Does that justify the use of military force against civilians?
Every time there's a major race riot, we see the use of military force against civilians.
Any time large numbers of people riot, the military gets involved.
Nope.
“Does that justify the use of military force against civilians?”
The District of Columbia Chief of Police, Glassford, had worked with the head of the protestors to keep the protestors limited to genuine veterans and their families and to alleviate their privations in their squatters’ shelters. This humanitarian working relationship was deliberately disrupted by factions among the protestors who wanted to incite domestic violence rather than avoid domestic violence.
After the U.S. Senate voted to deny early payments of the bonus and the Congress adjourned the Session, these violent factions violently attacked Glassford and his police to foment a lethal incident as further incitement to violence and armed insurrection. The Federal Government paid for the trasportation necessary to return the Bonus Army protestors to their homes around the United States, and about a fourth of them did so. Among the three-fourths who remained, however, there were many who advocated the violent overthrow of the government, including the Communist provocators. Subsequently, the deadly use of firearms convinced Glassford his police force could no longer maintain the safety of his police force or the District of Columbia by their own limited numbers and resources, so he requested assistance from Federal troops.
In the end, MacArthur’s exceeding the orders he received from the Commander-in-Chief resulted in a political and public relations problem for the Hoover Administration. Nonetheless, the use of military force was certainly justified by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution and its obligation to oppose the armed domestic violence being used against the D.C. police and threatened against the elected representatives of the local and Federal governments.