Final answer:
Congressional Reconstruction, driven by Radical Republicans, aimed for significant societal changes in the South and protections for freed slaves, often contrasting with President Johnson's lenient approach toward reintegration with minimal changes to the social order.
Step-by-step explanation:
The contrast between Congressional Reconstruction plans and Johnson’s Reconstruction plans can be understood through their differing approaches toward the South post-Civil War. Congressional Reconstruction, largely driven by Radical Republicans, focused on transforming Southern society, protection for the newly freed slaves, and punishment for the former Confederacy. In contrast, President Andrew Johnson sought a swifter reintegration of Southern states into the Union with much more lenient terms. This included rapid readmission of Southern states with minimal safeguards for the former slaves, which was perceived as too forgiving by Congress.
Johnson favored an approach that benefitted non-slaveholders while seemingly neglecting the rights of former slaves. Meanwhile, Congressional leaders pushed for policies that would punish former slaveholders and encourage enmity between planters and the rest of society, thus advocating for a significant reformation of Southern societal structures. The Radical Republicans aimed to ensure full citizenship and equal rights for former slaves and were willing to implement harsher measures and federal oversight to achieve these goals, often overriding Johnson's vetoes.
In summary, Congressional Reconstruction plans constituted a comprehensive overhaul of Southern society including harsher requirements for readmission and greater protections for freedmen, while Johnson's plans called for a lenient and speedy reintegration of Southern states without substantially altering the existing social order.