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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
The first thing anybody needs to know about Ken Burns: Ken Burns is a liberal.
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,
Which is exactly why you haven't heard from him.
Ideology Uber Alles!
Because Obviously the Union didn't permit slavery, and that's why they left.
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.
Yes, I’d check YouTube. It might be available for free.
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.
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.
Of course you did. or tried.
Not true.
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!
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.
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.
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.