Many of you in your posts from last night agree that the more radical Reconstruction policies (i.e. enfranchisement, black officeholders, etc.) may have shocked the South into a social system that dramatically differed from their antebellum condition. Perhaps a more gradual Reconstruction policy--one that laid the foundation for racial equality but did not do so overnight--would have been an easier pill to swallow.
After all, white southerners were suddenly faced with an alternative reality, one where their black counterparts walked freely among them, despite the fact that just a few years earlier they had been bound into lifelong servitude. A revolution in policy, for better or for worse, will likely instill resistance, and it is not a surprise that many of the more radical Reconstruction policies fizzled out when the violent counteractions of the white South became a daily reality.
So, if we seem to agree that Reconstruction was a failure, we must face the difficult question--what was the alternative? How could we revisit Reconstruction as a political, economic, and social possibility? Would there be any way for the defeated South to accept terms that were handed down by the Union (largely Republican) government? Yes, this is an impossible question to answer in hindsight, but still....what if we could truly do it all over again?
After I read the material (woo long material...), I realized that the alternative was that you wanted to reconstruct the country quicker with a stronger strength, but you also had to face all the problems caused by your impulsion. For me to revisit Reconstruction, it was a right thing to be done for the country, but it still failed because of its wrong objective, it is impossible to reconstruct a country by just putting all the focus on political changing and methods and forgetting about the economic issues and social problems, the disadvantages were obvious, especially the establishment of KKK. I think there MIGHT be a way for the South to accept terms that were handed down by the Union government, was to make decisions calmly and rationally, do their best to avoid the possible problems that might exist in the future. Even those terms were handed down by the Union government, careful actions could help, even it was nearly impossible at that time because of the impulsion of the Republican. At the same time, history proves that radical reconstruction would bring lots more suffering than benefiting the country.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the "Reconstruction" articles the problem with the Reconstruction plan was, it was enforced to quickly. Everyone was still trying to recover from the war when these new policies were put in place. The ultimate problem was the assassination of Lincoln. If this had not happened our country would have probably been way better off and progressed faster, rather than the ideas that the vice president presented. As a result groups such as the KKK were formed because the whites felt like they still had to show African American's their position. If we could go back and change the reconstruction process I think some of the policies placed upon the south should have been way less harsh, so the north and south could have had even policies. This might have helped the process of reconstruction in the long run because I do not think groups such as the KKK would have been formed. The delayment of reconstruction also would have been a major help. By delaying reconstruction it gives people time to think about the war and how awful it was instead of being angry all over again because of the new policies.
ReplyDeleteReconstruction was a failure, but the idea of Reconstruction was the right one. The idea to rejoin, rebuild, and fix the North and South both militarily, economically, and agriculturally was the right direction to head in after such a catastrophic war that left thousands dead. I imagine that for the South to accept terms what the Union government handed down would be very difficult. The North had obliterated the south, making it difficult to gain the South’s trust enough so that they would accept terms that the Union wanted put in place. Even mentioned in Benjamin Tillman’s Antiblack Trade, “ we knew… that the North was then a unit in its opposition to Southern ideas.” Showing their visible disgust for the South, when the time came to reconstruct the country, make it whole again, it was the South’s turn to be disgusted. If we could redo the Reconstruction era, I believe that the fundamental ideas would still take route, the way it takes root, though, might be different.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this I think many Radical Republicans believed that Lincoln’s plan was too lenient: they wanted to punish the South for secession from the Union, transform southern society, and safeguard the rights of former slaves. As an alternative to the Ten-Percent Plan, Radical Republicans and their moderate Republican allies passed the Wade-Davis Bill in 1864. Under the bill, states could be readmitted to the Union only after 50 percent of voters took an oath of allegiance to the Union. Lincoln pocket-vetoed the bill, however, effectively killing it by refusing to sign it before Congress went into recess. Reconstruction would help the political and social aspects of the nation. It would hurt the economy at first for the cost of everything but then it would eventually rebuild itself and be stronger than ever. I think if we did it all over again we could have the South be happy and join the union without any problems as long as they would give up slavery.(It would be tough).
ReplyDeleteReconstruction didn't work but it had to be attempted. The nation was still divided with issues that had to be settled. Radical Republicans felt that the South wasn't given enough punishments. They said Lincoln's plan was not strict enough, and the South had to be rebuilt completely. Giving up slavery would have made joining the Union so much easier despite being inevitable. The south refused to give it up although they had lost. There were quite a few problems after a war that caused much devastation. If we did the reconstruction era over we should have been more accommodating to the South because they did just lose their way of life.
ReplyDeleteI see the relationship in this instance between the North and the South the way I see the relationship between the League of Nations and Germany after the first world war when they were hit with the Treaty of Versailles. The policies in both these instances were unfair towards the recipients and made them very resentful of those who enforced it. The Reconstruction era did not go as planned, causing hatred to rise from the South towards blacks and their supporters (such as the KKK) and political disunity between the Republican party. The South was so obliterated that the idea of reconstruction was obviously well intentioned but was unfair and some radical republicans would say too lenient. Its implementation could have been done much better.
ReplyDeleteAbraham Lincoln himself said that it was impossible to free all the slaves at once and socialize them. But still I think that the reconstruction would have worked better with him as president. I think that Andrew Johnson as president was kind of in the way of everything, because he was democratic and he didn't like that the governemt was only republican. And he also didn't really like the south so he blocked a lot of intentions of the Congress of reuniting the south with the union. But still, with Lincoln or without, there was surley no way for the ex-confederates to rejoin the union without losing some dignity because they were the reason war started and they had lost it too.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of "meeting half-way" is a little ridiculous. There was just a violent, bloody war over this. The South lost. They suffer consequences. This is almost like saying that if a team gets beat in a sporting event, the team should somehow be eased into the idea that they lost. I understand that the Union wanted peace between the once different countries, but I believe Reconstruction failed because it was instructed and proposed weakly. The South lost the war, therefore their battle of keeping slavery was over. Their battle of being different was over. They needed to understand that a defeat would mean they would have to live with the same laws and policies as the Union did. I look back at it know and understood why many Northerners were furious with the South after the war, because the South didn't accept the ways of the North. I put no blame on the policies of the North i think, as victors, they had every right to do so and shame on the South for being reluctant to give up their ways.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the reconstruction could have been tweaked a little so it could work better for the slaves. If confederates came back to the army (union) they would lose their pride because they started the civil war. I believe if Lincloln was in power it would have been better cause Andrew disliked the south and cut them off.
ReplyDelete