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

lastcat3

Cadet
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
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.
 
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. :D

Welcome aboard,

Zou
 
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
 
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
 
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. :D

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
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Is Shelby still alive does anybody know?

He died in 2005.

I always thought Foote's strength was not as a historian, but as a story teller. To many people, he made the documentary. He was engaging and is what many people came away with from the documentary. I think that is why Ken Burns used him. He could hold the camera. Having gone to one of his speeches in person, he knew how to hold a crowd.

His three volume history of the Civil War is not great history, but it is great story-telling. And that is how history started out....
 
He died in 2005.

I always thought Foote's strength was not as a historian, but as a story teller. To many people, he made the documentary. He was engaging and is what many people came away with from the documentary. I think that is why Ken Burns used him. He could hold the camera. Having gone to one of his speeches in person, he knew how to hold a crowd.

His three volume history of the Civil War is not great history, but it is great story-telling. And that is how history started out....

I agree completely. Shelby's trilogy is a work of art. And like I said, I keep watching the Burns series--though I usually cringe when Shelby starts talking. :smile:

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

Thanks,
clara

Dear Miss Clara,

Actually, I'm an admirer of the unfortunate William Starke Rosecrans. :D

I started studying Chickamauga as research for my novel (a long time in the writing, and still pre published!) I thought that the Eastern Theater had been done to death, so I chose the Western Theater for the setting.

I have nindeed read Dr. Bollet's book -- one of the best on the subject.

Zou
 
Misinformation

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.

About the only thing most Civil War books agree on is where the battles were fought, and when; athough you will notice that the Union and the Confederates usually had different names for the same place. That said, Ken Burns' highly publicized documentary was as accurate and as inaccurate as most Civil War offerings. The only aspect of the war I would consider myself an expert on, having published a book on T. S. C. Lowe would be the Balloon Corps. I did notice that when Burns flashed a picture of Lowe's generator wagons, used for inflating the balloons, parked on the mall in Washington D. C., he referred to them as sutler's wagons. But then Professor Lowe, despite his significant contributions, has been pretty much left out of history. In Bruce Catton's The Civil War, which has several photographs of Lowe's observation balloons, including one with Lowe himself, T. S. C. Lowe's name does not even appear in the index. If you are interested in learning more about Lowe, and his efforts to establish a balloon corps you might enjoy my book The Balloonist, The Story of T. S. C. Lowe, Inventor, Scientist, Magician, and Father of the U. S. Airforce, available at most libraries, or from Amazon.com. Stephen Poleskie
 
Dear Stephen Poleskie,

In addition, Professor Lowe sent the first telegram from the balloon "Enterprise" to the men on the ground. Making history for first air to ground communications.

Although the balloons were extremely useful, they do have weaknesses which is the fact that once shot at--punctures the balloon--it crashes.

Just some thoughts.

M. E. Wolf
 
Lowe's First Telegraph Message

Dear Stephen Poleskie,

In addition, Professor Lowe sent the first telegram from the balloon "Enterprise" to the men on the ground. Making history for first air to ground communications.

Although the balloons were extremely useful, they do have weaknesses which is the fact that once shot at--punctures the balloon--it crashes.

Just some thoughts.

M. E. Wolf

Dear M.E. Wolf;

You are correct. On June 18, 1861, T. S. C. Lowe did indeed send down the first aerial telegraph message from his balloon "Enterprise" to President Lincoln. Lowe's balloon was tethered on the mall at the site that is now the Air and Space Museum. The balloon was then pulled down, and towed to the lawn of the White House, where Lincoln greeted Lowe from an upstairs window and invited him to dinner. I have published a pamphlet describing this event, which is an excerpt from my book The Balloonist, which I would be happy to send you, or anyone else, at no charge. Just send your address to me by e-mail at [email protected].

Lowe's balloon was forced down only once. This was on the only free-flight he attempted during the war. He was shot at by pickets from his own side while atempting to return. The troops had not been alerted of his mission, as he was not being blown back to where he had begun. They did not, however, shoot holes in his balloon. Preparing to land Lowe had let most of the air out of his balloon and was not able to clear a hill that was in his way. He crashed behind Confederate lines, and was rescued by his wife, Leontine, a French actress, who drove out in a wagon disguised as a farm woman. Most of the time his balloon, and those of the other members of his corps were flown higher than the Rebel guns were capable of reaching. The danger came when the balloons were ascending, or being pulled down. This information is detailed in my book, The Balloonist, The Story of T. S. C. Lowe, Inventor, Scientist, Magician, and Father of the U. S. Airforce, Frederic C. Beil, Publisher, Savannah, availabe at most libraries or from Amazon.com.
 
Dear Stephen Poleskie,

I'm so glad that we have an 'author' and expert on the balloon flights of Professor Lowe.

Hope your book sells well. I'm sure it will be a good read.

Sincerely,
M. Wolf
 
When I lived in the South not a day went by that I didn't see Confederate bumperstickers, HELL NO WE AIN'T FERGETTIN' was a popular one or DON'T BLAME ME I VOTED FOR JEFF DAVIS. When I got to Chicago I expected to see HELL YEAH WE WON bumperstickers or CONSTITUTION OR NOT BULLETS WIN! but- nothing.

When the Burns documentary came out all that changed. I started running into people who were reading about the war and could talk to them about it.

But you know, there was a whole lot in that series about Abe Lincoln. Almost nothing about Jefferson Davis! That's like covering World War 2 and forgetting to mention Hitler! (Not that I compare the two mind you)

No question it got a lot of people interested in the war. But the Southern side was the least accurate of the show!
 
Back
Top