Was Reconstuction a "Splendid Failure?"

I agree with Eric Foner's opinion on whether the Reconstruction of the South was a "Splendid Failure." He said that Reconstruction was a failure because it told Southern blacks that there would be a free society (temporarily of course.) The traditional portrait of Reconstruction easily identified a set of heroes and villans, it enjoyed the imprimatur of the nation's leading scholars, and it accorded with the political and social realities of the first half of this century. The "revising" history of Reconstruction began in the documents from the survivors of the era, like John R. Lynch, a blac Congressman from MI. But in the 1960's, the full force of the revisionist wave came out. Then, all of the traditional values of Reconstruction was lost. The new version took it's place. The advent of the Radical Reconstruction in 1867 let freedmen enjoy political power. But, many blacks only held a small political position. There were also corruptions, like moral standards in the government adn private enterprise, that were at low ebb throught the nation in the post-war years.
So, in conclusion, there were many things that went wrong in the era of Reconstruction, and it was obviously a failure. But it was splendid for it's animating vision, that society in which social advancement would be open all on the basis of individual merit, not inherited caste distinctions. The vision is very old and remains are still to this day relevent to a nation still unresolved in the legacy of emancipation.