Boycott the History Channel's Advertisers

Coach Is Right ^ | 12/20/10 | Bruce Karlson

[brucek43]

Recently the History Channel proved that it is as snarky as those of who watch it thought.

To wit: the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) wanted to run some ads on the History Channel. These ads pointed out the legal basis for secession and, quite accurately, that the North invaded the newly configured Confederacy (Manassas/Bull Run is, after all, in Virginia). Another pointed out that Northern interests essentially ran the Federal government, frequently to the advantage Northern supporters at the expense of the South. The most accurate ad of all simply stated that ANY STATE had the right to remove itself from the Union. It is fair to opine that, if our Founders had put an ominous clause in the Constitution forbidding an exit, our nation would have started out with many fewer states…including Virginia,... … Continue Reading:Boycott the History Channel’s Advertisers!!

[Mind-numbed Robot]

First, saying one ad is “the most accurate” pretty much admits that the other ads have innacuracies.

Accurate is one of those words, like unique, that can't be modified. It either is or it is not accurate, period. One thing can be more nearly accurate than something else but it can't not be more accurate or less accurate.

[central_va]

We should try to understand the past for what it may be able to teach us about the present and future. When we manipulate the story of the past to try to impose our view of what the present and future should be, we defeat the purpose of history. Many of the posts on these Civil War threads illustrate this point perfectly.

Since 90% of the lies and BS about the WBTS comes from the "victors" perspective, I whole heartedly agree.

[Sherman Logan]

I agree with you that there are a lot of lies and BS on these threads. I see it on both sides, but I must respectfully disagree with you as to which side provides the majority.

[rockrr]

What’s the matter vag, run out of people to slander on the homo-bash threads?

[central_va]

What’s the matter vag, run out of people to slander on the homo-bash threads?

There is always time for the punkrr....

[doberville]

What? You don’t like Chumley??

[brucek43]

A great idea!!!

California first??

[brucek43]

The SCV does not believe that secession is still a viable option. As a matter of history, however, the discussion is the way wannabe historians spend some of their time.

And...even though it is of no practical use, I would argue tta the Feds do not have the right to put anything in anything that we consume. 9th and 10th Anmendments.

teh HC has deeriorated into a ot of mush punctuated by substance. I simply found theunctous dismissal of the SCV request to be worth a few words on “paper”.

[brucek43]

For an “honest” man he told a ton of lies and many half truths. Probably no worse that FDR who one
ly managed to get 400,000 killed as opposed to AL who caused 620,000.

[rockrr]

For your 620,000 you can look directly to your jeff davis and his thugs.

[brucek43]

Agree that THC has become a junk store. Given that, its attitusde toward a genunie historical issue besomes even less supportable.

[brucek43]

Given that, one imagines ther should be room for a few ads reviving an unresoleved historical issue.

Agree that the show on National Socialist Germany was worhwhile.

[brucek43]

Even linocln lovers will agree that eh FORCED the attack as he needed (like FDR) the “enemy” to fore the first shot.

[rockrr]

Ah, the “Linkum tricked us” ploy. Sorta tread-bare doncha think?

[traditional1]

"So what you’re saying is “everything is relative”?"

Not at all.

You can find history in many varieties of writings, but that doesn't make them ALL accurate whatsoever.

I believe that we now have very few CURRENT History Books in public schools that accurately reflect history. What we have is the politically-correct, sanitized, agenda-driven Liberal drivel of so-called "Intelligent Scholars", just as EVERY report on issues that we care about are agenda-driven hit pieces to further the Agenda, when a Government sponsored "report" on a situation is given.

You might as well depend on the State Run Media to give you the "facts".

That's what I'm sayin'.

[Michael.SF.]

Sorry my friend, I'm not buying it. I usually am on the other side of the fence on the North-South, Blue-Grey, Yank-Reb,Union-Confederacy issue and have found myself defending Lee, while castigating Grant and calling Sherman a war criminal.

But to say that the south was "invaded" by the North, well lets just say that is a bit self serving to the cause.

Once the south seceded the war was on, for all intense and purposes. The location of the War just had to be determined and the North decided first.

[surely_you_jest]

With over 5,000 years of history, one must wonder what possessed the folks at the History Channel to air these two pieces of ofal??

1. They are really cheap to produce.

2. They get the same ad rates as anything else they air in the same time slot.

[c-five]

Of all the problems facing the country today, is the question of whether or not states have the right to succeed from the Union at the top of the priority list?

I'd buy at least a little bit of property there right away, and see what kind of government they set up.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

jeff davis and his thugs

Always nice to see an accurate description of Boss Jeff and his minions. If DiLorenzo really was interested about writing biographies of tyrants, ol' Davis would be a perfect subject.

[x]

These ads pointed out the legal basis for secession and, quite accurately, that the North invaded the newly configured Confederacy (Manassas/Bull Run is, after all, in Virginia). Another pointed out that Northern interests essentially ran the Federal government, frequently to the advantage Northern supporters at the expense of the South. The most accurate ad of all simply stated that ANY STATE had the right to remove itself from the Union.

Gee, these ads are even worse than I'd imagined. I'd assumed they were just a "heritage" thing: "We're proud of our ancestors."

No responsible cable outlet would broadcast divisive junk like this. It's sort of like La Raza or the New Black Panther Party or the Fruit of Islam were to try to buy ads to spread their own historical fantasies.

For the record, Southerners dominated the federal government in the years leading up to the Civil War. Certainly White Southerners had more power in Washington DC than their numbers alone would have warranted.

Eight of the fifteen presidents before Lincoln were Southerners (nine if you include Virginia-born Harrison), and since that includes every president who'd won reelection up until 1860, a Southerner was in the White House more often than not before the Civil War.

Southerners dominated the Democratic Party, and in the years from 1800 to 1860 the Speaker of the House came from a slave state considerably more often than not. The Supreme Court was led first by Chief Justice John Marshall and then by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney from 1801 to 1864. They were both from slave states, and while I haven't been able to check all the justices, it looks like half the associate justices in the 1840s and 1850s were Southerners. Washington was a Southern city in those days.

Southerners had great power in the pre-Civil War federal government. Do you think they didn't use it to advance their own interests? Do you think that rather than being victims of powerful Northerners, Southern politicians may have been afraid of losing their own considerable power and that they supported secession for that reason, not out of victimhood? And why does the SCV feel it has to lie about history?