Revisionist historians/writers: One is too many (in this country)

I enjoy reading some of Gore Vidal's writings in his Point to Point Navigation some years ago, but never had an appetite for his Lincoln (a historical novel) as I consider him a 'revisionist' historian, if he can be considered a historian at all. He called Carl Sandburg's Lincoln a hagiography, and that is enough for me. I wonder what was his motive of making it a novel with an agenda?

He used Herndon's Lincoln as a resource, who didn't? My personal view is that William Herndon is 90% a truth teller and 10% a myth maker, and Vidal focused on that 10%.

Vidal did have a few interesting 'personal' connections to Lincoln's story. Both he and Robert Lincoln were Phillips Academy (Exeter) alumni, 80 years apart. His grandfather, the legendary blind Senator from Oklahoma, Thomas Gore, knew Robert Lincoln personally and talked to Gore Vidal about it.

Vidal's life long partner, Howard, died a few years ago and was buried nearby the Grief, the famous Saint-Gauden's statue at Rock Creek Cemetery, that was commissioned by Henry Adams (grandson of the sixth President and great-grandson of second President) when his wife killed herself. Henry Adams and John Hay (Lincoln's secretary) were close friends.

One of these days I’ll read Gore Vidal’s Lincoln, just to see what he was up to (I did read it in 2012.)

Another outrageous ‘revisionist’ history is the book by Patrick Buchanan: Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. I’ll talk about this in another post.  Buchanan is no historian.  He twice tried to get Republican presidential nominations and once as a Reform Party candidate; I am just glad he never made it.