Hullo, Strick-

I'm not mad, I'm not trying to be offensive, I'll do my best not to be pompous or bombastic as I know I can be.

Nor I.

if you'll admit the possibility, just the possibility that Northern accounts written during the Civil Rights movement might, just might, focus on the South's inequities and soft sell the South's grievances against the North.

I've no problem admitting that there's inherent bias in anything written by anyone at any time. Part of the human condition. But I'm suggesting you check some sources that were written both before "the Civil Rights Movement" (By which I assume you mean the late '1950s and 1960's) and since- a LOT of excellent stuff has come out in the last 20 years or so that has not yet made it into popular reference works or text books. Point is to see which way the preponderance of the evidence leads & go with that.

I won't even insist on call what was written long after the fact revisionist history.

Please don't. I wasn't going to get into this, but you brought it up, and it makes my teeth ache. "Revisionist History" is a meaningless redundancy, a bugaboo raised by certain types in an attempt to discredit that with which they don't agree without having to resort to factual discourse. History is necessarily written "after the fact" and all historical writing that's well done is by nature "revisionist", in that it is constantly being revised to incorporate new and/or more complete information, often to lessen prior observed bias & give a better picture of the past. All history is also an 'interpretation' to a greater or lesser degree- the historian doesn't have time travel available as a research tool. So playing the "Revisionist History" card is a ploy and usually an act of desperation. Earns ya no points with me.

The Test Oath ...wasn't a test of a willingness to be loyal to the Union ... it was a test to determine who to punish for supporting secession. The result was that the majority of white Texans were disenfranchised causing no little discontent.

This is going to sound flippant, but I can't help it- what precisely did they expect after taking up arms, attacking the government of the United States, and involving the country in a war that caused more casualties than all U.S. wars before or since?? To be sent to bed without their suppers? Surely these were people of some intelligence who did not expect their actions to have no consequences, and it does their memories no service for them to be infantilized by succeeding generations. One of the more maddening aspects of this whole situation to this day is that a lot of folks are still in denial and refuse to accept any responsibility after more than a century. (Not directed at you personally)

Jim Crow had nothing to do with the North's thirst for vengence against the South.

"Nothing to do with?" I was sort of with you up to this point, but this statement is nonsense. If you think about it a bit, I think you'll agree with me.

Northern accounts talk about the KKK in Texas during the Reconstruction.

"They" may (and I have no idea what accounts you're referring to), but I don't believe I did.

Calling these groups "the Klan" is same as someone in the 50s calling labor activists in the 1880s and 90s communists. Pure demagoguery.

Call 'em by any name you want, but White Supremacist groups were regularly killing Blacks, Republicans (both domestic Texan and Yankee varieties) & "Northern Sympathizers" and "collaborators". This is amply documented. KILLED. LYNCHED. SHOT DOWN IN THE STREET. Not 'treated harshly', not "generally unjust'. Took place before the Federal troops were sent in, took place again once the troops were withdrawn. This occurred throughout the States of the former Confederacy- I don't mean to single Texas out. Also, the Klan of the immediate post-Civil War period was considerably MORE vicious than that of the 1920's, not less.

I see Northern accounts claim that the fact that Texas was producing more cotton after Reconstruction shows it actually had a positive impact on the economy

I can't speak to this point as I have no knowledge, but as you've stated it it does sound like a bogus claim to me.

Of course, there wasn't any [hard currency] since most if not all of the specie in the state had gone into the war [snip]... The economy collapsed.

And the North is somehow responsible for the State of Texas bankrupting itself by prosecuting a war that it chose to join and enthusiastically participated in? I'm confused...

I'm looking forward to another stinging reply with advice on which histories to read.

Well, I hope I've disappointed you at least a little bit.
I don't mean to tell you which histories to read. I suggested you refer to the extensive bibliographies in the two works I mentioned and use them as a resource listing or guide to select for yourself some works of interest. Lot of good material out there. Might just give you a bit of a different perspective.

Best, Greg