What were the differences between congressional and presidential reconstruction plans?

What were the differences between congressional and presidential reconstruction plans?

While Presidential Reconstruction was designed to simply bring the South back into the Union, Congressional Reconstruction intended to completely alter the fabric of Southern society and make sure the former Confederate states were punished.

What were the similarities and differences between presidential Reconstruction and Congressional Reconstruction?

There were two different approaches to Reconstruction. Presidential Reconstruction was the approach that promoted more leniency towards the South regarding plans for readmission to the Union. Congressional Reconstruction blamed the South and wanted retribution for causing the Civil War.

What were some of the major differences in the plans for reconstruction presented by Lincoln Johnson and the Radical Republicans?

Johnson’s plan wasn’t as willing to give as much freedom to newly free slaves as Lincolns was. Johnson wanted to give the land back to the south unlike the RR. Johnson’s plan gave less protection to freed slaves then the Radical Republican’s plan. Unlike the 10% plan, the plan they had wanted to punish the south.

What were the two different plans for reconstruction?

The Initial Congressional Plan. The Andrew Johnson Reconstruction Plan. The Radical Republican Reconstruction Plan.

What did all three reconstruction plans have in common?

The Lincoln, Johnson, and Congress Reconstruction plans were similar in that they all sought to restore the Union to the pre-war period. The three plans required oaths of loyalty to be taken by those seeking pardon. High Confederate officials were barred from being granted pardons.

What did the congressional plan for reconstruction include?

Congressional Reconstruction included the stipulation that to reenter the Union, former Confederate states had to ratify the 14th and 15th Amendments. Congress also passed the Military Reconstruction Act, which attempted to protect the voting rights and civil rights of African Americans.

What did all three Reconstruction plans have in common?

What impact did Reconstruction policies have on the North and the South?

Reconstruction helped the North to modernize very quickly, unlike the South. The effects of the Industrial Revolution, a period of rapid industrialization, had resulted in factories being created in the North, where they multiplied and flourished. By contrast, the Southern economy still relied on agriculture.

What were the 3 major Reconstruction plans?

Reconstruction is generally divided into three phases: Wartime Reconstruction, Presidential Reconstruction and Radical or Congressional Reconstruction, which ended with the Compromise of 1877, when the U.S. government pulled the last of its troops from southern states, ending the Reconstruction era.

When did the Congressional plan of reconstruction end?

The Congressional Plan of Reconstruction was ultimately adopted, and it did not officially end until 1877, when Union troops were pulled out of the South. This withdrawal caused a reversal of many of the tenuous advances made in equality, and many of the issues surrounding Reconstruction are still a part of society today.

Who was in charge of reconstruction during the Civil War?

Presidential Reconstruction. However, on May 29, 1865, Johnson issued his own reconstruction proclamation that was largely in agreement with Lincoln’s plan. Johnson, like Lincoln, held that the southern states had never legally left the Union, and he retained most of Lincoln’s 10 percent plan.

What was Lincoln’s 10 percent plan for reconstruction?

Presidential Reconstruction. Lincoln’s Proclamation was called the “10 percent plan”: Once 10 percent of the voting population in any state had taken the oath, a state government could be put in place and the state could be reintegrated into the Union.

Why was reconstruction necessary in the United States?

These States have not gone out of the Union, therefore reconstruction is unnecessary. I do not mean to treat them as inchoate States, but merely as existing under a temporary suspension of their government, provided always they elect loyal men. The doctrine of coercion to preserve a State in the Union has been vindicated by the people.