Something worth watching

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Given our gracious host's literary endeavors, as well as the often expressed interests of many of the contributors and readers here at SST, I thought I'd mention a new three part documentary to air tomorrow night.  Its on the National Geographic Channel and the link to the show's website is:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/civil-warriors/5682/Overview

Full disclosure:  I have nothing to do with National Geographic or their cable station and my last contribution to their fiduciary well being was purchasing their issue with Ankgor Wat on the cover while on TDY in JUL 2009.  

*Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College, the US Army, and/or the US Government.

Comments

[Abu Sinan]

Sorry, I know this is off topic, but something that is important. Personally, I think this already exists. If not an official basis, certainly on an unofficial basis.

"The passionate support for Israel expressed on talkback sections of websites, internet chat forums, blogs, Twitters and Facebook may not be all that it seems. Israel’s foreign ministry is reported to be establishing a special undercover team of paid workers whose job it will be to surf the internet 24 hours a day spreading positive news about Israel. Internet-savvy Israeli youngsters, mainly recent graduates and demobilised soldiers with language skills, are being recruited to pose as ordinary surfers while they provide the government’s line on the Middle East conflict."

http://www.countercurrents.org/cook210709.htm

[Sidney O. Smith III]

Something worth reading by Prof. Gary Gallagher:

http://tinyurl.com/3kvxc2u

From product description

"Even one hundred and fifty years later, we are haunted by the Civil War—by its division, its bloodshed, and perhaps, above all, by its origins. Today, many believe that the war was fought over slavery. This answer satisfies our contemporary sense of justice, but as Gary Gallagher shows in this brilliant revisionist history, it is an anachronistic judgment.

… Gallagher demonstrates that what motivated the North to go to war and persist in an increasingly bloody effort was primarily preservation of the Union…

Once we understand the centrality of union, we can in turn appreciate the force that made northern victory possible: the citizen-soldier. Gallagher reveals how the massive volunteer army of the North fought to confirm American exceptionalism by salvaging the Union. Contemporary concerns have distorted the reality of nineteenth-century Americans... As Gallagher recovers why and how the Civil War was fought, we gain a more honest understanding of why and how it was won."

[fred]

The citizen soldier was the reason for the success in the war for independence, there were plenty of citizen soldiers in the South. 1861-65 also.

[billy roche]

Dear Mr. Smith: the War of Northern Aggression was fought to preserve the north's idea of union. I add it was won with the advantage of assets not determination. Finally, the northern victory ended the U.S. Constitution. It is not a pun to say we have never been the same country since.
billy roche

[Frabjous]

“...Finally, the northern victory ended the U.S. Constitution.”

Can you elaborate upon that?

I assume you are referring to the 13th and 14th amendments that modified the constitution, but perhaps you are referring to the Federalism/States Right’s split which was not really resolved in the original constitution?

Also, is it not the case that the Union had greater assets because its economy was industrial- rather than labor-centric vs. the south which was labor-centric (the labor of those whom the constitution defines as 3/5 humans-and those words are still in the constitution). For instance, most of the rail infrastructure manufacturing was in the North, IIRC the South had only one facility which put it at a tremendous disadvantage vs. the North.

Mark

[billy roche]

The north had the advantage of population ergo more troops. Consider the final push of Grant and his constant advantage over Lee in men...easily 2:1. The north was advantaged in rail lines, money (banking industry),open ports, and manufacturing. Isn't that enough? Regarding the question of federalism in the constitution, it is quite clear. The clear arrangement of power sharing between states and the central government agreed to in Philadelphia in the summer of 87' has slowly been made obsolete after the north decided our central government did not have to abide by it. This was the true issue of the War of Northern Aggression. The north changed everyone's constitution at the point of a northern bayonette. As for the 13,14, and 15 amendments they were passed without the say so of the southern states of the Confederacy even though they were passed after the war's end.
Billy Roche