| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Sherman's March: Review/Discuss the Show |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Sherman's March: Review/Discuss the Show |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Sherman's March: Review/Discuss the Show | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 12:54 am |
|
1st Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer 
|
Use this thread to give us your opinions and reviews of the History Channel special "Sherman's March".
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 02:16 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
ole Member 
|
Am watching and taping at this very moment. So far, it seems very even-handed, which will certainly make almost everyone angry. Ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 03:22 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
Jimtno Member 
|
  I keep forgetting to post here. Ok, Off first impressions, for once they did for me an outstanding job. For some one who is as hard core (my wifes term for it) as I , I enjoyed it thoroughly. I know there are those who are allready yelping, but it was so even handed, even touching on the decision of Jefferson C. Davis (Left me and the mrs crying even though I have shared that story several times). It did touched on all the controversial aspects of it. I for one give it a 5 * out of 5 *. Jim
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 03:56 am |
|
4th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Very much agreed, Jim. I saw no egregious, historical errors. Things I would have to quibble over would have added an our to the movie and made it quite tedious. I 'spect those neophytes who watched will have developed a new appreciation of Sherman's March. Of course, in this community of freaks, wackos, and devotees, we'll continue to quarrel over it, but I am really looking for a public response emulating the Ken Burns series of years ago. Ole Last edited on Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 04:01 am by ole |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 07:38 am |
|
5th Post |
|
Kent Nielsen Member
|
Hi Much to my annoyance, we don't get the History Channel up here in Canada.  I remember that Civil War Journal on A&E did a program on the March several years ago. I take it this isn't the same one?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 02:33 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Speaking of Sherman's quotes, I think they got one slightly wrong -- couldn't say it was intentional and won't say it was a nod to the Sherman haters. This was the one where Sherman said something like "the negro was unequal to the white." The scriptwriters started off right by qualifying the statement -- the slave being largely illiterate and unaccustomed to the society into which he would be required to fit -- but they left out the word "soldier." Sherman's objection to the black soldier was his conviction that the newly freed slave couldn't equal the white soldier. (Sherman's Civil War, Simpson & Berlin, Editors). He was, of course, wrong, but he wasn't being particularly racist when he wrote that. Another treatment I thought might have been more complete was the incident at Ebenezer Creek. That was most unfortunate and reflects badly on the Federal General J. C. Davis. It was however, militarily justifiable. Left dangling was the idea that Wheeler's arrival might have been more the cause of the drownings than the withdrawn bridge. Otherwise, I was pleased to note that the History Channel went to great lengths be be as fair as possible in the presentation. Ole
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 03:15 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Jimtno Member
|
 The Ebenzer Creek Episode was handled about as well as you could do so. And they did it the RIGHT way.. An African/American Historian and Professor from Washington and LEE no less... His review of the events was right on,. Militarily it made sense, Humanely? Disgraceful........... Hard for us here in the 21st century to swallow this incident. Especially in our PC society. But still a good job by HC.. In fact so much so, I am going to order the dvd.. I want to be able to watch it without the adds. Jim
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 04:25 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
David White Member 
|
So did Sherman say "War is cruelty and you cannot reform it" or "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it." Or did he say both? I was hoping for a discussion of why he didn't go after Augusta. They mentioned he was trying to destroy the transportation net for the powder works but I'd rather hit the center of gravity and destroy the mill itself versus its transportation net. That was the important target he missed versus freeing prisoners at Andersonville who he would have had to feed and transport, complicating an already complicated problem for just the army. Last edited on Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 04:29 pm by David White |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 10:40 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
Jimtno Member
|
 You mean to tell me, they would not have let him on the course? Wait a minute, then if the south hated slaves so much how come they are cadies? Enough silliness,. Back to Wheeler for a moment. With him nipping basicaly at the heels of the Army, I can see why Sherman/Davis would want to put at least a decent stream between them an the reb cavalry... The other side of this, is that Wheeler actually should bear some of the blame for EC. Look I actually do like I think its Oles comments. Hopefully something that will trigger more interest in the CW. Jim
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 11:02 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
I'm enjoying this thread. I've spent the day searching blogs, discussion boards and chat rooms for reaction to this show. I've yet to see a wholly negative review (of course, I avoid the "neo-confederate" sites and have to imagine they're going crazy). There's a certain clique that seems to get off on bashing History Channel, and I admit it's important to take them to task if they make glaring factual errors. But it's just as important to give them kudo's when they deserve it. They deserve it with "Sherman's March". I know they spent a small fortune on advertising this show, including large ads in papers such as the New York Times and USA Today. Sadly they spent nary a penny on CWi advertising but we promoted it because we thought it was good - simple as that. Don't forget to let them know you appreciate fair treatment of a hot-topic subject.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 24th, 2007 12:33 am |
|
14th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352 
|
I'm not really a fan of the history channel; but from the number of positive reviews I've seen... I think I'm going to have to see this one. Here is another review: http://civilwarmemory.typepad.com/civil_war_memory/ Last edited on Tue Apr 24th, 2007 12:35 am by Johan Steele |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 24th, 2007 01:07 am |
|
15th Post |
|
Johnny Huma Johnny Huma 
|
I think the History Channel did an Ok Job on this one..I cannot give it raving reviews..I actually was fighting falling asleep toward the end of it...I may have been a little mislead with the advertisments of it all but I did not get the feeling that I was getting inside that evil mind or non-evil mind of Sherman as I guess I was looking for a little more in depth personality coverage. It was informative and I think the actor who played Sherman did as well as he could seeing that he did not really have a lot of speaking parts in it..If it is on again I will watch it and maybe try to grasp more out of it...I had just come back from Gettysburg and I was tired so maybe I need to watch it in the right frame of mind... Huma
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 24th, 2007 02:58 am |
|
16th Post |
|
CleburneFan Member 
|
Anybody know if there is a repeat performance of this show scheduled soon? The hotel we were in last night did not have the History Channel. The hotel compounded the felony by not having Showtime either, so we had to miss Episode Four of "The Tudors" also. I hope I won't have to wait until the video is available in July. I'm really pleased that so many folks are speaking favorably of the show and I am very eager to see it.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 24th, 2007 03:01 pm |
|
17th Post |
|
David White Member
|
I know it will at least be repeated on Saturday morning, like all History Channel shows I expect it will be some more. I'm like Johnny thought it was okay and not spectacular. It was pretty even-handed and for that they should get kudos.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 24th, 2007 04:20 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Albert Sailhorst Member 
|
I only got to watch the first 45 minutes of it (my wife had to tape some reality show!) The guy playing Sherman was good! At one point, it was mentioned, that before the war, Sherman was a failed businessman. It did not mention, however, that he was Superintendent of the Louisiana State Seminary and Military Academy at Alexandria, Louisiana. Did I miss something, or was this an oversight on the filmmakers' part? One BIG criticism that I have is the fact that Sherman called Grant "Grant" and not Sam, and that Grant called Sherman "Sherman" and not, perhaps, 'Cump. In my opinion, I found the fact that they called each other by last name a little "corny".....Maybe I'm being trivial, but I think the narrator could have explained the "Sam" and "'Cump" names, and then the characters could have used them....The filmmakers did a great job in getting the point across that the two were good freinds, but then they lost that point by not using more familiar names....
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 24th, 2007 05:00 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
ole Member
|
I've seen no reference to what they called each other. Certainly, Sherman was called "Cump" by his family and USMA chums (Thomas, included), but whether this was adopted by Grant is unknown to me. Same goes for the sobriquet, Sam. Ought the script writers have used nicknames instead of last names? Maybe they did their homework and found no records of what the generals called each other. Maybe they just played it safe. Ole
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Current time is 02:17 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Sherman's March: Review/Discuss the Show | Top |
