Even when revisionism was at its height, however, its more optimistic findings were challenged, as influential historians portrayed change in the post-Civil War years as fundamentally “superficial.” Persistent racism, these postrevisionist scholars argued, had negated efforts to extend justice to blacks, and the failure to distribute land prevented the freedmen from achieving true autonomy and made their civil and political rights all but meaningless. In the 1970s and 1980s, a new generation of scholars, black and white, extended this skeptical view to virtually every aspect of the period.
Even when revisionism was at its height, however, its more optimistic findings were challenged, as influential historians portrayed change in the post-Civil War years as fundamentally “superficial.” Persistent racism, these postrevisionist scholars argued, had negated efforts to extend justice to blacks, and the failure to distribute land prevented the freedmen from achieving true autonomy and made their civil and political rights all but meaningless. In the 1970s and 1980s, a new generation of scholars, black and white, extended this skeptical view to virtually every aspect of the period. Recent studies of Reconstruction politics and ideology have stressed the “conservatism” of Republican policymakers, even at the height of Radical influence, and the continued hold of racism and federalism despite the extension of citizenship rights to blacks and the enhanced scope of national authority. Studies of federal policy in the South portrayed the army and the Freedmen’s Bureau as working hand in glove with former slaveholders to thwart the freedmen’s aspirations and force them to return to plantation labor. At the same time, investigations of Southern social history emphasized the survival of the old planter class and the continuities between the Old South and the New. The postrevisionist interpretation represented a striking departure from nearly all previous accounts of the period, for whatever their differences, traditional and revisionist historians at least agreed that Reco...
...more
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Post-1960s Revisionism: Challenged the 'good' that came from Reconstruction as told by the revisionists. They are referred to by Foner as "Post-Revisionists". Instead of the revolutionary effort that the Dunning school and Revisionists tagged on the Reconstruction, the Post-Revisionists interpret the period as a "Conservative" effort with relative minor changes. Negro treatment, citizenship rights, and economic opportunity were little changed.
![A Short History of Reconstruction [Updated Edition]](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1420523330l/24316207.jpg)
