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?