Failure of Reconstruction

[JC]

Hi all, I'm interested in your thoughts about the failure of Reconstruction.

Did it fail because politicians failed to enact realistic principles?  From the antebellum period to the end of reconstruction, there were a number of examples of this including the Compromise of 1850, Lecompton Constitution, Crittenden Compromise, and the Breakdown of the political party system. A whole string of broken initiatives that failed because politicians had to compromise. I think two of the finest examples would be the Compromise of 1850 and the breakdown of the political party system.

Also maybe the failure was do to the flawed ideology? There were two views of Reconstruction...the idealistic and the realistic.

We know idealists are futurists, non-conformists, and they dream about what could be. The idealistic view was that blacks would be accepted into the old south and be given the same rights as everyone else. Also, ideally, southerners would embrace change and everything would be fine in the south. From this point of view, blacks had waited too long for the same rights as whites and they should not have to wait any longer.

The realistic view is much different. Realists take the practical approach, accept things "as is", follow society's norms and grounded in reality. Southerners weren't used to this sudden change of lifestyle which was being forced on them. The south was divided into military districts, forced to change their laws and their culture, and it did not go over well. From the southerners point of view, they weren't ready for this to be forced down their throats overnight.

Did reconstruction fail because it was based on idealistic and not realistic principles? Was it a pipe dream?  If they had tried to do it realistically, it means the Republicans/North would have had to actually take a step back and NOT force radical reconstruction, rather it would have had to be done over time.

Also, what events of the Antebellum to Reconstruction period give us an idea that the way Reconstruction was done just couldn't have worked?

Thoughts?

[donroc]

Had Lincoln lived, the idealists might have had a better chance, although unlikely in my opinion. Too many dead and maimed bodies, destroyed homes and land, widows, and disappointed families and lovers who lost those they loved. Add regional hostility, belief the southerners were traitors, and a desire for vengeance that replaced "with malice toward none." Was it not "Beast" Butler who required southern ladies to step aside for blacks on the sidewalks of New Orleans? And opportunist carpetbaggers and scalawags took advantage of the South as well.

As an aside, "unreconstructed" white southern senators in the 1880s were on the committees that dealt with the Indian "problems," which explains some of those great injustices. Even in the 1950s when I served in our 7-year old integrated army in Germany, one southerner complained when he saw a black captain and his family with a white German maid, "Now I know there's something lower than a nigger -- Germans." I have never forgotten that gem.
 
Had we been the Spain of the 1930s, countless thousands would have been executed, up to a million placed in camps, and southern children would have been taken away to be raised as good Unionists by proper families in the North.

War may be Hell, but Civil War leaves deeper scars.

[JC]

Who are the realists and who are the idealists in this case?

My thoughts:

Realists were the individuals who understood you can't force change down the throats of southerners overnight. They fought the change but because they would have rather enacted it on their own terms (but then how long would it have taken?) than have the federal government force it on them.

Idealists were the individuals who believed that once slaves were emancipated, they would suddenly become an active and welcomed part of southern society. These individuals see things as they could be but don't understand the reality of the obstacles.

What do you think?

[DonaldBaker]

I'm not so sure Reconstruction "failed."  Or at least not completely.  The South was rebuilt structurally and politically, and to a lesser extent culturally.  Did the South acquiesce to the North's vision?  No.  Did Lincoln's dream be realized?  Again no.  What actually happened was the South resisted in other ways while it yielded at the same time.  In the end, the South was re-incorporated into the Union and allowed to rebuild in its own way.  Yes some instances of revenge were extolled upon the Southern people and her Confederate leadership, but by the end of Reconstruction, the South got its paybacks too.  To say that Reconstruction was a total failure may be a bit much.  Finally, and most importantly, Reconstruction didn't really "end" until the South desegregated.  Just something to chew on there.

[JC]

I'm not so sure Reconstruction "failed."  Or at least not completely.  The South was rebuilt structurally and politically, and to a lesser extent culturally.  Did the South acquiesce to the North's vision?  No.  Did Lincoln's dream be realized?  Again no.  What actually happened was the South resisted in other ways while it yielded at the same time.  In the end, the South was re-incorporated into the Union and allowed to rebuild in its own way.  Yes some instances of revenge were extolled upon the Southern people and her Confederate leadership, but by the end of Reconstruction, the South got its paybacks too.  To say that Reconstruction was a total failure may be a bit much.  Finally, and most importantly, Reconstruction didn't really "end" until the South desegregated.  Just something to chew on there.

Hi Donald,

I suppose failure depends on the point of view, no? Let's say we're just talking about Reconstruction as it was after the Civil War and not the fight that lasted to the 1960's.

The Radical Republicans wanted a south which essentially mirrored the image of the north, they wanted blacks to enjoy the same civil rights and opportunities as blacks. They thought Johnson and Lincoln's policies were too lenient. They sought to be harsh on the south and make them pay.

Radicals made all these promises and had this vision of equality but that didn't happen. In fact, the Compromise of 1877 pretty much ended any progress for black civil rights. Once Republicans gave up on Reconstruction in exchange for Hayes as President, things seemed to turn around quickly for blacks. As if all progress made in those few years had been undone.

So the question would be what good did come out of Reconstruction and was it a success at all?

Also, which made Reconstruction tougher to implement? Idealistic visions or Realistic visions?

[donroc]

Of course it is a matter of POV. In my opinion, the South was never the same after the war so one can say it was not "reconstructed" at all. At first it was deconstructed, but then much of the old order returned. And, in the North many Unionists were like Marxist elitists today who want to take from the rich but not necessarily mean well for the poor whom they despise no less; Many if not most Unionists liked the idea more of ending slavery to punish the secessionists than to help/integrate the freed slaves.

I believe the "reconstruction" did end with the final breaking of the KKK and civil rights acts in the 1960s, just in time for the great cultural Civil War to begin in the same decade, which continues to this day.