U.S. Representative Jason Crow, a former combat veteran, recently called on members of the military to refuse illegal orders, a statement that has ignited a significant political backlash. Crow, along with five fellow veterans in Congress, asserted in a video that “no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.” This declaration prompted a furious response from former President Donald Trump, who labeled the lawmakers as traitors and shared a post on social media suggesting extreme measures against them.
The video featuring Crow and his colleagues emphasized the ethical responsibility of military personnel to disobey orders that are evidently illegal, a point supported by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. According to legal experts, service members are expected to follow orders, unless those orders direct them to commit a crime. Crow’s comments have raised questions about the implications of Trump’s directives, particularly concerning military actions that may conflict with established legal norms.
In a detailed analysis written for the New York Times, attorney David French, who served in Iraq, highlighted the complexity surrounding the legality of military orders. He pointed out that while the killing of a prisoner is unambiguously illegal, the bombing of a suspected insurgent location may not be. French criticized Trump, stating that his orders could place military leaders in a compromising position, ultimately burdening the conscience of the soldiers under their command.
The recent discourse echoes a tragic chapter in American history—the Sand Creek Massacre of November 29, 1864. On that day, Captain Silas Soule and Lieutenant Joseph Cramer took a stand against Colonel John Chivington’s orders to attack a Cheyenne and Arapahoe encampment. Despite the camp’s inhabitants displaying the American flag, Chivington led a brutal assault that resulted in the deaths of approximately 200 individuals, most of whom were women and children.
The massacre stemmed from rising tensions between Native American tribes and settlers in Colorado, a territory that had seen significant migration. Previous peace negotiations had taken place between tribal leaders and local authorities, but assurances of safety were unfulfilled. Chivington, seeking to bolster his political ambitions, proceeded with the attack, a decision that would haunt him and others involved.
Soule and Cramer, horrified by the slaughter, wrote to their commanding officer, Major Edward Wynkoop, expressing their moral outrage. The Army later held hearings to address the incident, but Soule did not survive to see full accountability; he was assassinated the following year in Denver.
The historical parallels drawn between Crow’s actions and those of Soule and Cramer underscore the weight of ethical decision-making in military conduct. Both figures faced pressure to conform to orders that conflicted with their moral compass. Today, as Crow and his colleagues navigate this contemporary crisis, they echo the sentiments of past leaders who resisted unlawful directives.
In examining the legacy of John Evans, Colorado’s territorial governor during the Sand Creek Massacre, reports from Northwestern University and the University of Denver have attributed significant responsibility to him for the conditions that led to the massacre. The inquiries concluded that Evans played a critical role in creating an environment ripe for violence.
As the debate over military orders continues, the cases of Crow and Soule resonate with those who prioritize adherence to ethical principles over blind obedience. Crow’s advocacy for disobedience in the face of illegal orders reflects a broader conversation about accountability and moral courage in military and political leadership. As this dialogue unfolds, the ghosts of the past remind us of the enduring impact of decisions made in the heat of conflict.
