Civil War questions..?

Question

4 reasons why Reconstruction failed?

How did the Economic changes affect the Social and political affairs?

...these are two things I don't get...

Answer 1

A number of tendencies and events led to the undermining and eventually the end of Reconstruction efforts by 1877.

Primarily the opposition to Reconstruction efforts in various quarters (some mild, some virulent) led those who wished to continue it either to become discouraged and give up their efforts, or to lose the political power (seats!) to be able to carry on.

Here are four ways (as you requested) that this support was undermined:

(1) The conservative Supreme Court undercut Reconstruction legislation as early as 1868. Their declaration that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional removed further tools the effort had depended on to guard the rights of the freedmen.
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/civilrights/section1.html

(2) Strong white opposition in the South meant that the effort to enforce Reconstruction entailed a MILITARY effort which, over time, Northern whites were less willing to continue. Some messy encounters from white intimidation of black voters, lynching, etc. accelerated the disenchantment . (Racism played a role here, though over time ANY such military efforts against fellow citizens was bound to make people war-weary.)

(3) The PERCEPTION -- perpetuated esp by conservative Southern opponents -- that the Southern governments under the control of blacks and of Southern whites who had remained loyal to the Union were incompetent and very corrupt, undermined Northern support for these governments and made them more willing to accept the return of the former white leaders ("Redeemers").

This view of incompetence and corruption -- perhaps not of the early Northern 'carpetbaggers' but at least of the Southern Unionist 'scalawags' and black leaders-- was dominant for many years, esp. as articulated by William Dunning of Columbia University in the early 20th century.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/archive/resources/documents/ch18_02.htm

More recent studies have indicated that these perceptions were inaccurate. Though there was some corruption, it was no more than could be found in Northern states, and many of the radical governments were very competent and successful. And the daunting task of rebuilding the states after the war and of expanding services (including education for black children) was a daunting one. But whatever the facts the perception (that is, general public opinion) was enough to undercut public support for the whole endeavor.
http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch6_p14.htm

(4) Northern radicals and Grant's pro-freedmen policies lost significant power as the Grant administration was buffeted by accusations of corruption (which led to a break-off group of "Liberal Republicans" opposing his second term) and an economic depression. **

** This addresses your second question - economic problems reduced willingness in the North to maintain the financial outlay for the Reconstruction efforts.

Amidst all this the Republican party as a whole (that is, not just the radicals who had been in control) found that it had a sufficient political base to succeed on the national level even without a strong southern wing (of 'scalawags' and freedmen). So there was less incentive to prop up the Southern Republican governments.

It is often suggested that a major key to the end of Reconstruction was the so-called "Compromise of 1877", a hypothetical secret deal made by supporters of Rutherford B Hayes to secure his election in the disputed election of 1876, and including an agreement to remove federal troops from the last two Southern statehouses they were guarding.

But the real key was that Northern support for the effort had fallen apart, as outlined above. In fact, Grant had already been moving in this direction, feeling he had no choice, and Hayes had promised in his CAMPAIGN that he would remove these troops. (Hence it is questionable whether the "Compromise" ever even happened.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

Also often missed in this whole discussion of its failure is how unprecedented was this effort to establish the freedmen politically and economically. No other nation after freeing slaves, serfs, etc., had ever even attempted such an undertaking. It is surprising then, that it was attempted, and that it had such success (initially) as it did.

Answer 2

Ultimately what introduced the Civil War to a bloody war of words was once westard enlargement. After the US shaped, we started watching westward for colonization. The guiding precept was once that of Manifest Destiny. (It was once God's will that Americans colonize from ocean to ocean.) Once we purchased the Louisiana territory, we fought a battle with Mexico. With each and every consecutive acquisition/conquest of land the query approximately slavery got here up. Should new states be loose from slavery, or will have to slavery be authorized. Since part the nation was once within the South, part the nation desired authorized slavery. Now, the North started to industrialze and started depending much less and no more on slave hard work, and increasingly on inexpensive immigrant hard work. As a influence, Northerners started to get politically energetic to prohibit slavery within the country. Various unhealthy insurance policies within the 1850s introduced the explosive matter of slavery to a boiling factor. Ultimately, the arguments of the time have been: a million) Why in a society that says to be loose and democratic are there slaves? two) What correct does the government must remove estate that's authorized to possess? three) How so much vigour will have to a centralized federal executive have? Should states have extra vigour or not up to the government? The North had the knowledge of numbers and enterprise. The South had the knowledge of larger combatants and army management. The essential intent the North fought was once to hold the union. The South was once in a state of uprising and Mr. Lincoln acted to overwhelm it. The North supported Lincoln on this regard. (People started to bitter at the battle after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation which freed slaves in insurgent territory. Many started to abandon the army and give up combating. However, many African-Americans signed as much as combat.) The South was once combating for honor, civic satisfaction, and the rights of estate and liberty. (The query of slavery wasn't debated. It grew to become a badge of countrywide satisfaction to possess them.) To date, the Civil War is the bloodiest that the US has ever fought. Over six hundred,000 died from that battle.

Answer 3

1) The South was unwilling to integrate Negoes into their society,

2) There was no clear policy as to how the South was to be 'Re-Constructed,' Republicans fought amongst themselves and with President Johnson.

3) Johnson a poor politician failed to foge a coherent policy and to stand by it and to build support for it..

4) America's attention was West - - - it seemed easier & more profitable to slaughter the Natives and take their land and forge a New Nation rather then expend effort to rebuild the South.

Peace...............

Answer 4

These questions were asked often in Yahoo

For the first you have this
http://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_result;_ylt=ArgOTrZi_EATdiy7.B7kiEqHxQt.?p=reconstruction+failures

The second you need to look like I did.