Agree 100% that we need a new Civil War documentary. As a descendant of a great and great great grandfather (father and son) who fought - on different sides - from successive generations of the same family - it is absolutely necessary. In many ways our understanding of ourselves as Americans is harmed by the traditional CW history.
The Civil War was not fought about slavery per se. It was fought over Federal versus local control. It was fought over control of industry and technology. It was fought with international financing.
The technological behemoth which rose to power after the war still defines America and the world.
Carnegie and Vanderbilt - just some of the new power of post Civl War America.
If there's a new documentary I'd like to see it junk the false equivalency fallacy and not worry about "giving both sides' views." Just tell the truth by the latest scholarship and don't worry about hurting the SCV's and UDC's feelings.
Kevin, you've got a great group of commenters! I've learned something from each and every one of them. They've seen the Burns' series, thought about it, and offer reflective criticisms of certain aspects of "The Civil War". Your own comments have been thoughtful as well. Though I might have said this in an earlier post, let me reiterate that the "hidden bomb" in the Burns documentary was the presence of Professor Barbara Fields. Shelby Foote, sure he was biased, but, man, was he effective! So was Fields though; the difference was that *her* bias was one that many viewers of Burns needed to "read, mark, and inwardly digest," and then use in comparison to Foote's worldview. I'm sure some of them did!
It's nice to have so many thoughtful commenters. Some of them have been reading and commenting on my online writing for over 15 years. I couldn't agree more with you re: Fields.
Kevin I credit both Burns and Catton with inspiring generations of lifetime-learners. As a little kid, I exchanged letters with Bruce Catton, which surely influenced my career path.
Thanks Kevin. I’m really enjoying these insights. One reason I think people enjoyed Burns’ series so much is because of the “character” of Shelby Foote. It was much more enjoyable to look and listen to a southern gentleman discuss the War than some stuffy academic. People were drawn in by his accent, his storytelling and his demeanor. He appealed to the casual observer and the buff alike. I agree a new series is needed but unless they find a speaker as appealing as Foote it won’t appeal to a general audience.
Glad to hear that you are enjoying the series. I think you have a point about Foote, but you also maybe taking a bit too far. I don't anyone who saw Barbara Fields as a "stuffy academic." In fact, I thought she was just as effective in conveying her points as Foote.
Rangering at both Antietam and Monocacy found me frequently correcting visitors that Ken Burns is not an historian, but rather a good documentarian. Comparisons are often made between Burns and Bruce Catton; Catton referred to himself as a "newspaperman." Shelby Foote annoyed, rather than, charmed me. Thanks for this thoughtful series Kevin.
Great to hear from you and thanks for the comment. I certainly don't doubt that you had to correct plenty of visitors, but I wonder how many traveled to Antietam and Monocacy because of the film.
I’ve enjoyed your series about Ken Burns’ The Civil War, a documentary that I certainly enjoyed watching even with its flaws.
I’m giving the soundtrack a special shoutout. It is an excellent use of music merging emotion with the content. My favorite cut is Bernice Johnson Reagon’s hauntingly beautiful rendition of We Are Climbing Jacob’s Ladder.
I think the Burns documentary is like a fugue--it has multiple themes going at the same time. While I agree that Foote, Fields and possibly others featured--as well as the narration itself in places--make some highly questionable statements, I think this basic approach is appropriate. Major historical events are generally multidimensional and mean different things to different people, and this has certainly been true of the Civil War--both during the war and since.
Burns' treatment of the First Minnesota's charge (ignoring it - like everyone else does to this day) is a great place to start re-telling the Civil War, not least because the Lost Cause was birthed at Gettysburg.
It’s my expectation that due to the fractious nature of our politics and attempts by certain states to deny the realities of our history, a new documentary would be criticized in some quarters and allow cultural warriors an opportunity to complain about how we present our history.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of political affiliation among the viewers of the film in 1990. I suspect there was a certain amount of crossover, though PBS certainly attracts a more liberal audience.
Agree 100% that we need a new Civil War documentary. As a descendant of a great and great great grandfather (father and son) who fought - on different sides - from successive generations of the same family - it is absolutely necessary. In many ways our understanding of ourselves as Americans is harmed by the traditional CW history.
The Civil War was not fought about slavery per se. It was fought over Federal versus local control. It was fought over control of industry and technology. It was fought with international financing.
The technological behemoth which rose to power after the war still defines America and the world.
Carnegie and Vanderbilt - just some of the new power of post Civl War America.
If there's a new documentary I'd like to see it junk the false equivalency fallacy and not worry about "giving both sides' views." Just tell the truth by the latest scholarship and don't worry about hurting the SCV's and UDC's feelings.
I agree. I thought Henry Louis Gates did a really good job on this score in his documentary about Reconstruction.
Kevin, you've got a great group of commenters! I've learned something from each and every one of them. They've seen the Burns' series, thought about it, and offer reflective criticisms of certain aspects of "The Civil War". Your own comments have been thoughtful as well. Though I might have said this in an earlier post, let me reiterate that the "hidden bomb" in the Burns documentary was the presence of Professor Barbara Fields. Shelby Foote, sure he was biased, but, man, was he effective! So was Fields though; the difference was that *her* bias was one that many viewers of Burns needed to "read, mark, and inwardly digest," and then use in comparison to Foote's worldview. I'm sure some of them did!
It's nice to have so many thoughtful commenters. Some of them have been reading and commenting on my online writing for over 15 years. I couldn't agree more with you re: Fields.
Kevin I credit both Burns and Catton with inspiring generations of lifetime-learners. As a little kid, I exchanged letters with Bruce Catton, which surely influenced my career path.
No doubt. I was speaking more about the generation that was influenced by Burns.
Thanks Kevin. I’m really enjoying these insights. One reason I think people enjoyed Burns’ series so much is because of the “character” of Shelby Foote. It was much more enjoyable to look and listen to a southern gentleman discuss the War than some stuffy academic. People were drawn in by his accent, his storytelling and his demeanor. He appealed to the casual observer and the buff alike. I agree a new series is needed but unless they find a speaker as appealing as Foote it won’t appeal to a general audience.
Glad to hear that you are enjoying the series. I think you have a point about Foote, but you also maybe taking a bit too far. I don't anyone who saw Barbara Fields as a "stuffy academic." In fact, I thought she was just as effective in conveying her points as Foote.
Rangering at both Antietam and Monocacy found me frequently correcting visitors that Ken Burns is not an historian, but rather a good documentarian. Comparisons are often made between Burns and Bruce Catton; Catton referred to himself as a "newspaperman." Shelby Foote annoyed, rather than, charmed me. Thanks for this thoughtful series Kevin.
Great to hear from you and thanks for the comment. I certainly don't doubt that you had to correct plenty of visitors, but I wonder how many traveled to Antietam and Monocacy because of the film.
I’ve enjoyed your series about Ken Burns’ The Civil War, a documentary that I certainly enjoyed watching even with its flaws.
I’m giving the soundtrack a special shoutout. It is an excellent use of music merging emotion with the content. My favorite cut is Bernice Johnson Reagon’s hauntingly beautiful rendition of We Are Climbing Jacob’s Ladder.
Yes. For years after watching I thought "Ashokan Farewell" was something to do with the Civil War.
I completely agree. I particularly love the way the music enters at the end of Episode 1 during the reading of the Sullivan Ballou.
I think the Burns documentary is like a fugue--it has multiple themes going at the same time. While I agree that Foote, Fields and possibly others featured--as well as the narration itself in places--make some highly questionable statements, I think this basic approach is appropriate. Major historical events are generally multidimensional and mean different things to different people, and this has certainly been true of the Civil War--both during the war and since.
Burns' treatment of the First Minnesota's charge (ignoring it - like everyone else does to this day) is a great place to start re-telling the Civil War, not least because the Lost Cause was birthed at Gettysburg.
If I am not mistaken, a couple of recent Civil War documentaries have featured the story of the First Minnesota at Gettysburg.
When all roads of Civil War Memory lead to that charge we'll be getting somewhere. Working on that lol
It’s my expectation that due to the fractious nature of our politics and attempts by certain states to deny the realities of our history, a new documentary would be criticized in some quarters and allow cultural warriors an opportunity to complain about how we present our history.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of political affiliation among the viewers of the film in 1990. I suspect there was a certain amount of crossover, though PBS certainly attracts a more liberal audience.