Tag: history

The Democrat Party’s History of Race-Based Policies: From Slavery to the KKK to DEI

On a daily basis, Democrats refer to Republicans as racists, Nazis, and fascists. Meanwhile, they push for DEI, affirmative action, and race-based admissions, hiring, and promotions, which are objectively racist policies.

Republicans are characterized as racists because they want all laws to apply equally to everyone, with no preference given to any race, while Democrats not only have a long history of race-based policies but were also the founders of the KKK. The Republican Party, meanwhile, was formed largely by abolitionists, specifically to stop the expansion of slavery.

Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, elected in 1860 as the candidate of a party founded in 1854 primarily in opposition to the extension of slavery into new territories. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863, presided over the Union victory in the Civil War, and was assassinated in April 1865, days after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. Republican-controlled Congresses then passed the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in 1865, the 14th Amendment establishing citizenship and equal protection in 1868, and the 15th Amendment guaranteeing voting rights regardless of race in 1870.

The Democratic Party went in the opposite direction by restricting voting rights and attempting to disenfranchise Black people. That campaign ran from the 1890s through the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

After the Populist Party was defeated in the 1890s, Democrats amended state constitutions to include poll taxes and other disfranchising measures. Because payment of the tax was required to vote, impoverished Black people, and often poor whites who could not afford it, were denied the right to vote.

Democratic-controlled state legislatures across the South also imposed literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and whites-only primaries between 1895 and 1910 to exclude Black voters while exempting whites.

One tactic that has entered the historical memory of this era, and was later mentioned by Barack Obama at Congressman John Lewis’s funeral, was the so-called jelly bean test. Registrars asked Black applicants to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar. Alabama voter Theresa Burroughs recounted being asked exactly this by the Hale County Board of Registrars in the late 1940s. According to NPR’s account, it was one of the tactics used to delay her voter registration by two years.

Keep reading

What Happened To The 56 Signatories Of The Declaration Of Independence

While July 4 marks the day Thomas Jefferson’s revised draft of the Declaration of Independence was adopted, it would take months for the document to be signed by all 56 men who would eventually affix their names to it.

Several key figures in American history – George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, among others – don’t appear among the signatories of the Declaration of Independence at all, having been serving in military roles or other capacities at the time.

None of the 56 signers died as a result of their signature, but before the war was over, five would be captured, 12 would have their homes destroyed, and 17 would lose their entire fortunes. None of the 56 signatories ever renounced the cause of independence of their own free will.

Here’s what happened to the men who pledged “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” to the cause of American independence, on the basis of “self-evident … Truths” that not even a global empire – or a king – could deny.

‘The Sage Of Monticello’: Thomas Jefferson

Easily the most well-known of the Declaration’s signatories – as well as its author – Thomas Jefferson enjoyed several benefits later in life from his role in the document’s drafting.

During the war, Jefferson nearly faced capture by the British during his tenure as governor of Virginia, forcing him to flee from his Monticello estate. That led to accusations of “cowardice” that eventually prompted Virginia legislators to launch a formal inquiry, in which Jefferson was acquitted.

Later, Jefferson served in a series of key posts, first as the U.S. ambassador to France, then as secretary of state under President George Washington and vice president under President John Adams.

After he was elected president – an event dubbed the “Revolution of 1800” – Jefferson’s egalitarian vision expressed in the Declaration of Independence came to be viewed as one of the most critical documents of the American founding.

‘The First American’: Ben Franklin

While Jefferson often gets the lion’s share of the credit for drafting the Declaration, Ben Franklin is credited with one critical edit to the document.

Widely recognized as a multi-disciplinary polymath, Franklin has been dubbed “the First American” by history for his early and long-running calls for American colonial unity.

In the preamble to the Declaration, Jefferson had originally written, “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable.”

Franklin – who served on the drafting committee – replaced this with the revision: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”

Franklin later served as ambassador to France and lead negotiator on the deal to end the war with Great Britain, was the “president” – or governor – of Pennsylvania from 1785 to 1788, and served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Shortly before his death in 1790, Franklin made his last political statement with his support of a petition calling on the federal government to abolish slavery.

‘The Atlas Of American Independence’: John Adams

John Adams, the future second president, was one of the first delegates to the Continental Congress to call for independence. He was also among the most outspoken in its defense, leading him to be dubbed by some as “the Atlas of American Independence.”

In February 1778, Adams was nearly captured by British warships while leaving on a diplomatic mission for Paris with his son. Adams took up a musket to fight the British vessels, but it took a mix of skillful navigation and a fortuitous storm to shake the pursuers. Had he been captured, Adams likely would have faced imprisonment in the Tower of London and execution for treason.

In one of the most remarkable coincidences in history, Adams and Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826 – 50 years after the Declaration’s adoption day. Adams’s final words, “Jefferson still lives,” were in fact mistaken: the third president had passed away at Monticello hours earlier.

‘The First Founding Father’: Richard Henry Lee

Less well-known than either Jefferson or Adams, the Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee was no less instrumental in bringing about independence, authoring the part of the Declaration stating the 13 colonies “are, and of Right ought to be, free and independent States.”

On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted this “Lee Resolution.” Adams famously predicted incorrectly that July 2, rather than July 4, would be celebrated as the American Independence Day, and would be commemorated with, “pomp and parade … from one end of this continent to the other.”

During the war, Lee faced military attacks on his property, chronic stress that took a toll on his health, and a severe hit to his finances as the war hit international shipping and the tobacco trade he relied on.

He later served as the first Virginia senator alongside William Grayson, joining the anti-Federalists in opposing a national government. Lee died in June 1794 at age 62.

The Midnight Rider: Caesar Rodney

A lesser-known but critical signatory of the Declaration was Caesar Rodney, who rode 80 miles to Philadelphia while suffering from facial cancer to cast a tie-breaking vote for Delaware’s delegation in favor of independence.

Unanimous support from all colonies was required to authorize the Lee Resolution – meaning Rodney’s vote was critical to final adoption.

Rodney later served as “president,” or governor, of Delaware until 1781, and died in 1784 of facial cancer at age 55.

The First Signer: John Hancock

John Hancock’s signature on the Declaration – the first – was so large that his name became an American idiom for one’s signature.

The Massachusetts revolutionary leader had been serving as president of the Second Continental Congress since May 24, 1775.

Keep reading

10 Charts Show How America Has Changed In 250 Years

The United States has transformed from a collection of 13 eastern colonies into a transcontinental nation spanning 50 states, one district, and five major territories—a geographic expansion forged through land purchases and war treaties.

America’s two-and-a-half-century evolution includes not only geographic growth, but also transformations in population, family structures, wages, the housing market, and health.

Through data and graphics, here is a look at how the country has changed over 250 years.

Changing Face of America

In 1790, 95 percent of Americans resided in rural areas; by 2020, that figure had dropped to 20 percent.

This demographic shift transformed the rural landscape itself. More than 50 percent of rural residents lived on farms prior to 1940, but that share dwindled to a mere 5 percent by 2000.

Although the U.S. urban population surged from 5 percent in 1790 to 80 percent in 2020, this growth shifted heavily toward suburban and outlying areas after 1950, leaving central cities with less than half of the total urban population.

Keep reading

Totally Dissolved: The Forgotten Vote for Independence

We celebrate Independence on the Fourth of July. But the actual vote to secede from the British Empire and become “free and independent states” – happened on July 2nd, 1776.

Twelve colonies voted in favor. None opposed. New York abstained because its delegates had not yet received new instructions.

The political connection to Britain was over. The deed was done.

The resolution came from Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. He stood before the Second Continental Congress with direct instructions from his state: declare independence, pursue foreign alliances, and propose a plan of confederation.

That wasn’t political theater. That was constitutional authority, exercised in plain view.

John Adams seconded the motion on the spot. And as soon as it passed, he wrote home to Abigail:

“Yesterday the greatest Question was decided, which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps, never was or will be decided among Men.”

He wasn’t talking about July 4th. He was talking about the vote – July 2nd.

THE FUSE WAS ALREADY LIT

Lee wasn’t leading a rebellion. He was carrying out orders. By the time he introduced his resolution on June 7, independence was already underway.

North Carolina moved first. On April 12, 1776, its Fourth Provincial Congress adopted the Halifax Resolves – the first official act by any colony to authorize a vote for independence. Their delegates weren’t told to negotiate. They were told to vote yes.

Just days later, John Penn wrote from Halifax to John Adams:

“We are endeavouring to form a Constitution as it is thought necessary to exert all the powers of Government, you may expect it will be a popular one.”

Then came Congress. On May 10, it passed a resolution drafted by John Adams and backed by Lee. It told colonies where royal government had collapsed to set up new governments under their own authority – a de facto declaration of independence in all but name.

Adams called it “the most important Resolution, that ever was taken in America.”

Congress adopted a formal preamble to the May 10 resolution, and Adams was the driving pen behind it. The message wasn’t subtle: British authority was finished, and power now flowed from the people.

“The exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed, and all the powers of government exerted, under the authority of the people of the colonies, for the preservation of internal peace, virtue, and good order, as well as for the defence of their lives, liberties, and properties, against the hostile invasions and cruel depredations of their enemies.”

Virginia didn’t wait. On May 15, its revolutionary convention told its delegates to move for independence, back foreign alliances, and help organize a confederation.

That same resolution also called for the creation of a Declaration of Rights and a new constitution for Virginia – “such a plan of government as will be most likely to maintain peace and order in this colony, and secure substantial and equal liberty to the people.”

No slogans. No spectacle. Just orders – issued and implemented.

They marked the moment by pulling down the British flag in Williamsburg and raising the Continental banner. Troops fired artillery salutes.

Lee described it in a letter to Adams: “The British flag on the Capitol was immediately Struck and the Continental hoisted in its room. The troops were drawn out and we had a discharge of Artillery and small arms.”

Independence wasn’t theory. It was policy.

Keep reading

What History Teaches Us About Why So Many Eventually Flee Socialism

History is filled with political movements born from noble promises. Few have been more appealing in theory than socialism. At its heart, socialism promises greater equality, economic fairness, and protection for those who struggle in a competitive marketplace. It speaks to the desire for justice and the belief that no person should be left behind.

Yet history also teaches a sobering lesson: While millions have voted for socialism, millions more have ultimately fled from it.

Why?

The answer is not found in campaign slogans or academic theories. It is found in the lived experiences of ordinary people across generations and continents.

Throughout the 20th century, socialist governments emerged across Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Many came to power promising to eliminate poverty, reduce inequality, and place the needs of the people above the interests of the wealthy. In the beginning, those promises often generated enormous enthusiasm. Citizens were told that government planning would be more efficient than free markets, that collective ownership would create fairness, and that centralized control would produce prosperity for all.

The results, however, frequently fell short of the promises.

One recurring problem was the concentration of power. When governments assume responsibility for directing large portions of the economy, political leaders inevitably gain greater control over employment, investment, production, and distribution. Over time, this concentration of authority often extends beyond economics into other aspects of society.

History shows that when governments acquire greater power, citizens frequently lose a measure of independence. Economic freedom and political freedom are often more closely connected than many realize. When a person’s livelihood depends heavily upon the state, dissent becomes more difficult and individual choice becomes more limited.

Another lesson history teaches is that incentives matter.

Human beings respond to rewards, risks, and opportunities. Free-market systems are far from perfect, but they have consistently demonstrated a remarkable ability to encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, and productivity. When individuals are allowed to benefit from their hard work, creativity, and investment, economies tend to grow.

By contrast, heavily centralized systems often struggle to generate the same level of innovation and efficiency. Bureaucracies can become slow, inflexible, and disconnected from local realities. Over time, shortages, inefficiencies, and declining productivity have plagued many state-controlled economies.

This does not mean capitalism is without flaws. It clearly is not. Free markets can produce inequality, abuse, and economic dislocation. They require regulation, accountability, and moral responsibility. But history suggests that replacing markets with extensive government control often creates a different set of problems—problems that can be even more difficult to solve.

Keep reading

Why Juneteenth Proves The ‘1619 Project’ Crowd Wrong

On June 19, 1865, Union General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, two months after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. He announced to the city’s residents that all slaves in Texas were free by the Emancipation Proclamation. Some slaves remained enchained in the border states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri until the 13th Amendment’s ratification on Dec. 6 of that year, but ratification was a forgone conclusion. The amendment had already passed both houses of Congress, and mourning over Lincoln’s assassination assured assent in three-fourths of loyal state legislatures.

Thus, the Union’s recapture of Texas marked slavery’s practical extinction in America. The anniversary has long been celebrated by some black Americans as “Emancipation Day,” “Jubilee,” or “Juneteenth.” In 2021, Joe Biden signed bipartisan legislation making Juneteenth a federal holiday after unanimous Senate approval. 

Conservatives have had a lukewarm relationship with Juneteenth so far, in no small part because Biden codified it in an effort to pander to the Black Lives Matter-led leftist rage mob in the wake of George Floyd’s death. The right has generally viewed Juneteenth as a leftist attempt to subvert Independence Day and divide Americans along racial lines. To the extent that we conservatives let left-wing institutions and media portray the holiday as only a sectarian one, the criticism is justified. But it needn’t be that way.

Conservatives should embrace this holiday as complementary to Independence Day, not in competition with it. Juneteenth symbolizes the triumph of liberty over arbitrary rule, the American Revolution’s culmination. Commemorating Juneteenth repudiates the 1619 Project’s make-believe version of the American founding and embraces our foundational creed as revivified by Lincoln and the Union’s victory.

The 1619 Project, a widely debunked New York Times series, claims that protecting slavery motivated the American Revolution, founding, and, ridiculously, the very Constitution that Frederick Douglass called a “glorious liberty document.” Parents of all races and creeds rebelled as these ideas, meant to undermine our basic freedoms by association with slavery, were introduced into classrooms. But Juneteenth, properly understood, is completely incompatible with the 1619 Project worldview.

This new holiday commemorates the successful effort to hold the Union together and, for the last two years of the Civil War, end slavery. Abraham Lincoln framed his opposition to slavery in terms of the founding, and this formulation found wide electoral support in both 1860 and 1864. Even more tellingly, pro-slavery radicals and Confederate leaders did not embrace our supposedly racist founding. Instead, they openly disdained the Founding Fathers.

John Calhoun, the South Carolina statesman who nearly started the Civil War 30 years early, said that the Declaration of Independence’s claim that “all men are created equal” was an “error.” Calhoun further pilloried Thomas Jefferson for being too idealistic and abstract in crafting the Declaration.

Calhoun said Jefferson’s belief in universal freedom caused him “to take an utterly false view of the subordinate relation of the black to the white race in the South; and to hold, in consequence, that the former, though utterly unqualified to possess liberty, were as fully entitled to both liberty and equality as the latter; and that to deprive them of it was unjust and immoral.” According to John Calhoun, the American founding was not about protecting slavery. It was not even compatible with slavery. Its underlying principles were antagonistic to slavery and would eventually threaten the institution. He was right about that.

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said in his infamous “Cornerstone Speech” that the founders “rested upon the assumption of the equality of races,” an idea that he called “fundamentally wrong,” before asserting that the Confederacy “is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man.” Paraphrased, the Confederate VP said, “The United States was not founded on institutional racism, and that is why we seceded.”

Stephens’ “great truth” lost. The founders’ greater truth that “all men are created equal … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” won. That victory was a nationwide effort that involved ancestors from Americans of all races.

The Civil War claimed more lives than any other American conflict, both in absolute and population-proportional terms. Many casualties were black troops who volunteered to fight under the same flag that the 1619 Project today instructs us to revile as racist and offensive. They understood themselves as defending their own rights and the law itself.

Keep reading

A Republic or an Empire?

The Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, embraces two value sets. The first is natural rights, and the second is limited government. After 250 years, neither value has survived, and the opposite of each currently prevails in America.

Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration in three days while staying at a rooming house in Philadelphia. He had been greatly influenced by the British philosopher John Locke. Locke is the godfather of the theory of natural rights, which he extrapolated from the natural law teachings of Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) did not argue that humans have inherent natural rights, but rather that the concept of justice demanded by human nature should be “naturally just” when addressing claims for protection of persons and property, whether those protections were legislated or not. The “whether legislated or not” is the first known articulation of a higher civil law, higher than the government’s own laws.

St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) also did not define explicitly the existence of natural rights, but he did argue that norms of human behavior are knowable from the exercise of reason aided by revelation. He is the seminal thinker to express the view that right and wrong is knowable to all persons, whether legislated or not; and this knowledge — because it is common to all — is itself a higher law. He called this universal knowledge the natural law.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.) did not articulate natural rights, but he did proceed deep into the ideas of Aristotle and Augustine and taught that all human beings possess innate moral claims and innate moral obligations to honor the moral claims of other persons; and these claims and obligations are knowable by the exercise of reason.

John Locke (1632-1704), whose writings Jefferson read at the College of William and Mary, and which James Madison read at Princeton, drew upon all three philosophers to argue that Aquinas’ moral natural law claims are really natural rights, and these, too, just like knowing right from wrong, are inherent in our humanity and are superior to the government.

Keep reading

Happy Juneteenth Holiday – The New US Holiday Where Democrats Try to Make You Forget About Their Racist Slave Owner Past

Happy Juneteenth!

Today is the day the United States celebrates Juneteenth, a little-known date that was recently dug up to divert attention from the slave owner past of the Democrat Party and the real civil rights achievements by brave Republicans who fought to free the slaves.

When the Civil War ended, and after Republican President Abraham Lincoln liberated the slaves, Democrats initiated Jim Crow laws to punish blacks. Democrats discriminated against blacks. In fact, the KKK was founded as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party.

The Ku Klux Klan assassinated many Republicans, including Republican Representative James M. Hinds (December 5, 1833—October 22, 1868) of Little Rock. Hinds represented Arkansas in the United States Congress from June 24, 1868, through October 22, 1868, before his violent death.

Damani Felder took to X and DESTROYED the liberal narrative behind the recent Juneteenth Holiday.

Damani Felder: I’m about to ruin Juneteenth for some of y’all, but it needs to be said. Juneteenth only exists because Democrats did not want to give up their slaves. And even now in the present day, they still do not want to give them up. And let me tell you why. Juneteenth actually exists because Union General Gordon Granger had to go down to the beaches of Galveston, Texas on June 19th, 1865 to tell the slaves there that they were free.

Now, those of you who understand history realize Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation two-and-a-half years earlier on January 1st, 1863. So what happened in that two-and-a-half years period? Basically, the Southern Democrat slave owners kept their own slaves in the dark because they did not want to give those slaves up and remove those literal chains. So Gordon Granger had to go all the way down there and tell the slaves they were free. And if he had not, then many Democrats would’ve kept those chains on those slaves forever.

People are gonna hear that information and feel some kind of way. I don’t really care about that. What I care about is the fact that yes, Joe Biden made this a national holiday because it was originally only a state holiday here in Texas until very recently. But he did this intentionally because the Democratic Party wants to rewrite history and they’re doing everything in their power to to do that and to distance themselves from their own negative history.

People will now say, oh, well, the party switched.

And the reason they say that is because they do not want you to realize that the very same reason that those Southern Democrat slave owners did not want to tell the slaves they were free is the same reason they will not tell people today that they are free and can actually make their own choices, which is why they keep individuals in the Black community shackled to the Democrat Party, shackled to the inner cities that don’t serve them, and shackled to policies that ultimately do not serve their best interests. So the fact of the matter is, someone can sit there and complain and say, oh, the party switched. Oh, you’re rewriting history. No, I’m telling you the actual facts. You can look them up for yourselves, but you are the one who has to make the decision to take those chains off.

Keep reading

The World Government That Wasn’t

There are certain episodes in Cold War history that modern conservatives are expected to treat as either sinister fantasy or liberal delusion. The McCloy–Zorin Accords of 1961 occupy a curious place. Explain the concept today and half of the audience assumes you are describing a proto-globalist fever dream hatched in Manhattan conference rooms full of Scandinavian furniture and earnest men in rimless spectacles.

Yet for a brief moment — and this is the part that ought to unsettle both the utopians and the cynics — the United States and the Soviet Union formally agreed that the ultimate goal of international politics should be the abolition of war itself.

Not metaphorically. Literally.

The “Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament Negotiations,” better known as the McCloy–Zorin Accords, was negotiated between American statesman John J. McCloy and Soviet diplomat Valerian Zorin in September 1961 and endorsed unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1961. It envisioned phased and verified general disarmament under international control, including the eventual elimination of national military establishments and the creation of a United Nations peace force.

This was not drafted by Woodstock pacifists smoking hashish in Vermont. McCloy was the very model of the American establishment insider: Wall Street lawyer, banker, Assistant Secretary of War, and one of the founding grandees of the postwar Atlantic order. Zorin, meanwhile, was a hard Soviet apparatchik who had spent decades navigating the darker corridors of Kremlin diplomacy.

And yet there they were, at the height of the Berlin Crisis and only a year before the Cuban Missile Crisis, jointly sketching a roadmap toward “general and complete disarmament.”

The irony is that the men closest to this project were not starry-eyed internationalists in the modern sense. They were realists in the older and more serious tradition. They had lived through industrial slaughter on a civilizational scale. Twenty-seven million Russians had died in World War Two. They understood that thermonuclear war was not a talking point but an extinction event. The generation that built the United Nations had watched Europe commit suicide twice in thirty years and concluded, however imperfectly, that sovereign states armed to the teeth and gripped by ideological hysteria might not indefinitely coexist.

Dag Hammarskjöld, the Swedish Secretary-General of the UN, became the moral and administrative face of this ambition. Today he is remembered, if at all, as the Nordic bureaucrat whose name adorns the plaza outside the UN building by the East River in New York and the library inside that skyscraper. In his own time he was treated almost as a secular pope. The press followed him obsessively. In the newsreels, he emerged from turboprop airliners with a mysterious Swedish smile. A new conflict, a new day for Dag. For a few years from the mid-fifties to very early sixties, the UN became a repository for a tired planet’s hopes. Diplomats regarded him with awe, irritation, or both. He believed the UN could become not merely a debating chamber but an actual mechanism for preventing great-power war.

This is the part modern conservatives are supposed to laugh at.

Keep reading

The King’s Rubber Empire: Democracy at Home, Terror in the Jungle

First published in 1999 and updated in a revised 2006 edition, Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost serves as a stark historical warning at a time when Western politicians and commentators habitually frame global politics as an epic struggle between virtuous democracies and barbarous autocracies. The book shows in forensic detail how one of Europe’s most constitutional monarchies oversaw a regime of forced labor, mutilation, rape, torture and mass death on a scale comparable to the worst atrocities of the twentieth century. Hochschild, an American historian and journalist long associated with investigative historical writing and a former editor at Mother Jones, brings to the subject both archival rigor and narrative discipline. His central claim is simple but explosive: between roughly 1885 and 1908, the personal colony of Belgium’s King Leopold II was governed through systematic terror, producing a demographic collapse that may have halved the population of the Congo basin. The significance of this story is not confined to colonial history. It illuminates how democratic states can commit vast crimes beyond their borders while maintaining liberal institutions at home, and how those crimes can be forgotten within a generation.

The Congo Free State was not a rogue outpost or a temporary aberration. It was the creation of a king operating within the norms of late nineteenth-century European imperial diplomacy. Belgium at the time possessed a functioning parliament, an active press, and competitive political parties. Suffrage was limited by modern standards, but by the late nineteenth century Belgium had introduced one of the most progressive electoral reforms in continental Europe, expanding male voting rights and institutionalizing party competition. While the Congolese population had no voice in Brussels, Belgium itself was widely regarded as a constitutional success story. Hochschild’s narrative therefore challenges a comforting historical assumption: that domestic political liberty naturally restrains external brutality. The crimes of the Congo Free State offer a stark reminder of how a constitutional monarchy could construct a regime of terror overseas while maintaining institutions at home that ranked among the most liberal and democratic in the world at the time. On the historical V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index, Belgium in 1908 scores higher than both the United States and the United Kingdom.

The book begins with Leopold’s personal obsession with empire. Unlike Britain or France, Belgium was a small state with no overseas possessions. Leopold, frustrated by this lack of prestige, sought to acquire territory in Africa through a mixture of private diplomacy, humanitarian rhetoric, and commercial deception. He established ostensibly philanthropic organizations dedicated to ending the Arab slave trade and promoting civilization in central Africa. These fronts persuaded European and American elites to support his territorial ambitions, culminating in the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885, where European powers recognized his claim to a vast region around the Congo River. This territory, roughly 67 times the size of Belgium, became Leopold’s personal property.

Once in control, Leopold, who never visited the Congo, constructed a system designed to extract ivory and, increasingly, rubber. The global demand for rubber surged in the 1890s with the expansion of the bicycle and automobile industries. Wild rubber vines grew abundantly in the Congo’s equatorial forests, but harvesting them required enormous amounts of labor. Leopold’s administration therefore imposed a regime of compulsory rubber collection on millions of Africans. Villages were assigned quotas measured in kilograms of dried rubber. Men were forced to spend weeks in the forest gathering sap, often under threat of violence. In many regions, the quotas were so high that fulfilling them required virtually full-time labor, leaving little time for farming or hunting.

The enforcement mechanism was the Force Publique, a colonial army composed of European officers and African conscripts. Hochschild documents how this force operated through a mixture of hostage-taking, village burning, and public executions. Soldiers would seize women and children from a village and imprison them in stockades until the required amount of rubber was delivered. Food was often scarce in these camps, and mortality was high. The practice was not an occasional excess but a routine method recommended in official manuals distributed to colonial agents.

Perhaps the most notorious feature of the regime was the systematic cutting off of hands. European officers demanded proof that ammunition had not been wasted in hunting or misused. The standard proof was a severed right hand from a person shot by a soldier. This policy created an incentive structure that encouraged the mutilation of both the dead and the living. Hochschild cites testimonies from missionaries and survivors describing soldiers carrying baskets of hands.

Keep reading