How should America have handled Reconstruction? In favor of the white south or in favor of freed slaves?

Answer 1

The implication of the question seems to be that it failed to be "in favor of" the side it "should have" been, and that Reconstruction would/could have succeeded if only the proper side had been chosen. It also suggests that acting FOR one group is acting AGAINST the other.

Some will answer (properly) that it should have acted in favor of BOTH, but (improperly) that it didn't really do either. Perhaps, but I do believe it intended and ATTEMPTED to do both. (Yes, there was some Congressional animosity toward the large plantation orders and talk about "punishing them", but it didn't end up coming to much. For example, they refused to confiscate land from the wealthiest to provide plots of land to distribute to the freedmen.)

Actually, part of the problem is with definitions. What do we mean by "in favor of the white south"? If you are referring to those who had led the South up to and through the war, and who would later regain their leadership positions, and if "in favor" means allowing them what they WANT --to dominate as they had before, with NO real say by the blacks-- then I'd have to say they should NOT have been favored... and indeed were not in Radical Reconstruction policies.

There are those, however, who have suggested that if the North had simply handed the reins back to this group immediately (as Johnson attempted to do), they would have come round to doing the right thing by the freed slaves. Well, I see NO evidence they were so inclined (least of all in the severe "black codes" they passed under Johnson's program).

But all of this presents us with one of the deepest (insoluble?) problems with the whole endeavor. Given the numbers and influence of the old ruling elite and its supporters, no Reconstruction effort could have LONG-TERM success without eventually getting them on board. (Otherwise, it would have involved a LONG military occupation.) But how exactly was that to be accomplished? How could they change their whole way of life, world-view and deep prejudices to accept the full and equal participation of these former slaves in the economic and political life of the nation?

I do not see some simple political solution to this mess. I can suggest how the North might have been more 'resolute' in some of its efforts, though weakening Northern resolve, affected partly by heavy economic costs in the midst of a depression, deprived politicians inclined to stick it out of the political support they needed to do so. . . If they persisted in spite of this, they would see themselves voted out of office and unable to carry any of it out. (And having "the right program" idea is of little use if you are not in office to carry it out!)
__________

BTW, I admire Lincoln and would like to have seen what he might have contributed. But when people suggest he would have 'done it right', they don't ever quite explain what that would have LOOKED like in terms of actual policies.

(I'm rather clear any "soft(er)" Reconstruction under Lincoln would not have looked like Johnson's.... since, to begin with, Lincoln had a concern for the rights of blacks that Johnson did not share. So, he would have shared the CONCERNS of the "Radicals", but his methods might have difffered... but exactly HOW??!)

Answer 2

I must agree with Mr Ed that is should have been handled in favor of both but obviously it was not--hindsight is 20/20

Answer 3

Those hostages were rescued, and yes he was there for free trade and to win votes. McCain was trusted enough by the Colombian government to be informed of the mission, Obama, however, wasn't.

Answer 4

It was handled in favour of neither. It should have been handled in favour of both, and I think that would have happened to some extent had Lincoln lived.