What do you think?
Rate this book
Insurrection: Rebellion, Civil Rights, and the Paradoxical State of Black Citizenship
A brilliant debut by lawyer and critic Hawa Allan on the paradoxical state of black citizenship in the United States. The little-known and under-studied 1807 Insurrection Act was passed to give the president the ability to deploy federal military forces to fend off lawlessness and rebellion, but it soon became much more than the sum of its parts. Its power is integrally linked to the perceived threat of black American equity in what lawyer and critic Hawa Allan demonstrates is a dangerous paradox. While the Act was initially used to repress rebellion against slavery, during Reconstruction it was invoked by President Grant to quell white-supremacist uprisings in the South. During the civil rights movement, it enabled the protection of black students who attended previously segregated educational institutions. Most recently, the Insurrection Act has been the vehicle for presidents to call upon federal troops to suppress so-called “race riots” like those in Los Angeles in 1992, and for them to threaten to do so in other cases of racial justice activism. Yet when the US Capitol was stormed in January 2021, the impulse to restore law and order and counter insurrectionary threats to the republic lay dormant. Allan’s distinctly literary voice underscores her paradigm-shifting reflections on the presence of fear and silence in history and their shadowy impact on the law. Throughout, she draws revealing insight from her own experiences as one of the only black girls in her leafy Long Island suburb, as a black lawyer at a predominantly white firm during a visit from presidential candidate Barack Obama, and as a thinker about the use and misuse of appeals to law and order. Elegant and profound, deeply researched and intensely felt, Insurrection is necessary reading in our reckoning with structural racism, government power, and protest in the United States.
272 pages, Hardcover
Published January 4, 2022
5 people are currently reading
1186 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
March 22, 2022
I’m awestruck by this work. Hawa Allan writes with literary precision, weaving history and legality with anecdotes of her own life in original and exciting ways. The best types of essayists succeed at this setup, pulling from every angle, building argument up so diligently that as the pieces fall into place it feels inevitable.
The trajectory of the Insurrection Act is dubious; historically, it was used both to quell white aggression in the Reconstruction era and against “race riots” in the latter half of the 20th century. This ambivalence mirrors the vacillating, half-formed dreamscape of freedom and equality in the United States. Allan elucidates the strange relationship between our being and our becoming; how our narratives cross and recross, turning back inwards, reinforcing extant realities as they silently preclude others. Its fascinating, exhilarating, and written with a balanced elegance I thoroughly enjoyed. 5 stars.
The trajectory of the Insurrection Act is dubious; historically, it was used both to quell white aggression in the Reconstruction era and against “race riots” in the latter half of the 20th century. This ambivalence mirrors the vacillating, half-formed dreamscape of freedom and equality in the United States. Allan elucidates the strange relationship between our being and our becoming; how our narratives cross and recross, turning back inwards, reinforcing extant realities as they silently preclude others. Its fascinating, exhilarating, and written with a balanced elegance I thoroughly enjoyed. 5 stars.
Read
July 4, 2021By creating a history of US government intervention against its own civilians, Hawa Allan shows that popular rebellion for racial justice and the white violence to oppose that potential transformation, have both created an official call to arms. But her evidence cumulatively reveals the goal as always to maintain "order" and not to create liberation or even equality.
November 9, 2023
This book is a mixed bag. Hawa Allan presents an interpretation of the experience of Black America throughout its history, from the founding of the country to modern day. The historical aspects of book are very engaging, but the author will break up the retelling with personal anecdotal vignettes. These vignettes disrupt the pacing of the book without adding much of substance. This becomes a large problem when the reader is highly engaged with the historical analysis, then has to drudge through the vignettes, just to lose the steam and analytical cohesion that was produced prior to the anecdote.
Furthermore, Allan has a tendency to present herself in a self-righteous way when discussing her personal experiences. All of her emotions are justified, her interpretation of events are correct, and her reading of other people’s internal thoughts must be accurate. This bleeds into her historical analysis, as she will present presumptions with little to no empirical data and build off the presumptions as though they are self-evidently true. This can create a disconnect between the reader and the material, as the buy-in for the narrative being provided is too high.
Finally, Allan has a tendency to reference well-respected works and authors, such as Hegel, Arendt, and Wittgenstein, without providing anything substantial from the works that add to her ideas. Rather, it often feels like the authors are added to provide a veneer of intellectual depth and engagement. I have no doubt that Allan is intelligent, which is why her overuse of references feels unnecessary. It comes across like Allan has a reference minimum that she needs to meet for the book, much like a college student forces quotes into paper to meet the professor’s requirements for an assignment.
Finally, the book feels too long. This is in large part due to a lack of a clear thesis for the text, and the intellectual meandering that gets worse as the book goes on. By the last 50-75 pages (including the Coda section), it feels like the author has ran out of steam and is writing to reach a word count.
Ultimately, I would not recommend this book if you are interested in the history of the Black experience in the US, as there are better resources. I would not recommend this as a sociological analysis either, as many of Allan’s ideas are common within academia without adding any depth or nuance of her own.
Furthermore, Allan has a tendency to present herself in a self-righteous way when discussing her personal experiences. All of her emotions are justified, her interpretation of events are correct, and her reading of other people’s internal thoughts must be accurate. This bleeds into her historical analysis, as she will present presumptions with little to no empirical data and build off the presumptions as though they are self-evidently true. This can create a disconnect between the reader and the material, as the buy-in for the narrative being provided is too high.
Finally, Allan has a tendency to reference well-respected works and authors, such as Hegel, Arendt, and Wittgenstein, without providing anything substantial from the works that add to her ideas. Rather, it often feels like the authors are added to provide a veneer of intellectual depth and engagement. I have no doubt that Allan is intelligent, which is why her overuse of references feels unnecessary. It comes across like Allan has a reference minimum that she needs to meet for the book, much like a college student forces quotes into paper to meet the professor’s requirements for an assignment.
Finally, the book feels too long. This is in large part due to a lack of a clear thesis for the text, and the intellectual meandering that gets worse as the book goes on. By the last 50-75 pages (including the Coda section), it feels like the author has ran out of steam and is writing to reach a word count.
Ultimately, I would not recommend this book if you are interested in the history of the Black experience in the US, as there are better resources. I would not recommend this as a sociological analysis either, as many of Allan’s ideas are common within academia without adding any depth or nuance of her own.
August 19, 2025
4.2🌟🌟🌟🌟
Such an eye-opening book. Mixed with historical facts revolving around the Insurrection Act and the authors own personal stories, Allan is able to make connections that would have been missed without her. The Insurrection Act is referenced by politicians and history teachers continually, but this full-depth analysis of the Act and its relation to Black Americans brings so much more clarity to the tension boiling beneath. Amazing.
Such an eye-opening book. Mixed with historical facts revolving around the Insurrection Act and the authors own personal stories, Allan is able to make connections that would have been missed without her. The Insurrection Act is referenced by politicians and history teachers continually, but this full-depth analysis of the Act and its relation to Black Americans brings so much more clarity to the tension boiling beneath. Amazing.
April 4, 2023
This may have been one of the best books I’ve ever read. She seamlessly weaves together theory, history, and personal narrative to create a powerful and urgent narrative around a seemingly dry topic. 1000 stars!!
December 11, 2021
Merriam-Webster defines insurrection as a violent attempt to take control of a government. Prior to January 6, the average American probably had only heard the word insurrection once or twice, let alone knew that there's an Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act of 1907 gives the President of the United States to the authority to deploy the US military & National Guard units in certain situations. In this book, author Hawa Allan explores a historic review of the Insurrection Act. From its early use of combatting rebellion against slavery, US Presidents have used the Insurrection Act quite a few times in the past. Most recently, the Act has been used to restore order after civil unrest related to social injustices. Allan does an excellent job chronicling its use throughout the United States' history. Allan covers how presidents from Ulysses S. Grant to George W. Bush successfully used it. January 6 represented the one day in modern history where the Insurrection Act was the most powerful tool to protect our government. Yet, it laid dormant by then President Donald Trump.
I enjoyed reading this historical review of the Insurrection Act. For educators teaching Civics courses, this book would be a great read. It would open the door to several healthy discussions about our government.
I enjoyed reading this historical review of the Insurrection Act. For educators teaching Civics courses, this book would be a great read. It would open the door to several healthy discussions about our government.
December 13, 2021
Interweaving history, psychology, and personal experience the author shows how (except for a brief period after the Civil War and again in the 1950s) the Insurrection Act of 1807, its precursors and subsequent laws were (and are) used to keep certain populations "in their place." Noting that words are important she points out that certain descriptors are used to describe similar actions by different ethnic groups, often in such a way that victims are portrayed as perpetrators. Unfortunately a large segment of society does not take time to think how the media is describing situations. All too often protests by minorities are described as riots and actual rioting by the majority is described as protest.
The law's implementation has been to protect property rather than people and bear in mind slaves were considered property of the slave-owner. If more people read this book and thought deeply about themselves and questioned their 'beliefs' and what they have been taught tghe would would be a better place.
The law's implementation has been to protect property rather than people and bear in mind slaves were considered property of the slave-owner. If more people read this book and thought deeply about themselves and questioned their 'beliefs' and what they have been taught tghe would would be a better place.
December 24, 2023
There's some highly interesting things he said about insurrection and how it's been used
but pay attention to the severe flaws that the other 1 2 3 star reviews get into on here!
Some of the best points they make are unoriginal ones, but
i think the Time essay is better than the book
Time Magazine
None of these labels are benign or interchangeable. To declare the crowd “violent” implicitly justifies state action to subdue or punish its members. While law enforcement may stand by and passively patrol “peaceful protests,” it has license to forcefully crack down on “insurrections.” Courts are called to uphold First Amendment rights of “rally goers,” and to read the Riot Act to “rioters.”
This war of words is nothing new. Long before the debate over whether the January 6 event was, essentially, a “protest,” a “siege,” a “coup,” or, indeed, an “insurrection,” there has been ongoing discord over the difference between “riots” and “rebellions.” What’s new is whose actions are being discussed: In the past, this debate often focused on the rising up of Black people in America.
Such naming conventions perform a narrative reframing typified by the summary to the 1968 Kerner Report, which was commissioned by Lyndon B. Johnson to understand the causes of the so-called race riots sparked in 1965 through the “long, hot summer” of 1967. Instead of casting blame on the usual suspects—like the incitement of Black radicals, Communists, or “outside agitators”—the summary highlighted white racism and socioeconomic obstacles facing Black Americans as chief perpetrators of the unrest. In this vein, widely referring to an event as a “riot” or a “rebellion” is more than a matter of words. It could very well mean the difference between, say, intensified policing and socioeconomic reform, (if any action at all).
The word “insurrection” is also part of this history. Its recent usage resurrects a fairly antique term once widely used to refer to uprisings by the enslaved. The enforcement of slavery in the U.S. effectively stigmatized all African-descended persons in the country as potential insurrectionists, as to enslave someone is to simultaneously give rise to an impulse toward liberation. The history of “insurrection” and Black people in America, however, continues far beyond the slavery era.
As I discuss in my book Insurrection: Rebellion, Civil Rights, and the Paradoxical State of Black Citizenship, use of the Insurrection Act of 1807—which allows the president to deputize the state National Guard and/or dispatch federal troops to quell domestic unrest—has historically been part of the ongoing and bloody battle to fully incorporate Black Americans as citizens of the U.S.
Although the word “insurrection” was not technically defined in the text of the Act, it was effectively defined in practice. From Nat Turner’s rebellion; to pro- and anti-slavery clashes over whether territorial Kansas would become a free- or slave-state; to the Detroit riots of ‘43 and ‘67; to the desegregation of public schools in Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi; to the march of civil rights protesters from Selma, Ala., to Montgomery; to the Los Angeles riots in ‘92—the extraordinary presidential power to domestically deploy federal troops under the Insurrection Act has largely been invoked to either suppress uprisings against racist systems, on the one hand, or to enforce the civil rights of Black Americans, on the other. That President Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the nationwide Black Lives Matter demonstrations over George Floyd’s killing is only a recent extension of this pattern.
This pattern paints an unstable portrait of Black Americans—treated, under the Act, as both wards and enemies of the state. Despite “progress” and changes in law, the Act’s invocation nonetheless reflects the enduring stigma of Black people in America as potential insurrectionists. Even when the Act was invoked to enforce the desegregation of public schools in the South or defend the rights of civil rights protesters to march from Selma, for example, the people often described as “rising up” are the Black activists who practiced civil disobedience. Meanwhile staunch segregationists like Alabama governor George Wallace—even when their actions defied the law—have not been similarly typecast as “insurrectionists.”
And, of course, the contrast between the militarized show of force in the D.C. during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020 and the paltry staffing of law enforcement at the Capitol during the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally reveals a recent and undeniable picture of who government officials have tended to regard as potential insurrectionists.
Defining the mostly white crowd that stormed the Capitol on January 6 as “insurrectionists” does more than set a narrative mood, it represents a major narrative shift—expanding the traditional role of the insurrectionist beyond the Black actor to the white one.
This is not the first time the shift has happened: When Ulysses S. Grant invoked the Insurrection Act in March 1871 to deploy federal troops in South Carolina to help put down the paramilitary Ku Klux Klan, it was abundantly clear that violent Klan members were the “insurrectionists.” But such use of the term has been rare. And for those who resist the word “insurrection” to describe the events of Jan. 6, this history may only underline that it may be a troubling harbinger of future state action that then-president elect Joe Biden was among the first people to use it.
In the end, the resistance of some commentators against the label “insurrection” is, in essence, a defense against being redefined and thusly marked with the presumption of guilt, perpetually scanned by the sensor of societal suspicion, prospectively analyzed as a threat to the state—a predicament traditionally reserved for Black people in the United States.
but pay attention to the severe flaws that the other 1 2 3 star reviews get into on here!
Some of the best points they make are unoriginal ones, but
i think the Time essay is better than the book
Time Magazine
None of these labels are benign or interchangeable. To declare the crowd “violent” implicitly justifies state action to subdue or punish its members. While law enforcement may stand by and passively patrol “peaceful protests,” it has license to forcefully crack down on “insurrections.” Courts are called to uphold First Amendment rights of “rally goers,” and to read the Riot Act to “rioters.”
This war of words is nothing new. Long before the debate over whether the January 6 event was, essentially, a “protest,” a “siege,” a “coup,” or, indeed, an “insurrection,” there has been ongoing discord over the difference between “riots” and “rebellions.” What’s new is whose actions are being discussed: In the past, this debate often focused on the rising up of Black people in America.
Such naming conventions perform a narrative reframing typified by the summary to the 1968 Kerner Report, which was commissioned by Lyndon B. Johnson to understand the causes of the so-called race riots sparked in 1965 through the “long, hot summer” of 1967. Instead of casting blame on the usual suspects—like the incitement of Black radicals, Communists, or “outside agitators”—the summary highlighted white racism and socioeconomic obstacles facing Black Americans as chief perpetrators of the unrest. In this vein, widely referring to an event as a “riot” or a “rebellion” is more than a matter of words. It could very well mean the difference between, say, intensified policing and socioeconomic reform, (if any action at all).
The word “insurrection” is also part of this history. Its recent usage resurrects a fairly antique term once widely used to refer to uprisings by the enslaved. The enforcement of slavery in the U.S. effectively stigmatized all African-descended persons in the country as potential insurrectionists, as to enslave someone is to simultaneously give rise to an impulse toward liberation. The history of “insurrection” and Black people in America, however, continues far beyond the slavery era.
As I discuss in my book Insurrection: Rebellion, Civil Rights, and the Paradoxical State of Black Citizenship, use of the Insurrection Act of 1807—which allows the president to deputize the state National Guard and/or dispatch federal troops to quell domestic unrest—has historically been part of the ongoing and bloody battle to fully incorporate Black Americans as citizens of the U.S.
Although the word “insurrection” was not technically defined in the text of the Act, it was effectively defined in practice. From Nat Turner’s rebellion; to pro- and anti-slavery clashes over whether territorial Kansas would become a free- or slave-state; to the Detroit riots of ‘43 and ‘67; to the desegregation of public schools in Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi; to the march of civil rights protesters from Selma, Ala., to Montgomery; to the Los Angeles riots in ‘92—the extraordinary presidential power to domestically deploy federal troops under the Insurrection Act has largely been invoked to either suppress uprisings against racist systems, on the one hand, or to enforce the civil rights of Black Americans, on the other. That President Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the nationwide Black Lives Matter demonstrations over George Floyd’s killing is only a recent extension of this pattern.
This pattern paints an unstable portrait of Black Americans—treated, under the Act, as both wards and enemies of the state. Despite “progress” and changes in law, the Act’s invocation nonetheless reflects the enduring stigma of Black people in America as potential insurrectionists. Even when the Act was invoked to enforce the desegregation of public schools in the South or defend the rights of civil rights protesters to march from Selma, for example, the people often described as “rising up” are the Black activists who practiced civil disobedience. Meanwhile staunch segregationists like Alabama governor George Wallace—even when their actions defied the law—have not been similarly typecast as “insurrectionists.”
And, of course, the contrast between the militarized show of force in the D.C. during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020 and the paltry staffing of law enforcement at the Capitol during the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally reveals a recent and undeniable picture of who government officials have tended to regard as potential insurrectionists.
Defining the mostly white crowd that stormed the Capitol on January 6 as “insurrectionists” does more than set a narrative mood, it represents a major narrative shift—expanding the traditional role of the insurrectionist beyond the Black actor to the white one.
This is not the first time the shift has happened: When Ulysses S. Grant invoked the Insurrection Act in March 1871 to deploy federal troops in South Carolina to help put down the paramilitary Ku Klux Klan, it was abundantly clear that violent Klan members were the “insurrectionists.” But such use of the term has been rare. And for those who resist the word “insurrection” to describe the events of Jan. 6, this history may only underline that it may be a troubling harbinger of future state action that then-president elect Joe Biden was among the first people to use it.
In the end, the resistance of some commentators against the label “insurrection” is, in essence, a defense against being redefined and thusly marked with the presumption of guilt, perpetually scanned by the sensor of societal suspicion, prospectively analyzed as a threat to the state—a predicament traditionally reserved for Black people in the United States.
July 1, 2024
i think this book is a really good intro to legal-y/ political science books, it’s very informative while not being overly dense. it was definitely interesting for me to listen to, there was a good amount that i didn’t know about, and the writing style brought me back to my law and society major days. it’s been on my to be read for like a year since i met the author at one of my dad’s gigs so i’m glad i finally got to it — also timing coincidence reading while hearing about the recent supreme court ruling on presidential immunity relating to the insurrection. i do definitely agree with some of the criticism in other reviews but overall it was a solid audiobook experience - maybe even better than reading the book on paper would’ve been (3rd audiobook ever 🫣)
April 10, 2022
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for sending me an advanced audio copy of this title in exchange for an honest review.
Insurrection by Hawa Allan is the history of insurrections in the United States, the Insurrection Act, and how the government/society has historically been afraid of Black citizens and the possibility of insurrection from those same Black citizens.
Ms. Allan is a lawyer and that definitely comes across in her writing. She is building a case the entirety of the book and making arguments about the use of the Insurrection act throughout American history. This is interspersed with personal anecdotes from her own life.
While I did learn about American history throughout this title, I had a hard time understanding what Ms. Allan was building her case about. She was constantly making arguments and I would find myself going.... "how did we get here? I'm not sure how this is relevant to what we were just talking about." Maybe I am just not smart enough for this title?
The book is narrated by Ms. Allan herself, and it was interesting hearing the inflections in her writing as she intended them. I LOVE when nonfiction books are read by their authors.
Insurrection by Hawa Allan is the history of insurrections in the United States, the Insurrection Act, and how the government/society has historically been afraid of Black citizens and the possibility of insurrection from those same Black citizens.
Ms. Allan is a lawyer and that definitely comes across in her writing. She is building a case the entirety of the book and making arguments about the use of the Insurrection act throughout American history. This is interspersed with personal anecdotes from her own life.
While I did learn about American history throughout this title, I had a hard time understanding what Ms. Allan was building her case about. She was constantly making arguments and I would find myself going.... "how did we get here? I'm not sure how this is relevant to what we were just talking about." Maybe I am just not smart enough for this title?
The book is narrated by Ms. Allan herself, and it was interesting hearing the inflections in her writing as she intended them. I LOVE when nonfiction books are read by their authors.
January 9, 2022
This is an illuminating legal history of the Insurrection Act and how the U.S. government, police and white Americans have responded over time to Black efforts to challenge the status quo, on the one hand, and to reactionary white violence on the other. Starting with slave and working-class rebellions in colonial America, Allan traces the racialized history of domestic instability and insurrection through the George Floyd protests, with a coda at the end about the Jan. 6 insurrection. A masterful and timely book as we continue to grapple (or not) with white supremacy backed by vigilante violence. One small quibble: For a book that cites so much history, I wish Allan had used in-text citations rather than a simple bibliography at the end.
February 12, 2022
Very dry reading. I really hoped for an interesting read but found the book a tough read. The book covers important topics but best for lawyers or anyone that likes reading law literature. I couldn’t finish the book, I really wanted too and might come back and try and finish this book in the future. The book is short but is a law paper that was written as the author had a fellowship at Columbia Law School. Taking that into account I give it 4 stars but it’s really aimed more for lawyers not laymen.
November 8, 2024
I think this book was nicely done, and helped a lot of things I’d been confused about make more sense. I, too, was initially put off by her adding her personal reflections throughout, but as I read deeper, it felt less jarring and by the end, the personal reflections softened the blow of the history.
This was a book I picked up on a whim, and initially found it a bit too academic, but I’m happy I picked it up again and finished it.
I liked it as much as I hated the subject matter. It’s not five stars, but it’s more 4.5.
This was a book I picked up on a whim, and initially found it a bit too academic, but I’m happy I picked it up again and finished it.
I liked it as much as I hated the subject matter. It’s not five stars, but it’s more 4.5.
Read
April 19, 2022A fascinating book, really getting to the heart of the insurrection act, how it is used and how undefined it is as as a US law. It is very dry and as a layman to the subject matter I had to go back a few times to fully understand what was being discussed. That being said, I think this is really insightful and excellently researched.
May 11, 2022
Excellent book! I didn't know what I didn't know! The Insurrection Act was completely off the radar for me but not anymore. Wonderful author whose thoughts stay with you long after finishing the book!
February 7, 2022
A truly important book! And I love the way Hawa Allan writes it--blending her personal experience with the historical and the political. Brilliant!
February 18, 2022
An eye opening book. I like the way the author takes us from past to current on the same subject. I hope the endeavor for equality will only gain momentum. This book should help.
March 4, 2022
Interesting history of the Insurrection Act, passed in 1807, and its use by Presidents since. Educational.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews