Lincoln’s Shadow: Reconstruction in Postwar South The Reconstruction of the South remains, to this day, one of the most dividing topics amongst historians, dunces and anything in the between. It is capable of sparking passionate debates, yet incapable of ushering in change, as America can thankfully remind itself that Reconstruction has long since passed. Although some changes may have behooved the period, their literal implication is out of the question. Instead, the focus of the controversy is simply the era in retrospect; theoretical change. Could the federal government have done more to help former slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War? The question begs for an answer, and that answer is no. No, the federal government could not have
…show more content…
It was difficult to say for certain whether the country had divided into two lands with a border of hundreds of thousands of corpses for man’s basic human rights or for the sake of an agrarian economy. What was irrefutable was the incoming change for black slaves. Each side had their own plans for the black slave, but only one would stand victorious in the end. However, in 1865, once the cacophony of cannon fire had finally died and the smoke of rifles settled, America was free to take a breath, but it would have to be a deep one because the unpaved road ahead was where the real struggle lie; reconstruction of a bitter and broken, desolate and dispirited postwar South. The issue of how to implement Reconstruction on the South was one that weighed heavy on the Republicans’ minds (Brinkley). President Abraham Lincoln chose to approach the matter with a scalpel and bouquet of red roses, while the Radicals, under Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner insisted on an axe and bouquet of dynamite. The Radicals were much more fervent in their believe that the South deserved a harsh response, more like reprimanding than restoration. They urged for a redistribution of wealthy whites’ lands among newly freed slaves, as well as extended and comprehensive protection of black civil rights (Simpson). Lincoln had a much more lenient approach in mind. One in which amnesty would …show more content…
Without solid leadership, a nation can not hope to achieve the peace and prosperity they so desperately long for. This is the unfortunate truth for post Civil War America. The assassination of President Lincoln had drastic effects on America, and the South in particular. Just like Julius Caesar had been before him and Leon Trotsky after, President Lincoln was murdered before his plans for the future could be seen through to the end. All three of these leaders were extremely competent and by far the most fit to lead their respective civilizations to a brighter future, however, all three of these leaders also meet their own demise at the hand of an assassin. One by one, these leaders are all replaced. Julius by Octavius, Trotsky by Stalin, and Lincoln by Johnson. While all of these successors saw to the forward march of their nations, none did so with the same proficiency, prowess, or passion as their predecessor. This failure to go above and beyond one’s predecessor is clearly reflected time and time again throughout history. Lincoln’s death and subsequent absence is no exception to
It was difficult to say for certain whether the country had divided into two lands with a border of hundreds of thousands of corpses for man’s basic human rights or for the sake of an agrarian economy. What was irrefutable was the incoming change for black slaves. Each side had their own plans for the black slave, but only one would stand victorious in the end. However, in 1865, once the cacophony of cannon fire had finally died and the smoke of rifles settled, America was free to take a breath, but it would have to be a deep one because the unpaved road ahead was where the real struggle lie; reconstruction of a bitter and broken, desolate and dispirited postwar South. The issue of how to implement Reconstruction on the South was one that weighed heavy on the Republicans’ minds (Brinkley). President Abraham Lincoln chose to approach the matter with a scalpel and bouquet of red roses, while the Radicals, under Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner insisted on an axe and bouquet of dynamite. The Radicals were much more fervent in their believe that the South deserved a harsh response, more like reprimanding than restoration. They urged for a redistribution of wealthy whites’ lands among newly freed slaves, as well as extended and comprehensive protection of black civil rights (Simpson). Lincoln had a much more lenient approach in mind. One in which amnesty would …show more content…
Without solid leadership, a nation can not hope to achieve the peace and prosperity they so desperately long for. This is the unfortunate truth for post Civil War America. The assassination of President Lincoln had drastic effects on America, and the South in particular. Just like Julius Caesar had been before him and Leon Trotsky after, President Lincoln was murdered before his plans for the future could be seen through to the end. All three of these leaders were extremely competent and by far the most fit to lead their respective civilizations to a brighter future, however, all three of these leaders also meet their own demise at the hand of an assassin. One by one, these leaders are all replaced. Julius by Octavius, Trotsky by Stalin, and Lincoln by Johnson. While all of these successors saw to the forward march of their nations, none did so with the same proficiency, prowess, or passion as their predecessor. This failure to go above and beyond one’s predecessor is clearly reflected time and time again throughout history. Lincoln’s death and subsequent absence is no exception to