Danny Glover's "Civil War Journal" vs. Ken Burns "Civil War"

[Tamaroa]

There seem to be a lot of well read people on this board, so I have a question for you all. If you are a true Civil War buff, no doubt you have read Shelby Foote, Bruce Catton, William C. Davis and Douglas Southall Freeman amongst others.

However if you are just getting into it or the history channel is your thing, most likely one of two TV series has been a part of your Civil War diet. I am of course referring to the two PBS series mentioned in the title.

I was wondering what you all thought about the two series. I own both of them: 9 tapes of the Civil War and 28 tapes of the Civil War Journal. Personally, I like the Civil War Journal series a lot better. I believe Ken Burns may have beat Danny Glover to the punch as far as release date, but after viewing the two series over and over again, I still give the nod to Civil War Journal. Most people seem to worship the ground that Ken Burns walks on. I thought the series was OK, not great but OK. At least I thought, it may get some people thinking about the war and with luck there would ber a resurgance(sp?) in studying the war. It is 11.5 hours spread between 9 tapes and is basically divided into campaigns. If you wanted to look up something specific about the war it is not the series for you. If you are a real Civil War freak as I am, some of the things in the film are bothersome. For example, Burns uses a photograph taken of the Fredricksburg trenches during the battle of chancellorsville and represents it as the Battle of Frericksburg. There are several extant prints of the same scene of the stone wall during Fredricksburg but he chose to take a photo of the trenches as they were during Chancellorsville. I grant you the typical person wouldn't know or problably wouldn't care. But for me, well, it was an irritation. Minor maybe but still an irritation.

On the other hand, The Civil War Journal has tapes of easy duration 44 to 48 minutes. So if you want to use one for a classroom presentation, it will fit the time frame. also the tapes are divided specifically into categories. If you're curious about color bearers you look up the tape Banners of Glory. If you want to get a better insight as to how West Point figured into the war, you look up the episode West Point Class Mates Civil War Enemies. Likewise there are tapes on the medical advances during the war, Zouves, Lincoln, Lee, Mosby, Jackson, artillery, Civil War newspaper Reporters, Photographers, the Monitor and the Virginia, etc.Like I said ,28 tapes. each long enought to hold your interest but not too long so you can still do honey-do stuff around the house without feeling too guilty.

What do you all think?

Bill

[Mike Bell]

Bill,
Finally got some free minutes to check this forum, as discussed earlier. I've put it into my favorites so it can be reached quicker too.

I am glad to learn somebody other than myself was not thrilled as maybe one should have been by the Ken Burns series. I had looked forward to it actually very much. Friends who know of what they would readily call "my obsession" with the Civil War were all set to give the series a sigh of relief that finally something had gotten my attention. It was very difficult to explain to anyone the ways in which the series disappointed. Of course, I was very glad to see Mr. Foote hold forth in it, and felt that certain elements were up to the need (such as that lady near the end who said the war is not yet ended...).
Anyway, I plan to look into the Danny Glover tapes wherever they can be found near here. Some significant battles (e.g. Carthage) occured nearby and there was a lot of raider-type activity in this region back then...so there will certainly be copies of those tapes someplace around.
Thanks for your great info about the Union army oath of 1861. I'd love to know/see a copy of the Confederate oath of that period too. I'll keep checking in here from time to time. Maybe someone out there knows how to get at that obscure document.
Mike

[chilidog]

Mike,
This isn't exactly what you were looking for, but I thought you might like to look at it anyway. Its the Texas version.

Chilidog

http://www.allenisd.org/facstaff2.nsf/Pages/A9D2357B014E86BB86256B720015DBA9

[usmcsgt65]

Ken Burns opened the door for the others who wished to tell the complete story of the Civil War. The producers of the Glover series realized that specific topics could be made in a one hour format. It comes down to your personal likes.

[Mike Bell]

:a:

Chilidog,
Thanks for that Texas oath, which suggests thsat each of the seceding states probably had one similar, and most likely so did the Confederacy itself and/or the CSA army/navy as well.
How amazing it would be to find that somehow.
Mike

[chilidog]

Mike,
You are probably right about each state having its own oath. Go to google.com and type in "confederate oath." There were a couple of links to a list of people that signed the Alabama oath. I didn't see the Alabama oath itself, but at least they referred to it.

Chilidog

[Mike Bell]

:e:

Chilidog,
Okay, I'll follow that trail, thanks for finding it.
Do you think Shelby Foote can be reached by someone somehow (e-mail or otherwise), and if so wouldn't he know the most direct route to the CSA "federal" oaths?
Mike

[Mike Bell]

:re:
Chilidog and Tamaroa
I'm also going to send an e-mail to the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, for their librarian, maybe they'll know how to guide this inquiry. I made my pilgrimage there in 1995, quite an experience.
Mike

[Tamaroa]

I haven't seen the new M.O.C. since they added the new building and restored the house. I was a member of the Confederate Memorial Literary Society when I lived in Virginia in the 70's. In the old Confederate White House they had a room dedicated to each Confederate state. I did some research there once, They let me go through the original records of the 11th Virgiina Quartermaster records. Quite an experience, it was.

Bill

[BLUEHAWK]

Bill,
I sent you an e-mail cc of my letter to the MOC librarian, so I hope if you see any defects in it you might send your own query? Surely they'll know the right way.
I could have spent a month in the MOC and white house out there...it was really wonderful to be seeing inches away the actual artifacts and not ones resembling the ones that so-and-so used on such-and-such a day or year. I brought home a replica CSA canvas side pouch that I treasure as if it were the real deal. I sometimes look at E-Bay and elsewhere to see if any CSA military gear comes up, can't afford it, but its nice to see it. The whole road trip into Richmond to the museum, down that long boulevard of memories was quite an experience, an honor... Just the knowledge that nobody was about to jump down my collar because I felt something for our past. I worked almost twenty years in art museums as a curator, and would give just about anything legal to end my days even as a docent for the MOC.
Bluehawk/Mike

[BLUEHAWK]

:ah:
usmcsgt65,
You are correct of course too about the Burns PBS series, and I did not mean to imply it was not welcome or enjoyed...probably only to suggest how much I myself had excessive expectations for it. I recall eagerly waiting for each installment of the series though, and it wouldn't have mattered much at all what it did or did not say. So little is ever said on the topic that has any relationship to the war or its factual (vs. fictitious) causes and consequences.
My problems with it were in the area of photographic stuff I guess, but then only because I have seen so much of what was used. The series did try to give more than the usual one-side, and for that gratitude is in order. Still though, it was clear for whom that particular version of history had been scripted and filmed. The music they selected was haunting and wonderful. The dramatic effect of their voice-overs in dialect was also very pleasing. Shelby Foote said some things in the series that perhaps nobody else alive today in this nation could possibly say in public without fear of reprisal. But, a whole whole lot got left out, as it usually does, and not solely because of "time constraints".
Bluehawk

[usmcsgt65]

Thank you for your excellent repy. Since I am an administrator now, I do not have the chance to teach the Civil War anymore, but I still love to discuss it.

[Tamaroa]

Blue... Got it and it looked fine to me. if you like, I'll send one along anyway just to bolster your request. usmcsgt65,Re Ken Burns: He did us a service by exposing the country to the Civil War. After his series, there was a corresponding increase in CW book sales and CW Round Table memberships. He whetted your appetite and left it up to you to sort it out for yourself. I wouldn't call either The Civil War or the Civil War Journal the most scholarly, but both of them put together initiated a lot of people into a period of history that is rarely looked at in schools these days. Like I say, I prefer the depth to which the Glover series goes, but both have made significant contributions.

Regards,

Bill

[BLUEHAWK]

:D
Bill,
Thanks...I was hoping you would send something of your own to MOC, really hoping. You are a scholar in the field, whereas I am an obvious amatuer avocationalist, devotedly lo these many years. I really believe they can come right to the point, so your interest will mean something. I so look forward to their answers to our inquiry.
Bluehawk

[Mike Bell]

Bill and Chili, re: CSA oaths
Have you gotten any word from MOC yet? Or, did I miss it someplace on these forums.
Bluehawk

[Tamaroa]

Jeez,sorry, I forgot all about it. they did respond, but with something we already knew. I was busy the day I received it and when i went back to read it again(I was going to post it here) I couldn't find it. I must have accidentally deleted it. They did not have a copy of a specific confederate oath on hand. And they cited the oath that was used for the second class of 1861 which we already know.

Bill

[JeffL]

Bill, I never heard of the Confederate Oath of Allegiance, but then again, I haven't heard of a lot of things.

Is this what your refer to?

http://www.phalange.com/oath.htm

[Mike Bell]

Thanks Bill, I had lost track there for awhile, and just wondered if anything had come back on that, it would have come right when my computer decided to 86 itself, so if anything came here it got lost.
Jeff, what we were trying to figure out is the exact wording of any CSA oaths of allegiance, civilian, military (including any differences that might have been between officers and men), and exactly when General Lee swore his oath, if he ever did. We were interested because some folks felt that Lee (and others) had violated the oath they had taken as federal officers etc. it gets kinda interesting then to know which oath was taken by whom and when, and what consequences might have happened as a result of one or the other and so on. If I'm not mistaken this all came up when this site had a survey on which general was best during the "Civil War", a pretty good conservation got going in the comments for that one. Bill and I both emailed the Museum of the Confederacy to see if they knew any answers.
Bluehawk

[Tamaroa]

YIKES!! :-) Thats one heck of a site you found Jeff. the first oath you refer to is not really an oath but a pledge of allegiance to the Confederate flag.
Remember when we enlisted and took the oath to support, protect and defend the constiution from all enemies foreign and domestic? THAT is what we are looking for southern style. The Northern army had one and changed it in the summer of 1861 to wipe out any reference to one's loyalty to a state. The Confederates must have had an oath as well but i'll be darned if any of us can find it.

If you have an idea, please feel free to lend a hand.

Bill

[JeffL]

First, here's more on the flags:

http://www.archives.state.al.us/referenc/flags/index.html

Now for the oaths:

Here?s an oath of allegiance from an enlistment document:
http://www.websitewiz.com/genealogy/documents/bfwest2.htm

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From the site: http://www.scv674.org/gacsahist8.htm

As the states left the Union, some Cadets at West Point Academy resigned their commission in order to go home to support their home State and their people. The Academy would make an attempt to stop these resignations and would attempt to bolster the support of the remaining Cadets to the Union.

The Academy required that each remaining Cadet would take a new oath of allegiance which would be different than any that they had ever taken before. It would be an oath of allegiance to the United States of America. Previously the Cadets had taken their oath of allegiance to their home States. Many Cadets refused to take this oath and resigned and returned to their home in the South.

Here is what the 1857 United States Military Academy cadet oath says, having been taken from the 1857 edition of the "Regulations for the U.S. Military Academy" (which was the last edition published prior to the War Between The States):

I, ______ of the State of _______ aged _____ years, ______ months, having been selected for an appointment as Cadet in the Military Academy of the United States, do hereby engage with the consent of my (Parent or Guardian) in the event of my receiving such appointment, that I will serve in the army of the United States for eight years, unless sooner discharged by competent authority. And I ____________ DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR [emphasis original], that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve THEM [emphasis mine], HONESTLY and FAITHFULLY [emphasis original], against all THEIR [emphasis mine] enemies or opposers whatsoever; and that I will observe and obey the orders of the President of the United
States, and the orders of the Officers appointed over me, according to the Rules and Articles of War." (end of reference)

Then, in 1861, the U.S.M.A. changed the cadets' oath. This was approved on August 3, 1861. The change was intended to stem the flow of cadets who were resigning their commissions, which was prompted by their State's secession. The new oath had a reverse effect and actually caused an increase in resignations. The regulations clause, regarding this change, reads as follows:

CHAP. XLII - An Act providing for the better Organization of the Military Establishment. Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That no cadet, who has been or shall hereafter be reported as deficient, either in conduct or studies, and recommended to be discharged from the academy, shall be returned or reappointed, or appointed to any place in the army before his class shall have left the academy and received their commissions, unless upon the recommendation of the academic board of the academy. Provided; That all cadets now in the service, or hereafter entering the Military Academy at West Point, shall be called on to take and subscribe the following oath: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and bear true allegiance to the National Government; that I will maintain and defend the sovereignty of the United States paramount to any
and all allegiance, sovereignty, or fealty I may owe to any State, county, or country whatsoever, and that I will at all times obey the legal orders of my superior officers and the rules and articles governing the armies of the United States." And any cadet or candidate for admission who shall refuse to take this oath shall be dismissed from the service. (end of reference)

This was the first time a cadet had been required to swear allegiance to the United States government, as opposed to the "United States," plural. The "United States" is also stated to be sovereign in this new oath, even above
that of the states. Then, an act was again passed on July 2, 1862, in which the cadets were required to take yet another new oath:

"I, ______ of the State of _____ aged _____ years, ____ months, having been selected for an appointment as Cadet in the Military Academy of the United States, do hereby engage, with consent of my __________ in the event of my receiving such appointment, that I will serve in the Army of the United States, for eight years, unless sooner discharged by competent authority and I ___________ do solemnly swear that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or _______ thereto. And I do further swear that to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." (end of reference)
The changes made in 1861 became a permanent part of the oath in the 1866 edition of the "Regulations for the U.S. Military Academy." Also, in 1866, two closely related, but separate documents, were signed by the cadets - The Engagement for Service (termed "Oath of Office") and Oath of Allegiance. The former, signed upon admittance, retained the certification that the candidate had in now way supported the Confederacy. The latter, signed the following year and containing the years of service provision, also retained the clause citing loyalty to national above state government which had been used in 1861. So, you see the significance in the changes is that the United States had become a singular entity as opposed to the system of government as had been established by the U.S. Constitution.
References: "The Lost Cause" by Edward A. Pollard, Chapter 7 & 8. "Truths of History" by Mildred L. Rutherford, Chapter 12. "The Story of the Confederate States" by Joseph T. Derry, Part 3 Section 1, Chapter 1 & 2. "The Story of the Confederacy" By Robert. S. Henry, Chapter 2., U.S. Military Academy (West Point) Archives.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


I still haven't found a specific oath for the Confederacy. It looks - so far - like each state may have had an oath specific to that state, but I'm not even sure of that. :r:

[Mike Bell]

:k:
Thanks Jeff, what an amazing find...had no idea of those changes made in 1861 federal oaths. It makes sense though in all kinds of ways. So, to you, Bill, Chili, Bargunner, Judy and all the folks on here would it then be correct to state that Generals Lee and his fellows who did so, were in fact ABIDING BY THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE OATH THEY TOOK, when they were thinking through the consequences and options as war drums were beating in 1860-61? In other words, they were NOT disloyal to their country, to their oath, to their states nor to their own honor? Had they taken the revised oath(s) Jeff found, then they would have been in violation, but were not because they did not? Am I thinking straight? Surely not, but is it humanly possible that we are the only ones who have ever come to this realization? Lets tell EVERYBODY! Now, this IS something that a civil war video series ought to have been telling people.
Bluehawk