Regarding the differences between three main approaches to reconstruction, it is worth mentioning that Abraham Lincoln has urged his contemporaries to restore the Union from the onset of the actual war. Thus, his efforts could only be characterized as rapid. The main difference between Lincoln’s 10 percent plan and the two other reconstruction initiatives laid in the fact that Lincoln rejected the ever-growing amount of calls from Congress to punish the South. While Lincoln’s plan clearly dictated amnesty should be granted to all those taking an oath, Andrew Johnson’s plan excluded high Confederate officials from the list of those who were potentially eligible for pardons (Corbett et al., 2014).
However, both reconstruction plans required states to abolish slavery, which was a crucial factor in either being readmitted into the Union or not. The Congressional plan also pushed such a requirement, yet fully excluded all the Confederate officials from possible participation in the new government. Congress had criticized Lincoln for being too lenient, which was why the Congressional plan fought the leniency by claiming that the majority of those in a state must take an oath of layabout, rather than only one tenth as proposed by Lincoln.
The Compromise of 1877 ended the era of Reconstruction, while disregarding the rights of the black population. As a result of the events of 1876-1877, the political and civil rights of African Americans were not protected, which subsequently led to black voters being disenfranchised (LeReginald, 2011). The Compromise has altered the course of history the era of Radical Reconstruction seemingly secured for African Americans. Ending the Reconstruction caused the North to stop the majority of its efforts to influence the South and ensure the former slaves had certain political and social rights.
References
Corbett, P. S., Volker, J., Lund, J. M., Pfannestiel, T., Waskiewicz, S., & Vickery, P. (2014). U.S. history. OpenStax.
LeReginald, J. (2011). Reconstruction: African Americans and the promise of failure. XULAneXUS, 8(2), 40-47. Web.