Posted on 08/21/2017 4:46:48 PM PDT by euram
In the ongoing debate about Confederate monuments, Slate has republished a 2011 article by professor James M. Lundberg attacking Ken Burns’ monumental “Civil War” documentary. Although he concludes with an appreciation of Burns’ achievement, he disapprovingly notes the series’ sentimental tone and points to problems such as its “tidy vision of national consensus,” being “deeply misleading and reductive,” and its “careful 15 minute portrait of slavery’s role in the coming of the war” being nearly negated by Shelby Foote’s 15-second anecdote about a “ragged Confederate who obviously didn’t own any slaves” telling his inquiring Union captors that he’s fighting “because you’re down here.”
Lundberg’s complaints, like many currently raised against Confederate statues, strike me as misleading and reductive. We might start by considering the documentary’s sentimental tone. Now, sentimental appeal as a tool of rhetoric is not the same as cogent argument, and one should immediately admit the obvious: the documentary is manipulative.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Here’s why, all of the sudden the libtards are afraid of the Confederacy: They know that, before long, the prosperous, liberty-loving red states will break off again, leaving the blue states with the national debt their leaders created, and the throngs of freeloaders those same leaders enable. Without the taxes from the red-state producers, the blue states won’t have a chance.
The late Shelby Foote was the star of that documentary. Far more insightful and objective in his commentary on the two combatants than leftist historian Barbara Fields who came across as your typical angry lefty.
The late Shelby Foote was the star of that documentary.
>>><<<
Yes, he was outstanding.
Ken Burns pushed the War Between The States mythology that that war was fought over slavery. Mr. Burns, an excellent filmologist, was not correct in his history about some of that unnecessary conflict. Slavery was not the reason nor the cause of Lincoln’s war...he it to did preserve the ‘union’ but at a terrible cost....the South had asked for a relief from high Northern tariffs for years...the rest is history.
Yep. He’s the only reason for watching it again.
The first time through left me in tatters. The Antifa PUKES living in Mom’s Basement are 100% CLUELESS as to the spark they are fanning. (And so are their Mothers!)
*SPIT*
Without the food maybe, but states like New Jersey and Connecticut pay a lot more in taxes than they get back in revenue.
I read some of Shelby’s essays when I was a student in university about 1990. I’d shudder to think what would happen to him nowadays if he were to try to set foot in the insane asylums that are supposed to be universities. Places that have rooms painted pink with stuffed animals and videos of puppies but would probably have very little or no tolerance for his writings on the Civil War and South.
I recall discussions in both high school and university to the effect that if slavery had anything to do with Lincoln’s motives, it was to stop the blacks from escaping into the North from the Southern plantations. Northern whites were apparently getting fed up with blacks coming into their communities the way they were.
Texas could legally secede now. It is part of the charter. Maybe they to ought to do it while they can. It would be devastating loss but they are almost purple now. We know now that we have an entrenched uniparty.
Trump cannot seem to get any help. His Administration is now run by liberals. If Texas wants to stay Texas maybe they should.
Have blacks ever said a public thank you to all the whites who were killed or maimed in the Union Army?
I am wondering if anyone can give me a hand refuting the point a person was making in another forum.
She said that most of the Civil War monuments were actually put up at the turn of the century, the 20’s and the 60’s, supposedly more as a ‘message’ to those pushing for civil rights than as any direct honoring of the CSA or its ideals...
Trying to refute this, at least as to the chronology (can’t argue meaning with a leftist, but it would seem weird if they were more tied to the Democrat KKK than the direct honoring of CSA soldiers)
Thanks in advance
I seem to recall that a healthy male slave at auction would cost around $2,000 in 1860 dollars. That's around $55 thousand in current dollars, or well beyond the reach of any but the most wealthy.
My great grandfather was a Union soldier but I would never dispute the fact that the last thing on Confederate soldiers' minds was slavery or its extension to the west. They were defending their homeland and they were as American as their opponents.
This was all laid to rest a long time ago until the ignoramus press and leftists decided to make something a hundred and sixty years ago (ironically, committed by Democrats) a 21st century issue.
The first half of that documentary series was quite watchable and informative. It was quite clear that the war wasn’t initially about slavery, and that many confederates who fought didn’t own slaves.
[The late Shelby Foote was the star of that documentary.]
He sounded like he just walked off the battlefield with first hand observations. He was excellent.
Well, we could always have a rerun of Alex Haley’s “ROOTS”. It showed slavery in all its ugly brutality.
1.5 to 2% of southerners owned slaves (3.5% max).
Only the rich could afford them. They were expensive.
But all those other lads were there happily risking their lives for the rich plantation owners. Because even though they could not afford slaves, and would never be able to afford slaves, they were so obsessed with the idea they were willing to die for it.
No.
Slavery was a flash point but the issue was states rights.
There was at least one black woman whose narrative I really appreciated. Barbara somebody? Poor memory. As a result of seeing THE CIVIL WAR, I went out and bought the 3 volume work of Shelby Foote. Still have it.
It’s not part of the charter. It WAS part of the charter when Texas first came into the union as a state, but that was out the window when they seceded and were defeated in the war. There was no such exit clause in the terms under which they were re-admitted,
How about a new show called “Real Roots” were we follow black families after their tribe was defeated by another tribe. And they begged to be allowed to be slaves because it beat the hell out of being eaten.
The world sucked in 1800. But it sucked far less in the UK and the US that almost any other place on the planet.
I don’t give a damn about slavery any longer. Everyone can get over it. All those people are dead - except for people who keep slaves now. Plenty of that still in north Africa and the ME.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.