What's your opinion of the Ken Burns "Civil War" documentary?

[Bodhisattva]

I watched much of it many years ago and felt it was an incomplete effort at best and a pro-federal smear job at worst. I'm considering watching it again. What are your thoughts?

 

[rpeastep]

I thought it was absolutely the best work of its type ever made. I taped it When originally broadcast in 89 ir 90 and have watched it so much all the tapes were worn out. I taped it again when they rebroadcast is this year.

I really didn't see that it was biased either way.

 

[derek4tide]

I watched much of it many years ago and felt it was an incomplete effort at best and a pro-federal smear job at worst. I'm considering watching it again. What are your thoughts?

And you expected something else from the US federal PBS? I mean, come on. The victors write the history. As for the series, I thought it was great film making, but poorly researched and wrong on most points. I loved the Shelby Foote parts - they were pure genius. I miss Dr. Foote.

 

[formersoldier71]

The victors write the history. As for the series, I thought it was great film making, but poorly researched and wrong on most points. I loved the Shelby Foote parts - they were pure genius. I miss Dr. Foote.

Pretty much. A person would be much better off by reading Foote's The Civil War.

 

[Tidewater]

There has been an entire book written about the errors in Burns' work. At times, he displays a certain sympathy for the northern viewpoint. He certainly never takes a really critical look at some of the Federal policies. (e.g. Does the Federal government really have the power to remove elected State governments and replace them with appointed military governors? Does the President have the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus? Can he close newspapers because of what they write? Can he arrest State legislators because of how they are going to vote, but haven't yet? These are issues Burns leaves unexamined).
At other times, Burns is simplistic. This is hard to avoid if you are going to deal with a subject this complex in nine hours.
As film, however, it is brilliant, in a Leni Riefenstahl kind of way.

 

[Bamaro]

I thought it was excellent.

 

[Bodhisattva]

As film, however, it is brilliant, in a Leni Riefenstahl kind of way.

Excellent reference.

 

[dvldog]

I liked the fiddle playing.

 

[Bamaro]

And you expected something else from the US federal PBS? I mean, come on. The victors write the history. As for the series, I thought it was great film making, but poorly researched and wrong on most points. I loved the Shelby Foote parts - they were pure genius. I miss Dr. Foote.

The Shelby Foote parts went a long way to making this as good as it was. But just the fact of including so many of his comments negates your criticism of 'victors write the history' and 'US federal PBS'.

 

[CrimsonNan]

Uh oh, I thought the topic was WWII. 'cuse me!!!

 

[dvldog]

I didnt like the way it ended. Do over.

 

[dayhiker]

I liked the fiddle playing.

One of the guys in the B'ham group "Three On A String," plays in this and several other Burns films.

 

[Tidewater]

One of the guys in the B'ham group "Three On A String," plays in this and several other Burns films.

Would that be Bobby Horton?

 

[Tidewater]

The Shelby Foote parts went a long way to making this as good as it was. But just the fact of including so many of his comments negates your criticism of 'victors write the history' and 'US federal PBS'.

Burns was pretty faithful to the standard northern/unionist narrative.
There was another interpretation. Indeed the difference between two interpretations was the reason there was a war.

 

[92tide]

Burns was pretty faithful to the standard northern/unionist narrative.

as opposed to the southern/secessionist narrative that i assume is the correct one?

 

[Tidewater]

as opposed to the southern/secessionist narrative that i assume is the correct one?

Might I suggest that you read more closely?
There were (at least) two narratives. The fact that there were two was the reason there was a war: the northern/Unionist view and the southern/strict constructionist view (an example of which is posted below in my signature).
Ironically, they were not mutually exclusive, but the politicians of the day talked past each other, and the radicals held the floor.
If that sounds familiar to the modern reader, then one can see the fascination the era holds for modern readers (or, in the case of the Burns film, viewers).

And yes, I believe that Burns held fairly fast to the northern/Unionist narrative. The southern perspective is not given much time.

 

[formersoldier71]

as opposed to the southern/secessionist narrative that i assume is the correct one?

Yes, that would be the correct one.

Seems like there was an episode where Jethro was studying history and mentioned the Civil War to Granny. She said that was when the Americans fought the Yankees.

 

[Tidewater]

Yes, that would be the correct one.

Seems like there was an episode where Jethro was studying history and mentioned the Civil War to Granny. She said that was when the Americans fought the Yankees.

Granny was wise.

Today, my wife was watching the old Andy Griffith episode in which an old goat ate a bunch of dynamite.
At the start of the episode, a highway construction crew was blasting to make a bypass around Mayberry. An old lady heard the explosions, and called sheriff Andy to ask if it was the Yankees again. After Andy calmed her down, she told Andy to make sure they "held onto Richmond."

 

[formersoldier71]

I blame everything after 1864 on Braxton Bragg...

 

[Tidewater]

I blame everything after 1864 on Braxton Bragg...

Everything before 1864 as well.
Bragg was a cro-magnon. Union MVP in 1863.