Rerun of `Civil War' Renews Debate Among Historians

NewHouse News Service ^ | DELIA M. RIOS

[stainlessbanner]

Keep your powder dry folks!

In case you missed it - Ken Burn's Civil War will be re-televised starting 22 September, 2002. Check your local schedules at PBS

[stainlessbanner]

Bump!

[ArcLight]

Sheesh! It wasn't a doctoral dissertation. It was a documentary meant for the education of ordinary folk. And at that, it succeeded magnificently. These scholars are right to make their points, but let's not get carried away.

[4CJ]

But the version of history that "The Civil War" tells was itself challenged; historians questioned the documentary's themes, interpretations and conclusions even as they acknowledged Burns' storytelling brilliance. The criticism ranged from annoyance with factual errors -- Abraham Lincoln's age when he was assassinated, for one -- to frustration that the film, at significant points, did not reflect the latest Civil War scholarship.

Did the fine folks at the Declaration Foundation harass him over the alleged discrepancies?

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

It was a documentary meant for the education of ordinary folk

Or was it meant to indoctrinate ordinary folk, in the manner of Ken Burns' Jazz?

[strela]

I've been using a trowel to shovel hints to my family that I would be extremely pleased to receive the DVD version of this series for Christmas or other holiday. They've yet to take the hint (the turkeys).

[billbears]

Burns, taken aback by the vigorous and even angry criticism, countered that his film was never intended to be comprehensive.

Ken, there's a difference between 'not being comprehensive' and twisting the truth to fit your lie.

ArcLight, I understand your argument. However this is a situation where the documentary is supposed to teach, educate. Not continually regurgitate the lie of the lincoln myth

[Non-Sequitur]

Yeah, I heard it advertised on the radio on my way home from work. I got the tapes for Christmas a couple of years ago so I've watched it many times since it was first on.

[billbears]

Did the fine folks at the Declaration Foundation harass him over the alleged discrepancies?

LOL!! What do you think?

[Non-Sequitur]

Ken, there's a difference between 'not being comprehensive' and twisting the truth to fit your lie.

Ladies and gentlemen, anyone looking for a perfect demonstration of what my good friend billbears is talking about need look no further than the typical southron supporter's post.

[r9etb]

" But the South, as Gallagher details, had advantages that "evened the initial balance sheet." The Confederacy's size, alone, was an obstacle to Northern troops.

Well, it might have been an obstacle, but history shows that it was quite surmountable.

The South was never going to defeat the North militarily. The South's hope (and strategy, IIRC) was to defeat the North's will to prosecute the war to a military conclusion.

They miscalculated.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

Fields, in fact, found the film's language and sentiment echoes of the late 19th century efforts "to put an end to the controversy by essentially forgetting the former slaves and their descendants.....

Hmmmmm.....does the term "reparations" come to mind?

[billbears]

anyone looking for a perfect demonstration of what my good friend billbears is talking about need look no further than the typical southron supporter's post.

Where we're usually trying to straighten out the cut and paste drivel from leftist historians like McPherson and presenting historical fact instead

[4CJ]

Ladies and gentlemen, anyone looking for a perfect demonstration of what my good friend billbears is talking about need look no further than the typical southron supporter's post.

LOL! My esteemed friend, would you agree that a version of this documentary produced by yourself would be vastly different than one I produced?

[marsh2]

As an adult student of American History, I have had the opportunity to research and to understand the depth of the Constitutional dimensions of questions regarding "individual rights," "state's rights," "federalism" and "nationalism" that were played out in the Civil War. These remain largely unresolved, continuing to exist as an under current in debate regarding the right to regulate within the context of individual rights and freedom.

I look forward to viewing the series. However, it sounds like the authors have focussed narrowly on the emotional moral issue of slavery and are leaving much of the story untold.

[4CJ]

Do you even have to ask?

[Non-Sequitur]

With out a doubt. However, wouldn't you agree that, warts and all, it is still one of the finest programs aired on PBS? Followed closely by Burns' "Baseball"?

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

"DIXIE"SHOULD BE THE NATIONAL ANTHEM.

[Non-Sequitur]

Where we're usually trying to straighten out the cut and paste drivel from leftist historians like McPherson and presenting historical fact instead.

Tut, tut, tut, my good fellow. I've read too many posts from too many southron supporters to believe that is true for the overwhelming majority of the postee's. Present company excepted, of course.

[billbears]

I've read too many posts from too many southron supporters to believe that is true for the overwhelming majority of the postee's

Present company excepted of course, there are some of those on the side of the north as well