Changes

The scholarly interpretation or '''historiography of [[Reconstruction]]''' has swung back and forth several times. Nearly all historians, however, have concluded it was a failure.<ref>McPherson 1965</ref>  Northern historians first took an approach of how the Civil War and Reconstruction preserved the Union and destroyed slavery.  After 1900 Southern historians emphasized the corruption that spoiled whatever good there was, and emphasized the blacks werepawns in the hands of [[Carpetbaggers]]. In recent years historians have adopted a [[Neoabolitionist]] pro-black perspective, that sees the failure in not fully guaranteeing genuine freedom and civil rights for blacks.

The scholarly interpretation or '''historiography of [[Reconstruction]]''' has swung back and forth several times. Nearly all historians, however, have concluded it was a failure.<ref>McPherson 1965</ref>  Northern historians first took an approach of how the [[American Civil War|Civil War]] and Reconstruction preserved the Union and destroyed slavery.  After 1900 Southern historians emphasized claims of corruption that spoiled whatever good there was, and claimed that blacks were pawns in the hands of [[Carpetbaggers]]. In recent years historians have adopted a [[Neoabolitionist]] pro-black perspective, that sees the failure in not fully guaranteeing genuine freedom and civil rights for blacks.

==1865-1890==

==1865-1890==