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?
This is a very hard question to answer. I believe that they really tried their best to bring unity to everyone but I just simply isn't possible. It's like politics. There will never be an entire nation that will all agree on the same views as one man. There will always be controversy. There will always be a opposing side. I think trying is all they could have done. Just give it a shot, knowing that this may not work, and hope for the best.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I was a little confused with the article because some of the pages were a little out of order. But anyways, I feel that if Lincoln wasn't assassinated, Reconstruction would not have failed as badly. Unfortunately, there really wasn't a way to avoid the assassination. I believe the alternative was to grant blacks all of the rights that whites had, rather than just freeing them from slavery. However, this would have caused even more controversy to those who favored slavery. Overall, I think that with any conditions, the South would be very stubborn with accepting the Union's terms, unless the Union basically didn't have any terms regarding freeing their slaves/changing their way of life.
ReplyDeleteI think that if we were to do it all over again we would have to seriously take into consideration the social life of the freed black people and the white people who enslaved them just months ago. I think that the social aspect of life in the south is a huge thing and must be taken into serious consideration and must be monitored constantly. When a white man who owns a small business and controls the pay roll it used to seeing a black man walk about and see him in the local stores and church, he is much more likely to hire the black man rather then when the white guy sees him as stolen property. I think that the only conditions that the south would be likely to agree with is to meet them half way and just close the deal. they get back into the union and denounce their slaves. If it were that easy it would of been done but i think that the reason why many people see the reconstruction er as a failure was because they were too many harsh conditions put onto the south too quickly and the south could not keep up.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully completely disagree with the past comments. I 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 didnt 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 agree with what Mitch is trying to put across to an extent because, yes, the south had lost and therefore had to give up slavery. However, this is these people's ways of life that you are changing. The people in the south viewed the slaves as less than human, and to then have equal rights for them was crazy from a southern standpoint at this time. It went against everything that they had ever believed about equality. This, of course, then led to groups with horrific ideas like the KKK.
ReplyDeleteThere was no way to have reconstruction with the South destroyed and the North looking for justice. Both were too hurt for a successful reunion between the two. Southerners were not socially ready for African-Americans to be apart of their society as free people instead of slaves. Any realistic situation you try to come up with isn't ideal and an ideal situation isn't realistic.
ReplyDeleteI think the South failed to realize that they were not independent anymore and they had to change their lifestyle. The main reason why Reconstruction failed is that it was extremely hard for the south to reunite with the north after losing such a devastating war. The south did not want former slaves becoming part of their society. This created an even bigger divide between the north and south in my eyes. It is understandable that Reconstruction failed; the south was defeated by the north and lost their slaves because of the north, and there was no way the south was negotiating with the north. There is absolutely no alternative. ALso, remember that Southereners were not huge fans of Lincoln, so if he wasn't assasinated, would matters have been even worse?
ReplyDeleteIt is evident that Reconstruction was doing far more damage than healing after reading the accounts of KKK attacks. Such extreme violence is still lingering from sentiments both before, during, after soon after the civil war. Most southerners could not wrap their head around what could have been their former slaves having equal rights as them. The mindset of blacks being "subhuman' was still very present after the civil war, it is not like it just vanished. Therefore, with this notion in mind, these Reconstruction policies should have been delayed. Or they should have been introduced very slowly. I think that most of those who wanted equal rights for all were a little too greedy and blind to the state of the rest of the country. For example, President Johnson just brushed aside Carl Schurz's elaborate report of the southern status. If only government was not so inclined to make such rapid change, then they might have realized the inevitable effects of dramatic reconstruction.
ReplyDeleteWith Lincoln's death, it lost the man who was supposed to guide it through these murky waters. Lincoln had the political savvy to shape the country in the image he wanted and his death was a great loss to the Reconstruction. Reconstruction was too much of a shock and not gradual enough to secede. It tried to completely stamp out slavery without anything in return, instead of weening it off. It was too abrupt to have ever worked.
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 liked 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.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, the only way that the nation could be repaired singularly, as one, with a Totalitarian government. Without a dictator present, there will be two sides of the country still bitter from the Civil War, which refuse to compromise with the other side. Andrew Jackson did not have the political presence to bring people together like Lincoln. I think that integration of the slaves in society would have worked better if Lincoln was alive to take control.
ReplyDeleteI agree with classmates that Lincoln's death harmed the union's ability to apply its strong policy like the reconstruction which would totally shocked the southerns.I also realized that back then it must be a hard time for the south to accept the fact that those of who worked for their masters and were treated as subhuman walk on the street between white ladies and gentleman like they are and as dignify and normal as they are.I kind of feel this situation was like once you broke up with your ex and you are forced to work and live with them.The award
ReplyDeletemoment of course would take time to get used to, and just like two polar of opposite magnet, once you pushed it too close, they would go against each other.
Why i can admire their attempt to unify i cant help but also noticed the nativity of it as well. I mean true unity of humans seems preposterous even today let alone in their time. Much like politics, or even arguable human nature, it seems physically impossible for an entire group let alone an entire nation to agree whole-heartedly while the ideas and ideals of a single man. That is were the main fault in their ideas/plans lye.
ReplyDelete