Post Info TOPIC: Reconstruction Exam Questions

Reconstruction Exam Questions

Question #1: Was Reconstruction a success or a failure? Justify your position by citing specific individuals, events and issues from the period 1865-1877. 

Question #2: If President Lincoln had survived the assassination attempt by John Willkes Booth, how would the era of Reconstruction have been different? Justify your position by citing an alternate scenario of individuals, events and issues in the period of 1865-1877.

FRQ Checklist: 

  • My introduction provides background information in the context of the question.

  • My thesis statement directly answers the question.

  • My thesis statement is not simply a restatement of the question.

  • My thesis statement provides a specific outline of the topics to be explored in my essay.

  • When moving from one topic to another, I have used appropriate transitional phrases.

  • I have demonstrated an understanding of the complexity of each topic listed in the thesis.

  • I have used extensive information or conducted outside research on each topic listed in the thesis.

  • I have used outside evidence to spuurt each claim made in my thesis.

  • I have added a conclusion which restates the thesis by summarizing the main points of the essay.



Question #1: Was Reconstruction a success or a failure? Justify your position by citing specific individuals, events and issues from the period 1865-1877. 


            The era of Reconstruction after the Civil war was the most crucial time in determining the fate of the United States. A week following the Surrender of General Lee at the Appomattox Court House, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by a bitter white southerner named John Wilkes Booth. Without the leadership qualities possessed by Lincoln, the United States looked like it was heading down a long unsuccessful journey into Reconstruction. The attempt of Reconstruction after the Civil War can be looked upon as a failure because of the many controversies involving the lives of ex-slaves and the formation of anti-black cults in the south.

            Reconstruction was not an easy time for anyone in the United States no matter what racial, political, or geographical group they belonged to. It is fair to say that the average life of an ex-slave can be described as the most challenging. During the war, the slaves had been promised that when all the fighting was over, they would receive “40 acres and a mule” for their efforts during the time of slavery. This promise posed a huge problem because the land was to come from former plantations which were owned by southern whites. The southern whites felt that their rights were being violated by the “carpet baggers” because the government was planning to just give the land to ex-slaves. Also, it seemed as though the ex-slaves had been granted full rights too soon. Middle class whites in the south felt the pressure of competition for jobs against the blacks. It was not long before these feelings of hate and pressure turned into some of the worst prejudice and racial discrimination the world has ever seen.

            With the ever increasing rate of racism in the United States, anti-black cults in the south were beginning to form. The most famous and largest of all cults was the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). The KKK would carry out specific acts of violence towards ex-slaves, sometimes involving death. The practices of the KKK involved wearing hoods over their heads, and vowing to destruct the lives of blacks.  Never before had the country seen such horrible acts and groups being formulated. Groups such as the KKK and others were thought upon as a sure sign of the failure to come determining the fate of the United States. 

            Much of the failures of Reconstruction can be accredited to the vice president of Lincoln, Andrew Johnson. The question of “What if Lincoln had lived to lead the country into Reconstruction?” can always be asked. It was necessary for a strong leader to be there in the most crucial time after the Civil War. Reconstruction can definitely be looked upon as a failure to civilize the citizens of the United States after the Civil War because of many obstacles including discrimination of ex-slaves, violation of the rights of southern whites, and the formation of anti-black cults.



Tom Threlfall                                                                                        January 11, 2007

Reading Exam


Question #1: Was reconstruction a success or a failure?  Justify your position by citing specific individuals, events and issues from the period 1865-1877.


            For the Union as a whole, reconstruction was a success in more ways than it was a failure because it achieved its main goal, which was to bring the states that succeeded back into the Union.  However, there were flaws and political corruption that shadowed the success and made the reconstruction look bad.  After all of the slaves had been freed, the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments gave them the right to vote and claimed that all men were equal, but instead of everything being perfect in America, political corruption put an end to racial equality.

            Andrew Johnson, the president after Lincoln was assassinated was from the south and had the power to give pardons to confederate leaders, which he did and almost all were free and had clear names.  After the leaders were free they ran for congress and took many seats in the Senate.  When all of the states vowed their 10% loyalty to the Union and were admitted back in, things pretty much started to go back to there old ways.

            Even though every freed slave was supposedly given forty acres and a mule, when the white plantation owners were given their land back the blacks were cut out.  Sharecropping became popular in the South as blacks were allowed to farm the land but they were forced to give half of their crop to the landowner.  Also, if someone was found walking the streets in the South and didn’t have the papers to prove they had a job, they were arrested and then hired out on a plantation.

            Blacks were still viewed as the lower class across the nation and segregation became a huge issue.  The Ku Klux Klan formed by Nathaniel B. Forrest was a group that hated African Americans so they hung, lynched and blatantly murdered them to scare them into not voting and other from other liberties they now had.  Even the police were against the black race and were involved in a gunfight on the white side.

            Even though many problems rose after the war and during reconstruction, as a whole the presidents plan to reunite the nation worked out so reconstruction was a success.  The challenges that were faced couldn’t have been avoided in anyway because it was the nature of the people that caused segregation and the belief of white supremacy.  The only way that reconstruction could have failed is if the South didn’t rejoin the Union.



Question #2: If President Lincoln had survived the assassination attempt by John Wilkes Booth, how would the era of Reconstruction have been different? Justify your position by citing an alternate scenario of individuals, events and issues in the period of 1865-1877.


          Abraham Lincoln had started formulating his plan for Reconstruction before the war had even ended. With his death, all his ideas and policies went with him. If President Lincoln had lived through the assassination attempt, Reconstruction would have been a much more successful and less agonizing process.

          Lincoln’s plan for Reconstruction was focused on regaining the Union as it had been in 1860. He set up a process for Southern states to be readmitted to the Union based on five percent of the population of the state taking a loyalty oath to the Union, and then creating their own state constitution that recognized emancipation. This was vastly different from Johnson’s plan that was actually put into action. Under pressure from Radical Republicans who believed that Lincoln was going too easy on the South, Johnson raised the loyalty rate to ten percent, and decided that it was the Reconstruction Bureau’s job to create a state constitution that would be acceptable to the American government. Because this process put the South at the mercy of Northern representatives, it was greatly resented. Rebellion was common, and it dragged out the reconstruction process a lot longer.

          President Lincoln also would have seen to it that emancipation was immediately recognized, and freedmen given the opportunities needed to create a new life for themselves. When the war ended, many plantation owners refused to give up their slaves, and kept their slaves on the plantation until Union arms raided the farm and liberated the slaves. After Lincoln’s death, and after readmission to the Union, many Southern states passed laws that greatly hindered blacks, almost completely stripping them of the freedoms they had gained from emancipation. One such law existed in Louisiana, where if an African American was seen just walking around in the streets, even if he was doing nothing wrong, he could be stopped by any white and asked to give proof that he had a job. If he didn’t have a job or had no proof of his employment, then that ex-slave was thrown in jail and the only way he could be released was if he was hired out to someone to do hard labor for no pay. This was too close to another slavery system than Northerners were willing to tolerate. The Reconstruction Bureau tightened its control on laws made by individual states. Once it was brought to Congress’s attention, they created the 14th Amendment, which made it illegal to hinder an African American’s constitutional rights. Had Lincoln been in charge of the situation, there would have been a more immediate resolution to the problem, where Johnson waited on voting for the 14th Amendment. President Lincoln’s cause for the war had been preserving the Union, and later on, complete emancipation of all slaves. When the cost of winning the war was so high, Lincoln would not have allowed for a relapse into the old ways of the South before the war started.

          During the middle of his term in office, during the heat of the Civil War, Lincoln had been very unpopular. Northerners were discouraged by the way the war was going, and saw no hope in winning. The Union’s war leaders were not showing much military strength or ingenuity. Lincoln was also becoming frustrated with his appointed generals, and went through three other generals before Ulysses S. Grant came into the picture. Once the war seemed to shift toward the Union, Lincoln began taking measures to create his Reconstruction plan. He first created the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all the slaves in the states in rebellion against the Union as of January 1863. This angered Southerners, because Lincoln currently had no jurisdiction over the states of the Confederacy. Northerners were not sure if they wanted to fight a war in which the ultimate goal was the freeing of African Americans. Even though most Northerners were for the gradual abolition of slavery, they were not in favor of complete emancipation of all blacks. This put a mark on Lincoln’s reputation with the Northern people. He also did not find much support for his plans for Reconstruction. The Radical Republicans of Congress were opposed to his plan because they felt he went too easy on the South. There was almost no punishment for the Confederate leaders, and nothing saying that they were not allowed to take their seats in Congress again at the war’s end. This proved that Lincoln had little support in the Houses of Congress near the end of his first term as President.

          When the war was over and Robert E. Lee gave in to the “unconditional surrender” that was demanded by Grant, it was time for Lincoln’s plans to be put into action. With his death just twelve days after the official end of the war, there was little time for Lincoln to do anything. Lincoln’s second term as President was won because it was only the loyal Union states voting in the Election of 1864. Had Lincoln run for a third term and all the states had been reintegrated into the Union, it is highly unlikely that he would have been elected to the office again. His policies were so offensive to the South that they never would have voted for him for the office of President. A small part of the North was still in favor of Lincoln during the election of 1864, but by the election of 1868, that may have changed. Lincoln had lost much of his support in Congress with his lax plans for Reconstruction and the absence of any type of reprimand for Confederate rebels. The Radical Republicans could have swayed the vote for Lincoln. Undoubtedly, Lincoln had the vote of the freedmen population, and could have possibly won the election on their votes, since they greatly outnumbered Southern whites. Lincoln would not have gained a single vote from white Southerners. The states in rebellion against the Union had not been included in the Election of 1864, which was probably why Lincoln won. Once the Confederate states were part of the Union again, the percentage of people voting would rise sharply, and the majority of them would be greatly opposed to Lincoln. This would have cost him the 1868 Presidential election.

          With Abraham Lincoln’s death, the United States government was left with a huge task that no one really knew how to handle. Lincoln knew how difficult Reconstruction would be, and his early planning proved that he was going to try and be as prepared as possible for the ordeal ahead. The policies that he created would have probably been more tolerated by Southerners, and this would have alleviated some of the pressures of Reconstruction. Also, Lincoln would have immediately set up legislature that prohibited the hindrance of African American’s constitutional rights. Though he may have not won over the country by 1868, he would have done much in his next four years to better the situation of the Union for his successor. The turning over of the Presidency during Reconstruction created a much bigger problem than if Lincoln had survived the assassination attempt by John Wilkes Booth. His death was a blow that the Union could not afford during a time when a strong leader was needed most.



#2   If President Lincoln had survived the assassination attempt by John Wilkes Booth, how would the era of Reconstruction have been different? Justify your position by citing an alternate scenario of individuals, events and issues in the period of 1865-1877. 


            The Reconstruction era would have been completely different if President Lincoln wasn’t assassinated because the Confederate states readmission would have been more genuine, there wouldn’t be any Confederates in our government and the ex-slaves would have had more rights and freedoms.

            President Lincoln believed that he didn’t have to bring the Confederate states back into the Union because they had never left.  So he felt that all he needed to do was make 10% of the population swear that they will never threaten to leave the Union again.  Also he said only non-Confederates (no leaders or soldiers) could vote on the new state constitutions.  If  Lincoln had not been killed, the Confederate states would have came back into the Union more on their own will instead of almost being forced like under Johnson.  Under Johnson, in many states, they made laws where either you swore loyalty to the Union or your property was taken away.  Lincoln just wanted 10% of the whole state not one city to agree to come back peacefully.  I believe if they came in more on their own will they wouldn’t have been so stubborn when it came to agreeing to the new freedoms that blacks were given.  Also, if they came in on their own it would have made our country even stronger and more united than we were before the war. 

Lincoln was willing to give them the same freedoms and liberties as all the other states except that Confederates couldn’t vote or hold office.  Under Lincoln, the former vice-president of the Confederacy would have never been able to be a senator for Georgia.  If he hadn’t died, I think there would have been less segregation later on in our history because he would have been able to limit and control what laws states and Congress could make against black people.  Congress wouldn’t have been able to make the law saying that blacks and whites had to use separate facilities.  Also, Lincoln would have been able to make harsher punishments for groups like the KKK or the White Knights of Camilia.  Andrew Johnson was a racist and everyone knew that.  So some of his policies were for acts like the Vagrant Law and he didn’t try to punish or enforce laws against the hate groups that were around at that point in time.  I believe Lincoln would have vetoed the Vagrant Law, which was a law passed that said any black person walking the streets without proof that they have a job could be pulled away and put back in a system that was very similar to slavery.  I also believe that Lincoln would have at least tried to pursue the KKK and other hate groups and tried to stop them before it got any worst.

Lastly, under Lincoln I believe the former slaves and free blacks would have had more freedoms and the freedoms they already had would have been more enforced.  Every state in the Confederacy upon surrender was forced to abolish slavery with the 13th amendment.  But even when the 14th amendment was passed not every state obeyed it once the Union soldiers left the South.  In many states especially in Louisiana, the government suggested to many black people not to vote because they would be killed by the white hate groups.  I believe under Lincoln that he would have either continued to send troops to the polls to enforce the 14th amendment or that if the states didn’t have a high enough percentage of the black population voting that he would take over the state and the federal government would control it.  I also believe more states would have more black people in their legislature and more black representatives in government.  Lincoln believed that all people, no matter color they are should have the same rights.  So he would allow blacks to testify against whites in court and that blacks would be able to have all the same rights as whites. 

In conclusion, Lincoln’s reconstruction would have been way different than Andrew Johnson’s because he would have let that Confederate states back in more gently, the free blacks would have more freedoms and there would be no Confederates in our government.            



AP US History 1                                                                                              Curt J. Santos

Reconstruction Exam                                                                                     4-310 1/12/07 A


         Reconstruction was in some ways successful but failed in other ways between certain groups of people. The Reconstruction was successful in bringing the Confederate states back into the Union and actually making laws to shape the nation back together. In other ways Reconstruction hurt the African American majority in the South as well as ex-Confederates by actually weakening their rights, taking away their land and ultimately creating more racial animosity between whites and blacks.

         Reconstruction in our country was made to ultimately bring the Confederate states back into the Union and have them adopt the new amendments made after the Civil War (the 13th and 14th Amendment). This was the job of the Union generals who were put in charge of territories in the South but not all of them obeyed their true orders. In some ways the Union generals seen themselves as the superior power in the provinces and sought to do what they wished to the land. The general’s main mission to bring the Confederate states back was corrupted in some places and actually made it difficult in certain ways. For instance, many Union generals were still mad at the fact they fought this war to stop the institution of slavery and when it came for the African Americans to use their new rights (like voting), the generals wouldn’t allow it. In some cases there would be a race riot in towns and they would do nothing about it. They also allowed the new sharecropping idea (very similar to slavery) go on when they were supposed to be enforcing the new Amendments. The Union generals also did nothing to stop many racist groups in the areas from actually murdering African Americans and caring them from actually using any rights they had.

         Although corrupt generals did slow the process down in the South, the president wasn’t helping out the Reconstruction cause out much either. Andrew Johnson was in all terms of the word, a racist. He didn’t like the idea that there was now a group of individuals running around with rights somewhat equal to him, so he tried whatever he could to actually lessen the rights of African Americans. Whenever Congress would pass a bill about the rights of the African Americans he would quickly veto it. To even further hurt the Reconstruction cause, Andrew Johnson pardoned all Confederate soldiers and generals and gave them their land back, land that was given to African Americans by Union generals, leaving African Americans with nothing. This contributed to the idea of racial separation in the South and the idea still of racial superiority.

         Reconstruction though did eventually serve have of its true cause. After a few years of trying to rebuild the nation, the ex-Confederate states were brought in one by one back into the Union, with the new amendments. Reconstruction at first was strict, allowing no ex-Confederates their full rights and taking away their land unless they pledged their loyalty to the Union. The Union troops also stationed in other areas would protect African Americans who went to vote. With the new growth of a population where many of them couldn’t read or write they created the Freedman’s Bureau to educate African Americans to learn how to do these things and also how to vote. As was said before though, this happened in only a few areas in the South while others were not as fortunate do to their leadership in the territory and the great racial animosity in the area.

         So in some ways Reconstruction was successful in bringing the South back into the Union. The plan for Reconstruction was able to keep the nation together and maintain the government in the whole U.S. In the eyes of many slaves and in some ex-Confederates, Reconstruction did more harm then actually help the nation. Reconstruction seemed like a failure to the African Americans and the ex-Confederates due to the corruption of power used by Union generals in the South, the reduction of new rights given to the African Americans and the racial division and the increase of racism in the South. With less support from the president to actually help out to enforce these new laws and to secure equality between the races in the South it made it seem as if the Confederates would get away with everything they did and the cause of the war was useless. In conclusion Reconstruction was in certain ways successful to some and a failure in the eyes of others.

Jarred Rose


Test 6

By Jarred Rose


Question #1: Was Reconstruction a success or a failure? Justify your position by citing specific individuals, events and issues from the period 1865-1877. 


            Reconstruction was both a success and a failure depending on what you believe the goal of Reconstruction was, economically and socially Reconstruction was a failure but politically it was a success if the goal of Reconstruction was to bring the South back to the way it was before the war, without slaves obviously.

            The most confusing thing about Reconstruction was that it was not one specific thing. For example it was not an object that can be described easily and it was not a war were you can just state that this happened then and this happened after. The Reconstruction was a period of time in which no one person or body had absolute control or influence. This brings up the question, “What was the purpose of Reconstruction?” The answer is that it depended on who you asked.

            During the war the South was absolutely devastated, to the point were it was almost completely unrecognizable from its former self. With all the inflation and trade stoppage that happened in the Confederacy the economy crashed and burned. The Reconstruction did was a failure economically because no one did anything to try to improve it. The South wouldn’t come close to its old economy for another one hundred years, the 1950-60’s, and then it would be shaken again by Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement.

            The Radical Republicans, who controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate during the Reconstruction, wanted the South to pay for their treasonous crimes during the war and they were very good at making sure that that happened. They put the south under military occupation and forced it to listen to generals who had fought against them. They took peoples land for government use. They (and President Andrew Johnson) disenfranchised, removed their right to vote and to hold public office, all of the old Confederate leaders. Republicans went into the South the try to take control of it by being voted into office, carpetbaggers as they were called.

            Corruption and money-grabbing played a huge role in the South because everyone who was controlling the South (the carpetbaggers or the Generals) were there to make a buck. Money changed hands so quickly it was insane and people who were rich yesterday can be dirt poor tomorrow. Terrorist groups killed and threatened many politicians who didn’t do exactly what they wanted. Such groups included the Klu Klux Klan and the Knights of White Camilia.  

Due to these things the Reconstruction was a failure socially because of the vast turmoil that was caused by it. There were no socially classes in the South. It was the rich whites against the black against the poor whites against the old Confederate leaders. To use and old expression it was a “dog eat dog world.” The whole Southern social system didn’t get reestablished till much later with, of course, the blacks on the bottom again.

Abraham Lincoln just wanted the South to come back peacefully now that the war was over (although he thought that states couldn’t leave the Union under the Constitution, so he also believed that they had never left, they were just in rebellion). His plan called for 10% of the voting population to take a loyalty oath and to just come back with their states. He believed in being pretty lenient with his policy. However everything changed when he was assassinated.

His vice-president Andrew Johnson became the new president. His plan called for 50% of the voting population to take a loyalty oath and the disenfranchisement of everyone who held office under the Confederacy. However he still had the power to pardon, which he did often. Due to this Congress found itself with many of its former enemies sitting next to them. Johnson ended up fighting with Congress so much that no one new who was in charge of Reconstruction and therefore the a million different things were done with no particular order. 

Politically the Reconstruction was a success because the South did come back to the regular way (Congress, the White House, est.) eventually.

Due to everything presented to you it is really up to the person looking at Reconstruction to decide whether it was a success or a failure. There is no one answer because Reconstruction was no one thing.



Kelsey Rae Lewin                                                                                January 12, 2007


AP US History Exam


            Question #1:  Was Reconstruction a success or a failure? Justify your position by citing specific individuals, events and issues from the period 1865-1877.


            Reconstruction was a historical movement of the 19th century proposed with the help of Lincoln’s presidency and the Radical Republicans to address issues dealing with the grants and limits of power among races.  The movement was both a success and a failure, depending on the eyes in which you view it from.  For example, it was viewed by William Dunning in the early 1900s as a failure.  He believed that too much consent or authority in some sense was given to blacks in the 20th century.  Other historians, also agreeing with Reconstruction as a failure, argued that the act wasn’t severe enough in granting more eligibility to black citizens or former slaves.  On the complete opposite side of the coin, historians who valued abolitionism and industrialization for example, declared that Reconstruction was a positive event or even brilliant success in history according to all that it accomplished.  Like any good doing or attempt to resolve a conflict, (such as an antibiotic to heal an illness, a helping hand that helps one person and hurts another, or even previous attempts in history to approach an issue such as Jackson’s Bank War, Indian Removal or other debatable attempts to better the country), the Reconstruction Act too had its both harmful and beneficial side-effects, consequences and aftermaths.  Therefore, Reconstruction was both a success and a failure for both all it accomplished and all it neglected to or failed to resolve.

            William Dunning, a historian in the early 20th century declared that freed black slaves and corrupt white “carpetbaggers” were taking advantage of what Reconstruction offered.  He insisted that they black slaves were freed too soon and that their intentions and notions were of pilfering money and taking a yard from nearly a foot, or a foot from an inch.  Dunning thought Radical Republicans and the federal government allowed what he called, “illiterate blacks” too much freedom before they were in fact ready for it and that they were stealing money from the government. (Was Reconstruction too lenient or not lenient enough?  The historians battled their strong ideas of why Reconstruction was a failure for those two opposing reasons).  Others (mostly southern historians) argued that Reconstruction did not grant enough power to blacks who were still running in place where white authority held optimum rule.  They thought blacks should be granted more land in order to obtain or pursue an economic independence in which they strove for.  Southerners also, who were in great demand for slavery opposed the idea of abolitionism put into effect as a result of Reconstruction. The period of Reconstruction, during the years 1865-1877 was a time of racial segregation and cruelty.  The rise Ku Klux Klan was at an all time max, establishing their expression as a result too, of the Reconstruction Period, demeaning the infuriating blacks (to the superior white ignorance of the KKK establishment).  However, the stabilizing and rise of the KKK was an aftermath of the period, which caused historians too to look back on a failure through their own eyes.

Historians, who saw Reconstruction as a success, do in fact believe it was quite the success story after all.  Northerners, for example, living in an industrialized region, embraced the rise of industrialization as economic improvement in the north and ultimate prosperity.  Reconstruction put an end to slavery, and began to address the rights of blacks as active US citizens.  Uprising questions debated back and forth whether or not a black man should have the right to vote.  At this time, a person under twenty-one years of age, or a woman, being granted the right to vote, was unheard of and not even yet considered or brought up, however black suffrage became a controversial debate brought before the government and a right eventually granted through the process of Reconstruction.  Petitions and requests stating, “I am a land owner and I pay appropriate taxes as a legal citizen, obey the loyalty oath, and therefore should have the right to vote like any other white male in the country,” were composed, signed, and brought up before authorities by stable black men exercising the freedom whites spoke of.  However, the idea of black suffrage was at first absurd to many racial discriminates of the time, and it was through Lincoln’s Reconstruction that a legal documented Act allowed blacks the right to vote prior to the 15th Amendment to the Constitution furthering the statement and extending the right to other genders as well, not just races.

            Although, Reconstruction triggered segregation between whites and blacks and the cruelty of the KKK, it also ended slavery and granted blacks the right to vote.  Black men were even appointed to responsibility and authority as active participants of their political society.  Hirem Revels and Blanche Bruce were the two first black men to take a stand in their governments as respected leaders from “black outsiders.”  Racism did still exist, possibly worse than ever, however, slavery was ended and strength among these two individuals allowed blacks to be heard as people not property.  Revels and Bruce were the first two men to speak up and follow through with their position in (black society, nonetheless,) but society as individuals.  Reconstruction brought society a long way in the eyes of those it helped in accomplishment, however, like anything else, it left room for improvement and caused unintentional repercussions as a result.

            In the mid 19th century, Lincoln’s second term as president prior to his assassination, addressed issues of industrialization, black suffrage, and abolitionism.  Reconstruction determined the grants and limits of power among races of both the north and the south.  Griffith’s “The Birth of a Nation,” movie of the early 20th century was the first movie to do so, and illustrates the failures of the Reconstruction period, focusing on views like Dunning’s, opposed to the actuality of the historical event.  Segregation was branching and the KKK was roaring with hatred, however, where would we be without the Reconstruction period?  Revels and Blanche could have been nothing but property of slave owners until further notice or until death, and black men who upheld their end of their bargain and obligation as citizens would have no current say at that time, as political participants, in their government.  In conclusion, Reconstruction was proposed with the help of Lincoln’s presidency and the Radical Republicans to address issues dealing with the grants and limits of power among races.  The movement was both a success and a failure, depending on the eyes in which you view it from and the values or acknowledgements you make priority in analyzing history.









Kelsey Rae Lewin                                                                    January 12, 2007


Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard