The Civil War: Brothers Divided

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.