Reconstruction After the War Between the States

That is a historical fact!

From: http://americanhistory.about.com/od/reconstruction/a/Reconstruction.htm

The 14th amendment may have been adopted illegally and it has been used to expand the power of the Federal Government beyond anything envisioned by those who wrote the Constitution.

Some were, most were not.

Using Lincoln's rationale for invading the Confederacy the answer is yes. Using the rationale of the Constitution and the Confederacy, No!

 

These are excellent questions, and the facts expose the truth about the lies of the Yankee of the post war years.

Obviously, as cited by OR in the previous post.

The Yankee usurpers. It wasn't until over ten years later that local authorities finally saw their necks being released from being under the boot of the Yankee storm troopers.

It can be shown that the plight of the former southern slaves were actually worse off after the war.

They no longer resided under the care of the owner, but had to fend for themselves for basic needs - shelter, medical, food, education...

For the most part, the slaves were totally unprepared for the plight they were forced to endure.

Then, with the rising resentment of all things Yankee, the former slaves also felt the sting of being blamed for the punishment impressed by the Yankees upon the south.

Typical of the Yankee, they lied to the slaves before, during and after the war.

The slaves had been promised an acre and a mule, but provided nothing but misery and poverty by the Yankee usurpers.

No, I think that the culture and diversity of Virginia was so different that the two should have agreed to separate much earlier than they did. Sure it took the vote of Virginia to secede from the Union to push the matter of W.V. to boil over, but it had long been an issue.

W. V. folks are truly a unique "bred" compared to the V. folks. They have to be. The conditions of life in W. V. isn't the "John Boy" living of Virginia.

 

I agree with OR and agedman on their posts on all issues but #3

YES!! they were. No they were not better off financially. They were desperately poor and struggled for survival, right along with their white neighbors. But they were also free. Starvation and disease killed many during the carpetbagging years, but there was hope for a better day, and a freedom of choice thy never had before. Yes they were woefully unprepared, but they were free. Would you rather be a starving free man or a well fed slave?

Reconstruction was an total failure unless the real goals were to enrich Yankee republicans who effectively stole what was left of the south, and ensure continuing generations of poverty in the "rebelious states."

 

One of the tragedies of Lincoln being assassinated was that reconstruction followed a very different and bad path than the one he had proposed. The history of our country since then would be so different if his wisdom had been followed.

 

I used to think the same way, and held Lincoln in high regard.

Modern history and embellishments has molded a person that is vastly different (imo) than that of the true "honest" Abe.

Had the civil war not catapulted him into the continual glaring media circus that has made more of the man than he was, he no doubt would have gone down as a man who liked to tell stories and far less as someone who was pivotal in American history.