This paper will try to look into the perspectives as to whether Radical Reconstruction in the South is a just or unjust punishment. Also, this paper will seek to find out the arguments regarding the issue of whether things would be different if Abraham Lincoln was alive and present during the mentioned event.
This paper will try to be objective in trying to answer the question of whether the application of Radical Reconstruction was just or not. I will first try to look into the arguments pertaining that the application of radical reconstruction was indeed just.First of all, it must be argued that the implementation of radical reconstruction was a response to the current trend at that time. Though violence between secessionist states and the Union had been resolved, there would still be threats and hostility might again occur.
The idea of another bloodshed and civil war would be too costly for a government to bear. Secondly, it may be argued that it was the secessionist states that lost in the civil war. Therefore, they must succumb to the victors’ policies and adapt to the new standard.Third, the people behind the radical reconstruction were aware of the loss and disparity among the locals in secessionist states, especially when it comes to color. Disparities such as racial discrimination, slavery and violence pertaining to skin color were widespread, thus the need for abrupt actions must be taken. Thus, by enforcing the radical reconstruction and the policies within, it hopes to alleviate the problems prevalent in the southern society.
Having seen the reasons for the just application of radical reconstruction, the paper will now look into arguments why actions deem to be unjust.First, the action taken by the Union was too violent to begin with. It has been admitted that the secessionist lost the civil war, however the actions deemed by the people behind radical reconstruction were more coerced rather than applied. Another is that the implementation of change drastically would only result into more conflict especially to the ones affected by the alteration of the status quo.
It may be evident that outright discrimination and prejudice existed among the South, however it can be argued that change cannot come overnight or in that case with sudden abrupt changes.It can be seen in history that even if the radical movement was successfully implemented, little change took place within the system itself. The resentment of the law that has been forced upon has little effect on the actual practices by the people. Now the paper will look at the scenario if Lincoln was alive and to direct such actions. It may be argued that Lincoln can create a different situation. First reason is his way of promoting change is way different from the people behind radical reconstruction.
He believes that moderate application of change is more reasonable. This means that there must be a reconciliation of values between the two parties and a point where the two can meet and bargain. He recognizes that there are discrepancies and problems prevalent in the system. However, pushing too much interest for a specific party can only lead to greater problems.
Furthermore, he understands that he cannot change a cultural practice at one day, it takes time for them to accept that indeed such actions violates what the Union believes in. (e. g. acial discrimination) Another point to look into is Lincoln’s capability to appease and control the people around him. If this point can be taken into consideration, the radical movement may have been unsuccessful in full implementation of it’s objectives in the south.
Contrary to his successor, Andrew Johnson; who was not able to control the full implementation of the radical movement. It may be a scenario wherein a peaceful solution had been made by Lincoln and made the two parties talk and bargain. His ability to force people to cooperate can indeed create changes if he were alive at that time.
