So how accurately did the Ken Burns documentary get the history of the war

[lastcat3]

How good do you guys think the Ken Burns documentary got the war (at least in regards to the battles).

The Ken Burns documentary has always been my main source of history on the war that I have looked at (havn't ever read many books about it).

This messageboard is cool by the way. I have always been interested in the Civil War but generally it is hard to discuss it because most people don't know a whole lot about it. It's also nice to see that this board looks to be pretty active as well.

[blue_zouave]

Dear Lastcat, the Ken Burns documentary got a LOT of people started on in depth study of the ACW, including me. Historically, he did OK -- he has the right people in the right places at the right time.

This board is a great source of information. I'll leave it to others to give a good basic list of general books about the Civil War. My interest is 19th century medicine -- I'm not a battle wonk except for Chickamauga.

Welcome aboard,

Zou

[cash]

Originally Posted by lastcat3

How good do you guys think the Ken Burns documentary got the war (at least in regards to the battles).

The Ken Burns documentary has always been my main source of history on the war that I have looked at (havn't ever read many books about it).

This messageboard is cool by the way. I have always been interested in the Civil War but generally it is hard to discuss it because most people don't know a whole lot about it. It's also nice to see that this board looks to be pretty active as well.

Everytime I watch it I find another mistake. That said, he did okay in the accuracy department. I keep watching. If you just don't listen to the Shelby Foote portions you'll raise the accuracy percentage significantly, but there are still problems outside of Shelby.

Regards,
Cash

[ole]

Lastcat: Anytime someone tries to distill 4 years of history into a few hours, some things are going to be missed and some rather complex, important ideas and movements and tactics and strategies are going to be condensed past recognition.

I don't fault Burns for the inaccuracies; we here are all freaks and would probably find fault with the way you tie your shoes. In fact, we sometimes fault those who were running the war for the way they did it.

Welcome aboard. However, I will caution you: Hang around long enough and you're going to find something that interests you so you'll buy a book and you'll start reading it. Before you're finished you'll find something else, so you'll buy a book and start reading it. It doesn't stop.

ole

[clara_barton]

Originally Posted by blue_zouave

Dear Lastcat, the Ken Burns documentary got a LOT of people started on in depth study of the ACW, including me. Historically, he did OK -- he has the right people in the right places at the right time.

This board is a great source of information. I'll leave it to others to give a good basic list of general books about the Civil War. My interest is 19th century medicine -- I'm not a battle wonk except for Chickamauga.

Welcome aboard,

Zou

Wonderful ... have you read Civil War Medicine: Challenges and Triumphs? Do I get to ask you why Chickamauga ... maybe, George Henry Thomas?

Thanks,
clara

[lastcat3]

Originally Posted by cash

Everytime I watch it I find another mistake. That said, he did okay in the accuracy department. I keep watching. If you just don't listen to the Shelby Foote portions you'll raise the accuracy percentage significantly, but there are still problems outside of Shelby.

Regards,
Cash

I get a subscription off of netflix and I pulled up the documentary on it and read some of the reviews and within the reviews many of them said Shelby wasn't a good person to be talking about it (which surprised me because he was the main historian that the documentary looked to).

So anyway what are some of the things that the documentary and Shelby Foote got wrong?

[cash]

Originally Posted by lastcat3

I get a subscription off of netflix and I pulled up the documentary on it and read some of the reviews and within the reviews many of them said Shelby wasn't a good person to be talking about it (which surprised me because he was the main historian that the documentary looked to).

So anyway what are some of the things that the documentary and Shelby Foote got wrong?

The whole "it made us an is" thing is wrong. The idea that Lee thought of Virginia as his country was wrong. The idea that the south would never have joined the Union if they thought they couldn't secede is wrong. The claim the south never had a chance is wrong.--Darn near every word out of Shelby's mouth was wrong.

Outside Shelby's errors, the big one that sticks in my mind right now is claiming that Pope took command of the Army of the Potomac between McClellan's supposed two stints in command. That's wrong. Pope commanded the Army of Virginia, which had some units of the Army of the Potomac transferred to it. McClellan retained command of the reduced Army of the Potomac. When Pope was defeated and sent to Minnesota, the Army of Virginia disbanded and the troops taken from the Army of the Potomac were returned to it. Throughout, McClellan was still in command.

Regards,
Cash

[lastcat3]

Originally Posted by cash

The whole "it made us an is" thing is wrong. The idea that Lee thought of Virginia as his country was wrong. The idea that the south would never have joined the Union if they thought they couldn't secede is wrong. The claim the south never had a chance is wrong.--Darn near every word out of Shelby's mouth was wrong.

Outside Shelby's errors, the big one that sticks in my mind right now is claiming that Pope took command of the Army of the Potomac between McClellan's supposed two stints in command. That's wrong. Pope commanded the Army of Virginia, which had some units of the Army of the Potomac transferred to it. McClellan retained command of the reduced Army of the Potomac. When Pope was defeated and sent to Minnesota, the Army of Virginia disbanded and the troops taken from the Army of the Potomac were returned to it. Throughout, McClellan was still in command.

Regards,
Cash

Ahh, you know I wonder in regards to the Pope thing rather some of that stuff was intentional. You know like when they create movies based on true stories sometimes they will blend two different stories together. Possibly they did that to cut down a little bit on some of the information they would have to include. Also because only the people very knowledgeable about CW events would pick up on something like that.

[larry_cockerham]

While Shelby Foote may well have been excelled many times with respect to his accuracy, he managed to draw some attention to the subject. That has a certain inestimable value as far as keeping the memory of the southern soldier alive (Union ones, too). Shelby's charm was in his soft southern drawl and his ability to spin a yarn on camera, whether absolutely accurate or not. Heck, some of my stuff ain't exactly right. I keep trying. Shelby would too, were he here.

[lastcat3]

Is Shelby still alive does anybody know?