The Civil War: Brothers Divided

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.