When Americans recall Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, they often recall a decisive battlefield victory followed by a harder contest over political authority, public trust, and safety. The United States can remove a regime, finance institutions, and deploy soldiers. It cannot simply decree a durable political order.
Long before these foreign wars, the United States faced that problem at home. Reconstruction was the country’s first great nation-building test, which entailed a process through which the former Confederate states regained representation in Congress. A more ambitious facet of this program was the Radical Republican project to transform the South into an interracial mass democracy–an endeavor that would provoke significant blowback.
Advocates of nation-building abroad have drawn the same connection. At the Brooking Institute, arch neoconservative scholar Robert Kagan’s review identified Reconstruction as an early American exercise in nation-building. The Union won the conventional war, abolished slavery, and sought to integrate formerly enslaved people into the political fold. It then discovered that victory did not secure the political order it hoped to create. The project required the federal government to construct new southern states in the image of a liberal democratic Union, a massive sociopolitical restructuring of an agrarian society that was already skeptical of the northern model prior to the War Between the States.
The termination of conventional military operations in April 1865 did not bring immediate peace to the American South. Instead, it marked the transition to a decentralized, asymmetric insurgent conflict. Realizing they could not preserve political autonomy through conventional warfare, Southerners mobilized irregular insurgent networks to wage a campaign against federal overreach.
The violent insurgent campaigns waged by these networks were not random acts of criminality. A peer reviewed study in International Security concludes that for such groups “their primary purpose was political change, not murder.”
Their methods differed by generation. The Ku Klux Klan rode at night in disguise through the late 1860s until federal prosecutions broke it in 1871, after which rifle clubs and saber clubs proliferated across South Carolina, social organizations in name and paramilitary forces loyal to the Democratic Party in fact. The White League, founded in Louisiana in 1874, and the Red Shirts, organized in Mississippi in 1875 and the Carolinas the following year, marked a further change. They worked in daylight, courted newspaper coverage, and let their members be known. By 1876, the Red Shirts counted 15,000 men or more in South Carolina alone, far outnumbering the federal detachment stationed there.
It should be noted that insurgencies that emerged in response to Reconstructions were decentralized in nature and not commanded from a single headquarters. Military historian Mark Grimsley rejected the popular image of a centrally directed Invisible Empire. “Southern whites never created an insurgency in the Maoist sense of a centrally directed people’s war. The Invisible Empire of the Ku Klux Klan was a myth. What you had instead was a complex insurgency of local groups who conducted terrorist campaigns of intimidation and assassination.”
Grimsley’s insight matters because it explains how an apparently defeated movement could win politically. Local groups worked through social exclusion, economic coercion, propaganda, and armed violence. He likens this fusion to the Vietnamese concept of dau tranh, in which political and armed struggle form one campaign. History professor James Hogue traces a comparable escalation in Louisiana, where armed factions fought over control of Reconstruction, characterizing the era as a continuation of civil war by other means that culminated in a successful coup d’etat.
Washington showed briefly that force could break the insurgency. In October 1871 Grant declared nine South Carolina counties in rebellion, suspended habeas corpus, and sent federal troops to conduct mass arrests, an extraordinary measure outside of wartime. Roughly 600 Klansmen sat in jail by December, and Klan terror in the state collapsed. Yet analysis by the Federal Judicial Center judged the campaign a hollow victory. The courts rejected the prosecution’s effort to read the 14th and 15th Amendments broadly enough to protect Black citizens durably, and federal officials soon grew tired of the work. The arrests brought about some degree of tranquility. Though they did not build a political order that could hold without them.
It also didn’t help that both insurgent groups and regular citizens in southern states viewed the Reconstruction regimes as alien and corrupt. The Dunning School helped turn that perception into a durable historical narrative, arguing that corrupt Republican governments and Black enfranchisement provoked Southern resistance, which led to Reconstruction’s eventual undoing.
One can critique the methods of disgruntled Southerners who resisted Reconstruction, but the ambition of the project itself was bound to provoke backlash among a population already used to limited government. The American ruling class never learned this lesson. It has only extrapolated the same ill-advised nation-building logic to cultures far more foreign than the American South. That messianic drive to remake other societies in America’s image still haunts U.S. foreign policy, and its roots run straight back to Reconstruction.
The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily those of the Abbeville Institute
That is a rather sanitized discussion of the euphemistically styled “Reconstruction”, which was really the continuation of the destruction of the conquered and war-raped South. A conquered country where the educated natives had no rights and corrupt Carpetbaggers ruled over them with the support of illiterate voters, an occupying Yankee army, and the now-invisible Union League. “Reconstruction” was a horror story for everyone in the South but the Carpetbaggers who enriched themselves.
This was the only instance in history where illiterate freed slaves were immediately given the vote. The reason they were given the vote was that was the only way the Republican Party could maintain hegemony and pretend the country was still a republic. I think it might be argued that the abject disaster of “Negro Rule” contributed to the severity of the racial bitterness expressed in the 1890s.
I find logic in your assessment here. Young children watched their homes looted and burned to the ground. They watched family members being beaten, crippled and murdered. They watched the women in their lives raped and killed. These children suffered physical and mental deprivations and then watched ill-educated and corrupted slaves inserted into leadership positions to facilitate the Radical Republican occupation and exploitation of the conquered South. Those children grew up seething with the anger and bitterness of an unjust conquest and occupation by the North. Does it not stand to reason that those children, after 1877, with the R.B.Hayes in the White House and the union occupation forces withdrawn, would not look upon the firmer slaves as collaborators and treat them as such. What would the South have looked like in 1900 if it had been left alone? More than likely, the slaves would have been prepared for liberty and freed under voluntary terms and the racial integration that was already there in the Antebellum South would have continued peacefully. Much of the current racial tensions of today can be traced back to the activities of the union army during the war and occupation and the activities of the Union League in the same time frame.
Indeed. The greater ease of slaves escaping the independent Confederacy (they no longer had to escape to Canada) would have been a pressure in that direction. And the South would have been incredibly wealthier in the absence of Lincoln’s War and “Reconstruction.” Wealthy, productive societies don’t tend to remain hierarchical and the poorest end up relatively well off. I suspect there would not have been the prevalence of sharecropping (with all its negative dynamics and incentives) in the South but for Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction.
A question Sir. Given the Yankee proclivity towards exaggerating their love of the black race and their pension for wanting former slaves to live anywhere but where they were living, (or might want to live) would the North have been welcoming to the runaway slaves? Many of the Black Codes say not so much and not so fast. What would Mr. (instead of General) John Logan have to say about his new neighbors being deprived the power and prestige of conquest? Things that make you go huuuummmm?
You have a point. But it would still have been more of a relief valve for slaves abused and motivated by an inhumane master. And increased the general costs and difficulty of maintaining slavery. At least the fugitive slave law would no longer be a problem. And a small percentage of Northerners sympathized, even if most didn’t welcome them.
My main thought is that time would have resolved the problem of slavery peacefully, as it did for much of the world in the 19th century.
Well said, J Sobran, and an excellent exchange by Mr. Wert. I will submit, the cause of the War was to create a fedgov powerful enough to give the railroads what they wanted, which was a fedgov powerful enough to “railroad” over private property rights and give away public lands by the hundreds of millions of acres.
The railroads laid the bedrock for this fedgov by funding 3 Democrat candidates versus 1 Republican, thus splitting the vote and ensuring the Republican victory. It only took one year to pass transcontinental railroad legislation, which rewarded lincolon, a railroad lawyer.
Still, this didn’t create a Supreme Fedgov…to create a Supreme Fedgov, required a military bound to die for said abomination.
The Ironclad Oath was introduced to the former Republic on 2 July 1862…can you guess when transcontinental railroad legislation was passed?
1 July, 1862.
In their haste to steal public lands, the railroads put the cart before the horse. I suppose 24 hours wasn’t enough time for the few non-traitorous yankees to realize they’d sold their State sovereignty for railroad bribes.
“That messianic drive to remake other societies in America’s image still haunts U.S. foreign policy,”
Yes it does.
“and its roots run straight back to Reconstruction.”
It doesn’t go back to Reconstruction, it goes back to the Revolution:
“As a rule, the Loyalist ministers held a less optimistic view of human nature than did the Patriot preachers, who generally taught that man is essentially good (No, he’s not.) Jonathan Boucher held that men are more likely to be guided or governed by their passions or their temper than by their judgement (Yes, true.):”
‘…passions such as revenge, malice, and anger can sour or taint the better elements of his nature and turn him into the most mischievous of all…The result is strife,…injustice, and oppression, and cruelty, and rapine, and murder, and war, and rebellion, and tyranny. This wicked side of man is so powerful that the laws of civil society, the laws of God, the tender, sociable and humane feelings of the heart*, all concur to restrain the inordinance of passion, to bridle the lust of revenge; and all these united…are scarcely sufficient to answer the purpose. The evil side of man is barely restrained.”
*About the human heart: Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
After the Revolution, just go back to Genesis 3. Save time. It all starts there.
Genesis 1 and 2 is also very important. It is essential to understand that its purpose is not to chase the monkey. Genesis 1:1 took care of that.
You have a jaundiced Hobbesian view of man. Look at the wonders that man has created, starting with nothing but a stone in his hand as a tool. That didn’t happen without large degrees of voluntary co-operation and honesty. Successful cultures learn that being good and fair with one another is in everyone’s enlightened self-interest. Nature rewards those cultures and gradually extinguishes the others (a la Soviet Communism).
Without true faith in Christ, every attempt by man to sustain his way in peace and prosperity fails. Nature doesn’t reward anything because it is innate; it is God that controls all circumstances and who raises up and puts down both men and nations. Matt’s view of man is perfectly correct and is pointed out in Scripture repeatedly. There is no “enlightened” self-interest, only selfishness. A man is only “enlightened” by the Word and the Spirit and that path leads to selflessness which is another word for love. Noting in the history of man substantiates your view because there have been and are no successful cultures. They are all on the path to destruction, some faster than others, but all eventually collapse because of “enlightened” self-interest.
So it was God rather than nature (quenching a bad system) who destroyed the Soviet Union? Maybe you can tell me why he waited 80 years…while 100 million human beings were cruelly murdered by Stalin & Co. and multiples of that were enslaved.