Ken Burn's Civil War: Historians Respond

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
Ken Burn's Civil War: Historians Respond
edited by Robert Brent Toplin
Oxford University Press (1996)

Ken Burn's Civil War documentary miniseries debuted on PBS almost exactly 30 years ago. I must admit I haven't watched it since it's original run when I was not quite 9 years old. Nevertheless, coming across this slim volume at my local public library made me curious enough to give it a read.

This is a small book - less than 200 pages and not as wide or not as tall as a typical book either. There are nine essays. One by Ken Burns himself about the process of making the series and two by his collaborators on the project are obviously positive. One by the book's editor I would rate neutral. The other five are negative, mostly criticizing what Burns did or did not focus on in the course of 9 episodes totaling 11 hours. Not enough about women, blacks, or Reconstruction. Too much focus on the Virginia theater in particular and the military events (battles and generals). Too safe and conventional.

Some of the criticism seems especially misguided. Reconstruction could (and should) be the subject of its own 11 hour documentary. But the criticism that seemed almost absurd to me was that women disguised as men is mentioned "only in passing." Between the Union and Confederates, roughly 3 million men served in the war. The most generous estimate of disguised women soldiers is less than 1,000 for both sides combined. In other words, less than 0.03% and probably none as officers. Some fascinating stories I'm sure, but extremely trivial in the big picture.

The biggest takeaway I got from the book is the divide between the film Ken Burns made and the modern interpretation of history - what might be called social/cultural history. In brief, this mindset places the focus on a much broader spectrum of common men and women, contrasting to the old "great men" view of history. It's interesting to see how strong this school of thought was even in the 1980s and 1990s. Perhaps Burns' work marked the end of an interpretive era.

If Ken Burns is your gateway to the Civil War, by all means give this a read afterwards to broaden your horizons. But if you're a Civil War buff you're already familiar with the larger issues this book addresses, especially in 2020.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Ken Burn's Civil War: Historians Respond
edited by Robert Brent Toplin
Oxford University Press (1996)

Ken Burn's Civil War documentary miniseries debuted on PBS almost exactly 30 years ago. I must admit I haven't watched it since it's original run when I was not quite 9 years old. Nevertheless, coming across this slim volume at my local public library made me curious enough to give it a read.

This is a small book - less than 200 pages and not as wide or not as tall as a typical book either. There are nine essays. One by Ken Burns himself about the process of making the series and two by his collaborators on the project are obviously positive. One by the book's editor I would rate neutral. The other five are negative, mostly criticizing what Burns did or did not focus on in the course of 9 episodes totaling 11 hours. Not enough about women, blacks, or Reconstruction. Too much focus on the Virginia theater in particular and the military events (battles and generals). Too safe and conventional.

Some of the criticism seems especially misguided. Reconstruction could (and should) be the subject of its own 11 hour documentary. But the criticism that seemed almost absurd to me was that women disguised as men is mentioned "only in passing." Between the Union and Confederates, roughly 3 million men served in the war. The most generous estimate of disguised women soldiers is less than 1,000 for both sides combined. In other words, less than 0.03% and probably none as officers. Some fascinating stories I'm sure, but extremely trivial in the big picture.

The biggest takeaway I got from the book is the divide between the film Ken Burns made and the modern interpretation of history - what might be called social/cultural history. In brief, this mindset places the focus on a much broader spectrum of common men and women, contrasting to the old "great men" view of history. It's interesting to see how strong this school of thought was even in the 1980s and 1990s. Perhaps Burns' work marked the end of an interpretive era.

If Ken Burns is your gateway to the Civil War, by all means give this a read afterwards to broaden your horizons. But if you're a Civil War buff you're already familiar with the larger issues this book addresses, especially in 2020.
Maybe professional historians for the most part are crappy storytellers better at impressing fellow academicians rather than educating the common person.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
Although I had read "about" the war in many other works, magazines, picture books, etc. before Burns' it was only thing out of all of it that caused me to weep tears of sorrow. I now o/c realize that there were numerous flaws in the series, but the connection at the time felt personal and emotional.

It caused me to dig deeper, so there We was then and here We is now. ;)

Great grand pap was with the 40th Mounted Kentuck-ie, chasing that jerk Morgan around. .
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
Maybe professional historians for the most part are crappy storytellers better at impressing fellow academicians rather than educating the common person.

That is true.

Or possibly it requires a "special ear" to listen? ;)
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
That is true.

Or possibly it requires a "special ear" to listen? ;)
If historians could create a world-class video, they'd done so. Looking at some of the discussion surrounding the historians criticizing Ken Burns there was no agreement about what should be included in a new version.
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
Maybe professional historians for the most part are crappy storytellers better at impressing fellow academicians rather than educating the common person.
Gary Gallagher is pretty good. Eric Foner is a better talker than writer, although he's gotten much better. (Compare his book about Lincoln to his book about Reconstruction.)

Catherine Clinton I have never heard of. Gabor Boritt and Leon Litwack I heard of, but couldn't name anything they've written without Googling.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
I read the book a couple years ago and if I can encapsulate the criticisms of the historians, their biggest regret is that, women, foreign policy, inflation, the draft, the home front, industrialization, and general social issues were not given enough attention. If these historians had their way, the documentary would have been at least 25 episodes, instead of a 1-week show.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
I read the book a couple years ago and if I can encapsulate the criticisms of the historians, their biggest regret is that, women, foreign policy, inflation, the draft, the home front, industrialization, and general social issues were not given enough attention. If these historians had their way, the documentary would have been at least 25 episodes, instead of a 1-week show.
In its time, IMHO, having anything but battles was radical.
 

Nitti

charon's apprentice
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
282
Reaction score
263
Foner has written about 10 books on reconstruction...which one are you referring too.
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
The filmmakers also point out they were constrained by some of their filmmaking decisions. No reenactments. Quoting primary sources. Photos for nearly all the illustrations. There were people and topics they felt they couldn't address because the necessary material simply wasn't there.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
Monday morning quarter-backing is easy, "game time" choices are a totally different thing.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
The filmmakers also point out they were constrained by some of their filmmaking decisions. No reenactments. Quoting primary sources. Photos for nearly all the illustrations. There were people and topics they felt they couldn't address because the necessary material simply wasn't there.
The disciplines of video history and written history are very different, the medias are different and the consequences of making errors are different.
 
Top