One of the most common justifications for increasing state police and military power is that it guarantees the security of citizens. Without basic security, it is impossible for people to devote themselves to the pursuit of their social and economic goals. In the US there are proposals to send in the military to help enforce a crackdown on illegal immigration. In the UK, some police stations have proposed to send armed police patrols to Christmas markets, to keep traders and shoppers safe from terrorists. Yet it is less often recognized that the police state, which may be defined as “an enormous government apparatus of prisons, prosecutors, police, and bureaucrats,” is inimical to economic liberty.
Debates on the role of the police state are also pertinent in understanding the Reconstruction Era (1865-1877) in the American South. One of the main justifications given for the presence of federal militia in the South was that this was necessary to maintain law and order. It is too often presumed that social and political upheaval in the Reconstruction South was entirely explained by the fact that “racists” did not like the idea of black people being armed or enfranchised. The federal militia was said to be required to protect black people from such racism.
This reduction of Reconstruction history to a tale of racism disregards all the other factors involved, including a phenomenal rise in the role of state militia in daily life. It overlooks the fact that the presence of federal and state troops across the South was an ever-present sign of living under occupation, one that was greatly resented by Southerners.
It looks like the federal state enforced a will that made Reconstruction of the south after the civil war very difficult. Garrisoning black troops throughout the south that had discipline problems and the carpetbaggers from the north running governments did not work well for any kind of reconstruction only destruction, as the state desired.