Why We Need A Good Dose Of Ken Burns’ ‘Civil War’ Documentary Right Now

The Federalist ^ | 21 August 2017 | Gregory S Bucher

[Chasaway]

I’ve heard that argument. And the Southern Poverty Law Center has pushed that narrative...and I’ve seen a graph. Something like around 1910 - 1920 and around 1940 - 1950 there was a “spike” in monument erection.

Uhmmmm....my understanding was that those coincide with the 50th and 100th anniversary of the CW and these were celebrations and recognitions, not racist “messages” or intimidation.

[jjotto]

Interest then was sparked by reunions of old CW veterans from North and South, and then later as the reality sunk in of the last surviving veterans of the CW passing.

We’ve seen this also more recently with WW2 veterans.

[rockrr]

Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

[RedStateRocker]

Thanks. Makes sense that the 50th and 100th would see these being put up; figured there had to be something more reasonable than the SPLC interpretation.

[jeffersondem]

“Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?”

Sorry I have offended you. I did not intend to put you on the spot with my question.

[DiogenesLamp]

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...

Someone on another thread pointed out that after the Civil War, the South was destitute and impoverished. There was no money for any statutes to honor their people until after the turn of the Century. By the 1920s, there were still quite a lot of Civil War Veterans around, and so the people of their community honored them when they could afford to do so.

I don't know if this applies to all such statues, but it makes sense regarding the ones installed around the turn of the Century.

[jeffersondem]

“Burns doesn’t know anything about Vietnam. Nor does his assistant Novick.”

The first thing anybody needs to know about Ken Burns: Ken Burns is a liberal.

[DiogenesLamp]

I want you to go out to the Internet and look at the various Acts of Secession that the Confederate states passed to secede from the Union.

A lot of people try to make something of these "acts of secession" by focusing on the ones that talk about slavery.

These states were Slave States when they were in the Union, and they remained Slave States when they left the Union. How is this a cause for war?

You pretty much won't find "tariff." In the South Carolina resolution of principles passed to explain the secession,

Shows what you know.

[DiogenesLamp]

I wonder why we haven’t heard from Mr. Burns? I know that he would be against confederate monument removal, but he is also a big lefty.

Which is exactly why you haven't heard from him.

Ideology Uber Alles!

[DiogenesLamp]

It was the slavocracy that went to war over slavery.

Because Obviously the Union didn't permit slavery, and that's why they left.

[DiogenesLamp]

f Lincoln was planning to fight over the issue of slavery, we should be able to read Lincoln’s first inaugural address and confirm it.

Your point is too subtle here. Most people are not aware that Lincoln said he had no objections to the Corwin Amendment. They don't know about the Amendment, and they don't know that Lincoln tacitly supported it.

They don't realize how contrary this is to the narrative because they aren't aware of any of this. You have to explicitly spell it out for them in order for them to comprehend it.

People who know about it can get your point. It simply goes over the head of those people (most) who do not know about it.

[laplata]

Yes, I’d check YouTube. It might be available for free.

[DiogenesLamp]

If we don’t defend the history of the South in the Civil War we will lose the history of the North. It will be as if the Civil War never happened.

This is a point that I have been searching for the right words to articulate, and what you have said seems to be a pretty good stab at it.

The greatness of accomplishment of one side is highly dependent upon vanquishing a worthy foe on the other. If the foe is diminished, the Valor of the Victor is lessened.

[central_va]

A Red State Nation wouldn’t be a welfare state so they can keep their blue blood money. The whole point of breaking away from FedGov would be to have the freedom to correct the problems of the Constitution and eliminate the welfare state or pare it down to the nub.

[rockrr]

Of course you did. or tried.

[rockrr]

Not true.

[central_va]

The Bruce Catton series are my favorites; Three Volume set includes: The Coming Fury, Terrible Swift Sword, and Never Call Retreat

[rockrr]

LOL, you’re so cucksure of yourself that you’re prancing around wondering why no one else is keeping up with you - only to find that everyone else is ten steps ahead.

Anyone who has looked into causes and considerations of the Civil War is aware of the Corwin amendment. You sneer that “It simply goes over the head of those people” when YOU were the only one in the dark.

I do see that you’ve modified your spin to “tacit” agreement - that’s a step in the right direction!

[jeffersondem]

“Your point is too subtle here. Most people are not aware that Lincoln said he had no objections to the Corwin Amendment. They don't know about the Amendment, and they don't know that Lincoln tacitly supported it.”

I can't deny you are right. You are right.

I'm in a back-and-forth with a poster on this board right now who has been on colostrum his entire life. Getting him to take solid food is proving to be very difficult.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not true.

Well if that's not true, then how was their continuing to utilize slavery as they did before in the Union, any justification for war?

Of course you will say "it wasn't", but I'm really addressing the people out there who might be reading this that claim that "slavery" is the cause of the war.

No, Slavery was not the cause of the war. I know that, and you know that, but the vast majority of people believe that it was.