PDA

View Full Version : THC's Sherman's March to the Sea



TheSignalCorpsGuy
04-19-2007, 10:23 AM
All,

This coming Sunday night at 9:00pm eastern time, The History Channel will aire "Sherman's March to the Sea".

My sons and I were extra's in it's making last fall. Youngest is the drummer boy.

Here's what their web-site has to say about it:

"Known affectionately as "Uncle Billy" by Union soldiers, but reviled in the South as a brutal war criminal, General William Tecumseh Sherman is one of the truly enigmatic and complex figures in the American pantheon. His legacy was built during a five-week campaign of terror and destruction that would become known as "total war". Sherman ordered his troops to burn crops, kill livestock, destroy railroads, pilfer food supplies and to make sure the South's civilian infrastructure was shattered. Although the concept had been around for centuries, this is the first time in modern warfare that total war was used to such an extensive degree. First Savannah was captured, and then he marched from Georgia through South Carolina and burned the capital to the ground. On the heels of Sherman's destructive onslaughts, the Confederacy officially conceded victory to the Union on April 9, 1865."


We'll see how it will turn out.

Bloated_Corpse
04-19-2007, 10:53 AM
His legacy was built during a five-week campaign of terror and destruction ...

The commercial preview on the History Channel gave me the impression that this show was going to refute some of the myths of Sherman's March. However, the written blurb sounds like the standard propaganda.

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm

Forquer
04-19-2007, 01:29 PM
.........my question is, what is THC going to do to sensationalize this story?

I remember what their website said about the time that "The Unfinished Civil War" was released. What a load of horse hockey.

I'm afeared that THC lost me a long time ago. BBC America and PBS rule!

YOS,

AzTrooper
04-20-2007, 05:06 PM
Im keeping my fingers crossed that they will do this right.I need something new to watch :)
Respectfully,
John Rogers

reb64
04-22-2007, 09:58 PM
give me a break, the hc make this god out to be a god, and a merciful sparing general. phooey

Ohioreb1861
04-22-2007, 10:25 PM
I thinked it sucked, they did make this terrorist out to be a god. Why did't they say why he never returned to Lancaster???

MStuart
04-22-2007, 10:31 PM
I thought it was well done. But then, what do I know? I think the Mona Lisa is just a picture of a homely chick........

Mark

Let the disection begin.......Sherman has got nothing on some of the future posts regarding equipments, camps, and uniforms. It'll be greater entertainment than the actual show! That's what I hate about the History Channel.....none of those professional historians or the network consulted with anyone on the forum prior to the show.

HighPrvt
04-23-2007, 05:01 AM
I'll sum it up;
Sherman only burnt a third of Atlanta, so it's Otay!
:Rolleyes:

sbl
04-23-2007, 05:26 AM
Nice use of CGI. It LOOKED CGI but well done CGI. Few TBGs among the reenactors used who looked generally young and fit. A couple of obvious Bull Run clips. A few "reversed" shots of left handed actors firing left handed rifles. The actors looked pretty good although Sherman's beard was questionable.

What's good about THC's programs is that you get to see and hear the authors and scholars of the subjects covers.

This was better entry for THC.

(so quit whining!)

sbl
04-23-2007, 05:27 AM
I thought it was well done. But then, what do I know? I think the Mona Lisa is just a picture of a homely chick........

Mark

Let the disection begin.......Sherman has got nothing on some of the future posts regarding equipments, camps, and uniforms. It'll be greater entertainment than the actual show! That's what I hate about the History Channel.....none of those professional historians or the network consulted with anyone on the forum prior to the show.


HAHAHAHaaaaaa. Thanks Mark.

TheSignalCorpsGuy
04-23-2007, 05:50 AM
Sir - I was on set. I met the guy who played Sherman. His beard was real.


Nice use of CGI. It LOOKED CGI but well done CGI. Few TBGs among the reenactors used who looked generally young and fit. A couple of obvious Bull Run clips. A few "reversed" shots of left handed actors firing left handed rifles. The actors looked pretty good although Sherman's beard was questionable.

What's good about THC's programs is that you get to see and hear the authors and scholars of the subjects covers.

This was better entry for THC.

(so quit whining!)

TimKindred
04-23-2007, 07:25 AM
Comrades,

Considering the source, "The History Channel", I felt that the show was actually quite well done. Sherman needs more exposure to the public, as he was a true American hero, one of the greatest general officers this nation has ever produced. A gentleman, and a gentle man, who remained far more honerable throughout his life than his late-coming detractors could ever hope to become.

Respects,

Pete K
04-23-2007, 08:30 AM
As a teacher I felt it was a good and mostly neutral documentary (in the presentation of the two sides: Hero vs. Terrorist). It can help me open the discussion in my Junior High Class room. Being common TV fare, was it great scholarly research? Let the discussion begin!

sbl
04-23-2007, 08:56 AM
John,

Thanks for the confirmation. All in all a good program.

hoosiersojer
04-23-2007, 09:49 AM
I'll jump on this potential "flame war" train and throw my two-cents worth in...

I really enjoyed this program,and am thankful for a place like the History Channel that will even offer anything related to the Civil war.Without a station such as the HC what do you have left?Who else(other than the occasional PBS program)offers the general public programs such as these?The HC helps to perpetuate interest in the War Between the States and our hobby as well.What's so wrong with that?We should be grateful.It gets so tiring seeing folks rip the HC for the content of their programs(usually based on opinions,and we all know what else we all have one of...)

As for Sherman,well.....,I'll save that topic for another wrestling match.


Respectfully,


Kevin Waggoner
4th OVI,Co.B

ILYankee5
04-23-2007, 10:10 AM
I thought the program was pretty good. I am glad to see something Civil War from them. As far as arguing whether Sherman's march was moral or immoral or whether he was a terrorist or hero is not the reason of my reply. In fact I don't even believe the History Channel answered their own question of "Terrorist or Hero", it was left up to the viewer. What I did like was how they brought out some points of Sherman's personal life and explained them as the March to the Sea raged on. I also believe the History Channel brought out their main goal which leads to our postings on here today. Sherman's march is still a topic of heated debate in not only the academic field but in different parts of the country today. But once again, all in all, the program was good and I will show it in my class and use it as a teaching supplement.

ILYankee5

AzTrooper
04-23-2007, 12:18 PM
I think it the HC did a good job on it, I enjoyed it a lot.I too am thankfull that they still care enough to do more Civil War productions,as I really enjoy watching them.
Sincerely,
John Rogers

Parault
04-23-2007, 01:05 PM
I was pleased with the show. I also think that T H C didn't answer their own question. I do think that they got it right, when they said, that his exploits are still argued today. I for one am not a fan of Sherman,however, you have to admire his boldness and his plan. If he was alive today and tried to do some of the things that he did then, he would definitely be brought up on charges, possibly brought to the attention of the Courts Martial.

flattop32355
04-23-2007, 03:40 PM
If he was alive today and tried to do some of the things that he did then, he would definitely be brought up on charges, possibly brought to the attention of the Courts Martial.

If you stop and think that through, there's probably not a lot of CW generals, all of whose period actions, would stand up to modern scrutiny and "morals".

It was a different time and there's no way we can reasonably judge these people by our standards, not to mention knowing so little about their own.

We see their world through the lense of 145 years, and with all the subsequent accumulation of results. They saw it as today, while it was happening. Might as well compare apples to oranges.

As for the program itself, it did some good in addressing parts of the mythology of the campaigns, while perpetuating others (particularly, the scene of the Federal soldier sweeping the dishes onto the floor from the table for no obvious good reason, leading one to believe this was the normal behavior of all Union soldiers).

Parault
04-23-2007, 05:04 PM
If you stop and think that through, there's probably not a lot of CW generals, all of whose period actions, would stand up to modern scrutiny and "morals".

It was a different time and there's no way we can reasonably judge these people by our standards, not to mention knowing so little about their own.




I think that is a good response. I fail to remember that the way of thinking of that time period is alot differant than the 21st century mindset.

Parault
04-23-2007, 05:10 PM
If you stop and think that through, there's probably not a lot of CW generals, all of whose period actions, would stand up to modern scrutiny and "morals".

It was a different time and there's no way we can reasonably judge these people by our standards, not to mention knowing so little about their own.

We see their world through the lense of 145 years, and with all the subsequent accumulation of results. They saw it as today, while it was happening. Might as well compare apples to oranges.

As for the program itself, it did some good in addressing parts of the mythology of the campaigns, while perpetuating others (particularly, the scene of the Federal soldier sweeping the dishes onto the floor from the table for no obvious good reason, leading one to believe this was the normal behavior of all Union soldiers).

That is a good way to look at this. I failed to look through the mind of one in the 19th century. Still, I don't think that he was a " savior" as some said he was.

I was impressed that they mentioned the "bridge incident" where they left the "contrabands" on the side of the bank after the bridge was destroyed.

reb64
04-23-2007, 05:10 PM
I thought the program was pretty good. I am glad to see something Civil War from them. As far as arguing whether Sherman's march was moral or immoral or whether he was a terrorist or hero is not the reason of my reply. In fact I don't even believe the History Channel answered their own question of "Terrorist or Hero", it was left up to the viewer. What I did like was how they brought out some points of Sherman's personal life and explained them as the March to the Sea raged on. I also believe the History Channel brought out their main goal which leads to our postings on here today. Sherman's march is still a topic of heated debate in not only the academic field but in different parts of the country today. But once again, all in all, the program was good and I will show it in my class and use it as a teaching supplement.

ILYankee5

no the last minutes summed up sherman as a hero, inspirational, kindly, sparing, tactical, moral. they were biased in his favor. the drowned slaves alone would have him in jail today.

sbl
04-23-2007, 06:08 PM
no the last minutes summed up sherman as a hero, inspirational, kindly, sparing, tactical, moral. they were biased in his favor. the drowned slaves alone would have him in jail today.


Uncle Billy's Boys made of with Reb's shift key!! ;)

ILYankee5
04-23-2007, 06:37 PM
Once again, as I stated before, I am not arguing pro Sherman or anti-Sherman. The last few minutes of the video dealt more with Sherman's life post 1865. Now whether you want to buy into the fact Sherman gave men money out of his pocket in the middle of the night is your own choosing. The History Channel gave evidence of how Sherman wanted to bring an abrupt end to the war. He was a hero... to his men and many people in the north because he wanted this abrupt end. That can be documented in diaries and newspapers. As I said previously, I am not condoning Sherman's choices. I am not condemning them either. I did not live then, I was not there. I have to agree with the Historian that spoke of the Sherman myth, of how someone's great great great grand dad's farms were supposedly burned when Sherman was not within 100 miles of the actual place. All I am backing is the facts that is presented. Sherman was a hero in the north then and Satan in the south then. The History Channel did exactly what it set out to do, bring up the heated topic and see how people still feel today and present historic facts. And it did, because we are talking about it right now.

ILYankee5

queenoftheconfederacy
04-23-2007, 06:38 PM
The actors looked pretty good although Sherman's beard was questionable.

I must agree about the beard, yes I know it was real, but it looked as though he had more makeup on than Tammy Faye, I think thats what made his beard look fake, but the makeup made him look greasy and plastic, next time, only a inch of makeup would be better, lol

bill watson
04-23-2007, 07:53 PM
"I was impressed that they mentioned the "bridge incident" where they left the "contrabands" on the side of the bank after the bridge was destroyed."

Yeah, about that. We hear about them being left behind, and know some drowned trying to get across, but the implication left to our imaginations is that those left behind suffered the ultimate punishment when Confederates caught up to them. That's never sat right in my head; "runaways" were brought back, not killed. From the standpoint of those involved, those folks were somebody's capital. A regrettable and not particularly progressive point of view, but still, a position that does not support murder.

So the Yankees move on down the road and out of the story; anybody know what actually happened next?

Ohioreb1861
04-23-2007, 08:26 PM
I must agree about the beard, yes I know it was real, but it looked as though he had more makeup on than Tammy Faye, I think thats what made his beard look fake, but the makeup made him look greasy and plastic, next time, only a inch of makeup would be better, lol

Sure it wasn't a mask of makeup? even at the end, when they showed him as a old man, he still looked overly made up.:-D

Guy Gane III
04-23-2007, 09:51 PM
I thought it was a pretty good show. I'll admit, I was a bit nervous because it was hard to get EVERYTHING right on it. None-the-less, I think I now understand everything that was happening!

I had a great time filming it and I made a lot of great friends on the production. :cool: I was lucky enough to get the role of 'Major William Rhodes'.

I give a lot of credit to the production team for getting it finished and I can't thank the reenactors/extra's enough for contributing to the filming. :-D

Oh and Bill (Uncle Billy) was wearing his own beard and there really wasn't all that much makeup on him... he just had VERY light colored skin!

...the stories I could tell you!

Sincerely,

"Major William Rhodes"/ Military Co-Coordinator,

Guy W. Gane III

sbl
04-24-2007, 05:16 AM
..heck, I have Rev-War shoes older than you. ;)


Guy,

Thanks for the post. It's good to hear from folks that were part of the program.

dionys_5
04-24-2007, 12:57 PM
Nice use of CGI. It LOOKED CGI but well done CGI. Few TBGs among the reenactors used who looked generally young and fit. A couple of obvious Bull Run clips. A few "reversed" shots of left handed actors firing left handed rifles. The actors looked pretty good although Sherman's beard was questionable.

That's funny about the left-handed gun, because I didn't catch that when I first saw me doing it. I'm not left-handed and I don't have one of those special rifles! lol. I have to say that when I was there filming, I wasn't too impressed with the directors or the way they made us do things. But, I thought the final result was pretty good! At least they know how to edit, something that could have vastly improved "Gods and Generals"!

I don't know enough about the details of Sherman's March, but it made me want to read more about it! In that respect, I think it worked. Maybe we all should go back and read unbiased accounts!

milo1047
04-24-2007, 01:35 PM
Just something interesting I thought I'd bring up.

The fact that Johnston served as one of Sherman's pallbearer, and famously refused to put on his hat despite the awful, wet and cold weather, resulting in his death from pneumonia speaks volumes as to both men's characters.

AzTrooper
04-24-2007, 05:11 PM
Howdy all,
I see a lot of folks discussing the actors beard and I remember that I was thinking as I saw the movie that in every image of Sherman, his beard was kepy really short,about like a few days growth a week max. The actors beard was longer, perhaps if it had been trimmed a bit shorter it would have looked more like Sherman,but it sure didnt anything away from the job he did and the movie as a whole. As I said earlier, I really enjoyed it a lot.
Respectfully,
John Rogers

reb64
04-25-2007, 12:53 PM
Just something interesting I thought I'd bring up.

The fact that Johnston served as one of Sherman's pallbearer, and famously refused to put on his hat despite the awful, wet and cold weather, resulting in his death from pneumonia speaks volumes as to both men's characters.


Lee and Johnston, old friends, showed the south by example, the character of the true southerner. They were showing healing instead of bitterness.

Micah Trent
04-27-2007, 08:43 AM
I thought the documentary was pretty good. Much better then I anticipated.
Just glad to see them show something new on the Civil War! I wish the THC would go back and do more documentaries like that.
Their new takes on UFO's and crap do not appeal to me. It almost seems more science lately then history. Just my opinion though.

Poor Private
04-27-2007, 10:41 AM
I also enjoyed it. And a few people at work who had no interest before in the civil war (WBTS) now show interest.
So even if there was some questionable scenes at least it gets some people started in learning more.
One of the few times that there was foragers as a prominent part of a movie.
And notice the variety of head wear.