Some historians argue that radical reconstruction was not radical enough. after studying the events of the late 19th century, defend whether or not you agree with this position. what are the long-term implications?

I would need to agree that Radical Reconstruction was not sufficiently radical. The possibility of this was to change the south's general culture and conviction framework and make it more like the north. However the distinctive branches of the government couldn't deal with what was best for the country. Congress would pass laws that would help the liberated slaves, and after that the president would veto them, so congress would dwarf and abrogate the president. This occurred again and again. Because of this it was greatly hard for what the radicals needed to happen to be effective. There was insufficient power behind the new laws and amendment's, at any dislike they had utilized amid the common war