PBS show on Robert E. Lee

[ironfoot]

I saw this last night. A friend from the south who idolizes Lee thought the show did not portray the Lee he has read about. Anybody else see the show?

[subdjoe]

Didn't watch it, but read the transcript (which may give a skewed perception of it, since all inflection is left out).  Sounds like my summation in another thread of your posts here, except narrowed to Lee rather than the South in general.  With a good dose of check out stand tabloid thrown in, more interested in dredging up any weakness or foible and showing him as the total of those.   Unfortunately, the transcript of the matching show about Grant isn't posted, but from the introduction, it seems to laud him to the skies:

Ulysses Grant was, first and foremost, the greatest Union hero of the Civil War. His hard-nosed fighting style won him the nickname "Unconditional Surrender" Grant and the admiration of the Northern public. He was the author of the great Union victory at Vicksburg, which etched his name in military history and irrevocably altered the course of the war. He was Lincoln's favorite general, and was elevated to an exalted military rank held previously only by George Washington. He was a leader for whom thousands of Northern soldiers were willing to fight and die, and for whom thousands did. Perhaps most memorably, he was the general who took Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox, and the author of its generous terms.

Grant was also President of the United States during one of the most tumultuous moments in its history for two terms. He struggled to define the meaning of the war he had fought so hard to win, and the union he had fought to preserve. As President, he confronted scandal and economic depression. He sought ways to re-establish national unity and sectional harmony after a bloody and divisive conflict. Most important to us today, he confronted fundamental questions about the role of freed African Americans within the American nation. He was, in sum, a pivotal figure at a pivotal time.

Few public figures have ever held a such a firm grip on the American popular imagination. Grant was a man whose rise from obscurity made him a hero to millions who could see themselves in him. An ordinary man who faced and met extraordinary challenges, his successes and failures seemed to encapsulate the national character. He was so popular with the American public that, despite his two scandal-ridden terms as president, he was nearly nominated to run for a third term.

As a general, he had fought to preserve the Union. As President, he helped to oversee the transformation from union to nation. As a former president, he was the embodiment of the very idea of national union, and of America's entry onto the world stage. As a dying general, he was the symbol of the nation's greatest and most traumatic war. The story of Ulysses S. Grant's life, from his first days on the Ohio frontier to his last days out-writing death in the Adirondacks, is an endlessly fascinating one. It is also, as one historian puts it, "a story central to understanding the American experience."

In other words, about what you can expect from the propaganda organ of the left.

[thxmrgarand]

I watched the show and believe that PBS clearly wanted to portray Lee as an overrated and callous leader who was born with a silver spoon.  His allegiance to the State of Virginia was not really given any weight, and instead he was portrayed as a US Army officer who committed treason.  He was also portrayed as a poor father and as a gold-digger (in his choice of a spouse).  Moreover, he was depicted as a poor general who relied on disregard for his troops in order to achieve his military successes.  The great respect that Union officers held for Lee was not mentioned nor would it be understandable if a viewer was to believe the image painted by PBS.  This PBS program conflicts with everything I have ever read about Lee and the Civil War, even including the Ken Burns Civil War series which played on PBS several years ago.

I would guess that Public Broadcasting will receive an increased appropriation in the Obama budget.  Just think, US taxpayers are borrowing money from China in order to allow PBS to produce and air this program.

[ironfoot]

I find it interesting that when the Civil War is portrayed, usually Lincoln is held to represent the north, and Lee the south. Why not Davis v Lincoln, and Lee v McLellan/Hooker/Grant? I saw a NFL football game this fall,where the sports writers claimed the win was due to the winning team's quarterback and the loss was due to the losing team's coach. Seemed to me they should have compared quarterback to quarterback and coach to coach.

The PBS show also described Lee as "bloody" in that he was willing to accept heavy casualties in order to win a battle. I had never heard Lee described that way before. I have heard Grant described that way. It seems to me that it was a war of attrition, and the south ran out of men and supplies before the north.

Lee apparently believed that whichever side's civilian population would give up first would lose the war. I think before the US goes to war in the future, the President and some congressional leaders should make sure they have popular support for the war, then make public appearances where they warn the public that there will be ups and downs in a war, and trying times, but that once the war begins the public owes the troops unwavering support and that the country must tough it out until the war is won. I suppose defining "won" can be difficult in some wars.

[subdjoe]

Nice steer away from the PBS propaganda there, Iron.

[Ga.windbreak]

I did not see the show nor would I be inclined to do so Ken Burns depiction of our war was a sad misinformation of the truth and one that is dissiminated to our children as gospel.

Thankfully, with the freedom of information act and the internet anyone who is truly interested in finding out the true story and ALL the facts can do so.

As one who was raised in a school system that first and foremost painted everything Southern as morally wrong, educationally backward, and that we, the inheritors of such a foul history, should feel lucky that we were allowed to rejoin our country. Thankfully the school and my life away from it provided such a contrast that it awoke in me a life long search for the truth.

Thus if one really wants to know the feelings of slaves, their stories, both good and bad are there for all to learn from in the "Slaves stories". If one wants to learn the true Lee then read his letters and the same can be said of any of our national leaders whoever they might be. That time in our history is rich with letter writing which was the norm of that time. There is a wealth of info on Slavery both in the North and South and its as close as your keyboard.

Thus, IMVHO, a TV program is a poor substitute for the real and rich history of our Country.

[subdjoe]

As one who was raised in a school system that first and foremost painted everything Southern as morally wrong, educationally backward, and that we, the inheritors of such a foul history, should feel lucky that we were allowed to rejoin our country.

Now there is an interesting contradiction.  States that wanted to leave forced back into the Union at the point of the bayonet (or under threat of more military violence by the federal government) are "allowed" to rejoin the Union.  Amazing how it works both ways.  Also, being forced to ratify the 14th Amendment before being "allowed" to rejoin (again under threat of military violence).  How can a state, or territory, that is NOT in the Union ratify an amendment to the Constitution? 

[ironfoot]

Hi Ga.windbreak

Where did you go to school?
Where were the teachers from?
I went to School in southern Minnesota.
We had Civil War history in 8th grade.
Our teacher, who was from the north, went out of his way to say it was not a "war to free the slaves".
He sounded more even handed then your teacher(s).

These days even most northerners have a lot of respect for Lee.

Ironfoot

[schuetzen]

It's available on line.  I'll try to watch it this evening.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/lee/player/

[wncchester]

"Ulysses Grant was, first and foremost, the greatest Union hero of the Civil War."

Yep, the best the north had.  He was well aware that the north had some 4-5 times the population of the south so he could afford to lose twice as many men in the field and still win fairly easily.  Most of his "strategy" was to hammer straight ahead, knowing that when Lee ran out of lead, shot, powder and food he would lose.  Worked too, lots of Union graves prove it.  But, what the heck, they were just yankees, they still had lots more of them back up north, right?

[Ga.windbreak]

Hi Ga.windbreak

Where did you go to school?
Where were the teachers from?
I went to School in southern Minnesota.
We had Civil War history in 8th grade.
Our teacher, who was from the north, went out of his way to say it was not a "war to free the slaves".
He sounded more even handed then your teacher(s).

These days even most northerners have a lot of respect for Lee.

Ironfoot

Georgia and Florida plus about 6 months in a little town in Mass. outside Boston (that was an experence, let me tell you) while in the 6th grade.

I have no idea as to those in the lower grades, in HS mostly from florida, college - all over.

I had history lessons every day. One can't run away from where they are born, there was and is history all around me and field trips were taken all the time even in the lower grades. Also, if one had family who had been in the war it was talked about at home also. You know how kids are interested in such things. Georgia is rich in such things as are the other southern states. I have Southern Generals on both sides, I've been told. Is it true, don't know but this is the year I will find out.

R.E. Lee is respected by all and has always been, to my knowledge. The main reason he was never brought up on charges. The North feared, and rightly so, that it would have caused another war. He was and is Loved that much down here! Still! 

[ironfoot]

Hi Ga.windbreak
If your school teachers really taught you "As one who was raised in a school system that first and foremost painted everything Southern as morally wrong, educationally backward, and that we, the inheritors of such a foul history, should feel lucky that we were allowed to rejoin our country." then your teachers must have (forgive the vernacular) sucked. 

[eastbank]

at gettysberg alot of lee,s men stopped loveing him after picketts charge, talk about throwing men,s lives away. there was enough death to go around caused by inept generals north and south both. grant was bull headed enough to know he had to keep pounding at lee,s army,not giveing to a chance  to regroup and that was some thing no other northern generals had done untill then. i had seven members of my familey serve in that war,one being killed at gettysberg, and for all of it,i wish you still had your slaves then and now. because the slaves would been your down fall in time with out the war. with the new farming equipment being invented there would not have been the need for all of them and what would you have done with them? send them back to africa, not north i hope. eastbank.

[SHOOTALL]

Before a yankee makes negative statements about  Picketts charge he should consider why the yankees were shouting Fredicksburg over and over as Picketts men advanced . If you take the time to read about it you will see the North was in the same spot there. Grant what a wonderful leader one need only consider why the U.S. Army was saddled with a single shot rifles for many years after the Indian tribes had repeters need only look at the fact Grant's brother in law made a profit on each single shot rifle sold to the govt. So speculate Grant recived money also. He did pound Richmond and Petersburg Va. until Lee ran out of food . When you consider that Grant lost 3 men to every one the South lost , had more cannon , powder and shot  , food and medical supplies one wonders what took him so long .

It would have been better if the Southern army had followed the yankee retreat back into Washington after first bull run. 

[Ga.windbreak]

Hi Ga.windbreak
If your school teachers really taught you "As one who was raised in a school system that first and foremost painted everything Southern as morally wrong, educationally backward, and that we, the inheritors of such a foul history, should feel lucky that we were allowed to rejoin our country." then your teachers must have (forgive the vernacular) sucked. 

As one who was on the recieving end I could hardly be in a position to judge. The very fact that they took us on field trips to counter that class room lesson gives me pause to think that they were trying to offset book learning from the truth (or to show us both sides) but as I said before I was in no position to judge. The most important thing they did teach though is an open mind and I'll take that over sucking in other areas anyday and twice on Sunday!

[thxmrgarand]

For me  the main question is why Public Broadcasting has produced such an obvious revision to history in the program about Lee.  I was unable to watch the program last night about Grant.

Public Broadcasting seems to follow the dictates of its major donors by the way, and that may be the answer to my question.

[SHOOTALL]

Its all about re writing history in a gentler way with out heros from battle . To make America look bad . Very soicalist really.

[schuetzen]

I actually thought the program on Lee was rather bland.  Not really much insight on him.  I was surprised that John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry wasn't mentioned.  The company that responded was under Lee's command.  Haven't watched the one on Grant yet.

[subdjoe]

I managed to watch about 40 minutes of the piece on Grant.  As I figured it would be, pretty much a "man rises to the occasion and finds greatness" hagiography of him.  A watered down, fifth grade level look at him.  Much like the show about Lee.

[SouthernByGrace]

I actually thought the program on Lee was rather bland.  Not really much insight on him.  I was surprised that John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry wasn't mentioned.  The company that responded was under Lee's command.  Haven't watched the one on Grant yet.

I kind of agree with you on this one. During the first 30 or 40 minutes of the program, they praised and glorified Lee. Then when it came to the lead up to the War, they very neatly left out any symbolance of anything that would have painted him an a favorable light. That's how they rewrite the history, by not telling important facts to give both good and bad on the same topic.
They mentioned Lee's father-in-law dying and him inheriting over 100 slaves. Lee, himself did not inherit them, his wife did. He was the executor of the will. They conveniently left out the part where he freed all of those slaves well before the War.

I saw about the first 5 minutes of the show on Grant, but I was late for a meeting so I had to leave it. Any of the programs on PBS can be seen on their website, pbs.org. I will try to watch the one on Grtant over the weekend.

SBG   

[Swampman]

"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision."~General Pat Cleburne, CSA~

[ironfoot]

Hi Swampman
What is your source for the quote?
The general died before the surrender.
Curious as to what occasioned his statement, and if he really made it.
If he did make the statement, was his prediction accurate?
Was the educational system in the South taken over by teachers from the North?
What prevented supporters of the Confederacy from stating their viewpoints, in private and in public?
If they were silenced for a time, that time has ended, as evidenced by this Civil War talk site.

Here is a link to info about the general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Cleburne

[Swampman]

What is your source for the quote?

It's recorded in many places.

If he did make the statement, was his prediction accurate?

I believe it is now more than ever

Was the educational system in the South taken over by teachers from the North?
What prevented supporters of the Confederacy from stating their viewpoints, in private and in public?

The book were written and printed in the North.

If they were silenced for a time, that time has ended, as evidenced by this Civil War talk site.

There is a good deal of rhetoric here.  History was rewritten by the victors as it always is.  Over time, fact and fiction have blended.

[subdjoe]

ironfoot link=topic=224158.msg1099241709#msg1099241709 date=1295203599]
Hi Swampman
What is your source for the quote?

Only attribution I have found on it is that he wrote it in 1864, January.  I'm still tracking it down.

The general died before the surrender.

And so?  

Curious as to what occasioned his statement, and if he really made it.

How about his concern for his adopted country and its future?  

If he did make the statement, was his prediction accurate?

Yes.

Was the educational system in the South taken over by teachers from the North?

Yes.

What prevented supporters of the Confederacy from stating their viewpoints, in private and in public?

Well, various laws and the occupying forces that made doing stuff like that kind of dangerous to life and liberty.  

If they were silenced for a time, that time has ended, as evidenced by this Civil War talk site.

This site is not the school system.  And often fill up with professional Lincoln apologists who post and post and post various opinion pieces that show how evil all the citizens of the south were and are, how the War was only about slavery, and that the Constitution clearly says that no state can leave this voluntary union.

The haigiography of Lincoln and the north has been preached in the schools for so long that anything that runs counter to it, that shows his blemishes and that the federals were not the altruistic saints intent on only freeing the slaves is anathema and denounced as revisionism.  Just look at your own reaction to anything posted here that might make you think that Lincoln was readying to send troops into the south for any reason other than to free slaves, or to hold the union together so that he could free slaves.   Add to that the Great Society experiment that started under Kennedy (well, Johnson actually, but the ground work was under Kennedy) that preaches that blacks are perpetual victims of whites and you have a situation where anything that shows the least doubt of that position is assailed as evidence of racism - which we know only exists in white southerners.  

Here is a link to info about the general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Cleburne

OK.  And?

[Swampman]

For the record I like Lincoln, and I'm not a bigot.  I'm simply a history buff.  Everyone had a (God given) part to play and most did it well.

[SHOOTALL]

I don't , Lets face facts if the South succeded the north would lose the wealth of the South and that was what the war was about. The South was paying the bills . BTW didn't Lincon have a slave house keeper ? Did she get freeded when the Southern slaves were freeded ? or later ?
 The man did more to reduce freedom than most want to admit.

[Ga.windbreak]

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2195

Gen. Cleburne's letter to Gen. Joe Johnston

Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late. It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision. It means the crushing of Southern manhood, the hatred of our former slaves, who will, on a spy system, be our secret police. The conqueror’s policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them

And 150 years later its still going on, the man had a real grip on the future, he spoke the truth.

[ironfoot]

ironfoot link=topic=224158.msg1099241709#msg1099241709 date=1295203599]
Hi Swampman
What is your source for the quote?

Only attribution I have found on it is that he wrote it in 1864, January.  I'm still tracking it down.

I would like to see it when you track it down.

The general died before the surrender.

And so?  

[i]I wonder about the context and timing in which the general made the statement, since he did not make it in conjunction with the actual surrender.Curious as to what occasioned his statement, and if he really made it[/i].

How about his concern for his adopted country and its future?  

Not sure you understood what I was asking.

If he did make the statement, was his prediction accurate?

Yes.

Appreciate your opinion, but I was looking for evidence.

Was the educational system in the South taken over by teachers from the North?

Yes.

See my comment above.

What prevented supporters of the Confederacy from stating their viewpoints, in private and in public?

Well, various laws and the occupying forces that made doing stuff like that kind of dangerous to life and liberty.  

What laws? General Lee and others stated there opinions, and many quotes attributed to Confederate apologists have been posted on this site.

If they were silenced for a time, that time has ended, as evidenced by this Civil War talk site.

This site is not the school system.  And often fill up with professional Lincoln apologists who post and post and post various opinion pieces that show how evil all the citizens of the south were and are, how the War was only about slavery, and that the Constitution clearly says that no state can leave this voluntary union.

The haigiography of Lincoln and the north has been preached in the schools for so long that anything that runs counter to it, that shows his blemishes and that the federals were not the altruistic saints intent on only freeing the slaves is anathema and denounced as revisionism.  Just look at your own reaction to anything posted here that might make you think that Lincoln was readying to send troops into the south for any reason other than to free slaves, or to hold the union together so that he could free slaves.   Add to that the Great Society experiment that started under Kennedy (well, Johnson actually, but the ground work was under Kennedy) that preaches that blacks are perpetual victims of whites and you have a situation where anything that shows the least doubt of that position is assailed as evidence of racism - which we know only exists in white southerners.  

You throw in such a mishmash of statements, it is hard to respond to. But as for me, I have never said "And often fill up with professional Lincoln apologists who post and post and post various opinion pieces that show how evil all the citizens of the south were and are, how the War was only about slavery, and that the Constitution clearly says that no state can leave this voluntary union." You seem to take my statements, and expand on them to make conclusions I have not made.

Here is a link to info about the general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Cleburne

OK.  And?

Maybe you know everything there is to know about the general quoted, or maybe you don't care, but others might want to learn more about him, since he is the alleged source of the quote.

[subdjoe]

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2195

Gen. Cleburne's letter to Gen. Joe Johnston

Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late. It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision. It means the crushing of Southern manhood, the hatred of our former slaves, who will, on a spy system, be our secret police. The conqueror’s policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them

And 150 years later its still going on, the man had a real grip on the future, he spoke the truth.

Thanks, GA.  I suspected that it was in that context, but wasn't sure, and had the devils own time tracking it down.  And that plan kind of goes with the proposal Davis was working on to educate and gradually free the slaves. 

Now you just need a time machine to bring the Gen. into our time, and introduce him to Iron so Iron can be satisfied.

[subdjoe]

Maybe you know everything there is to know about the general quoted, or maybe you don't care, but others might want to learn more about him, since he is the alleged source of the quote.

Just kind of insulting that you think we are too dense to check wiki on our own.