So you don't like historical revisionists? The revolution in constitutional law embraced by Webster and Lincoln must have genuinely upset you, then. And the massive revision of U.S. history after the Civil War. And Bill Clinton's revision (with Marxist help) of U.S. history 15 years ago, to help him do 'Rat politics at the expense of the South.
How about Pearl Harbor revisionism, under whose Klieg lights FDR suddenly doesn't look so hot -- and in fact looks like a downright skulking scoundrel and rotter? I'll bet Doris Kearns Goodrat doesn't like Pearl Harbor revisionists at all. She has such happy memories of growing up in the feelgood Golden Age of Uncle Joe -- er, Franklin.
A hopefully brief change of subject:
Pal, your words describe what conservatives have always felt about FDR's New Deal & other domestic policies -- policies that the South most solidly and consistently voted to support.
Modern "revisionism" only effects the question of whether Roosevelt provoked and knew specifics about the coming Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I think he did, but the evidence is slim at best, and a lot of good Freepers honestly disagree with me.
Revisionism can mean learning new facts and adjusting one's views to new information, so I can't say it's always wrong. What's objectionable is the idea that somehow pro-Confederate views represent some kind of original truth and that everything else is revisionism.
If you look back to how people looked at the war in the 1860s you come up with something very different from the consensus view of the 1960s centennial that a lot of people take as the original view of the Civil War. Post-bellum Southerners tried to whitewash their earlier support for slavery.
Early 20th century professors, North and South, angry at the Republicans and industrialists who dominated their era, had a lot more sympathy for the rebellion than their fathers who fought against it did (sometimes even more than their fathers who fought for it did). For them the war was the fault of radical abolitionists and a blundering generation of politicians. By the time the centennial came around, established attitudes were very different from what they'd been a century before.
As for Webster and Lincoln, were they really the revisionists? Certainly they were closer to the spirit of 1787 than Calhoun and his followers were.