The Civil War Is Playing This Week On PBS

[MarcATL]

So how many revisionist are already or are planning on watching the real story unfold year-by-year, day-by-day, piece-by-piece and fact-by-fact?

How many knew of it?

How many even care?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'll be watching again.

 

[peach174]

I'm watching it.

 

[Sunni Man]

Saw it last time.

Great series.

 

[Mad Scientist]

So how many revisionist are already or are planning on watching the real story unfold year-by-year, day-by-day, piece-by-piece and fact-by-fact? How many new of it? How many even care?

I've seen in many times. The narrator, that old NBC Newscaster whose name escapes me, was a perfect choice. And the commentary by Shelby Foote (Civil War Historian) ties everything together perfectly.

That documentary along with "Gods and Generals", "Gettysburg" and "Glory" are required viewing for any Civil War buff.

 

[Big Fitz]

It was a good series. But I wonder... Since Marc AllTimeLoser is saying something about revisionism, I am curious as to what KIND of 'revisionism' he sees? Past history implies accurate historical information may be what he sees as revisionism, rather than political correctness.

 

[Big Fitz]

LOVED Glory. Haven't seen the other ones though. Have the soundtrack to the Mini Series. Fantastic work.

 

[Mr. H.]

It's a dandy, but the narration and commentary voices put me to sleep.
Zzz...

 

[Mad Scientist]

It was a good series. But I wonder... Since Marc AllTimeLoser is saying something about revisionism, I am curious as to what KIND of 'revisionism' he sees? Past history implies accurate historical information may be what he sees as revisionism, rather than political correctness.

No, I think he's saying the documentary is factual (which it is) as opposed to certain posters who are the revisionists.

 

[Big Fitz]

It was a good series. But I wonder... Since Marc AllTimeLoser is saying something about revisionism, I am curious as to what KIND of 'revisionism' he sees? Past history implies accurate historical information may be what he sees as revisionism, rather than political correctness.

No, I think he's saying the documentary is factual (which it is) as opposed to certain posters who are the revisionists.

Then I'm impressed.

 

[martybegan]

What the hell is Civil War revisionism?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah but wouldn't it have been much better on a network with 4 minutes of commercials every 15 minutes?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What the hell is Civil War revisionism?

It's the 'tards on the Right who say the war wasn't about slavery.

 

[HUGGY]

I'm watching it. This is another well done documentary. ANOTHER reason why PBS should be publicly financed.

 

[martybegan]

What the hell is Civil War revisionism?

It's the 'tards on the Right who say the war wasn't about slavery.

I dont consider myself a revisonist, but the reasons were more complex than just slavery. It did play a huge part, but in the end the real question that needed to be resolved was if a state (or states) could leave the union without the consent of the whole body of states. The answer after almost 5 years of war was no. Slavery is the main reason, but wasnt the main mechanic behind seccession.

I dont consider that revisionism, just clarification.

 

[peach174]

What the hell is Civil War revisionism?

It's rewriting history to fit your philosophy and not the actual facts.

 

[The Infidel]

What the hell is Civil War revisionism?

It's the 'tards on the Right who say the war wasn't about slavery.

I dont consider myself a revisonist, but the reasons were more complex than just slavery. It did play a huge part, but in the end the real question that needed to be resolved was if a state (or states) could leave the union without the consent of the whole body of states. The answer after almost 5 years of war was no. Slavery is the main reason, but wasnt the main mechanic behind seccession.

I dont consider that revisionism, just clarification.

Details details....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So how many revisionist are already or are planning on watching the real story unfold year-by-year, day-by-day, piece-by-piece and fact-by-fact?

How many knew of it?

How many even care?

I already know how it ends.

 

[Againsheila]

What the hell is Civil War revisionism?

It's the 'tards on the Right who say the war wasn't about slavery.

# 1, I'm not a retard, I'm insulted that you would use that word considering my son is mentally retarded for real, as well as autistic.
# 2, I'm not on the "right", I'm a "moderate".
# 3. If the war was about slavery, why did the Emancipation Proclamation exempt all slaves in northern territory and those in southern territory already under northern command? Did you forget that there were 4 slave holding states that remained with the north and their slaves were not freed until AFTER the war was over? I'm not saying slavery wasn't part of the war, it just wasn't "THE" reason for the war. That had more to do with states rights and tariffs. As far as I know, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, South Carolina was the only state that listed "slavery" as their reason for leaving the union, all others listed states rights.

 

[editec]

What the hell is Civil War revisionism?

It's the 'tards on the Right who say the war wasn't about slavery.

I dont consider myself a revisonist, but the reasons were more complex than just slavery. It did play a huge part, but in the end the real question that needed to be resolved was if a state (or states) could leave the union without the consent of the whole body of states. The answer after almost 5 years of war was no. Slavery is the main reason, but wasnt the main mechanic behind seccession.

I dont consider that revisionism, just clarification.

When you put it that way, I agree. The casus belli was SLAVERY.

The legal issue in question was: DID THE STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SECEDE?

But the claim is often made that the Civil War was about States rights.

And that half truth is a lie by omission.

Or, if one is wearing a historians hat when one makes that claim, then that statment a kind of revision of history to mitigate the ugly truth.

Anytime people ignore all or some of the historic evidence to pervert the story what they are doing is revising history to suit their personal preferences.

Pretending that the majority of CSA leaders and State legislatures did NOT clearly express that they were seceding in defence of slavery is a lie by OMISSION.

And the current Son of the South that post in places like this drag this lie (by omission) out every time the issue comes up.

This pernicious lie won't die because it comforts these people to imagine that their wonderfully brave southern ancestors (and they were surely that!) weren't fighting on behalf of slavery.

They were... in fact.

1 out ever 4 southern households kept slaves. And the vast majority Southern capitalization was in the form of bonded slaves.

So you can certainly understand why these people were terrified of the thought that they'd be bankrupted if slavery was outlawed.

Which is, incidently exactly what happened to the South, too,

Their capital (in the form of human bondage) evaporated when the slaves were freed.

This is in part why the South is STILL poorer than much of the rest of the nation, too.