It is called critical reading. Perhaps that is what he was saying before the war as well. However, reminicences, from both sides, are notorious for their bias and distortion and must be read critically. For example, in George McClellan's autobiography, he paints himself in a very good light that looked quite foolish when Confederate papers became available for comparison. Likewise, you've got postwar accounts by men like Alexander Stephens who directly contradicted their prewar positions to sugarcoat their role in history. So no, I'm not going to simply read something written after the war by someone trying to justify their actions in a war they just lost and blindly accept it if there is contemporary evidence available for comparison.