- This topic has 4 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
I saw a show recently, I think on the History Channel (where else?), where it discussed Rutherford Hayes’ ascendency to the presidency. There’s speculation as to how Hayes actually gained the presidency after a tight election race (versus Samuel Tildern – read here for 1876 election background). Some thoughts were that he made concessions to the Democrats – perhaps by agreeing to remove the final vestiges of Northern control over certain state aspects in the South – in exchange for the presidency. Sure enough, during his presidency, we see the end to Reconstruction as the federal government withdrew some of its control of Southern municipalities.
It was an interesting theory, and I believe it's still uncertain if this withdrawal was based on a political exchange.The corruption of the Grant Administration has a lot to do with it. By 1876, Southern Vigilantes and Washington cronyism had pretty much caused the Reconstruction efforts to produce diminishing returns. Reconstruction was going to end anyway I believe whether Hayes made a backroom deal or not.
So do you see Reconstruction as the first in a long line of excessively grand and wasteful spending programs by the federal government? Would you put it in line with the WPA? Better or worse?
One could also argue that reconstruction was a tool for the radical republicans to punish the south, (something they figured Lincoln would never do) Something needed to be done, the south was in ruins. It was a constant tug of war with those who wanted, like Lincoln, to lift the south back to its feet and reunify the country and those who wanted to punish the south.
I wonder if people ever think that the effects laid on the South are still present today. Hurricane Katrina showed the world the poverty of New Orleans, and we know that places like Mississippi are rather poor. Are these leftovers from Reconstruction, or are they simply places where other factors have kept or led them into the bad side of life?
I wonder if people ever think that the effects laid on the South are still present today.? Hurricane Katrina showed the world the poverty of New Orleans, and we know that places like Mississippi are rather poor.? ?Are these leftovers from Reconstruction, or are they simply places where other factors have kept or led them into the bad side of life?
I think your right. It wasnt until the 1960's that the civil rights movement really gained momentum. Many in the south clung to the old old ways of hatred and bigotry. Look at the Jim crow laws that came into effect right after the civil War. It took a long time for the south to change, they resented The reconstruction policys and just wished the north would stay out of their business, still do to a certain extent, They dont call it the Civil War, they call it the war of northern aggresion. I think that says a lot about their thoughts on the war and it's aftermath.
So do you see Reconstruction as the first in a long line of excessively grand and wasteful spending programs by the federal government? Would you put it in line with the WPA? Better or worse?
No Reconstruction was necessary, but it was mismanaged, and the South managed to wreck it with Jim Crow. It wasn't until the TVA was launched did the South actually "recover" to where it could compete regionally again.
No Reconstruction was necessary, but it was mismanaged, and the South managed to wreck it with Jim Crow.? It wasn't until the TVA was launched did the South actually "recover" to where it could compete regionally again.
The south was in a shambles, physically and economically. They needed Reconstruction but didnt want it. What do you think were some of the bad decisions made by the federal gov. regarding the managment of reconstructing the south?
I don't think there's much doubt that the Hayes presidency and the end of Reconstruction were a simple case of quid pro quo. The committee set up to determine which of the competing slate of electors consisted of a conservative Republican majority and all the decisions were made along pretty much straight party lines. If I remember correctly, all the disputed slates were from Old South states and were all part of the ongoing struggle between the all-white Democratic party and the predominantly black Republican party. The exchange was really very straightforward – we'll give you the presidency if you allow us to settle our colored problem and voila, twenty years letter segregation was declared constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson.
