Veeky Forums movies

Is Ken Burns' The Civil War accurate?

I've enjoyed it for the most part, but the beginning took more an angle that the war started because of slavery, instead of states rights.

Other urls found in this thread:

civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>the war started because of slavery, instead of states rights.
Yeah that was where I stopped watching, I'm so sick of this PC shit now twisting history for the sake of politics.

Slavery was literally an afterthought for both sides, but the North (which didn't give a shit about salves at first) decided to ride the issue to the "moral highground". The war was fought over the states' rights to own slaves.

I agree with you there. But what I'm asking is does the bullshit spread into the information about the battles and war?

Motives can be argued and twisted, but the facts of battle can't be skewed that badly, can they?

...

You'd be very, very hard pressed to find any historian specialising in the Civil War who wouldn't say the primary motivation was slavery. It's been the academic consensus since around the 1920s.

t. user who wrote his history dissertation on correspondence during the Civil War

>Is Ken Burns' The Civil War accurate?
It pulls its sources from legitimate academics and published scholars so if you're looking for "the South dindu nuffin" then you'll hate it but if you're looking for an honest assessment it's spot on.

>Slavery was literally an afterthought for both sides, but the North (which didn't give a shit about salves at first) decided to ride the issue to the "moral highground". The war was fought over the states' rights to own slaves.
bull fucking shit. That is revisionism so nauseating that you'd have to be a buttmad southerner to believe it.
civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
These are PRIMARY sources written by each seceding state offering a complete, nuanced view of why they were seceding.

go ahead. Read them.

And for anyone playing the home game, the way it happened was the exact opposite of what he said: the southerners made it about slavery until realizing that it was getting them absolutely no where diplomatically with the European powers, who freed their slaves around the same time that New England did, so they revised their branding strategy to be more vague about their intentions because "states rights" can mean whatever the listener wants it to mean, but for a southerner in the 1860's it was implicit that they were talking about the rights of states to define a living human being as the property of another person.

>I'm so sick of this PC shit now
>now
This series is from 1990.

>dissertation
>academic
The work of the Ashkenazi Jewish population clearly.

>implying the issues of slavery and states' rights are extricable
When will this meme end?

So what states' rights, other than the right to legislate slavery on a state-by-state basis, were the Confederacy/south so concerned about that they were willing to wage a war?

the Confederate seceded because of slavery.

the war started because the Confederates seceded.

>Muh State Rights!
>Wait, What! Northern states can't just let slaves run away and be free up North! We demand by threat of the federal government that Northern states are forced to return runaway blacks to their slave masters.

Southerners are hypocritical pieces of shit and I don't mourn a single one of their deaths or the suffering of their people.

This.

It's one of the only causes I hate enough that I'm okay with hipsters fucking with war monuments.

DLT THS

> the beginning took more an angle that the war started because of slavery, instead of states rights.

the south seceded because they wanted to keep slavery legal in their states. the war was fought because the south seceded.

>US Constitution
>Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3
>No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

You seem to not understand what a state right is.

The north never threatened slavery in the southern states. They even attempted to pass a amendment protecting the institution of the South remained, google the corwin amendment.

Mississippian reporting. Fuck this "muh states' rights" shit. It was all about slaves, the whole time. You're only kidding yourselves. Read a fucking book and quit getting your history from the internet.

t. Publicly educated

t. homeschooled social autist

Touche

t. Tyrone from Jackson

Right. See You can't talk about states' rights without also talking about slavery. That was far and away the #1 right the south was concerned with.

States rights... to slavery.
The economy... based on slavery.
Representation... based on slavery.

It was almost entirely about slavery. It might not have been about the morality of slavery, but it was about slavery in one form or another.

>the Civil War was about slavery
>the North (at least, a large enough portion of it) was prepared to pass an amendment literally enshrining slavery into the US constitution to placate the South
k

Anyone watched the extended directors cut of Gods and Generals? Nearly five hours of wanking to Stonewall Jacksson. It's not a "good" movie but it isn't bad. Worth a watch.

Yes and the yankees had no right to take away our slaves.

>Slavery was literally an afterthought
>The war was fought over the states' rights to own slaves.
How retarded are you? This is literal doublethink

>right
Might is right faggot. You fought and you lost. You could have given up slavery like every other normal nation but ya fucked up kid

Go away, /pol/.

Agreed that it's not a "good" movie but that scene at the battle of Fredericksburg where the southern Irish regiment starts hooting out of respect for the northern Irish regiment that they just massacred over a farm used to grow food for Irish starving in the potato famine still gives me chills.

>Slavery was literally an afterthought
>The war was fought over the states' rights
>to own slaves.
Is this a joke?

The scenes with Jackson and the little girl were quite endearing. It doesn't feel like a movie, does it? But rather more like parts of somebody's life from an idyllic view. The fake german accent for the prussian is criminally bad however.