What the author fails to appreciate is that even 150 years ago, John A was held in low esteem by natives, metis, Catholics, francophones and liberals, among others.  It's easy to find this in the written record at the time. In the 1867 election his party only got 34% of the vote, and much of it was despite him, because of George-Étienne Cartier and others. What is novel now is that those opinions are no longer being dismissed. He was not a widely respected man in his own time, but his image was brushed up by the Orange Lodge, his allies, and Tories who had few successes, and later by a need to emulate the worship of founders in other countries.  He was an embarrassment to the country, then as now, and it is claiming otherwise that is revisionism.