Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was there any realistic way to make Reconstruction a permanent success?
Indeed, it's certainly a shame that while both equal protection and Black suffrage were literally put in the U.S. Constitution during the Reconstruction era, it literally took almost an additional century for these parts of the U.S. Constitution to be fully and genuinely implemented in the Southern U.S.
Probably not. Political realities - like the graft of the Grant administration, the contested 1876 election, the desire of the Republicans to hold onto the White House - tend to trump reform efforts.
Basically, the 19th Century's answer of the Marshall Plan.
People have no conception of how badly the South suffered economically. 150 years later, the states of the South are just now digging their way out. So with the cream of their leadership gone, their economy shattered, and living under occupation, they had to find scapegoats. And the freed slaves were handy.
Probably not. Political realities - like the graft of the Grant administration, the contested 1876 election, the desire of the Republicans to hold onto the White House - tend to trump reform efforts.
Why not simply allow Samuel Tilden to win in 1876 and keep the option open of a future Republican President sending federal troops back to the South, though?
Basically, the 19th Century's answer of the Marshall Plan.
People have no conception of how badly the South suffered economically. 150 years later, the states of the South are just now digging their way out. So with the cream of their leadership gone, their economy shattered, and living under occupation, they had to find scapegoats. And the freed slaves were handy.
Did the U.S. actually have the money for such an extremely expensive endeavor back then, though?
Was there any realistic way to make Reconstruction a permanent success?
Indeed, it's certainly a shame that while both equal protection and Black suffrage were literally put in the U.S. Constitution during the Reconstruction era, it literally took almost an additional century for these parts of the U.S. Constitution to be fully and genuinely implemented in the Southern U.S.
Anyway, any thoughts on this question of mine?
Although not terribly realistic, a 12 Step Program designed to manage an addiction to owning people as property would have been a potentially more successful approach than what was undertaken:
Quote:
As summarized by the American Psychological Association, the process involves the following:[1]
admitting that one cannot control one's alcoholism, addiction or compulsion;
recognizing a higher power that can give strength;
examining past errors with the help of a sponsor (experienced member);
making amends for these errors;
learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior;
helping others who suffer from the same alcoholism, addictions or compulsions.
President Lincoln's assasination was not helpful to successful Reconstruction efforts nor was the historical revisions encouraged by the Lost Cause mythologies nor was the construction of Confederate monuments.
Was there any realistic way to make Reconstruction a permanent success?
Spending money on reconstruction of the Southern States was probably not a priority for a few hundred thousand Northern families who had buried their sons.
The Federal government was too busy impeaching President Johnson to do anything worthwhile.
That little impeachment thing also made Johnson an ineffective leader.
I believe that President Lincoln had a much different view for how to deal with the Southern States post-war.
I don't think very many people realized just how radically the economy of the South would need to change absent slave labor.
I also think that virtually no thought was given to the problems of recently freed slave families who needed housing, employment, and even such basics as food and clothing.
The Southern States did themselves no favor by trying to impose slavery in a slightly different form by enacting all those Jim Crow laws, which took a century of potential progress away.
I don't know how much this might have contributed to a more successful Reconstruction, but I have always been somewhat surprised that the Union allowed the rebel states to return to the Union. I would have thought that the Federal government would have redrawn the map of the rebel areas into new territories, and then allowed these into the Union after a period of reorganization.
Did the U.S. actually have the money for such an extremely expensive endeavor back then, though?
Likely not. I'm just saying what it would have required. The Confederacy was on the receiving end of the first total war in centuries. Territory wasn't just taken. Cities, factories, and plantations were burned, railways destroyed.
Even after Reconstruction, the South remained an economic vassal of the north in ways large and small for decades. As one example, Birmingham was not founded until 1870, yet grew very quickly due to it becoming a major iron production center and railway junction.
Yet, unimaginable today, United States Steel slapped a tariff on products produced by its very own Birmingham mills so that they could not compete with products produced by its northern mills. Local politicians were controlled by northern money. Racial tensions were stoked by what were known as the Big Mules to ensure a divided labor force. And in economic downturns, Southern factories were the first to be shuttered and the last to be reopened.
Multiply the experience in Birmingham by dozens of cities across the South, and you see one factor that kept the region from economically rebuilding.
Was there any realistic way to make Reconstruction a permanent success?
Indeed, it's certainly a shame that while both equal protection and Black suffrage were literally put in the U.S. Constitution during the Reconstruction era, it literally took almost an additional century for these parts of the U.S. Constitution to be fully and genuinely implemented in the Southern U.S.
Anyway, any thoughts on this question of mine?
No. Not after the way the war was promulgated. America saved itself, we are taught, but in the process America felt the need to burn half of itself, kill a large portion of itself, and burden itself with 3.9 new illiterate unemployed citizens released into a countryside with no jobs.
That 3.9 million is equal to 10% of the US population in 1860, so it's the equivalent of admitting 30 million illiterate individuals today.
Kinda dumb, actually. But it's what the people clamored for.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
