Hist Controversial Issues 4 Answers

.docx

School

Tulsa Community College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

HIST-1483

Subject

Political Science

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by GrandWhaleMaster893

Ajah’onna Shannon June 28, 2023 Reconstruction Questions 1. Summarize both the argument for radical reconstruction and the argument against radical reconstruction. (Write a separate paragraph for each argument. Use your own words and go beyond the summaries provided at the beginning of the article). For: Supporters of radical reconstruction pushed for strict regulations that would penalize the South for its participation in the Civil War and keep it from returning to its pre-war state. The movement's leader, Representative Thaddeus Stevens, highlighted the significance of punishing rebel aggressors appropriately and changing their local institutions to make them republican in spirit and name. They believed that restoring Democratic and southern white male political and economic dominance in the South would make the North's triumph in the war pointless. There was no constitutional governance in the South, thus supporters of military authority in the region argued. On the basis that the Union had overthrown the Confederacy and was therefore entitled to determine the conditions of peace, some proponents of tougher Reconstruction measures defended them. They also stressed the advantages of Reconstruction, such as the idea that civil liberties could not be restricted due to race, which resulted in the election of black and white candidates to new administrations in the South. A public school system was also established in the South as a result of reconstruction, and efforts were made to revive the region's destroyed economy. Against: Radical Reconstruction opponents claimed that it was unreasonable, unconstitutional, and unjust because it was motivated by irrational hate of the South. They said that the federal government lacked the power to compel the South to accept policies that were supported by the North. They asserted that military authority was unnecessary and that repairing the country should take precedence over punishing the South. Critics also objected to the government's engagement with "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags," as well as the expanded role of blacks in the South. They asserted that black politicians in the South were prone to widespread corruption and weakness. 2. Why was the nation so divided over the issue of Reconstruction? The Reconstruction debate focused on terms for defeated Confederate states' reentry into the Union, demands for their reentry, and the role of Congress or the president in establishing these terms. It also aimed to determine who should be punished for the rebellion and to what degree. Also, how the national government should assist newly freed slaves in participating in the South's political and social life. The nation was divided

over reconstruction because Democrats and moderate Republicans tended to favor more lenient policies toward the South, with limited federal intervention in the process. On the other hand, the Radical Republicans pushed for a harsher program that would both punish the South and ensure that the newly freed black slaves would have total equality with whites. 3. Explain Lincoln and Johnson’s plans for Reconstruction. Lincoln favored a fairly lenient approach of Reconstruction. His plan called for a pardon to any Confederate who had not held civil office and would swear to support the Constitution and the Union. States would be readmitted to the union once 10 percent of their population took such an oath. He did not, however, adequately address how the newly freed slaves were to be absorbed into Southern society. Johnson continued Lincoln’s plans for reconstruction. He also didn’t address the issue of newly freed slaves which aided in a continuation of black people not having equal rights of whit people. 4. Why was the Radical Republican plan for Reconstruction considered “radical”? Do you think it was “radical”? The Radical Republican plan for Reconstruction was considered “radical” because they wanted significant changes to be made in the south. Such changes were the reformation of the political and social structure. Their plan was for the freed slaves to have the same rights as white people. They also aimed to punish the south for its roll in rebelling from the union. In all, the Radical Republicans wished for the federal government to have more control over the south. Yes, I do think it was radical because important changes were made that still impact society till this day. 5. What happened in the South after Reconstruction ended? After Reconstruction ended the South established a segregated society controlled by the doctrine of white supremacy. White southern democrats returned to Congress and most of the civil rights legislation passed during Reconstruction was overturned by the Supreme Court. Also after Reconstruction ended, the Supreme Court determined that state-controlled segregation was acceptable in 1896's landmark Plessy v. Ferguson case as long as "separate but equal" facilities were made available to blacks and whites. However, until the civil rights movement began in the middle of the 20th century, black people continued to be treated as second-class citizens. The Plessy verdict was overturned by the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, which forbade segregation in public schools. As a result of President Lyndon B. Johnson's advocacy, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination in "public accommodations" was finally outlawed.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help