Civil War Combat - Tonight on the History Channel

History Channel ^ | 02 July 2002 | Stainlessbanner

[stainlessbanner]

Starting tonight on the History Channel - Civil War Combat:

From high-ranking officers to the farm boys at the front lines, learn the personal stories of soldiers who saw Civil War combat. Meet the soldiers who braved the battles of First Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Little Round Top and experience these legendary battles from the perspectives of the men and boys who fought there.

Show Times:
First Manassas airs Tuesday, July 2 at 9pm/8C
Fredericksburg airs Wednesday, July 3 at 9pm/8C
Chancellorsville airs Thursday, July 4 at 9pm/8C
Little Round Top airs Friday, July 5 at 9pm/8C

HistoryChannel.com

[stainlessbanner]

For Discussion

[stainlessbanner]

The South's Gonna Rise Again, tonight!

[billbears]

Skeptical bump. I'll watch but the History Channel tends to have a slant

[TomServo]

Dixie Bump! Thanks!!

[Constitution Day]

I'll watch but the History Channel tends to have a slant

Ditto that.

[skeeter]

Too bad there'll be no show dedicated to the Battle of Antietam, the first day of which still holds the record as most bloody in US history.

[financeprof]

Antietam was included in an earlier set of "Civil War Combat" programs--specifically, the program examined the assault on the Bloody Lane by the Irish Brigade and other units. The History Channel re-runs these episodes periodically, and I believe you can purchase videos.

The main thing that irritates me is that virtually all of the CW Combat episodes--including all of the new episodes--focus on the Eastern Theater of the war. There are numerous interesting stories to be told about Chickamauga or Franklin or the Vicksburg Campaign. The war was fought--and arguably won and lost--beyond the Appalachians.

Re another poster's comment about HC "slant"--there clearly is, but what can one expect from a Time-Warner operation. I recall in particular a HC show on a Sunday in December of 2000 in which a group of panelists ranked the Bush v. Gore case with the Dred Scott case as the most infamous Supreme Court decisions. The show oozed bias.

[babble-on]

No comment on the "slant" issue, but I do agree that goings on in the West never get any coverage. The Battle of Nashville, and especially the campaign leading up to it in Spring Hill and Franklin is full of incredibly interesting stories. Has History Channel ever covered " the gallant Hood of Texas" doped up on laudanum and tied to his horse screwing up left and right and spending the youth of Tennessee on suicidal mad battle plans.

[KC_Conspirator]

I saw that, but I would have to disagree with the "slant" issue. Some shows clearly do, such as one I saw about Civil War enactments and it turned into a biased, one-sided, Confederate flag issue. However, most of the people that put together shows, including ones about the Civil War, do it in a professional manner.

[archy]

No comment on the "slant" issue, but I do agree that goings on in the West never get any coverage. The Battle of Nashville, and especially the campaign leading up to it in Spring Hill and Franklin is full of incredibly interesting stories. Has History Channel ever covered " the gallant Hood of Texas" doped up on laudanum and tied to his horse screwing up left and right and spending the youth of Tennessee on suicidal mad battle plans.

Your opinion of Hood is far more charitable than mine. Would that one could return to those days, it's questionable whether a greater service could be done for the Southern cause than shooting either John Bell Hood, or Braxton Bragg; decisions, decisions....

No wonder the Yankees named their military bases for those men who handed them the Unionist victory.

-archy-/-

[Illbay]

History Channel tends to have a slant...

TRANSLATION: "Dang, why don't they just film 'The South Was Right'?"

[stainlessbanner]

Archy, I have to agree with you on the Bragg/Hood issue - they wrecked armies, but they were Jeff Davis' boys and he had faith in them to a fault.

KCC, I remember the show with the crack-pot re-enactor. They must have searched for the craziest soldier in grey for that show - it was pretty bad. It was a slam against Southrons as well as re-enactors everywhere.

The last show I watched on the HC was biased against Tom Jefferson (Founding Brothers), so I'm not holding my breath on this one, however, I am interested in how they present the material.

[billbears]

Wrong. Translation: "Do they realize that there are authors besides James McPherson and Carl Sandburg wrote about the war?"

[varina davis]

TRANSLATION: "Dang, why don't they just film 'The South Was Right'?"

Illbay, that's the best idea you've ever had on freerepublic!

[Illbay]

I continue to be amazed at the "neo-Confederate" slamming of McPherson. Since he wrote a highly-balanced, factual account, I can only conclude it is just as I said: "If it isn't a torrid account of the conflict from the slaveholders' side, it's just propaganda."

[Free the USA]

bttt

[billbears]

highly-balanced, factual account

Compared to what? Grimm's Fairy Tales? The fact is that McPherson blatantly ignored documentation from the time that didn't agree with his POV

[Non-Sequitur]

I already knows how it ends.

[stainlessbanner]

You will watch it, I know you will!

[Non-Sequitur]

Of course I will. I'm a sucker for a happy ending.