When the series first aired I was all about the battles and not the reasons for the war so her comments were boring. As I began to look into the why of the war her statements hit differently and took on a more compelling tone.
"Fields overlooks the fact that for the vast majority of the loyal citizenry of the United States, the preservation of the Union was the ultimate goal and was viewed as a higher calling and one worthy of the sacrifice." Would it be true to say that many of the loyal citizenry rather rapidly became radical abolitionists because the slave-owners were attempting to destroy the Union? I believe it's been often remarked that in general public attitudes can change very fast in wartime.
I think there was a transformation among many, who came to recognize that ending slavery was a faster way to preserving the Union, but I don't believe this would justify referring to them as radical abolitionists.
"This self-emancipation theory would have been brand new to white viewers of the series at the time"
Shockingly new to me, at least. As episodes passed, I looked forward more and more to Fields' comments.
When considring UCTs, I'm in awe of their courage in facing not only the dangers confronting any soldier but the special dangers posed by the racist violence of Confederates.
Geoffrey Ward should probably get a little credit too. He wrote the script for the Civil War while also writing another script that same year for another Burns documentary called Empire of the Air about the history of radio. Ward is 13 years older than Burns who was only 28 years old when his first documentary about the Brooklyn Bridge aired in 1981.
Both Geoffrey and his younger brother, Andrew, also a historian and longtime contributor to news commentary on PBS, attended Oberlin College, a hotbed of Abolitionism during the Civil War and an important proponent of co-education for women and equal access to education for African-Americans. Both brothers lived for a time in India growing up and were deeply impressed by the centennial of the Cawnpore Massacre and Indian Independence. I don't think I'd ever heard of the Lost Cause narrative or Shelby Foote prior to seeing the Burns Civil War documentary. I imagine they'd have used William Faulkner if he'd still been alive.
This is a very thoughtful post. I have not watched the Ken Burns series in a long time, and reading Professor Fields’s commentary has made me think again about how emancipation was presented in the documentary. I think her perspective was insightful and needed, especially given all the focus on Foote. Additionally, the self-emancipation thesis that she advanced helps show the complex nature of the emancipation story at a time when this story was not properly understood by many people. Her commentary, undoubtedly, made the series better.
I am, however, struck by her first comment in episode 3, and how much that comment misses the mark for so many of the Union officers I studied. They saw saving the Union as a very noble and worthwhile objective. For many, emancipation was just a practical way to achieve that larger goal. Some did embrace emancipation for moral reasons, but many more did not. When I started my research, I really wanted to find more officers who supported emancipation for moral reasons, but they were simply not there. Anyway, thanks for giving my book a shout-out and thanks for making so many great posts!
I really appreciate the kind words. Certainly at the time Fields's theory of self-emancipation was a necessary corrective to the Lost Cause and "Great Emancipator" narrative, but in some ways, as you note, it went too far. There is no question that the enslaved played a crucial role in the process of emancipation, but we now know that the Union army also played a critical role in creating the environment in which the enslaved could operate. This in no way diminishes the bravery of the actions of the enslaved, but it does help us to better understand the role of time and place in how this process evolved. I thank you and other historians for helping me to better understand the importance of Union to the nation as well as the officer corps.
Your book has also helped me to better understand Robert Gould Shaw, who you may know is the subject of my current book project.
I appreciate it and I am glad you found my work useful. I have very much enjoyed your work too. I agree with you 100% about the nature of the emancipation process. The brave actions of African Americans as well as the Union army were both important factors in that process. I look forward to reading your book on Robert Gould Shaw!
I would also like to say that the Freedmen and Southern Society Project is invaluable for anyone trying to understand the process of emancipation on the ground. The documents there helped me understand how the Union army interacted with African Americans fleeing bondage and how army policy was shaped. In that way, Fields influenced my own work. I would second Kevin’s advice to spend a little time with these primary-source documents. The first volume of series 1, The Destruction of Slavery, was especially useful for me.
Kevin, loved this series on Burns, especially this installment on Fields. One thing I found interesting is the number of times that Burns used Foote and Fields edited back-to-back to subtly show some disagreement, particularly when discussing the causes of the war. It should also be noted that Fields' work with the Freedom project and her high-profile comments about emancipation in the Burns series played a role in the "who freed the slaves" debate that caused even James McPherson to weigh-in in the 1990s. That debate pulled me in, as I felt like there had to be a middle ground, but I also felt that blacks did more to turn the conflict into a war of emancipation than just create a "contraband" problem that Lincoln had to solve (which Fields emphasizes). Thus, my own book (to some degree) was sparked by Fields’ comments in the series.
Hi Glenn. Great to hear from you and thanks for sharing how your own scholarship was influenced by Fields. I completely agree with your point about the way in which Burn used Foote and Fields to show different perspectives on central questions related to the war. In that sense the documentary reflected long-standing interpretive disagreements and competing memories of the war.
I wish Burns had used more of Fields given the quality of the outtakes, but again I think the quality of what was included had a significant impact on the series.
I love Professor Fields’s comments about the role of fugitive slaves in securing emancipation by making a nuisance of themselves. I couldn’t help but think of the late Congressman John Lewis’s words, “Speak up, speak out, get in the way. Get in good trouble to redeem the country’s soul.” (I might not have quoted the exact quote)
Kevin, this series on the Ken Burns "Civil War" documentary is just terrific, and I look forward to the remaining posts. Just a note on Shelby Foote: The first comment below refers to his style as "folksy" and "aw shucks," and thus as "phony." I see his monologues as delivered in a "courtly," upper-class Southern style. Rather than being "phony," seems to me that Foote was simply "telling it like [he thought] it was." Given his research and writing on Civil War history, Shelby Foote should, I think, be accorded at least grudging respect for delivering his views on the conflict, as he saw it, in a way that engaged viewers (both positively and negatively, I'd guess). And that's also what Professor Barbara Fields tried to do, and the questions she asked and the points she raised seem more thoughtful than much of Foote's storytelling. But also, and this is the key thing, her approach was more up-to-date, more "modern" that Foote's approach. If there is another Civil War documentary series over the horizon, I'm guessing that Dr. Fields's approach, or similar views by younger historians, will get the majority of the "talking head moments." And they should!
Foote voiced a perspective that was deeply ingrained in American memory of the war. You are right that a Civil War documentary produced today will feature a new generation of historians. One is currently in production. I will talk about it in a future post. Thanks.
When I listened to Dr. Fields, she spoke plainly and clearly and got to the heart of it. This may sound strange but I loved the sound of her voice. On the other hand, when I heard Foote, it was this folksy “aw shucks” style that to me was phony.
When I watched the series the second time, with my daughter, she (my daughter) also thought that Dr. Fields was the star of the show. I was never able to "warm up" to Dr. Fields, and I can't really explain why. It might well be that she was speaking some uncomfortable truths.
(I will totally second the comments about the Freedmen and Southern Society Project. In the early days of the Internet, I was often in contact with Steven Miller (?) who worked there, and was a big help in documents for my "Causes of the Civil War" website.)
This is eye opening. I was unaware of Ms. Fields and her work before reading this. I look forward to seeing and reading more from her, she has an important and little heard perspective. Ken Burns was smart to include her.
Hi Dana. So glad to hear that you found this post to be of interest. I highly recommend the book that Barbara Fields co-authored with her sister called RACECRAFT: THE SOUL OF INEQUALITY IN AMERICAN LIFE. It's not an easy book to get through, but it's well worth your time.
Thanks so much for replying, Kevin. I truly appreciate that and your recommendation. Literally just made a note of it. In the meantime, I'm gonna put the doco on the cable box list. It's too expensive to buy, but at least there's a record set now and will check for more clips on YouTube.
You have great taste & I really appreciate reading your insightful posts. So glad we connected through Twitter 😀
When the series first aired I was all about the battles and not the reasons for the war so her comments were boring. As I began to look into the why of the war her statements hit differently and took on a more compelling tone.
"Fields overlooks the fact that for the vast majority of the loyal citizenry of the United States, the preservation of the Union was the ultimate goal and was viewed as a higher calling and one worthy of the sacrifice." Would it be true to say that many of the loyal citizenry rather rapidly became radical abolitionists because the slave-owners were attempting to destroy the Union? I believe it's been often remarked that in general public attitudes can change very fast in wartime.
I think there was a transformation among many, who came to recognize that ending slavery was a faster way to preserving the Union, but I don't believe this would justify referring to them as radical abolitionists.
"This self-emancipation theory would have been brand new to white viewers of the series at the time"
Shockingly new to me, at least. As episodes passed, I looked forward more and more to Fields' comments.
When considring UCTs, I'm in awe of their courage in facing not only the dangers confronting any soldier but the special dangers posed by the racist violence of Confederates.
Same.
Geoffrey Ward should probably get a little credit too. He wrote the script for the Civil War while also writing another script that same year for another Burns documentary called Empire of the Air about the history of radio. Ward is 13 years older than Burns who was only 28 years old when his first documentary about the Brooklyn Bridge aired in 1981.
You are absolutely right. Thanks, Craig.
Both Geoffrey and his younger brother, Andrew, also a historian and longtime contributor to news commentary on PBS, attended Oberlin College, a hotbed of Abolitionism during the Civil War and an important proponent of co-education for women and equal access to education for African-Americans. Both brothers lived for a time in India growing up and were deeply impressed by the centennial of the Cawnpore Massacre and Indian Independence. I don't think I'd ever heard of the Lost Cause narrative or Shelby Foote prior to seeing the Burns Civil War documentary. I imagine they'd have used William Faulkner if he'd still been alive.
This is a very thoughtful post. I have not watched the Ken Burns series in a long time, and reading Professor Fields’s commentary has made me think again about how emancipation was presented in the documentary. I think her perspective was insightful and needed, especially given all the focus on Foote. Additionally, the self-emancipation thesis that she advanced helps show the complex nature of the emancipation story at a time when this story was not properly understood by many people. Her commentary, undoubtedly, made the series better.
I am, however, struck by her first comment in episode 3, and how much that comment misses the mark for so many of the Union officers I studied. They saw saving the Union as a very noble and worthwhile objective. For many, emancipation was just a practical way to achieve that larger goal. Some did embrace emancipation for moral reasons, but many more did not. When I started my research, I really wanted to find more officers who supported emancipation for moral reasons, but they were simply not there. Anyway, thanks for giving my book a shout-out and thanks for making so many great posts!
I really appreciate the kind words. Certainly at the time Fields's theory of self-emancipation was a necessary corrective to the Lost Cause and "Great Emancipator" narrative, but in some ways, as you note, it went too far. There is no question that the enslaved played a crucial role in the process of emancipation, but we now know that the Union army also played a critical role in creating the environment in which the enslaved could operate. This in no way diminishes the bravery of the actions of the enslaved, but it does help us to better understand the role of time and place in how this process evolved. I thank you and other historians for helping me to better understand the importance of Union to the nation as well as the officer corps.
Your book has also helped me to better understand Robert Gould Shaw, who you may know is the subject of my current book project.
I appreciate it and I am glad you found my work useful. I have very much enjoyed your work too. I agree with you 100% about the nature of the emancipation process. The brave actions of African Americans as well as the Union army were both important factors in that process. I look forward to reading your book on Robert Gould Shaw!
I would also like to say that the Freedmen and Southern Society Project is invaluable for anyone trying to understand the process of emancipation on the ground. The documents there helped me understand how the Union army interacted with African Americans fleeing bondage and how army policy was shaped. In that way, Fields influenced my own work. I would second Kevin’s advice to spend a little time with these primary-source documents. The first volume of series 1, The Destruction of Slavery, was especially useful for me.
Kevin, loved this series on Burns, especially this installment on Fields. One thing I found interesting is the number of times that Burns used Foote and Fields edited back-to-back to subtly show some disagreement, particularly when discussing the causes of the war. It should also be noted that Fields' work with the Freedom project and her high-profile comments about emancipation in the Burns series played a role in the "who freed the slaves" debate that caused even James McPherson to weigh-in in the 1990s. That debate pulled me in, as I felt like there had to be a middle ground, but I also felt that blacks did more to turn the conflict into a war of emancipation than just create a "contraband" problem that Lincoln had to solve (which Fields emphasizes). Thus, my own book (to some degree) was sparked by Fields’ comments in the series.
Hi Glenn. Great to hear from you and thanks for sharing how your own scholarship was influenced by Fields. I completely agree with your point about the way in which Burn used Foote and Fields to show different perspectives on central questions related to the war. In that sense the documentary reflected long-standing interpretive disagreements and competing memories of the war.
I wish Burns had used more of Fields given the quality of the outtakes, but again I think the quality of what was included had a significant impact on the series.
Excellent post!
I love Professor Fields’s comments about the role of fugitive slaves in securing emancipation by making a nuisance of themselves. I couldn’t help but think of the late Congressman John Lewis’s words, “Speak up, speak out, get in the way. Get in good trouble to redeem the country’s soul.” (I might not have quoted the exact quote)
It’s time to rewatch The Civil War.
Glad to hear you enjoyed the post.
Kevin, this series on the Ken Burns "Civil War" documentary is just terrific, and I look forward to the remaining posts. Just a note on Shelby Foote: The first comment below refers to his style as "folksy" and "aw shucks," and thus as "phony." I see his monologues as delivered in a "courtly," upper-class Southern style. Rather than being "phony," seems to me that Foote was simply "telling it like [he thought] it was." Given his research and writing on Civil War history, Shelby Foote should, I think, be accorded at least grudging respect for delivering his views on the conflict, as he saw it, in a way that engaged viewers (both positively and negatively, I'd guess). And that's also what Professor Barbara Fields tried to do, and the questions she asked and the points she raised seem more thoughtful than much of Foote's storytelling. But also, and this is the key thing, her approach was more up-to-date, more "modern" that Foote's approach. If there is another Civil War documentary series over the horizon, I'm guessing that Dr. Fields's approach, or similar views by younger historians, will get the majority of the "talking head moments." And they should!
Foote voiced a perspective that was deeply ingrained in American memory of the war. You are right that a Civil War documentary produced today will feature a new generation of historians. One is currently in production. I will talk about it in a future post. Thanks.
When I listened to Dr. Fields, she spoke plainly and clearly and got to the heart of it. This may sound strange but I loved the sound of her voice. On the other hand, when I heard Foote, it was this folksy “aw shucks” style that to me was phony.
When I watched the series the second time, with my daughter, she (my daughter) also thought that Dr. Fields was the star of the show. I was never able to "warm up" to Dr. Fields, and I can't really explain why. It might well be that she was speaking some uncomfortable truths.
(I will totally second the comments about the Freedmen and Southern Society Project. In the early days of the Internet, I was often in contact with Steven Miller (?) who worked there, and was a big help in documents for my "Causes of the Civil War" website.)
Thanks for sharing your experience with the film. I suspect you were not alone in your response to Fields.
This is eye opening. I was unaware of Ms. Fields and her work before reading this. I look forward to seeing and reading more from her, she has an important and little heard perspective. Ken Burns was smart to include her.
Thanks so much for such a great post.
Hi Dana. So glad to hear that you found this post to be of interest. I highly recommend the book that Barbara Fields co-authored with her sister called RACECRAFT: THE SOUL OF INEQUALITY IN AMERICAN LIFE. It's not an easy book to get through, but it's well worth your time.
Thanks so much for replying, Kevin. I truly appreciate that and your recommendation. Literally just made a note of it. In the meantime, I'm gonna put the doco on the cable box list. It's too expensive to buy, but at least there's a record set now and will check for more clips on YouTube.
You have great taste & I really appreciate reading your insightful posts. So glad we connected through Twitter 😀
Have a great Friday 13th & a good weekend .
I really appreciate the kind thoughts. You have a great weekend as well.