Why America Needs a New Civil War Documentary

Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
640
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.
Trickled down in time may have applied to the upper south/border states as well, but we will never know now. There was less dependence on slavery in upper south, look at slave populations. You also have the fact that slavery ended in the western hemisphere, mostly, in the late 1800s. I dont see it going any longer in my opinion in the south.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,144
Location
Laurinburg NC
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 North only got rid of slavery once it became unprofitable. Cotton didn't grow well there.
 

James N.

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
10,735
Location
East Texas
After the airing of Henry Louis Gates's new Reconstruction documentary, an historian podered whether we need a new full-length documentary on the Civil War. The Ken Burns documentary series has been massively influential in how Americans view the war, but it is heavily colored by the romantic Lost Cause opinions of Shelby Foote.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...s61sf04KyctURVkf6dGfAPCgl7ajicBYoLK22ww_7u9Ik
I've purposely avoided this thread thus far, but feel obligated to observe that a "new" series has the opportunity to be just as heavily colored by the current crop of all the politically correct and South-bashers; perhaps Ta-Nehisi Coates would agree to replace Shelby Foote and, if done by Gates, he could also conveniently leave out every aspect that didn't directly affect the black folks, just as he did with Reconstruction.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
9,248
Location
on the long winding road
I've purposely avoided this thread thus far, but feel obligated to observe that a "new" series has the opportunity to be just as heavily colored by the current crop of all the politically correct and South-bashers; perhaps Ta-Nehisi Coates would agree to replace Shelby Foote and, if done by Gates, he could also conveniently leave out every aspect that didn't directly affect the black folks, just as he did with Reconstruction.
We used to have a dude around here who regularly pounded on Foote not being a historian, as if that were a Papal Indulgence for writing accurate history. We still have a guy here who regularly refers to college teachers as "the Academy" when he wants to impress. Coates is a favorite of both even though he lacks a college degree. I don't get it.
 

James N.

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
10,735
Location
East Texas
We used to have a dude around here who regularly pounded on Foote not being a historian, as if that were a Papal Indulgence for writing accurate history. We still have a guy here who regularly refers to college teachers as "the Academy" when he wants to impress. Coates is a favorite of both even though he lacks a college degree. I don't get it.
Coates is also supposed to be a "historian" - I don't get THAT either.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
313
Trickled down in time may have applied to the upper south/border states as well, but we will never know now. There was less dependence on slavery in upper south, look at slave populations. You also have the fact that slavery ended in the western hemisphere, mostly, in the late 1800s. I dont see it going any longer in my opinion in the south.
But it never happened, but what we do know is that the north ended slavery and south didn't. The only problem with your opinion is that it's your opinion, nothing more. Again, there are no economic nor any education markers that indicate that the south was making any preperations to break off from slavery.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,490
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
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.

The more I see Northern slavery get it's just due, the more I see the irony. There was no good slavery, including the Norths'. Also let's not make it appear that Northern Slavery ended at the drop of the hat, it took years and laws to end it.

I am for one glad that the North ended slavery, and those of the pro-north view should be proud, but they should also realize, for them to end slavery, they first must have the cruel, vile institution known as slavery.

The twinkling stars are coming forth, as now history is presenting those free Negros who were forced into the Union army. Let's also not forget how much of the New England area was built, on the backbone of the slave trade. The Treasury of Virtue, the North's shield, has many stains on it. Slavery was an American sin, a worldly sin, no matter how much one wishes to point fingers.

Thank you for your post and input.

Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
640
But it never happened, but what we do know is that the north ended slavery and south didn't. The only problem with your opinion is that it's your opinion, nothing more. Again, there are no economic nor any education markers that indicate that the south was making any preperations to break off from slavery.
Yes, it had no chance to happen due to war. If allowed to occur naturally, as it did in new England and then the other northern states, it would have at some point. The evidence is that it did in the rest of the western hemisphere. This is the logical conclusion. The war sped up the process. Unless you consider the south an outlier, different from any other state in the western hemisphere. In that case I would say instead of logic, you have bias.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
313
The more I see Northern slavery get it's just due, the more I see the irony. There was no good slavery, including the Norths'. Also let's not make it appear that Northern Slavery ended at the drop of the hat, it took years and laws to end it.

I am for one glad that the North ended slavery, and those of the pro-north view should be proud, but they should also realize, for them to end slavery, they first must have the cruel, vile institution known as slavery.

The twinkling stars are coming forth, as now history is presenting those free Negros who were forced into the Union army. Let's also not forget how much of the New England area was built, on the backbone of the slave trade. The Treasury of Virtue, the North's shield, has many stains on it. Slavery was an American sin, a worldly sin, no matter how much one wishes to point fingers.

Thank you for your post and input.

Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries
View attachment 307500
I agree with all this, but the issue here is that the north made the preparations via education and ingenuity to end slavery and the south did not. The point here that seems to get lost is "preparation to end slavery," which the north made the arrangements and it appears the south made none.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,490
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
I agree with all this, but the issue here is that the north made the preparations via education and ingenuity to end slavery and the south did not. The point here that seems to get lost is "preparation to end slavery," which the north made the arrangements and it appears the south made none.
I myself do not know of any large scale Southern "preparation to end slavery", of course morally they should have, but lawfully, and economically they had no reason to. It was also more easier economically for the North to rid itself of slavery than it was for the South, yet even in the North they found it extremely difficult for the Northern economy to sever it's ties to slavery (Cotton & Textile mills).

Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
313
Yes, it had no chance to happen due to war. If allowed to occur naturally, as it did in new England and then the other northern states, it would have at some point. The evidence is that it did in the rest of the western hemisphere. This is the logical conclusion. The war sped up the process. Unless you consider the south an outlier, different from any other state in the western hemisphere. In that case I would say instead of logic, you have bias.
Was the south going to get hit by lightning? There were "zero" indicators that the south was going to end slavery as late as 1860, none. All the major inventions/innovations/patents from 1776-1860 that came out of the free states(Roger Burlingame, March of the Iron Men: A Social History of Union Through Invention (New York, 1938). Giving you the benefit, the south just didn't evolve fast enough and were left behind.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,929
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Only to you apparently...….

Not really as there are others who feel as I do.

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...…

Hmmm... I was thinking the same thing, especially when I saw the words, "your side."

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

Disagree.

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.........
I think the problem is when coercion is excused or even spread around to avoid who used coercion in the first place is the real problem.

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,929
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
But why did they continue to make profits from slavery (cotton mills, cotton goods) and engage in the slave trade?
Because businessmen are businessmen. They didn't make any money once the war ended..
They were not the type of folks to confuse morality with money.
The South made no money off of slavery while the North did?

And the "types" in the South were different fromthe "types" in the North how when it came to making money?
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,660
Location
mo
I think the problem is when coercion is excused or even spread around to avoid who used coercion in the first place is the real problem.

Unionblue
Nice strawman argument.....I've never excused anyone's coercion.....however if you go back to my orginal post, which country today still uses coercion as a threat to hold states to it? I dont see where the Confederacy is much of a coercion threat today. As I said people in the thread had suggested without coercion......states might even decide to leave today.......

The real problem would seem to be those who refuse to recognize which has continued the practice for 154 years.....Not saying one cant argue coercion may be a necessary evil, but it still is coercion, and one should least be able to admit it.......and recognize it for what it is. If your blind to the threat of coercion to any state wanting to leave for the last 154 years.....it would seem your the one excusing coercion though

Its funny how some, whether coercion, slavery or anything else..........want to focus on just solely four years of a defunct country.....and ignore the existing country which has a far longer history with the same issues........ Actually the United States has a history before 1861.....and after 1865.... it didn't just exist the 4 years of civil war..........
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,929
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Nice strawman argument.....I've never excused anyone's coercion.....however if you go back to my orginal post, which country today still uses coercion as a threat to hold states to it? I dont see where the Confederacy is much of a coercion threat today. As I said people in the thread had suggested without coercion......states might even decide to leave today.......

OK.

The real problem would seem to be those who refuse to recognize which has continued the practice for 154 years.....Not saying one cant argue coercion may be a necessary evil, but it still is coercion, and one should least be able to admit it.......and recognize it for what it is. If your blind to the threat of coercion for the last 154 years.....it would seem your the one excusing coercion though
I'm not excusing my country for defeating an attempt at coercion to render it in two.

If you feel the current United States is using coercion to keep it's 50 states from leaving, I would counter there has been no further attempt to use armed coercion to divide it. If a State wishes to leave the Union by some form of legal or legislative means I am of the opinion no form of armed coercion should be used to prevent it, if it meets with the rest of the nation's approval.

But I do not recognize the idea that the Confederacy was forced to use violence to deny the results of a free and fair election as a result of some Northern coercion, not in the face of historical fact. The coercion was from one direction. It was defeated.

Now we just have to wait and see if a State wants to leave by peaceful means and by what process it accomplishes such.

Unionblue
 
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
62
My problem with historical documentaries is that everything is explained in today's terms and mindset.

I find that the unintended consequences are glossed over or ignored. By unintended consequences I mean Northern racism, revenge politics, and the social upheaval caused by Reconstruction.

Is it possible to have a great documentary on the war in today's world? With so much history being erased and rewritten could it be accurate?
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top