what did teh reconstruction promise and why did it fail?

Answer 1

President JOHNSON'S reconstruction simply tried to return the Southern with the acknowledgment that secession was illegal and that the slaves were now free, though with NO provision for the new situation of the freedmen and no protection of their basic rights. (As a result, Southern states went along with him, but quickly passed "black codes" that so restricted the freedoms of this population that for most it was little better than slavery.)

As a result of this failure --which led to Northern disgust at the arrogant Southern response toward the slaves (AND in simply returning all the old secessionist Confederate leaders to Congress)-- many more "Radical Republicans" were voted into Congress, and substituted a NEW program of CONGRESSIONAL Reconstruction (often called "Radical Reconstruction").

The "promise" of this effort was that the Southern states WOULD be restored to full political equality with the North, but ONLY when they acted to guarantee the newly freed blacks and their rights were protected, including the right to vote. It also attempted to give pro-Union Southern whites (who had opposed secession from the start) a stronger hand in the state governments.

Reconstruction had some accomplishments and initial successes, but ultimately failed in these aims and the "old guard" of Southern whites "redeemed" their states to their own rule.

The WRONG Answer

It is popular to blame this on the harshness of Republicans -- high taxes, 'military rule' and foisting on them 'corrupt' governments fun by blacks, 'carpetbaggers' (from the North) and 'scalawags' (pro-Union white Southerners willing to work with the Republicans.. many of them former Whigs) -- and a backlash against this.

Sorry, but that is one big MYTH. In fact, the economic hardship was the natural result of the war and its destruction (including the large number of young men who had died in the war), government costs went up to cover the high price of rebuilding (and of public education for both whites and blacks), and the groups the old leadership accused of being corrupt actually did a rather good job (a few were corrupt, but most were hardworking and competent).

As for the "military rule", it was hardly the long and harsh regime of popular portrayals. On the contrary, this program lasted only a few years in most places, focused on protecting the state governments (NOT patrolling the whole state), effectively undercut the murderous campaign of the KKK, and was often prevented from acting as firmly as they believed was needed to safeguard blacks' rights and the political process.

_______________

So why did Reconstruction fall apart?

The biggest keys were the firm ongoing resistance of the (old) Southern white leadership and the growing unwillingness of the North to continue the effort.

A closer look at this, with an attempt to understand their motives:

1) with the end of slavery and the radical economic (and political) changes that brought about, Southern whites were AFRAID of what this large group that THEY had kept under control and largely uneducated would do -- partly out of prejudice, partly from a natural (guilt-ridden) expectation that blacks would take revenge against them. (This also helps explain the "black codes".) The black population did NOT do so, but suspicion and rumors were enough to set off riots and reactions... and there were people willing to use these things for their own gain.

2) the old Southern white leadership became increasingly bold in using whatever means it could to regain control -- including political lynchings of both black and white Republicans and those who worked with them, intimidation against voting... until eventually many blacks, who had risked. (That doesn't include tricking illiterate blacks in voting, and stuffing the ballot boxes.)

3) Amidst this intransigent opposition, many in the North lost the will to continue. Prejudice no doubt played a role, but also the economic COST. A major depression, kicked off by the Panic of 1873, made the financial burden of maintaining troops, investing in rebuilding the South, etc., less acceptable to them. Those within the government (including President Grant) who wished to do more to protect what had been gained, lacked the political support necessary to do so. (The bad economy contributed to this, as well as scandals within Grant's second administration.)

In fact, when Grant was considering a request to send more troops to quell potential unrest and electoral mischief in Mississippi in 1875, Republicans in Ohio warned him they would likely lose the government of THEIR state if he pushed too hard. Grant blinked, accepted bogus reassurances that there would be no interference with the rights of blacks to vote, and did NOT send the troops.

Just before the election it became clear this had been a mistake, but it was too late to fix it. Intimidation and riots worked (keeping blacks away from the polls) and the Democrats took back the government. Seeing their success, they advocated this "Mississippi Plan" in the remaining 'non-redeemed' states the next year. Reconstruction had crumbled.... and the government set ou to remove the remaining troops.

(Note then that this collapse was NOT the result of some supposed bargain by Republicans to gain the Presidency after an electoral dispute. The "regime" had already crumbled, and plans to remove troops were already in place. Unfortunately, Hayes DID accept more promises of protecting black voting rights, promises that were quickly broken... though he had little political power to do much about that.)

Answer 2

Because the North didn't care about the South or the freed slaves. It could have set up an educational system for the former slaves like the system it set up for the Native Americans but didn't. Vultures from the North came down and took advantage of those who had suffered in the war. The North made transportation taxes higher for items going South causing products to be more expensive in the South. It punished the South into poverty that lasted a hundred years. The New Orleans flood showed that Washington DC still disregards the South. No promise, no mercy, no care, no plan, no respect. The destruction by Sherman was uncalled for, burning homes and churches. Courthouses and records were burned. Hateful activities by hateful men. The North.

Answer 3

I am not sure that you can use the word promise in connection with reconstruction. I would instead use the term goal. The goal of Andrew Johnson for Reconstruction was to quickly reintegrate the Southern states back into full participation in the Union. That goal was soundly rejected in the election of 1866.

The goal of the Republicans was to remake the South into a society more like the North. As part of this goal, they used military occupation to try to keep those who had taken up arms against the national government out of state governments and to allow the freed slaves full participation in political life. In a situation not to unlike modern-day Iraq, those who used to be in power did not react well and went underground to resist the occupation (the original KKK dates from this era).

The reason that it failed was that the North got tired of the occupation and, over time, the military forces in the South were unable to keep a coaltion of Democrats and conservative Republicans from gaining victory in state elections in the South. This ultimately led to the disputed election of 1876 and the agreement of the Republicans to end reconstruction. Without active involvement from the North to protect the freed slaves and with the Supreme Court resuming a significant role in national life, the protections for the freed slaves enacted during reconstruction were quickly discarded.

Answer 4

It was supposed to be a unification process, rebuilding the South after the ravages of the Civil War. It failed miserably due to carpetbaggers, bribery and corruption - not far different from today's politics hey?

Answer 5

It promised to rebuild the South; it failed because of politics and profiteering