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.
To mention Lincoln and the spirit of 1787 in the same sentence is both a hilarious and heinous bastardization of history unless the goon is cast in the role of the King George III. Really funny and sick.