These people have wasted a great opportunity to educate people on the realities of the Civil War, but their depiction of warfare and the soldiers is utterly terrible. Did you hire historical/technical advisors for the battle scenes? If so, who? They should be fired. More likely, you didn't. There is no excuse the historical inaccuracies portrayed and does a disservice to the men you are portraying. There are too many material culture and historical experts on the Civil War to do this so poorly and not even remotely depict the appearance, conduct or nature of the common soldier, and to not even depict warfare as it was. The battle scenes are nothing short of disgraceful.
16 Reviews
A slap in the face
mcintiretracey27 December 2016
I have been a volunteer living historian at Antietam National Battlefield for over 5 years. I personally know most of the historians that were interviewed for the Antietam episode. Their segments are great. The rest of the production is a historical disgrace. Others have gone into detail about the many inaccuracies, so I won't cover those in this review. What I will say is that those inaccuracies are not the result of a low budget, but rather laziness or downright willful ignorance. It doesn't cost money to look at period photos and drill manuals on the Internet and see what your soldiers should look like and how they should handle a rifle and a cannon. The lack of research for the battle scenes in this production is a disgrace and it is a slap in the face to the historians that were interviewed and to the soldiers who fought and died at Antietam. Shame on you, AHC. You are disrespecting the American Heroes you claim to care so much about.
Absolute disgrace to the millions that served and thousands that died
bwenglish22 December 2016
There isn't much more to be said that hasn't already been said. This "documentary" and I use that term loosely, is a disgrace to the soldiers and sailors of the American Civil War. This is complete and utter fictionalization of historical events. I would liken this to "The 300". Sure, it's historically based but the visuals are in no way shape or form accurate. Any historian, adviser, etc. that was associated with this monstrosity should be ashamed of themselves, including Gary Adelman, the historian for the CWPT.
There is a wealth of information, books, photographs, drawings, originals out there to research things like uniforms, weapons and tactics. The fact that no one took the time to look at a single Confederate or Federal uniform is evident here. No one read a tactics manual, no one studied the progression of an actual battle.
The fact that the production company is so proud of their "authenticity" is proof they did little to no research. They found gray wool and blue wool jackets from Pakistan and said "this will do it". There are even production companies out there that specialize in historically accurate portrayals of Civil War soldiers with expertise, skills and knowledge of the period. They didn't even bother with a simple google search.
Unfortunately, people will look at this and think it is a visual and accurate depiction of the Civil War. They had the community and expertise available to them and they didn't use it, they had an opportunity to truly educate people about the war but they ignored it. I truly hope AHC never produces another film about any period.
There is a wealth of information, books, photographs, drawings, originals out there to research things like uniforms, weapons and tactics. The fact that no one took the time to look at a single Confederate or Federal uniform is evident here. No one read a tactics manual, no one studied the progression of an actual battle.
The fact that the production company is so proud of their "authenticity" is proof they did little to no research. They found gray wool and blue wool jackets from Pakistan and said "this will do it". There are even production companies out there that specialize in historically accurate portrayals of Civil War soldiers with expertise, skills and knowledge of the period. They didn't even bother with a simple google search.
Unfortunately, people will look at this and think it is a visual and accurate depiction of the Civil War. They had the community and expertise available to them and they didn't use it, they had an opportunity to truly educate people about the war but they ignored it. I truly hope AHC never produces another film about any period.
There are no winners in this war.
NYCPress15 December 2016
As someone with family members who served—and died—on both sides during the Civil War, I regret that this production has done more to make "those people back then" seem even more remote to the modern viewer. Even the layman can tell that there's something hokey about how the soldiers are portrayed, in their actions and equipment. There were thousands upon thousands of photographs taken in studios and in the field from 1861 to 1865. Play a simple game of "one of these things is not like the other" and compare them to this show. One might say " well, the average person doesn't know," and this is a faulty excuse. For one, the purpose of a documentary is to inform. Second, they may not be able to articulate just WHAT is wrong, but there is a subliminal aesthetic on which anyone can pick up. Take a simple uniform cap. During the war, the brims were made of a varnished, stiff leather that can look quite fetching when worn with purpose. You see a photo of a soldier from 155 years ago wearing one, and you can connect with him. You think "this guy had a personality. He was real." Now get a cheap, costume-grade replica that is finished with a soft, pleather brim that looks rather sad and creased like a baseball cap, plopped on the head of an actor. The actor looks weird, because he treats it as a costume, and presumes that "well, this probably looked good to those old-fashioned people." It is all disingenuous because it, itself, is wrong and is being worn with ignorance. This stuff is more important, and detectable, than many realize.
For me, part of making "them" feel less different from "us" is to just represent them as they would have looked and acted, not a contrived farce that seems to presume that history, left as it was, is too "boring" for modern audiences.
Put it this way: you can't expect to create an accurate-looking Civil War scene from scratch by renting costumes and weapons, handing them out, and saying "action." You, literally, need to build an army unit. The background in "Cold Mountain" went through a "camp of instruction" to bring them up to a basic level of proficiency. I'm not saying that reenactors are God's gift to history, but at least there's a core, basic knowledge there. You start with that, and bring in a military coordinator/adviser to smooth out the few individual quirks and "reenactorisms," and go from there.
I've seen viewers who are afraid of this production being "one-sided" (i.e. acknowledging that the North won the war) but I assure you that both sides in this are equally sullied with plastic water bottles and flag poles that look to have been taken from the church auditorium.
For me, part of making "them" feel less different from "us" is to just represent them as they would have looked and acted, not a contrived farce that seems to presume that history, left as it was, is too "boring" for modern audiences.
Put it this way: you can't expect to create an accurate-looking Civil War scene from scratch by renting costumes and weapons, handing them out, and saying "action." You, literally, need to build an army unit. The background in "Cold Mountain" went through a "camp of instruction" to bring them up to a basic level of proficiency. I'm not saying that reenactors are God's gift to history, but at least there's a core, basic knowledge there. You start with that, and bring in a military coordinator/adviser to smooth out the few individual quirks and "reenactorisms," and go from there.
I've seen viewers who are afraid of this production being "one-sided" (i.e. acknowledging that the North won the war) but I assure you that both sides in this are equally sullied with plastic water bottles and flag poles that look to have been taken from the church auditorium.
Weak, superficial and often inaccurate
grantss24 March 2017
Key battles of the American Civil War, as seen through the eyes of soldiers from either side.
A novel idea, very badly executed. Most war documentaries give the strategic view - this give's the everyman's view. Just not an interesting, accurate or compelling one.
The characters are generally well chosen but the dramatisations are quite weak and don't really give that much of an insight into the battle. Due to the narrow focus, much of the detail is lost. For example, if you watched the episode on the Battle of Antietam you would think that the entire battle occurred in the cornfield. Burnside's Bridge is not mentioned, or Bloody Lane. Similarly, Gettysburg covers only Big and Little Round Tops. Pickett's Charge isn't even mentioned by name.
To make it worse, you have the worst line-up of historians-for-hire ever. More salesmen than historians, their job seems to be to talk up, through shouting and talking fast, the importance of each battle and these characters parts in it. The Battle of Nashville, which was much more a coup de grace than a pivotal battle, gets turned into something vital to the survival of Sherman's Army and the Union. The hyperbole on display is quite ridiculous.
Not even a series for Civil War beginners, this is that dumbed down and inaccurate.
Do yourself a favour: watch Ken Burns's The Civil War instead. Surely the greatest documentary series ever made, on any subject.
A novel idea, very badly executed. Most war documentaries give the strategic view - this give's the everyman's view. Just not an interesting, accurate or compelling one.
The characters are generally well chosen but the dramatisations are quite weak and don't really give that much of an insight into the battle. Due to the narrow focus, much of the detail is lost. For example, if you watched the episode on the Battle of Antietam you would think that the entire battle occurred in the cornfield. Burnside's Bridge is not mentioned, or Bloody Lane. Similarly, Gettysburg covers only Big and Little Round Tops. Pickett's Charge isn't even mentioned by name.
To make it worse, you have the worst line-up of historians-for-hire ever. More salesmen than historians, their job seems to be to talk up, through shouting and talking fast, the importance of each battle and these characters parts in it. The Battle of Nashville, which was much more a coup de grace than a pivotal battle, gets turned into something vital to the survival of Sherman's Army and the Union. The hyperbole on display is quite ridiculous.
Not even a series for Civil War beginners, this is that dumbed down and inaccurate.
Do yourself a favour: watch Ken Burns's The Civil War instead. Surely the greatest documentary series ever made, on any subject.
Thought it was a comedy movie until I realized they were serious
dangerforward-8582624 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Remember that Conan OBrian skit where he goes to an old time baseball game? The people there were pretending it was the late 1860's and played baseball using vintage uniforms, bats, rules and the like? When they found the guy with the granola bars in his pocket? I thought this "show" was an extension of that skit until I realized they were serious. Sad thing is, that skit was so well done while this was absolute garbage. Bad acting, bad production, unrealistic action, uniforms, accouterments and details. I counted THREE separate moments where I saw modern water bottles on screen. Not even trying to hide them. The uniforms looked like something the local high school got from the Goodwill. If you have to watch it, stab your eyes or so you save yourself the horror. A lifetime of blindness is preferable.
Be careful about inaccurate reviews
makkabee26 December 2016
This documentary is a train-wreck, but be careful of reviews which are even more wildly inaccurate. For instance, one review from a self-described non-historian says " this documentary makes it seem as if the southern states had seceded out of fear of Abe abolishing slavery! Not only was abolishing slavery among the first things the confederacy was going to do after the war, but Abe wanted to send every African American to Panama! You've got to show every side of the secession because non of it is cut and dry. How would you like to be taxed "exporting" goods to your own country because you lived and worked in the south?"
He's wrong about every item there. Southern states DID secede over fear that Lincoln would abolish slavery. They said so, openly and officially. The Declarations of Causes of Secession, the "Declarations of Independence" for most of the original Confederate states, all mention slavery repeatedly and talk of Republican plans to destroy it.
Lincoln did not want to send every African American to Panama. He initially supported voluntary colonization, but abandoned the scheme when African-American leaders made it clear they didn't want to leave. Also note the contradiction between the reviewer's claim that ending slavery wasn't a Union war aim and his claim that Lincoln wanted to kick out all the black people.
The claim that the Confederacy planned to abolish slavery is a bald- faced lie. There isn't a single bit of evidence that the Confederate government wished to do anything of the kind. Even at the very end, when they were desperate enough to try to recruit black soldiers, the Confederate Congress wouldn't pass the law until the provision requiring the freeing of enlisted slaves was struck.
And the claim that southerners were taxed for exporting goods is another total fabrication. The United States didn't have export tariffs. It only taxed IMPORTS, and most of those imports came into northern ports, not southern. The "tax revolt" story is a fantasy concocted by defeated Confederate leaders after the war to make their cause look more attractive, but until the Confederacy collapsed they were quite open about being devoted to the preservation of slavery. I urge everyone who reads this to examine the primary sources and see for themselves where the truth lies.
He's wrong about every item there. Southern states DID secede over fear that Lincoln would abolish slavery. They said so, openly and officially. The Declarations of Causes of Secession, the "Declarations of Independence" for most of the original Confederate states, all mention slavery repeatedly and talk of Republican plans to destroy it.
Lincoln did not want to send every African American to Panama. He initially supported voluntary colonization, but abandoned the scheme when African-American leaders made it clear they didn't want to leave. Also note the contradiction between the reviewer's claim that ending slavery wasn't a Union war aim and his claim that Lincoln wanted to kick out all the black people.
The claim that the Confederacy planned to abolish slavery is a bald- faced lie. There isn't a single bit of evidence that the Confederate government wished to do anything of the kind. Even at the very end, when they were desperate enough to try to recruit black soldiers, the Confederate Congress wouldn't pass the law until the provision requiring the freeing of enlisted slaves was struck.
And the claim that southerners were taxed for exporting goods is another total fabrication. The United States didn't have export tariffs. It only taxed IMPORTS, and most of those imports came into northern ports, not southern. The "tax revolt" story is a fantasy concocted by defeated Confederate leaders after the war to make their cause look more attractive, but until the Confederacy collapsed they were quite open about being devoted to the preservation of slavery. I urge everyone who reads this to examine the primary sources and see for themselves where the truth lies.
A research-less attempt at History
krizzby716 December 2016
It is understood that the American Civil War was a series of complex and pressing events that can cause one to devote their life to researching and studying, yet never come closer to fully understanding it. That in mind no series, how well funded or produced, could ever do the war true justice in both scope and scale or in accurately portraying the men who fought it. However most good studios and projects will do as much research as possible to ensure their information and their portrayal of the war is as accurate as possible America Heroes Channel and Cream Productions do not know what research is.
The focus of my scorn comes from the complete and utter lack of authentic recreations of the war. While their narrative may contain some positive points and usefully intriguing information, the show would have done so much better with a slide show of period photographs much in the vein of Ken Burns the Civil War
What this company put to film resembles nothing of the American Civil War. It is outright a travesty. I could fill this very page with more criticisms to the inaccuracies seen in just the first episode and their 360 shoot combined. There are more details wrong than ever right. The old phrase the Devils in the Details was meant for this.
Many of you would ask "why does it matter if their uniforms or accurate, it looked cool!" While having museum grade quality uniforms is exciting and accurate it is also very expensive and understandably so when film companies look for a step below. The uniforms here are not a step below, they are floors. The confederate uniforms for one resemble NOTHING ever worn by a Southern soldier. They are fictions. The Federal soldiers headware is again so disappointing as to resemble a block than a kepi or forage cap. As someone who has worked in the Historical film industry and had to work with very low budget pictures, it is still obtainable for us to have uniforms that resemble at the least what the real Mccoy did.
The tactics are abysmal. They actually just lack tactics . The entire film resembles a bunch of men playing paintball in the woods. This production would have you believe the soldiers of the American Civil War ran around the woods in small clusters hiding behind rocks and trees, then dashing off in a wild charge at the enemy. False. It actually is a disservice. The American Civil War was known for its nearly static battle lines drawn out in brigade fashion that slugged it out within a few hundred yards. And when they did close within a hundred yards the result was devastating. Having background extras to work with is difficult, again I know from personal experience. But having an actual adviser on set makes all the difference. How can you make a dozen men look like 300 in a battle line? Good film making. Good editing. A DP who knows how to shoot around their limitations. Clearly this production had none of those.
Again to close, why does it matter? Why does it matter that we need authentic representation of uniforms, equipment and materials. Because this show pitched the idea of using recreation scenes of battle. They chose the medium. Cream Productions and AHC could have picked talking heads and slide shows of original images with graphics of moving battle lines. But they wanted to be edgy so they chose battle scenes. So now they pay that price. Look at the other reviews, the stars given. We are all upset. Cream Productions has been blocking users and deleting comments because of the flood of negative responses they've received.
This is our history, do not take it for granted and think you can deliver a cheap, researchless project.
The focus of my scorn comes from the complete and utter lack of authentic recreations of the war. While their narrative may contain some positive points and usefully intriguing information, the show would have done so much better with a slide show of period photographs much in the vein of Ken Burns the Civil War
What this company put to film resembles nothing of the American Civil War. It is outright a travesty. I could fill this very page with more criticisms to the inaccuracies seen in just the first episode and their 360 shoot combined. There are more details wrong than ever right. The old phrase the Devils in the Details was meant for this.
Many of you would ask "why does it matter if their uniforms or accurate, it looked cool!" While having museum grade quality uniforms is exciting and accurate it is also very expensive and understandably so when film companies look for a step below. The uniforms here are not a step below, they are floors. The confederate uniforms for one resemble NOTHING ever worn by a Southern soldier. They are fictions. The Federal soldiers headware is again so disappointing as to resemble a block than a kepi or forage cap. As someone who has worked in the Historical film industry and had to work with very low budget pictures, it is still obtainable for us to have uniforms that resemble at the least what the real Mccoy did.
The tactics are abysmal. They actually just lack tactics . The entire film resembles a bunch of men playing paintball in the woods. This production would have you believe the soldiers of the American Civil War ran around the woods in small clusters hiding behind rocks and trees, then dashing off in a wild charge at the enemy. False. It actually is a disservice. The American Civil War was known for its nearly static battle lines drawn out in brigade fashion that slugged it out within a few hundred yards. And when they did close within a hundred yards the result was devastating. Having background extras to work with is difficult, again I know from personal experience. But having an actual adviser on set makes all the difference. How can you make a dozen men look like 300 in a battle line? Good film making. Good editing. A DP who knows how to shoot around their limitations. Clearly this production had none of those.
Again to close, why does it matter? Why does it matter that we need authentic representation of uniforms, equipment and materials. Because this show pitched the idea of using recreation scenes of battle. They chose the medium. Cream Productions and AHC could have picked talking heads and slide shows of original images with graphics of moving battle lines. But they wanted to be edgy so they chose battle scenes. So now they pay that price. Look at the other reviews, the stars given. We are all upset. Cream Productions has been blocking users and deleting comments because of the flood of negative responses they've received.
This is our history, do not take it for granted and think you can deliver a cheap, researchless project.
Horrible.
squirrelman-0370514 December 2016
The show lacks the proper representation of civil war battles. The soldiers seem to move like they're in some sort of Vietnam movie drama. There is no proper representation of civil war tactics. The civil war "uniforms" if you can call them such, are also terrible, deplorable even. They're not even close to looking like civil war soldiers. Was there even a historical consultant to work on the production? The acting is just a bad. The acting was similar to that of a low cost production high school class feature film. There was no consideration for the men who went through that conflict. It made the war look like a bunch of children playing soldier.
Ruined by the battle scenes
draudrey-2673026 December 2016
Just watched the Antietam episode. There were top-notch Antietam historians interviewed for this episode. There were several poignant stories about soldiers in this battle effectively woven into the episode. Had I just heard the episode without seeing the accompanying visuals, I would have been much happier. The battle sequences were terrible and negated the good effect of the narrative. I agree with the other reviewers who have commented on the utter lack of proper Civil War infantry drill and tactics in the battle scenes and the horrible uniforms worn horribly by the actors. This horribleness extends to the depiction of the artillery as well. This episode features Battery B 4th US, a unit that incurred 40% casualties in the battle. With the exception of one Napoleon, everything that was shown about the battery was wrong. The drill was all wrong, the arrangement of the cannons one behind the others was wrong, the limber aligned on the oblique with no horses was wrong, the mushroom clouds of canister were wrong. Where's General John Gibbon getting off his horse to raise the elevation screw to lower the muzzle? Where's the 15 year-old Cincinnati paper boy Bugler Johnny Cook earning his Medal of Honor? So much potential in this dramatic story. All wasted.
very disappointing
WayneOZ17 March 2017
I am not a student of the American Civil war but I am an individual who is respectful of this momentous War between the States and the terrible price that was paid by both sides.
This documentary does not show any respect for this conflict and it seems to me that it is not an impartial view of the war and that there were many leaders who were not even mentioned, great people who had influence in this conflict.
For me the definitive record of the American Civil War is the books by the great Shelby Foote and Ken Burns outstanding series.
In the end I saw nothing here that would indicate that the producers knew nothing about the subject they had produced.
This documentary does not show any respect for this conflict and it seems to me that it is not an impartial view of the war and that there were many leaders who were not even mentioned, great people who had influence in this conflict.
For me the definitive record of the American Civil War is the books by the great Shelby Foote and Ken Burns outstanding series.
In the end I saw nothing here that would indicate that the producers knew nothing about the subject they had produced.
Worst documentary ever
dhilyard13 August 2021
History of Secession - Spoiler WARNING
tacitusmk24 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
..
this show sucks, but so do the reviewers on this site, Sovereign Citizens one and all don't let the patriots lie to you americas civil war was 100% about the States Right to keep other human beings as slave labour and then to count those slaves as population for purposes of Representation in the House, even when those slaves had no Rights to be Represented look at the Secession documents ALL OF THEM cite the free state/slave state "problem" as the reason for Secession Robert E Lee was a traitor who should have been hanged the South had no black soldiers except those that served under duress "freeing" the slaves wasn't done until 1864 in order to prevent the wholesale slaughter of blacks in the SOuth how many black Union soldiers were EVER taken prisoner? NONE. because the racist Southerners killed them all as they often said they would read a book not written in the South, where people only teach northern aggression but they don't teach WHY slavery WAS/IS WRONG because Southerners think owning slaves is a CHOICE
this show sucks, but so do the reviewers on this site, Sovereign Citizens one and all don't let the patriots lie to you americas civil war was 100% about the States Right to keep other human beings as slave labour and then to count those slaves as population for purposes of Representation in the House, even when those slaves had no Rights to be Represented look at the Secession documents ALL OF THEM cite the free state/slave state "problem" as the reason for Secession Robert E Lee was a traitor who should have been hanged the South had no black soldiers except those that served under duress "freeing" the slaves wasn't done until 1864 in order to prevent the wholesale slaughter of blacks in the SOuth how many black Union soldiers were EVER taken prisoner? NONE. because the racist Southerners killed them all as they often said they would read a book not written in the South, where people only teach northern aggression but they don't teach WHY slavery WAS/IS WRONG because Southerners think owning slaves is a CHOICE
What were they thinking?
bcahillinva23 June 2022
This review is based solely on the Battle of Fredericksburg episode, but they struck out emphatically! There is no mention whatsoever of the southern portion of the battle, which is where the entire battle was decided.
The vast majority of the Union forces crossed the Rappahannock river at the southernmost crossing of three. If you viewed this episode, you were lead to believe that there was only one crossing. The Union lost the battle because of ambiguous orders from Gen. Burnside.
Gen. Franklin, who lead the Union left flank, kept 3/4 of his troops in reserve. Had he ordered most of his men to attack the right flank of the Confederate positions it almost certainly would have been a Union victory, and the entire Civil War would have ended much sooner. This was Lee's greatest victory, but only because of Union mistakes.
It was sad to watch this episode with even moderate expectations, and be so completely disappointed! The episode had Civil War historians narrating, but must have been heavily edited. It is difficult to imagine that several experts could completely distort the circumstances of the battle.
The vast majority of the Union forces crossed the Rappahannock river at the southernmost crossing of three. If you viewed this episode, you were lead to believe that there was only one crossing. The Union lost the battle because of ambiguous orders from Gen. Burnside.
Gen. Franklin, who lead the Union left flank, kept 3/4 of his troops in reserve. Had he ordered most of his men to attack the right flank of the Confederate positions it almost certainly would have been a Union victory, and the entire Civil War would have ended much sooner. This was Lee's greatest victory, but only because of Union mistakes.
It was sad to watch this episode with even moderate expectations, and be so completely disappointed! The episode had Civil War historians narrating, but must have been heavily edited. It is difficult to imagine that several experts could completely distort the circumstances of the battle.
Perspective
kidssdh2 October 2023
I get the 1 star and negative reviews. I get it having had a relative serve in the Union Army.
However, it's a "Documentary " in that it has to be difficult to condense such significant and prominent battles into an under hour show. It seems hastily done to fit the time allotted. The narrative seems relatively accurate, with some notable historians providing the narrative. One wonders how they feel or how they reacted to the final product. Take it for what it is - Entertainment. There are NO shows, documentaries or movies without flaw, errors, or inaccuracies. Oddly enough this Documentary about the US Civil War was filmed in Canada ??? In any case I'm sure it's difficult to maintain a 100% accuracy as modes and tactics morph throughout a battle. The chaos and confusion in these battles are incomprehensible. The sacrifice, carnage and slaughter is on a scale unmatched as it's American killing American. Sure.....Worse case Accuracy is perhaps a fail. Best case it brings the carnage of the US Civil War to the viewers.
To tacitusmk review, please reference The American Civil War Museum, American Battlefield Trust and as noted on the History Channel "On March 13, 1865, with the main Rebel armies facing long odds against much larger Union armies, the Confederacy, in a desperate measure, reluctantly approves the use of Black troops." Granted is was a rarity yet it did exist.
No matter what "Side" you have attachments toward, the Civil War was a bloodbath for America Ultimately morphing from a War to Preserve the Union to the Freeing of Slaves. There is so much that is indeed debatable. The loss of AMERICAN LIVES for whatever the cause is not. That is a Fact....
To krizzby7. It's relatively cut and dry. It was to Preserve a still young Union. We were not far removed from the War of 1812. If one believes Lincoln decided to free the Slaves because he was a Great humanitarian you're kidding yourself. He's a politician through and through and seized an opportunity to exploit the Growing Anti Slave Movement and thus appear to be the Great Uniter. It was a political move executed by a savvy politician. His fortunes were heading south (Uh, no pun intended) and he needed a home run.... A Grand Slam Home Run. He got it, ran with it, and shifted America's opinion of the war from Preserving the Union to Setting People Free. It's all political. Don't fool yourself if you believe Lincoln cared about slavery. He cared about his political career.
My roots are with the 208th Pennsylvania Volunteers Infantry Regiment, Company H.
However, it's a "Documentary " in that it has to be difficult to condense such significant and prominent battles into an under hour show. It seems hastily done to fit the time allotted. The narrative seems relatively accurate, with some notable historians providing the narrative. One wonders how they feel or how they reacted to the final product. Take it for what it is - Entertainment. There are NO shows, documentaries or movies without flaw, errors, or inaccuracies. Oddly enough this Documentary about the US Civil War was filmed in Canada ??? In any case I'm sure it's difficult to maintain a 100% accuracy as modes and tactics morph throughout a battle. The chaos and confusion in these battles are incomprehensible. The sacrifice, carnage and slaughter is on a scale unmatched as it's American killing American. Sure.....Worse case Accuracy is perhaps a fail. Best case it brings the carnage of the US Civil War to the viewers.
To tacitusmk review, please reference The American Civil War Museum, American Battlefield Trust and as noted on the History Channel "On March 13, 1865, with the main Rebel armies facing long odds against much larger Union armies, the Confederacy, in a desperate measure, reluctantly approves the use of Black troops." Granted is was a rarity yet it did exist.
No matter what "Side" you have attachments toward, the Civil War was a bloodbath for America Ultimately morphing from a War to Preserve the Union to the Freeing of Slaves. There is so much that is indeed debatable. The loss of AMERICAN LIVES for whatever the cause is not. That is a Fact....
To krizzby7. It's relatively cut and dry. It was to Preserve a still young Union. We were not far removed from the War of 1812. If one believes Lincoln decided to free the Slaves because he was a Great humanitarian you're kidding yourself. He's a politician through and through and seized an opportunity to exploit the Growing Anti Slave Movement and thus appear to be the Great Uniter. It was a political move executed by a savvy politician. His fortunes were heading south (Uh, no pun intended) and he needed a home run.... A Grand Slam Home Run. He got it, ran with it, and shifted America's opinion of the war from Preserving the Union to Setting People Free. It's all political. Don't fool yourself if you believe Lincoln cared about slavery. He cared about his political career.
My roots are with the 208th Pennsylvania Volunteers Infantry Regiment, Company H.
Often wrong and sometimes lazy!!!!
wfreeburn-7079018 July 2022
One episode I thought should have been named "The John Adams Jr show, it was about Fredericksburg but left out everything except what the great grandson of a President went through! Of course I am predudice about it. You see, the pontoon boat which he went over & back on had my great-great grandfather & my namesake was on the pontoon boat, as captain of the boat. But he wasn't so lucky and was shot in the head! No mention of any of the others who never made it back and forth! Then Gettysburgh the h being origninal because us Scots founded a lot of the PA cities but when the English got here the names were changed, no mention was made of the fact that Lee's army had to buy their cannon fuses from a different company because the normal on had been flooded out. Well the new ones were made with made with more juice in the powder and caused a hotter blast, sending most shots well past where they were intended to go. And nobody, EVER, mentions that four of the original 13 colonies put in the Articles of Confederation, the contract that made the country, that they had the right of withdrawl from the Union at anytime. They were PA., MA., New York and Virginia! But Lincoln totally ignored this, which in fact made the countries creation a joke! And I had between 24-30 union fighters in my family as we were coal miners & slaves for 200 years!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
