The Incoherence of Ken Burns’s ‘The American Revolution’ [More]
Yes, it’s flawed, and yes, Burns is a lefty, but I watched it and found it time well spent, and some of the hard truths inconvenient but necessary.
The author came to a conclusion that makes a point I’ve long argued:
The title of Burns’s series is misleading. A more apt title would have been something like, “The American Wars for Independence.”
The Revolution was that people don’t need a king and can self govern. The War of the Rebellion was just that.
[Via bondmen]
“The Revolution was that people don’t need a king and can self govern. The War of the Rebellion was just that.”
An Appleseed shoot is equal parts history and marksmanship. One of the points made in the history category closely parallels your statement. They refer to the steps between petitioning the Crown to be treated as proper English subjects, and full on rebellion, as “the three strikes of the match.”