2

What were the long-term effects of Recomstruction in the south? has several questions posed in it:

  • What were the long-term effects of Reconstruction?

  • Is there any truth to what Paisley is saying? [Figuratively speaking] (We're still sifting through the rubble, after 150 years.)

This question has 4 Upvotes, so presumably people think it is a good question. Before the question was migrated, I removed the references to Paisley, because they didn't seem to be useful for inclusion. Paisley was speaking figuratively, so what truth in his claim are we supposed to be verifying? What is unclear to me is if the Reconstruction was:

a 15-year policy [...] in which the military was stationed in the South in order to maintain law and order now that the Confederate government was gone, help rebuild the infrastructure after the devastation of the war, and ensure the equal treatment of whites and blacks

How could the south still be suffering from a rebuilding effort? If Reconstruction rebuilt the railroads/roads/cities then could present-day southern states be suffering, because those railroads/roads/cites exist? If reconstruction guaranteed southern blacks the right to vote, can the south be suffering from blacks being allowed to vote today? This question seems oddly worded.

Should the Paisley information be removed from the question? (If not, what does it add to the question?)

Should the question be about the negative effects of Reconstruction, or something else? (Perhaps a more balanced positive & negative effects of Reconstruction? I can't see how we are supposed to measure the effects of a rebuilding effort on the south (opposed to the normal infrastructure, equal treatment, and crime statistics of the North) 150 years later without getting a lot of compounding factors in the measurement, but is that what we are supposed to be measuring?

| |
2

"Should the question be about the negative effects of Reconstruction, or something else? "

That's up to the asker. If you feel that positive (or full +/-) effects of Reconstruction should be explored, simply ask about them in a separate question, and link it to this one via comment.

"Should the Paisley information be removed from the question?"

IMHO, it doesn't add much. It merely serves as a roundabout "why I asked the question" context, and doesn't really need to be there unless someone starts questioning "why would anyone care"

| |
  • Having said that, I'm not sure the question can be answered well outside of a book. But I'm far from an expert on that period so I don't feel confident in VTCing – DVK Dec 26 '13 at 0:31
  • I completely agree with the first point, but the reason why I brought it up is that the OP is looking for negative effects today, of a rebuilding effort 150 years ago. This is akin to asking what the negative effects today exist of the rebuilding effort in Japan after WWII. It seems kind of odd to ask for negative effects for a rebuilding effort. I suppose it might make sense if the answers understood what the OP meant, but so far we have two answers that chronicles what did happen, but no current negative effects, with the other making lots of unsubstantiated claims. – user1873 Dec 26 '13 at 0:54
  • As to the second point, I agree with the "why I asked," what I disagree with is the OP asking, "Is Paisley right?" There is no way to verify what Paisley meant figuratively, and the OP seems to understand he wasn't being literal. – user1873 Dec 26 '13 at 0:58
  • @user1873 - Reconstruction wasn't all about just rebuilding, though, AFAIK – DVK Dec 26 '13 at 1:45
  • I realize that. But from the Wikipedia page I linked to before the OP rolled it back, the other stuff it included was getting the South back to self governance, reseating those states in Congress (some blacks back then and today are in former confederate states), the passage of the 13th-15th Amendments, and eventually sparking the Civil Rights Movement. I don't hear people complaint that those are negative effects. – user1873 Dec 26 '13 at 2:48
  • 1
    I think those lyrics should be removed from the question, since they are just confusing. They aren't really related, and they are that kind of random unneeded flavour that is better not to have. – o0'. Dec 29 '13 at 17:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .