Mises
In “The Terror of Reconstruction,” Lew Rockwell highlights the dangers of governments seeking to suppress their political opponents by an assault on citizens’ liberties. He draws upon the experience of the South under military dictatorship during the Reconstruction years as an example of what happens when governments embark on social revolution. One tactic described by Rockwell is denying the vote to those who supported their opponents:
In the Reconstruction era, practically the entire white population was denied the right to vote. The disenfranchisement wasn’t just confined to officials in the former Confederate government. Even those who had given money to help wounded Confederate veterans or who had bought bonds couldn’t vote.
Another tactic, described by Charles Adams in his book Human Events, was to force free black people to vote in favor of the candidate preferred by the government. This seems to have been well known at the time, as Adams gives the example of a German paper with a cartoon titled “In the Polling Booth,” which depicted a black man being forced to vote for the radical republicans. The caption read, “Ballots for Republicans! Bullets For Democrats! Death To Colored Democrats!”
The terror of Reconstruction illustrates the destruction caused by government regulations and interventions which are said to be necessary to bring about social harmony and good race relations. In his treatise The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Jefferson Davis issues “a warning to the people against the dangers by which their liberties are beset.” It is a warning to be vigilant in recognizing and opposing threats to liberty even when—or especially when—such threats emanate from the state. Davis details how the victorious federal government took the opportunity to occupy the South, sending in the army to enforce
…the universal denial of unalienable personal rights, the destruction of civil institutions, the disregard of laws, and the cruel and ignominious treatment, inflicted by the authority of the Government of the United States upon individuals in every part of the Southern country.
Davis shows that by this means, the federal government conferred upon itself the mandate and the power to regulate every aspect of life in the occupied South. For example, emancipation orders declared that “it is the duty of the army to maintain the freedom” of liberated slaves, followed by government orders “defining and regulating the relations of freedmen and whites.” Although not explicitly stated, the implication of such government edicts was that people in the South could not be expected to manage by themselves to live in peace without the federal authorities present to dictate every aspect of their lives.
Far from these interventions keeping the peace, they only sowed the seeds of further discord, which the government then tried to correct with even more regulations and ultimately the suspension of habeas corpus. Adams highlights the resentment and racial hostility fomented by the federal government pitting black against white in the occupied South:
The game plan of the Yankees was to use the ex-slaves to take over Southern society and wealth. It was easy to entice the ex-slaves with promises of glory—that they would soon be masters over the whites if they would only do as they were told. Unfortunately, they did.
Adams observes that, “the conduct of the returning black soldiers in Yankee uniforms…did more to turn Southern whites against all blacks than did the carpetbaggers and conquering armies of occupation.”
This is a tragic example of the upheaval and conflict that arises in the wake of government attempts to bring about social change through race-craft—politicians stoking racial grievances to earn more votes for themselves. It is a timely warning of the potential harm that could result from race-based electioneering, such as Kamala Harris’ plan to “plan to empower Black men as she tries to energize them to vote for her.” She has promised to give “forgivable business loans for Black entrepreneurs” of up to $1 million, and “to ensure that Black men have opportunities to participate as a national cannabis industry takes shape.”
Not only does she promise to legalize drugs, but also to give preferences to black “entrepreneurs” in the cannabis industry. The disastrous outcome of the federal government’s reconstruction plans in the aftermath of the War for Southern Independence should serve as a warning against such cynical attempts to appeal to voters based on their racial identity.
Originally Posted at https://mises.org/
NHC
