Skip to main content

Did Reconstruction help or hurt the South and why?

Depending on your point of view, Reconstruction can be viewed as harmful or helpful to the South. I will explain both points of view so you can then make a decision.


There are ways Reconstruction helped the South. Before the Civil War, the South’s economy was primarily agricultural. After the Civil War, the economy of the South became more diverse. New industries were built in the South. While the South still had a lot of farming, there were other kinds of jobs available as a result of Reconstruction. Another change is that the railroads expanded into the South as a result of Reconstruction. Before Reconstruction, most people traveled in the South by water. Most products were shipped by water. That changed after Reconstruction. African-Americans also got new freedoms and new rights. African-American males could vote, and some held political office. While some of these improvements were temporary, it was a step forward.


It could be argued that Reconstruction hurt the South. The South regressed after Reconstruction ended. The attitudes of many white southerners didn’t change. Many of the rights African-Americans had gained were eliminated or significantly curtailed. Reconstruction created a lot of resentment in the South. Many southerners believed that Reconstruction was forced upon them. They rebelled against the Republican Party and refused to vote for their candidates for many years. This led to the development of hate groups such as the KKK, which thrived in the South for a significant period of time. Some southerners believed the growth of industries ruined the southern way of life. The rural and relaxed atmosphere was changed to some degree by the expansion of industries into the South.


Now it is your turn to decide. Did Reconstruction help or hurt the South?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more