Arguing about the meaning of historical events does not equate to denialism.
Denying one’s one stated premise for launching the Civil War in favor of an excuse invented after the fact is, well, denialism.
Revisionism might be a better term for some post-conflict efforts to elevate the standing of certain figures (and demote others). One Civil War history I read awhile back had an alternate take on the famous action by the 20th Maine at Little Round Top (Gettysburg). This regiment had defended its position at the extreme flank of the Union line against superior numbers, nearly ran out of ammunition and was in danger of being overrun until its commander ordered it to charge the Confederates (who were routed, saving the day). The alternate history claimed that no one actually ordered a charge (it was supposedly spontaneous or something) and that the fleeing Confederates weren’t actually fleeing at all (a Confederate regimental commander claimed his unit had orders to get somewhere else fast, and were merely hurrying to their new positions :D).
I’m sure we’ll see some additional new takes on old events during the upcoming “celebrations”. Maybe someone will have compelling new evidence to alter old impressions :dubious:. I do not anticipate that secession can ever take on a rosy glow, no matter how madly the “states rights” crowd spins it.
Actually, the “revisionism” in the case of NBF is to do anything much more than make him a subject for Civil War trivia buffs- he wasn’t a important general at all. In fact, in the Oxford History of that period, he is mentioned once in a list of noted CSA Cavalry raiders. He was about 25th in rank seniority, being the very last to be promoted to *** General. He was not the commander at any of the major well known battles. And in fact his record as a general is rather poor, although he was a excellent cavalry leader, doing quite well in a number of raids and as one of the 2 CSA cavalry corps commanders at Battle of Chickamauga. He did command at Battle of Brice’s Crossroads, and routed a superiour Union force, but that was a rather minor battle, having only 12000 total men engaged as opposed to 10X that number at Chickamauga. In other words, like I said, if he was given only the fame he deserved as a Commander, mostly only Civil war history buffs would know his name.
However, in the South, he comes in either 2nd or 3rd in the list of glorified CSA Generals, ie things named after him, statues, and what not. wiki “As of 2007, Tennessee had 32 dedicated historical markers linked to Nathan Bedford Forrest, more than are dedicated to the three former Presidents associated with the state: Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, and Andrew Johnson (none of whom was born in Tennessee).[46] Finally, the Tennessee legislature established July 13 as “Nathan Bedford Forrest Day.”[47]”
Well, no, but denying there’s any question about a particular event is more an act of faith than of historical exegesis. And I’ll just leave it at that.
Heh. Chamberlain’s charge would’ve been a hell of a spontaneous maneuver. (Maybe the 19th Century version of a flash mob?)