Why was the Radical Republican plan so different than Abraham lincoln's?

Answer 1

The radical republican plan, for the most part, called for heavy reparations to be taken against the Confederacy whereas Lincoln wanted to accept the states back into the Union without much consequences. The main difference was the ideology behind the plans: the Radical Republicans wanted to make the Confederate states pay before they could once again take place in the US government and their plan wanted to set up years of reconstruction in which the southerns states would pay heavily before joining the Union. On the other hand, Lincoln wanted to reunite the nation by showing mercy to the Confederate states.

Answer 2

Radical Republican

Answer 3

Sorry, but Matt's explanation is a caricature, esp. of the Radical Republican position. They did NOT call for "reparations". And though there were some among them who were partly motivated by a desire to make the leaders of the rebellion and wealthy plantation owners suffer for their acts, in practice the main things they did were to try to secure the rights of the freed slaves.

And note that they hesitated at confiscating property -- when Thaddeus Stevens proposed confiscating lands of the very wealthiest plantation owners to hand over to freed slaves (40 acres and a house for each), Congress did NOT pass his plan, concerned at undermining property rights.

As for "wanting years of paying back" -- not only did they NOT require financial payments (reparations), but they made it clear that AS SOON AS a state enacted specific guarantees of black rights they could be restored IMMEDIATELY. And in fact this is what happened with several of the states.
_____________________

As for the difference between the plan this group finally carried out and what Lincoln had proposed, note the following:

1) Lincoln had been flexible, MODIFYING and compromising as circumstances required it. We cannot say how he would have adapted his own plan to the changing situation after the war, esp. the REFUSAL of Southern leaders to provide meaningful guarantees of the freedmen. (In other instances he had moved to a stronger measures when earlier offers were rebuffed -- the Emancipation Proclamation itself is an example of this. This suggests that he would have met Southern resistance with STRONGER steps.)

2) It was not Lincoln's but Andrew JOHNSON'S plan that was first followed. And that plan was NOT actually consistent with things Lincoln clearly insisted on. Most importantly, when Southern states accepted emancipation & the 13th amendment, but passed harsh "black codes" that greatly restricted the liberties of the freedmen, Johnson IGNORED the latter. Lincoln at the end had spoken to securing black freedom and even, at the end, of extending the vote to various blacks (at least those who had fought). Thus it is extremely UN-likely he would have tolerated what Johnson (who didn't care much about black rights) was willing to allow.

3) 'Radical' Reconstruction was NOT the long, horrible, harsh thing Southern lore has portrayed it as.

Let me clarify -- it WAS a time or great economic hardship and social turmoil, but this was all a result of the upheavals caused by the war, NOT of Reconstruction efforts. Also, the portrayal of "carpetbaggers" (Northerners) and "scalawags" (Southerners who supported the Republican effort) as in it for themselves, pillaged the government, etc. is, quite simply FALSE. A few leaders were corrupt --there as elsewhere-- but MOST worked for hard and made vital contributions. (Incidentally, the "scalawags" were NOT "turncoats"-- most had always been loyal to the Union and had opposed secession.)

Note that what former Southern leaders eager to get back their power thought was "harsh" was often such things as recognizing black rights (even letting them hold office!) or anything that meant THEY ('the natural leaders') were not in power. Unfortunately, the rest of the nation ended up buying into this popular Southern view of Reconstruction... until historians began to re-examine these things in the mid-20th century.

4) Radical Reconstruction actually sought to INVEST in the South, in use laws and esp. the Freedmen's Bureau to help the freedmen adjust to their new life.