My point is that historians (and the field of history) are not divided into "pro-North" or "pro-South" groups. One really doesn't find a "Southern point of view" or "Northern point of view" in modern historiography. That type of division is pretty much solely among history "buffs" or history enthusiasts.

I see the question as akin to asking which historians of ancient Europe are "pro-Roman" or "pro-Barbarian." You won't really find such a division among modern historians.

Historians do have biases, and may identify with certain people, regions, ideas, etc. But I believe what we are really talking about here is not which historians grew up in the South, consider themselves Southern, etc., but which historians push pro-Southern imagery into their work, or believe the South was "right" in regards to secession, the war, etc.

That isn't something many historians do, even if they are partial to the South.

Overall, the main reason one does not find many "pro-Southern" or "Southern leaning" historians is because that isn't how most historians operate.