Why have some historians argued that reconstruction was a failure?

Found this on quizlet:

Because there were bad consequences

FAILURE.

-The collapse of the Radical Republican Party

-The lack of acceptance of former slaves by whites and their unwillingness to give African Americans the rights they deserved

-"national disgrace"

-Radical republicans having selfish intentions. Republican's wanted to exploit Southern labor by using blacks as a way to get more Republican votes from the South

in the 1800s, locomotives powered by steam made transportation faster and cheaper. the resulting rapid growth of railroads led to the connection of the atlantic and pacific railroad in oklahoma city in 1897.

in the last years of the century, the improvement of steam-based engines the expansion and growth of railroads. this growth increased when the companies started to build and expand, such as the atlantic and pacific railroad, which connected new mexico with california, and missouri with oklahoma. many of these new networks were built in oklahoma, and these changes transportation henceforward.

du boi was considered a radical because he wanted the immediate end for segregation. the biggest different between him and booker t. washington is that, even though washington believed that segregation should be considered illegal, he did not believe at all that a law was needed to keep blacks away from whites and that this would be something natural (to have the races apart) for a long time until society adjusted, while du boi believe that agitation was the only way to end segregation.