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>   

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.

==1865-1890

 

==1865-1890==

In the 1865-75 period, most writers took the view that the ex-Confederates were traitors and Johnson was their ally who threatened to undo the Union's  Constitutional achievements.  In the 1870s and 1880s many writers argued that Johnson and his allies were not traitors but blundered badly in rejecting the 14th Amendment and setting the stage for Radical Reconstruction. <ref> Fletcher M. Green, "Walter Lynwood Fleming: Historian of Reconstruction," ''The Journal of Southern History,'' Vol. 2, No. 4. (Nov., 1936), pp. 497-521.</ref>   

In the 1865-75 period, most writers took the view that the ex-Confederates were traitors and Johnson was their ally who threatened to undo the Union's  Constitutional achievements.  In the 1870s and 1880s many writers argued that Johnson and his allies were not traitors but blundered badly in rejecting the 14th Amendment and setting the stage for Radical Reconstruction. <ref> Fletcher M. Green, "Walter Lynwood Fleming: Historian of Reconstruction," ''The Journal of Southern History,'' Vol. 2, No. 4. (Nov., 1936), pp. 497-521.</ref>