The Civil War Is Playing This Week On PBS

[martybegan]

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 once 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.

The only real way to go the state rights path is that they wanted the states to have the absolute right to determine the legality of slavery in thier borders. Things like tarriffs and federal troops stationed within the borders were also grievences, but slavery was still the main issue.

Some historians say that without slavery there would have been issues between the two regions anyway, but they would have been settled legally. The differences between the two regions in general were the cause of the conflict, what made warfare inevitable was slavery.

 

[whitehall]

Of course it's impossible to show every detail of every battle and every nuance in the four year conflict so we get a glossy superficial but well done summary of the Civil War from the perspective of a ducumentary. Keep that in mind before you make profound judgments of the cause and effect of the War.

 

[Big Fitz]

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

I'm sure the History Channel could never have put together something of this quality. Only government money can do this caliber of work.

Face it, past success not withstanding, PBS is obsolete. Made so by the Food Network, History Channel, A&E, Bravo, Travel Channel, Military Channel, BBC America, HGTV and a few others. Every single show they have on there, save public access, is done better elsewhere for profit.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

I'm sure the History Channel could never have put together something of this quality. Only government money can do this caliber of work.

Face it, past success not withstanding, PBS is obsolete. Made so by the Food Network, History Channel, A&E, Bravo, Travel Channel, Military Channel, BBC America, HGTV and a few others. Every single show they have on there, save public access, is done better elsewhere for profit.

Most of what they have on the History Channel today is goofball shit.

Yes, someone could be financed by a company that expected to make a profit on something like the Civil War by Ken Burns, but thus far, no one in the private sector has produced a series of this stature. And then there is the most recent series on one of the most socialistic features of our nation, our National Parks.

 

[konradv]

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

I'm sure the History Channel could never have put together something of this quality. Only government money can do this caliber of work.

Face it, past success not withstanding, PBS is obsolete. Made so by the Food Network, History Channel, A&E, Bravo, Travel Channel, Military Channel, BBC America, HGTV and a few others. Every single show they have on there, save public access, is done better elsewhere for profit.

Then why doesn't the History Channel do it? They deal in history-lite, because they need to make a profit, while PBS doesn't.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course it's impossible to show every detail of every battle and every nuance in the four year conflict so we get a glossy superficial but well done summary of the Civil War from the perspective of a ducumentary. Keep that in mind before you make profound judgments of the cause and effect of the War.

Glossy superficial summery, eh. Well, ideological blindness is well and alive in this nation. It would be hell to have to say, as George Will did, that this is simply the best documentory ever produced concerning the history of this nation.

 

[martybegan]

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

I'm sure the History Channel could never have put together something of this quality. Only government money can do this caliber of work.

Face it, past success not withstanding, PBS is obsolete. Made so by the Food Network, History Channel, A&E, Bravo, Travel Channel, Military Channel, BBC America, HGTV and a few others. Every single show they have on there, save public access, is done better elsewhere for profit.

Most of what they have on the History Channel today is goofball shit.

Yes, someone could be financed by a company that expected to make a profit on something like the Civil War by Ken Burns, but thus far, no one in the private sector has produced a series of this stature. And then there is the most recent series on one of the most socialistic features of our nation, our National Parks.

The stuff on the history channel is just fine for people with only a basic knowledge of the subject, and thats what I'ts designed for. The Ken Burns stuff may be more stylish, but is it basically the same information.

For people truly into stuff like this, only written material, and eventually source material will be sufficent for a true understanding of the topics.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm sure the History Channel could never have put together something of this quality. Only government money can do this caliber of work.

Face it, past success not withstanding, PBS is obsolete. Made so by the Food Network, History Channel, A&E, Bravo, Travel Channel, Military Channel, BBC America, HGTV and a few others. Every single show they have on there, save public access, is done better elsewhere for profit.

Most of what they have on the History Channel today is goofball shit.

Yes, someone could be financed by a company that expected to make a profit on something like the Civil War by Ken Burns, but thus far, no one in the private sector has produced a series of this stature. And then there is the most recent series on one of the most socialistic features of our nation, our National Parks.

The stuff on the history channel is just fine for people with only a basic knowledge of the subject, and thats what I'ts designed for. The Ken Burns stuff may be more stylish, but is it basically the same information.

For people truly into stuff like this, only written material, and eventually source material will be sufficent for a true understanding of the topics.

It's ole crocks. Don't pay him any attention. He has no credibility on anything he says.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm sure the History Channel could never have put together something of this quality. Only government money can do this caliber of work.

Face it, past success not withstanding, PBS is obsolete. Made so by the Food Network, History Channel, A&E, Bravo, Travel Channel, Military Channel, BBC America, HGTV and a few others. Every single show they have on there, save public access, is done better elsewhere for profit.

Most of what they have on the History Channel today is goofball shit.

Yes, someone could be financed by a company that expected to make a profit on something like the Civil War by Ken Burns, but thus far, no one in the private sector has produced a series of this stature. And then there is the most recent series on one of the most socialistic features of our nation, our National Parks.

The stuff on the history channel is just fine for people with only a basic knowledge of the subject, and thats what I'ts designed for. The Ken Burns stuff may be more stylish, but is it basically the same information.

For people truly into stuff like this, only written material, and eventually source material will be sufficent for a true understanding of the topics.

Have to disagree with you on what the History Channel serves up. Like one of their programs on the Bermuda Triangle, spends 9/10s of the time on whacked out idiocy, then, only in the final 1/10, bothers to note that there are a lot a natural factors that make this a dangerous place for shipping and air traffic.

 

[martybegan]

Most of what they have on the History Channel today is goofball shit.

Yes, someone could be financed by a company that expected to make a profit on something like the Civil War by Ken Burns, but thus far, no one in the private sector has produced a series of this stature. And then there is the most recent series on one of the most socialistic features of our nation, our National Parks.

The stuff on the history channel is just fine for people with only a basic knowledge of the subject, and thats what I'ts designed for. The Ken Burns stuff may be more stylish, but is it basically the same information.

For people truly into stuff like this, only written material, and eventually source material will be sufficent for a true understanding of the topics.

Have to disagree with you on what the History Channel serves up. Like one of their programs on the Bermuda Triangle, spends 9/10s of the time on whacked out idiocy, then, only in the final 1/10, bothers to note that there are a lot a natural factors that make this a dangerous place for shipping and air traffic.

The whacked out idiocy is part of the lore on the place. As long as they didnt present it as fact, going over it is part of the story.

 

[American Horse]

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'm watching it; and I've just completed reading William Lee Miller's "President Lincoln" (The Duty of a Statesman), and for the second time Mark E. Neely Jr.'s "The Last Best Hope of Earth". Do you find any inconsistencies between these books and Ken Burn's version, and do you believe that Lincoln was not truly an abolitionist?

 

[Claudette]

If its the Ken Burns film I saw it when it was first shown. I've also seen it several times. since then. It never gets old.

What a great documentary.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

When I want an acurate telling of history I watch the History Channel.

If I wanted a modern liberals idea of what happened, I'll watch PBS.

But since I prefer facts over kicking my country around, I'll stick with the History Channel.

 

[xsited1]

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?

It's either that or Tron Legacy. If I choose to watch Tron Legacy instead, could you let me know how it turns out? Last time I rooted for the Union, but the Confederates might win this time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You're stupid if you don't realize the Civil War was about slavery, period. All of the secondary issues that are cited as additional reasons come back to slavery.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Mississippi. Mississippi Causes of Secession

 

[NYcarbineer]

Watch 'The Killing' on AMCtv, while we're on the subject of what to watch. It's pilot/episode one is running repeatedly this week,

it's a murder mystery - American, but in the style and quality of all the great British murder mysteries.

 

[uscitizen]

Those who thought the civil war was all about slavery will not be watching.

 

[American Horse]

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.

The Proclamation Emancipation only applied where a state of war still existed between rebel forces and the forces of the union; The president's oath of office forbade him asserting law as his own moral conviction. But where a state of belligerence existed, he (Lincoln) had the power as Commander In Chief to declare the slaves free. And with it's enactment, it turned the Union Army into an army of liberation wherever it advanced.

As for slavery not being the cause of the war; Lincoln was elected president of the new Republican Party which was founded by Aboltionists, which is why seven southern states seceded immediately after Lincoln was elected and before he could take office. And the violence and dispute about slavery in Missouri and subsequently Kansas/Nebraska were catalysts for abolition and secession, needing only the election of a Republican president as a tipping point to a split; and the only rationale for that was a claim of "state's rights"

As for tariffs; didn't they apply to imports? And Lincoln stated that while the south had a natural transportation system in it's river system, the "Internal Improvements" (a Republican party plank from the old Whig Party) needed in the north could be funded by the sale of public lands.

 

[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?

When I want an acurate telling of history I watch the History Channel.

If I wanted a modern liberals idea of what happened, I'll watch PBS.

But since I prefer facts over kicking my country around, I'll stick with the History Channel.

lol

 

[Againsheila]

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.

The Proclamation Emancipation only applied where a state of war still existed between rebel forces and the forces of the union; The president's oath of office forbade him asserting law as his own moral conviction. But where a state of belligerence existed, he (Lincoln) had the power as Commander In Chief to declare the slaves free. And with it's enactment, it turned the Union Army into an army of liberation wherever it advanced.

As for slavery not being the cause of the war; Lincoln was elected president of the new Republican Party which was founded by Aboltionists, which is why seven southern states seceded immediately after Lincoln was elected and before he could take office. And the violence and dispute about slavery in Missouri and subsequently Kansas/Nebraska were catalysts for abolition and secession, needing only the election of a Republican president as a tipping point to a split; and the only rationale for that was a claim of "state's rights"

As for tariffs; didn't they apply to imports? And Lincoln stated that while the south had a natural transportation system in it's river system, the "Internal Improvements" (a Republican party plank from the old Whig Party) needed in the north could be funded by the sale of public lands.

Lincoln was elected without a single vote from a southern state, which is way they immediately went to war. "States Rights". The problems started years before with a tariff that was put on manufactured goods, forcing the south to buy their good from the north. There were no such corresponding tariffs on raw goods, forcing the south to compete with the rest of the world selling their goods to the north.

Again, if it was all about slavery, why is it that none of the slaves in the north were freed until AFTER the war was over?