| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Civil War's 150th getting the short end of the stick? |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Civil War's 150th getting the short end of the stick? |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Civil War's 150th getting the short end of the stick? | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Apr 6th, 2012 05:49 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Michael F. Blake Member
|
Is it me, or does it seem that the 150th anniversary of the Civil War is getting the short end of the stick? Now I KNOW follks like us, and the magazines that cater to our interest, are doing what they can. But it sure as hell seems to me that the media, especially TV, is all but ignoring the 150th. Remember in 1976 when we had Bicentennial minutes on CBS, with various stars, historians who talked about a certain event or person? yeah, it was only a minute, but it was designed to spark interest in history. Why hasn't one of the major networks done that with the Civil War's 150th? Oh! Right! Networks are run by a bunch of fender-heads who know next to nothing about history, nor do they care to promote such things. Where's the History Channel? Oh, yeah, they're too busy with ice road truckers and American pickers.... It bothers me, on the eve of the Battle of Shiloh's 150th anniversary, the networks are not doing their job. They'd rather fan the flames of discord in Florida or offer us some other puff piece. Sigh.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 6th, 2012 12:31 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Gettysburger Member
|
Mike,,,I agree totally with you as most readers of this board do. History channel is owned and operated by the multi networks run and financed by the left wing and/or obama sycophants. So you aren't going to see anything about the war there very often. I am pretty certain they want the population to be further dumbed-downed before the fall election. Like you mentioned, the national media would rather stir up hatred using the florida shootings to divide and agitate and stop folks from thinking how bad the economy really is. You might think the discord about the Civil war and it's repercussions might also flame partisanship and anger for the major networks?? But since it happened 150 yrs ago, the networks can't be bothered to bring up 'ancient' history very few people know anything about and care less about today. One thing I saw on NBC this week was a quick spot about the error of total deaths from 4 years of Civil War. Brian Williams reported the new total of deaths in the war was much closer to 750K rather than the 'old' total of about 620K deaths. However, he didn't site the source(s) of this information so I have no idea whether it's factual? Dr. T
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 7th, 2012 02:07 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
Hellcat Person 
|
This has been discussed in other threads and I totally agree. I look back at last year, when the 150th anniversary of Ft. Sumter came up it was all over the news. I remember seeing the national news, local news, local radio, and local paper having all kinds of articles leading up to and on the annivesary of Ft. Sumter with comments of all sorts of events supposed to be occuring for the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. TCM ran a full month of movies somehow related to the war last April (which started that thread that ended up on movies we'd have liked to be added). And we had the thread that posted the article on books being released or re-released in honor of the 150th anniversary. But by the time the anniversary of First Bull Run (First Manassas) rolled around I don't remember there being any sort of mention about the war in the news unless it was more local news (certainly not my local news) or sources that catered to folks interested in the war. I know someone said the focus in '61 through '65 was more on the military side of the war and since then the focus has shifted more to the political side of the war. Fine, but wouldn't this be the perfect time to bring that more to the public at large? If the war is not appearing at all really in the news then really is there much of a chance of introducing either to the public at large?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 9th, 2012 07:42 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Old North State Member
|
Whoa! I'm a supporter of President Obama and also a Civil War devotee! Don't count folks like me out! We'd like to see more coverage of the 150th also. Just came back from Shiloh. The illumination of the battlefield with 23,746 candles (one for each of the official casualties) was a most impressive sight. The new interpretive film is certainly worth viewing even if it takes 49 minutes.
____________________ "While we live we will cherish, protect and defend her." |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 9th, 2012 08:45 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer 
|
Let's keep modern politics out of this.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2012 09:03 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
csamillerp Member 
|
i DO agree that the history channel sucks, what happened to all the documentaries? up until a few years ago the history channel ran a few civil war series every year around july but then they started pawn stars ice road truckers and american pickers, which are all decent shows but have nothing to do with history. remember when TLC was THE LEARNING CHANNEL? then came trading spaces. There are 900 channels that play to the masses why can't the history channel stay out of it and play things for the small percentage of people like us that enjoy learning about history?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2012 11:16 am |
|
8th Post |
|
Gettysburger Member
|
Savez, I agreed with every word of your comment until you said the Battle of Gettysburg was overrated. I agree you can have your opinion. But you can't make a statement like that on this board and not expect someone to ask you for justification of why you think like that? If you want to say the war between the states was already lost for the south at shiloh or new orleans or even antietam I'll agree with you. But to say a battle of the magnitude of the one fought at gettysburg is overrated is a gross oversimplification of the military, historical and political facts and implications of that battle. dr. t
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2012 01:45 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
Gettysburger- For almost 150 years, the Battle of Gettysburg has been described by some as: "The turning point of the war," or:"The Decisive battle of the war," or: "The high water mark of the Confederacy," etc., etc. Some of us on this board believe that its importance in that regard is over-rated, and that it wasn't the decisive defeat that doomed the Confederacy to lose the war. The eastern front remained pretty much a stalemate until the southerners ran out of resources and the Confederacy became a hollow shell. Some of us believe that the war was won and lost in the west, and that the loss of Vicksburg (in conjunction with New Orleans the year before) was a more profound loss for the cause of the Confederacy. Some of us do not believe that the Confederacy was doomed by the loss at Gettysburg, or by any battle prior to that. We would argue that there was still hope that the CSA might somehow survive until Mr. Lincoln was re-elected in November of 1864. That event made it clear that the northern people were determined to pay whatever the price was to achieve a military victory.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2012 05:59 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
Michael F. Blake Member
|
I think, in my humble opinion, that Gettysburg was a truning point in the war just due to the amount of Confederate soldiers that were killed, wounded or taken prisoner. Let's face it, they lost a lot of men they could not easily replace, unlike the Union. I also think the defeat at Gettysburg was something of a mental loss for the Confederates as well. True, they hung in there & fought, but I think in their minds (possibly in the back of the minds at least) was the reminder of Gettysburg and MAY have hindered their decisions in fighting. Just a thought. I do think Lee's attempt to wage war in the Union's back yard was a good idea on paper, but failed. I tend to agree with Longstreet that in order to fight a successful battle, they should not have fought at Gettysburg, but moved to find another area suited to their liking and let the Union attack them. But Lee wouldn't listen & it cost him dearly. Just my two cents....
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2012 06:18 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Gettysburger Member
|
Texas Defender, I also agree totally with you. I don't want anyone to think I believe the battle of gettysburg was any of those things you mentioned history(John B.Bachelder) has said it was. For me, the turning point or one of many major turning points were reached at least a year prior to Gettysburg. I think Donelson and Henry or Shiloh, with the death of A.S. Johnston, or the fall of New Orleans or when the naval blockade was put in place were true turning points in the early part of the war. On the other hand, you have to agree that the Army of Northern Virginia never did recover from the losses it sustained at Gettysburg. Or the effect on the south's morale and Lee's confidence as commander would ever be like it was prior to that battle and the northern campaign that brought the ANova into Pennsylvania. Notwithstanding the military and strategic implications of the battle, I believe Lincoln's address at Gettysburg in November '63 has done more to make that battle famous than any other single event of the 3 days of combat in July '63. dr. t.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2012 07:11 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Michael F. Blake- We're in general agreement that the huge amount of casualties suffered at Gettysburg, including many senior leaders, degraded the ANV's ability to conduct offensive actions subsequently. But it didn't destroy General Lee's army, which was able to fight well for almost two more years. I believe that General Lee's decision to move north was made for a number of reasons. One of these was the hope of inflicting a major defeat on Union forces on northern soil, and thus to deal a blow to the resolve of the northern people to continue the war. Obviously, the outcome tended to have the opposite effect. I also agree that the battle should not have been fought there against entrenched Union positions. General Lee should have moved his army in the direction of WDC and forced the AOP to follow. But I believe that at that point in the war, Lee thought his men were invincible and so he didn't listen to General Longstreet, and in the end he asked more of his men than human flesh could bear.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2012 07:33 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Gettysburger- We're in complete agreement that the loss of control of the Mississippi River, beginning in 1862, had a devastating effect on the Confederacy, especially in conjuntion with the naval blockade of all southern ports. The loss of the river meant that Union forces were handed the initiative and southern forces were severely hampered in the west. Defeat in the west led to overall defeat for the Confederacy. I do not believe that the defeat at Gettysburg lessened General Lee's Army's resolve to fight, or led to a loss of confidence in General Lee. It did, however, give the ANV a harsh dose of reality and an appreciation that the: "Damned yankees" were pretty good soldiers also. The war would have to be fought differently from that point on. I also agree that Mr. Lincoln's two minute speech on 19 Nov 1863 helped to immortalize the battle. It was, perhaps, a contributing factor that led SOME people to over-rate the military importance of the battle itself in determining the final outcome of the war.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 13th, 2012 12:21 am |
|
14th Post |
|
Hellcat Person
|
Isn't there a thread about this somewhere? A major debate over where the turning point can be found. I still say Vicksburg.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 13th, 2012 02:04 am |
|
15th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Hellcat- This one comes to mind. I'm sure that others can be found. Vicksburg vs. Gettysburg - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 13th, 2012 08:50 am |
|
16th Post |
|
BHR62 Member 
|
The observance of the 150th anniversary of the Civil War definitely leaves something to be desired. I know the History Channel doesn't cover history much anymore but I still had expectations that they would do something on the Civil War.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 13th, 2012 11:00 am |
|
17th Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
PBS had the Civil War on last night. Shelby Poote anall the rest. Lots of untruths there caused me to turn it off. Last edited on Fri Apr 13th, 2012 11:01 am by Old Blu |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 13th, 2012 11:21 am |
|
18th Post |
|
Mark Member
|
H2 had that new 2hr "Gettysburg" docudrama by Ridley Scott on two days ago. It was just as bad as the first time... Mark
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 13th, 2012 11:57 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
Barlow Member 
|
I just read a book review of a Civil War book on Amazon and the author said, "I have an extensive Civil War library...." and I was thinking, just what is extensive? 1000? 500? enough to nearly bankrupt someone? 50? What is extensive? Id like your thoughts?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 14th, 2012 12:24 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
Mark Member
|
I think mine is borderline extensive--my wife would disagree. I have about 220. That's not including all the books on the secession crisis and Reconstruction. Interesting question! Mark Last edited on Sat Apr 14th, 2012 12:24 pm by Mark |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 08:49 am | Page: 1 2 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Civil War's 150th getting the short end of the stick? | Top |
