Fact check: How has the National Guard been federalized without governor consent in US history?

1. Summary of the results

Presidential federalization of the National Guard without governor consent has occurred several times in U.S. history, with each instance marking significant historical moments. The most prominent cases include:

• President Lyndon B. Johnson's 1965 federalization of Alabama's National Guard during the civil rights movement, specifically to protect Black protesters during the Selma to Montgomery march when Governor George Wallace refused to provide protection ^{[1] [2]}
• President Eisenhower's 1957 federalization in Arkansas for school desegregation enforcement ^[3]
• President Nixon's 1970 action during a postal strike, using statute 10 U.S.C. § 12406 ^[4]
• A recent federalization of the California National Guard without Governor Newsom's consent, deploying 2,000 troops to Los Angeles ^[5]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial contextual elements need to be considered:

• Such federalizations are extremely rare, with most National Guard activations happening at the governor's request ^[1]
• There was a significant gap in these actions between Reconstruction and the 1950s ^[3]
• Modern presidents have shown reluctance to take such actions, as exemplified by President George W. Bush's decision not to federalize Louisiana's National Guard in 2006 when the governor objected ^[1]
• The legal framework for such actions has evolved, with different presidents relying on various legal authorities - such as the Insurrection Act ^[2] and 10 U.S.C. § 12406 ^[4]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The question itself might lead to oversimplification of a complex issue. Important considerations include:

• Many sources might focus only on recent history, missing the broader historical context of such actions during the civil rights era
• The question doesn't address the crucial distinction between different legal mechanisms used for federalization
• There's a risk of overlooking that these actions were typically taken in response to civil rights enforcement rather than routine law enforcement matters
• The political context of each era significantly influenced these decisions, with civil rights being a dominant factor in many historical cases ^{[2] [3]}