At the end of the Civil War two very different plans for reconstructing the nation were offered. Had Lincoln lived perhaps history would have different. The assassination of Lincoln, however, left the vulnerable Andrew Johnson, a Southerner and former slave owner with no college education, President. Could he live up to Lincoln's ideals? Would he be allowed the opportunity? That is the question.
After the Civil War congress was controlled by a group called the "Radical Republicans." Lincoln was able to control them and had proposed a plan for reconstruction that looked to treating the South more like a lost brother returning home. Lincoln looked to reconstruction as a time of healing. The Radical Republicans, however, looked at reconstruction as an opportunity to teach the South a lesson and to punish them. In 1866 Congress passed theWade-Davis Bill which called for rather draconian Reconstruction measures. Lincoln vetoed the bill but thedebate raged.
Lincoln would have been able to control the Radical Republicans, at least that is the conventional wisdom. Lincoln's death, however, left a void in leadership. The new President, Andrew Johnson, was a southerner. As you can imagine this bitter irony was not lost on the Radical Republicans who hated him even before he was President. Johnson proposed a plan similar to Lincoln's. Suffice it to say, congress was not amused. The relationship between Lincoln and Congress soured quickly.
I don’t see your list of choices. Peasants were the poorest people and serfs were the most poor. Serfs could not own land. They were tied to the land and worked the land for higher classes. If I saw the choices, I could be more precise.
Have a nice day.
The answer is pollution and acid rain due to industry and factories in urban areas.
Hope this helps!!! :)
I think it ignited a battle between state Supreme Court and federal Supreme Court ( lemme know if it’s correct)
Answer:
Explanation:
The 1973 Oil Embargo strained the U.S. economy that had grown dependent on foreign oil. The price of oil per barrel first doubled, then quadrupled, making the costs even higher on consumers and structural challenges to the stability of national economies.
