel and leaders to navigate the challenging terrain of legality and morality in their service.
