Lessons from reconstruction | Mises Institute

In “The Terror of Reconstruction” Lew Rockwell overview of the most important events the dangers posed by governments attempting to suppress their political opponents by attacking civil liberties. It draws on the South’s experience under military dictatorship during the Reconstruction years as an example of what happens when governments launch a social revolution. One tactic described by Rockwell involves denying votes to those who supported their opponents:

During the Reconstruction era, virtually the entire white population was denied the right to vote. Disenfranchisement was not limited to officials of the former Confederate government. Even those who donated money to help wounded Confederate veterans or who bought bonds could not vote.

Another tactic described by Charles Adams in his book Human eventswas to force free blacks to vote for the government’s preferred candidate. This appears to have been common knowledge at the time, as Adams gives the example of a German newspaper with a cartoon titled “In the Voting Booth” showing a black man being forced to vote for radical Republicans. The caption read: “Ballots for Republicans! Bullets for Democrats! Death to the colored democrats!”

The terror of Reconstruction illustrates the devastation wrought by government regulation and intervention that is deemed necessary to establish social harmony and good race relations. In his treatise The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Jefferson Davis issues “a warning to people about the dangers that threaten their freedoms.” This is a warning to remain vigilant in recognizing and resisting threats to freedom, even when – or especially – such threats come from the state. Davis details how the victorious federal government seized the opportunity and occupied the South, sending the army to enforce the law

…the universal denial of inalienable personal rights, the destruction of civil institutions, the disregard of the law, and the cruel and shameful treatment which the authority of the United States government inflicts on its citizens in every part of the southern country.

Davis shows that the federal government thus gave itself the mandate and authority to regulate every aspect of life in the occupied South. For example, emancipation orders stated that “it is the duty of the army to maintain the liberty” of freed slaves, followed by government orders “defining and regulating the relations of freedmen and whites.” Although it was not explicitly stated, the consequence of such government edicts was that the people of the South could not be expected to manage on their own in peace without the presence of federal authorities to dictate every aspect of their lives.

Far from these interventions intended to keep the peace, they only sowed the seeds of further discord, which the government then tried to correct by introducing even more legislation and ultimately suspending habeas corpus. Adams highlights the racial resentment and hostility fueled by the federal government pitting blacks against whites in the occupied South:

The Yankees’ game plan was to use former slaves to take over the society and wealth of the South. It was easy to lure former slaves with promises of glory – that they would soon become masters of the whites if they just did as they were told. Unfortunately, this is what happened.

Adams notes that “the conduct of returning black soldiers in Yankee uniforms… did more to turn Southern whites against all blacks than carpet traders and victorious occupation armies.”

This is a tragic example of the unrest and conflict that arises from government attempts to bring about social change through racial crafting – politicians stoking racial grievances to gain more votes for themselves. It’s a timely warning about the potential harm that can come from race-based electioneering like Kamala Harris’ campaign plan to “plan to empower Black men by trying to encourage them to vote for her.” She promised to provide “forgivable business loans to Black entrepreneurs” of up to $1 million and “provide opportunities for Black men to participate in shaping the nation’s cannabis industry.”

He not only promises to legalize drugs, but also to give preference to black “entrepreneurs” in the cannabis industry. The disastrous outcome of the federal government’s reconstruction plans after the Southern Revolutionary War should serve as a warning against such cynical attempts to appeal to voters based on their racial identity.