All categories

3 years ago

Was reconstruction a success or failure? Why or why not?

History

2 answers:

sweet-ann [11.9K]3 years ago

8 0

Answer:

Reconstruction was a success in that it restored the United States as a unified nation: by 1877, all of the former Confederate states had drafted new constitutions, acknowledged the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, and pledged their loyalty to the U.S. government.

Explanation:

vladimir2022 [97]3 years ago

6 0

Answer:

I think it was a failure for sure because the Radical Republicans law eventually failed to protect former slaves from white persecution . They as well failed to engender fundamental changes to the social fabric of the South . In 1877 slave owners right away came back to power and the empowered white southern politicians passed a law called Black Codes , voter qualifications, and other anti-progressive laws . The anti-progressive laws reversed the rights that blacks had gained during the Reconstruction. The Sharecropping system kept African Americans tied to lands owned by white wealthy farmers . Blacks then had to fight for civil rights on their own , but later on northern white lost their interest in reconstruction and they got so tired of fighting for black rights which led reconstruction closed with many of its goals unaccomplished. I absolutely think that reconstruction was for sure a failure for all of these reasons a typed out .

Explanation:

You might be interested in

Why should historians avoid oversimplifications when analyzing sources?

Mekhanik [1.2K]

Answer:

The correct answer is B) Oversimplifications often ignore complex or contradictory evidence

Explanation:

History is not always easy to study and the further we go back, the further we have to rely on second hand or third hand sources.

For example, in order to study something that happened 20 years ago is fairly easy since it would be recorded either in newspapers, books, or even video.

However, it is not always easy to draw conclusions when we are studying an event that took place 2,000 years ago.

Most of them times we rely on information passed on from generations before until finally someone wrote it down.

While many historians get tempted to Over-simply an event to draw certain conclusions, this should not be practiced as it creates a bias and forces us to study or even research for contradictory evidence. Sometimes, this contradictory evidence can completely change our understanding of the event.

3 0

3 years ago

By 1688, england had arrived at a kind of constitutional settlement but it was still grappling with two key questions, one of wh

GalinKa [24]

By 1688, England had arrived at a kind of constitutional settlement but it was still grappling with two key questions, one of which was b. whether a monarchy should be permanently institutionalized. And in 1701, the Act of Settlement was passed which settled the succession of the Irish and English Crowns on Protestants only.

7 0

3 years ago

Type a paragraph explaining how we are linked with the Godhead.

MaRussiya [10]

According to Christian faith, God is love. So when we think about God, we don't actually imagine a bearded old man sitting on a cloud watching over us. God doesn't have a form because it is an abstract idea which encompasses beautiful and good feelings such as love, empathy, happiness, caring, compassion, etc. So I guess you could say that in a way, by experiencing such feelings, we are closer to God because God is within all of us.

6 0

4 years ago

Which option best completes the diagram?

kotegsom [21]

Answer:

C. The citizens and government have a positive attitude towards the United States.

Explanation:

When you help someone, usually that person will look positively at you and will look to help you and support your interests in the future, that's perfectly human.

So, if a foreign country received help from the United States, it will certainly help the US foreign policy in the future.

Neither of the 3 other answers are related to the humanitarian aid received after a natural disaster.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Differences between the means of transportation during the ancient days and this modern day

Rudik [331]

Answer:

MODERN FORM TRANSPORT IS VERY FAST.IT TAKES VERY LESS TIME BUT OLD FORM OF TRANSPORT IS TIME CONSUMING AND IS SLOW. MODERN TRANSPORT IS VERY INTERESTING AND ENJOYABLE BUT OLD TRANSPORT IS VERY BORING. MODERN TRANSPORT INCLUDES AEROPLANE, METRO, ELECTRIC BUS ETC..

7 0

3 years ago