Why America Needs a New Civil War Documentary

Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
6,825
Location
Nebraska
I had a history professor give us an analogy of the secessionist apologist argument that went something like this: imagine a physically abused wife telling her story to a judge - "my husband nearly beat me to death multiple times during the last five years. Also, he often leaves the toilet seat up". To which the defense council (the southern apologist in our analogy) cries "aha! so its more complicated than a little roughhousing among adults". To which the judge replies: "sigh....".
:nah disagree:
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,018
Location
Denver, CO
If there is going to be a new narrative, it has to match Burns' ability to produce visual images. Telegraph equipment, surviving railroad pictures, and front sheets of 1850's newspaper and magazines would be a start. By 1860 there were cities, and that meant theater and lectures. There was a Shakespearean revival. That could generate visuals.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,018
Location
Denver, CO
If you wanted a new Civil War narrative it would be focused on Grant and Sherman. They were two guys that the army wanted to throw away. But Sherman's brother and foster father Ewing were too powerful. And Grant, after rescuing and his honor and reputation by February 1862, played the game at a merciless professional level after June 1862.
If he wanted to, Burns could just do Grant at Vicksburg. He could cover the multiple naval units, the two cavalry raids, Dodge's growing intelligence network, and so forth.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,018
Location
Denver, CO
If there was a new narrative it would be based on what was avoided when the United States did not break into a North American replication of France, Germany and Poland.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,018
Location
Denver, CO
If one wanted a new narrative it could start by answering the question about why casualties were so high. Land armies were dirty. The men were dirty, there were lots of mules and horses. The water became dirty, the dishes were dirty, the medical instruments were dirty.
Naval vessels were cleaner than armies and the US navy had the benefit of the British knowledge of anti-scorbotics. A moving army was cleaner than a stationary army. An army connected to a railroad was in better shape than an isolated army, and an army visited by a sanitary commission was cleaner than an unassisted army.
The Confederates very greatly escalated the violence of the war in 1862. The US ratcheted up the killing in 1864. And the Confederates hung on, when the could not win even when they held a tactical advantage, after September 1864.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,018
Location
Denver, CO
If there was a new narrative it would start in Dublin, Liverpool, Hamburg and Bremerhaven.
The contrast would be between voluntary immigration and involuntary immigration. I think immigration visuals are available.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,018
Location
Denver, CO
Whether slavery was a cause of the war is not worth debating. Between 1844 and 1860, the northern states made a firm commitment to voluntary immigration. That commitment lasted until the 1920's and much of the demographic strength of Germany, and Italy, was added to the US. Voluntary immigration was working in the northern states. The were workers, and farmers. There were capitalists and innovators.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Odd if we were United and held together by mutual feelings or purpose.......there would have been no civil war. Coercion isn't really united.........

Whose coercion are you willing to excuse? Any feelings about the coercion exercised by the slaveholding South over the results of a free and fair election? Any excuses for acts of coercion by the South in the taking of US property, arms, payrolls, mints, arsenals, ships, forts, etc? Any excuse for the armed coercion taken by firing on the Star of the West or Ft. Sumter?

If as some have suggested if states were free to go, some might even today........it's the threat of coercion even today that prevents it, not some spirit of united.
Depends on where the coercion is coming from, doesn't it?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
It is worse than false, it is IGNORING history, Ignoring facts, and spinning history.

Edited. Nullification did not come to an armed conflict because it was not an important enough factor to go to war over. No other Southern state would support SC over that issue hence the reason they backed down because they realized they could not defy the nation alone. Check these facts instead of blaming them or spinning them into an excuse for a personal scenario.

Just as so many, for so long, attempted to ignore Northern Slavery, but now historians are taking note cause IT (Northern Slavery) has been brought out of the "hiding". Along with many other "hidden" twinkling stars.

The fact that the North had slavery has not been ignored on this forum but there seems to be repeated attempts to hide or excuse the fact that the North had pretty much eliminated slavery from it's section while slavery grew in the Southern section, hence that "Free States" "Slave States" tag.

Perhaps, all those "hiding" twinkling stars will now be included in the new unbiased War Between the States documentary.

As long as it is a factual, historical, presentation, why not?

Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries
View attachment 307257
One Nation,
One Regret

Unionblue
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,018
Location
Denver, CO
A new narrative starts with voluntary immigration. By 1844 the time to sail the Atlantic had fallen to 30 days or less. The sailing ships in particular could not get high value cargoes to North America, and could offer cheap passage. The northern states were never short on labor again. Up until 1844 they had outgrown the south. But after 1844, with the southern working class enslaved and partially uncounted, there was no question of parity.
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,063
Location
mo
Depends on where the coercion is coming from, doesn't it?
no coercion is coercion no matter who does it. Never said otherwise. What I said is don't pretend it's United which means sharing mutual feelings, purpose and goals......because that isn't forced militarily frankly......
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,063
Location
mo
So, a personal view of the term, United States?
Not really personal, look at the definition of united, then coerced............ Then gauge which is closer to being held by military force, or the threat of. You do realize there was a war followed by occupation?......seems to fit coerced to a T

A country actually united....wouldn't have a civil war.......that requires major divisions, not common purposes and goals......Nor it would it have to forbid members leaving if it was truly united
 
Last edited:

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,528
Location
Midwest
Whether slavery was a cause of the war is not worth debating. Between 1844 and 1860, the northern states made a firm commitment to voluntary immigration...[etc. etc.]
Oh, it's well worth debating. Let's not distract. Slavery was the primary cause of the war and immigration wasn't. That's not to say immigration was not a big factor in the Antebellum or the war. It surely was. Because of accelerated immigration the Union was able to swell its ranks of factory workers thus tightening its resource screws on the South. When voluntary military enlistments waned by mid-war it was immigrants that were available to tap for the draft (to realize what incited the New York draft riots), a resource the Confederates could not match.

Still, it was slavery -- not higher immigration, not the transcontinental railroad, tariffs or other states rights (besides the right to own slaves) -- that was the primary cause of the Civil War. Again that's not to say that each of those things and more were not factors in the complicated mix of events leading to War, as such things have always been in Wars from time immemorial.

One last thing: To bring up immigrants must include that blacks, mostly slaves, were also and every bit immigrants. By the time of the Civil War many of them, just as immigrants to the North, were were 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.

You know, not acknowledging the "third front" of the Civil War (blacks and their effect in the conflict) seems very close to constructing an agenda, i.e. anything not directly relevant to one's personal connection to history is not important enough to consider. Jes sayin'
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Not really personal, look at the definition of united, then coerced............ Then gauge which is closer to being held by military force, or the threat of.

This is where we differ. My impression is the use of military force was introduced to coerce a separation of what was united. After all, it is recorded history that force was used numerous times before the United States even considered force to preserve the Union.

You do realize there was a war followed by occupation?......seems to fit coerced to a T.

Seems to fit the reoccupation of the United States, that had been subject to unlawful rebellion after the coercion failed to separate it.

A country actually united....wouldn't have a civil war.......that requires major divisions, not common purposes and goals......

Seems it was United until a certain segment of the South feared for it's power, it's wealth, and the system that made that power and wealth possible.

Nor it would it have to forbid members leaving if it was truly united
Nor would members attempt to divide it by force if it obeyed the laws of a United country, as it had promised to do.

It really does depend on which side of the coercion fence one view such actions, doesn't it?

Unionblue
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,063
Location
mo
Nor would members attempt to divide it by force if it obeyed the laws of a United country, as it had promised to do.

It really does depend on which side of the coercion fence one view such actions, doesn't it?

Unionblue
Only to you apparently...….One should be able to recognize coercion for what it is...coercion. regardless of which side of the fence one is on....perhaps your side has blinders on? Or is it simply the old head buried in the sand...….

Again it is what it is, regardless of with side the fence does it, or which side the viewer is on....

If you use force to persuade someone or hold them to something its coercion.......frankly both the coercer and and coercee should be able to recognize it is coercion though, as it is what it is.........
 
Last edited:

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
406
It is worse than false, it is IGNORING history, Ignoring facts, and spinning history.

Just as so many, for so long, attempted to ignore Northern Slavery, but now historians are taking note cause IT (Northern Slavery) has been brought out of the "hiding". Along with many other "hidden" twinkling stars.

Perhaps, all those "hiding" twinkling stars will now be included in the new unbiased War Between the States documentary.

Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries
View attachment 307257
Northern slavery was ended out of the evolution of quasi altruism and full blown ingenuity; the south could not conjure up neither one if they tried, and that's why northern slavery get's overlooked and southern slavery get's scrutinized. If any history is getting ignored, it's the fact that the north emotionally, morally and intellectually progressed passed it's primitive and ignorant ways into a sophisticated society, whereas the south was just stuck in the land of barbarianism. The north ended slavery on its own, and the south needed the north to end it for them because of the aforementioned reasons. You better hope northern slavery doesn't get much airtime because it will make the Confederacy look worse than it already does now(if possible). Those so-called twinkling stars will just reveal how much further ahead the north was on the socioeconomic and humanitarian level.
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
740
Northern slavery was ended out of the evolution of quasi altruism and full blown ingenuity; the south could not conjure up neither one if they tried, and that's why northern slavery get's overlooked and southern slavery get's scrutinized. If any history is getting ignored, it's the fact that the north emotionally, morally and intellectually progressed passed it's primitive and ignorant ways into a sophisticated society, whereas the south was just stuck in the land of barbarianism. The north ended slavery on its own, and the south needed the north to end it for them because of the aforementioned reasons. You better hope northern slavery doesn't get much airtime because it will make the Confederacy look worse than it already does now(if possible). Those so-called twinkling stars will just reveal how much further ahead the north was on the socioeconomic and humanitarian level.
Lots of big words and chest thumping for a section that had a couple of states that only very recently were rid of slavery, namely NY and NJ. As well as the Union that section belonged to still supporting slavery in quasi
Northern states of Delaware and Maryland.
New England got rid of slavery much sooner than the rest of the Northern states. Do we hold the rest of them accountable for the 20, 30, 40 or more years they had slavery and New England didnt?
It cannot be said with certainty the south, likely upper south, would not have followed suit in another 15, 20, or 30 years had there been no war. So we continue to give the lower north the same credit as new England, which happened decades sooner, but will never know when the upper south would have ended it due to war, and leave them in complete condemnation.
 

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
406
Lots of big words and chest thumping for a section that had a couple of states that only very recently were rid of slavery, namely NY and NJ. As well as the Union that section belonged to still supporting slavery in quasi
Northern states of Delaware and Maryland.
New England got rid of slavery much sooner than the rest of the Northern states. Do we hold the rest of them accountable for the 20, 30, 40 or more years they had slavery and New England didnt?
It cannot be said with certainty the south, likely upper south, would not have followed suit in another 15, 20, or 30 years had there been no war. So we continue to give the lower north the same credit as new England, which happened decades sooner, but will never know when the upper south would have ended it due to war, and leave them in complete condemnation.
The point is that the north started to end it and ended it before the south. New England set it into motion and the rest trickled down in time, which the preparation were made to end it.

No indications that the south had any intentions of ending slavery, certainty not from a education and ingenuity standpoint. Other than posting some bogus excerpt from some shady character from the Confederacy, show me the economic/invention/innovation/patent data that indicates the south was planning on ending slavery.
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top