Final answer:
The fairness of the Military Reconstruction Act depends on perspective; it was fair in aiming to protect the rights of freed slaves but foul to some for imposing martial law on southern states.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether the Military Reconstruction Act was fair is complex, given its historical impact and intentions. The Act, passed in 1867, was seen as fair by its Radical Republican authors as it aimed to protect the freedoms of the newly emancipated freed people and reconstruct the South in a more egalitarian way subsequent to the Civil War. Conversely, President Andrew Johnson and others viewed it as foul, considering it to be both unnecessary and unconstitutional, leading to Johnson's vetoes (which were then overridden by Congress).
In assessing its fairness, one could argue it was fair because it provided necessary protection and civil rights for freed slaves and ensured the southern states fully accepted the new amendments and laws of a reunified country. On the other hand, it imposed martial law and military governance over these states, which can be viewed as an excessive use of federal power and a punitive measure. Thus, the Military Reconstruction Act can be seen as both fair in its goals and foul in its methods, dependent on the perspective taken.