Comparison Of Reconstruction After Civil War And Andrew Johnson's Assassination

After the Civil War ended, the south was in a state of uncertainty and action needed to be taken in order to reunite the nation. This action took the form of reconstruction as an attempt at restoring the nation. However, even though reconstruction transformed the nation, it did so in very limited ways. President Lincoln had high hopes for reconstruction as a way to bring the nation back together, "to bind up the nation's wounds," as he said. Lincoln's plans for reconstruction included the south being allowed back into the Union if southern states accepted the abolition of slavery. They could then set up new governments after only ten percent of voters swore allegiance to the United State. He also planned to grant amnesty to all except for the highest ranking Confederate officials. Lincoln was able to succeed in abolishing slavery and creating the Freedman's Bureau, however, disagreement with Congressmen and ultimately his assassination did not allow him to see through his plan of bringing the nation back together as he had wished. …show more content…
His views toward the south and slavery differed greatly from Lincoln's, and so his plans for reconstruction also differed. Johnson saw slavery as an unfair advantage to rich plantation owners, rather than an unfair treatment of individuals. Because of this view on slavery, Johnson saw no need to punish the south; the end of slavery would be punishment enough, he thought. Therefore, he did not care much what happened to the Freedpeople after the war had ended. Johnson also was more concerned about his own agenda instead of bringing the nation back together. Because of this, he refused to make compromises with Republicans in Congress and was unable to fulfill Lincoln's wishes for