In historical fact, Confederate revisionism began even before the Civil War had been fully lost, and it began at the top, with Jefferson Davis & others who hoped to lie their way out of full responsibility for the greatest tragedy in US history.
And the fact that you chose to believe all their propaganda nonsense does not make even a word of it really true, FRiend.
“Revisionism” is a very interesting concept. It implies, at least, that there is an absolute historical truth that an attempt is being made to revise, generally for political gain.
As Bro points out, attempts to revise the actual history started even before the end of the war and continued after it. The most obvious example is the attempt to claim that secession wasn’t really about slavery, which of course flies in the face of all the actual evidence from 1860 and 1861. The genesis of the Lost Cause movement, attempts to make the southern cause more acceptable in a time when defense of slavery just no longer was acceptable.
Meanwhile, on the victors’ side there was a general consensus that the War had been an attempt by evil men to destroy the United States. By the later 19th century this started to fall apart, and up through the 1950s I think it is reasonable to claim that these was a basic consensus on the War:
The War was caused by secession, which was at root caused by a desire to protect and eventually expand slavery, though many other factors were also involved. Southerners fought honorably and bravely for their freedom but were nevertheless defeated. No harm, no foul.
Since the 60s I think there have been two main strands of revisionist history.
Strand 1: Lost Cause stuff revived. Secession and war had nothing at all to do with slavery. Secession was about States’ Rights (specific rights of the States being violated somehow never specified) and tariffs. Union war aims were ignoble and mercenary, while those of the CSA were the defense of freedom. Ahem.
Proponents tend to be conservatives, though I could debate their right to that honorable title.
Strand 2: Secession was ONLY about slavery. Slaves largely freed themselves. The CSA was mostly not defeated by Union armies, it fell apart internally due to the resistance of slaves and others. They agree with Strand 1 that Union war aims were mercenary and ignoble.
Proponents tend to be liberals or socialists, which is why they can find nothing honorable or noble in the actions of either side. Except of course for the supposed passive resistance of the slaves.
Personally, I think the early 20th century consensus was reasonably close to the truth. Though both of the revisionist strands have important truths to add to our understanding of the period.
Just my take.
Revisionism is meaningless except with reference to what it is revising.
“And the fact that you chose to believe all their propaganda nonsense does not make even a word of it really true, FRiend.”
Then why are you in such a twist about it? :-)