Civil War Reconstruction was a failure because the country was still in chaos with no public order in sight.
2007-04-09 14:08:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Reconstruction was a failure. President Lincoln had been a moderating influence -- and things would have gone differently had he lived. But Lincoln was assassinated, and feelings were hard.
Rather than welcoming Southerners back into the national fold, the northern leaders acted more like conquerers -- and treated southerners like a conquered people. The policies had all the grace and afforded all the dignity that our present-day U.S. government affords the "terrorists" at Guantanamo Bay.
It took the country more than 100 years to recover from the mishandling of things immediately following the Civil War. Compare it to the compassionate treatment of our former enemies following World War II. The differences are eye-opening.
2007-04-11 05:55:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Georgia Fella 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Civil war Reconstructionis a success not a failure. In the civil war public is involved, so every thing is taken care of. Due to civil wars, so many countries have been put on right track.
2007-04-09 21:22:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by katkam v 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
It was a total success.
The government in DC had the intent to punish the South, and they did this by treating the former Secessionist states worse than the USA has ever treated a defeated foe, with the exception of Native Americans.
As part of their program, they appointed black men to be the governor of every single one of the Secessionist states, which is part of the reason why the Civil Rights Movement was still necessary in the 1960's. Since equality for blacks wasn't a goal of the Reconstruction, this doesn't qualify it for failure.
2007-04-09 15:24:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by open4one 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
It was an eventual success, although the favors that President Johnson was granting, and his ability to look the other way in an attempt to kiss up to the former confederates impeded progress. In fact, that is why he was impeached. But, reconstruction did ultimately prevail.
2007-04-10 07:46:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by steddy voter 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
That all depends on if you lived in the North or the South, whether you were White, Black, or a Native American, and upon your gender. Perspective is everything in that respect. Here is a paraphrasing of some information from the net:
Because the South remained defiant, it started a pervasive insurgency against free blacks and Union supporters (in few cases, Union veterans). As a retribution against the insurgency, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act. The first Reconstruction Act placed ten Confederate states under military control, grouping them into 5 Military Districts:
1st Military District: Virginia, under General John Schofield
2nd Military District: The Carolinas, under General Daniel Sickles
3rd Military District: Georgia, Alabama and Florida, under General John Pope
4th Military District: Arkansas and Mississippi, under General Edward Ord
5th Military District: Texas and Louisiana, under Generals Philip Sheridan and Winfield Scott Hancock
(Tennessee was not made part of a military district, and therefore federal controls did not apply.)
The 10 Southern state governments were re-constituted under the direct control of the United States Army. There was little or no fighting, but rather a state of martial law in which the military closely supervised local government, supervised elections, and protected office holders from violence of insurgency. Blacks were enrolled as voters; former Confederate leaders were excluded. [Foner 1988 p 274–5] No one state was represented in Congress, as they were now in Military Districts.
Here is what happened in Texas:
"The first critical step … was the registration of voters according to guidelines established by Congress and interpreted by Generals Sheridan and Griffin. The Reconstruction Acts called for registering all adult males, white and black, except those who had ever sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and then engaged in rebellion.… Sheridan interpreted these restrictions stringently, barring from registration not only all pre-1861 officials of state and local governments who had supported the Confederacy but also all city officeholders and even minor functionaries such as sextons of cemeteries. In May Griffin … appointed a three-man board of registrars for each county, making his choices on the advice of known Unionists and local Freedman's Bureau agents. In every county where practicable a freedman served as one of the three registrars.… Final registration amounted to approximately 59,633 whites and 49,479 blacks. It is impossible to say how many whites were rejected or refused to register (estimates vary from 7,500 to 12,000), but blacks, who constituted only about 30 percent of the state's population, were significantly overrepresented at 45 percent of all voters."
All Southern states were readmitted to the Union by the end of 1870, the last being Georgia. All but 500 top Confederate leaders were pardoned when President Grant signed the Amnesty Act of 1872.
Personal note: I find it interesting that some of the same arguments of corruption in the voting process used today are the some of the same ones used during the Reconstruction.
2007-04-10 12:41:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by sjsosullivan 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It was a failure
Lincoln had plans for the freed slaves. Might not be the best plan but it was something.
Johnson was a southerner and a drunk. He did as little as possible
2007-04-13 10:16:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by eddie9551 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It would be impossible to be both.
2007-04-10 00:03:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by rhymingron 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
there two sides to a story ,fight ,wars ,and so on.BOTH
2007-04-10 00:16:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋