History Channel Special on Gettysburg

[Mayor McCheese]

Did anyone sit down and watch this last night?  If so, I was just wondering what your responses were to the documentary.  As a US History teacher, and who takes his students to Gettysburg, PA every year - I will hold my opinions on the documentary - I just want others opinions.

 

[KipsBayEagle]

If your a US history teacher, shouldn't your opinion matter the most/ be the most informed?

[Slim]

Disclaimer: I am not a history teacher and I have never been to Gettysburg. I waited six hours since this was posted for the more informed to discuss it - since they haven't - I will start.

First I was surprised how large the battle field was. I was under the impression it was much smaller. Meade's fish hook defensive position was over 3 miles long and seemed brilliant to me.

I was impressed with the flag signals using Morse Code to communicate troop movement after the wires were broken.

I was surprised that a Union General could buy his way into his position (even if he recently pleaded temporary insanity in court) and how that would cost so many lives.

I also didn't realize how much was at stake in that Lee could have gone straight to Washington if he would have won that battle.

Just some observations

[reinko]

If your a US history teacher, shouldn't your opinion matter the most/ be the most informed?

I think McCheese meant it would be a temporary hold, meaning that he was interested in folks who are not in the field, what they took away from it, what surprised them...then possibly chime in, am I right MM?

[Blackhat]

I didn't get a chance to watch it, I'll probably watch tonight's special on Lee vs Grant.   My amateur opinion of the war in general: the outcome of the war was never in doubt.  So Gettysburg was just an inevitable answer to the questions of when and where the south would lose hope (along with Battle of Vicksburg).

   As Shelby Foote has said, the north fought with one hand tied behind it's back if they came close to losing they would have brought the other one out.  A small percentage of the union population were actually enrolled in the army and a widespread draft would have been implemented if the union truly became vulnerable.

Went on a civil war tour through Tennessee (the state with second most Civil War battles behind Vigrinia) last summer.  Very enjoyable experience, visited Chattanooga, Chickimauga and Shiloh battle sites.   At Shiloh the South lost one of their most brilliant commanders Albert S Johnston.

[Mayor McCheese]

I think McCheese meant it would be a temporary hold, meaning that he was interested in folks who are not in the field, what they took away from it, what surprised them...then possibly chime in, am I right MM?

Exactly - I was trying to gauge how my students would react to watching this (they were all encouraged too - and in fact most either did or taped it) - and well - their opinion was very much like mine - which is both flattering and a bit scary.

But Slim - your answers are very common to those of what I was looking for.  Although very excited for this documentary, I should have came in with caution - Ive read 6 novels on the battle itself, have studied the field at length - and feel that I am a proficient guide on the field itself - so watching this, I was concerned with some of the things left out that I feel are important in the studying of the battle (Longstreet's involvement, Stuart's dissapearance, Chamberlain and the 20th Maine, Devil's Den, Buford's Calvary, the Armistead/Hancock brotherhood torn on the field - to name a few)

The inclusion of Sickles was awesome - the general who paid for his position - they forgot to mention that his leg after the battle was placed in Washington DC on display at the Health/Science Museum - and Sickles would bring family and friends to visit his own leg - still today his shin bone is on exhibit.  Quite a character (the man he killed was Francis Scott Key's Son btw).

I wish they didn't spend so much time on Culp's Hill - because the battle was so large (if you ever get a chance to go out there, I suggest it, whether you know a lot, or a little on the battle itself - it is sacred ground, and always pours your emotions out.  I'm glad it wasn't a duplicate to the movie Gettysburg - but in some ways, I was bummed, as were my students, by some of the things left out.  Tonight's Grant and Lee will be very neat to watch for me.

[Lennys Tap]

Exactly - I was trying to gauge how my students would react to watching this (they were all encouraged too - and in fact most either did or taped it) - and well - their opinion was very much like mine - which is both flattering and a bit scary.Every time I turn around

But Slim - your answers are very common to those of what I was looking for.  Although very excited for this documentary, I should have came in with caution - Ive read 6 novels on the battle itself, have studied the field at length - and feel that I am a proficient guide on the field itself - so watching this, I was concerned with some of the emissions that I feel are important in the studying of the battle (Longstreet's involvement, Stuart's dissapearance, Chamberlain and the 20th Maine, Devil's Den, Buford's Calvary, the Armistead/Hancock brotherhood torn on the field - to name a few)

The inclusion of Sickles was awesome - the general who paid for his position - they forgot to mention that his leg after the battle was placed in Washington DC on display at the Health/Science Museum - and Sickles would bring family and friends to visit his own leg - still today his shin bone is on exhibit.  Quite a character (the man he killed was Francis Scott Key's Son btw).

I wish they didn't spend so much time on Culp's Hill - because the battle was so large (if you ever get a chance to go out there, I suggest it, whether you know a lot, or a little on the battle itself - it is sacred ground, and always pours your emotions out.  I'm glad it wasn't a duplicate to the movie Gettysburg - but in some ways, I was bummed, as were my students, by some of the emissions.  Tonight's Grant and Lee will be very neat to watch for me.

Every time I turn around I hear about people in academia being bummed by "emissions". Maybe the History Channel is the cause of global warming
 

[MUBurrow]

Every time I turn around I hear about people in academia being bummed by "emissions". Maybe the History Channel is the cause of global warming
 

or viagra?

[mugrad2006]

Exactly - I was trying to gauge how my students would react to watching this (they were all encouraged too - and in fact most either did or taped it) - and well - their opinion was very much like mine - which is both flattering and a bit scary.

But Slim - your answers are very common to those of what I was looking for.  Although very excited for this documentary, I should have came in with caution - Ive read 6 novels on the battle itself, have studied the field at length - and feel that I am a proficient guide on the field itself - so watching this, I was concerned with some of the emissions that I feel are important in the studying of the battle (Longstreet's involvement, Stuart's dissapearance, Chamberlain and the 20th Maine, Devil's Den, Buford's Calvary, the Armistead/Hancock brotherhood torn on the field - to name a few)

The inclusion of Sickles was awesome - the general who paid for his position - they forgot to mention that his leg after the battle was placed in Washington DC on display at the Health/Science Museum - and Sickles would bring family and friends to visit his own leg - still today his shin bone is on exhibit.  Quite a character (the man he killed was Francis Scott Key's Son btw).

I wish they didn't spend so much time on Culp's Hill - because the battle was so large (if you ever get a chance to go out there, I suggest it, whether you know a lot, or a little on the battle itself - it is sacred ground, and always pours your emotions out.  I'm glad it wasn't a duplicate to the movie Gettysburg - but in some ways, I was bummed, as were my students, by some of the emissions.  Tonight's Grant and Lee will be very neat to watch for me.

Look, I don't mean to be the grammar/spelling police, but as a person entrusted to mold the minds of future generations, shouldn't you know the difference between 'emission' and 'omission'.  I wouldn't call you out if you hadn't done it twice in one post.

Emission: something that is discharged (i.e. carbon emissions)
Omission: something that is left out

Sorry about the rant.

[HouWarrior]

Look, I don't mean to be the grammar/spelling police, but as a person entrusted to mold the minds of future generations, shouldn't you know the difference between 'emission' and 'omission'.  I wouldn't call you out if you hadn't done it twice in one post.

Emission: something that is discharged (i.e. carbon emissions)
Omission: something that is left out

Sorry about the rant.

Dont apologize. I read "emission", and thought he meant the points that WERE being made, ie the "send up" of the story,  and I took it to be an academic's strained erudition of a word..(from latin root to "send out"),... instead of just the mistaken use of a  word almost opposite to that of the word "omission"

[MUBurrow]

i feel bad for making my joke now.

[Mayor McCheese]

Look, I don't mean to be the grammar/spelling police, but as a person entrusted to mold the minds of future generations, shouldn't you know the difference between 'emission' and 'omission'.  I wouldn't call you out if you hadn't done it twice in one post.

Emission: something that is discharged (i.e. carbon emissions)
Omission: something that is left out

Sorry about the rant.

Sorry, didn't know I had to be perfect - robotic in a sense.

actually when writing it, it didn't feel right, but ah well - if I don't make the mistake - you don't have anything to post.

[wildbillsb]

Sorry, didn't know I had to be perfect - robotic in a sense.

actually when writing it, it didn't feel right, but ah well - if I don't make the mistake - you don't have anything to post.

And if your students didn't make mistakes, you wouldn't have anything to "post' either.

[mu03eng]

Exactly - I was trying to gauge how my students would react to watching this (they were all encouraged too - and in fact most either did or taped it) - and well - their opinion was very much like mine - which is both flattering and a bit scary.

But Slim - your answers are very common to those of what I was looking for.  Although very excited for this documentary, I should have came in with caution - Ive read 6 novels on the battle itself, have studied the field at length - and feel that I am a proficient guide on the field itself - so watching this, I was concerned with some of the things left out that I feel are important in the studying of the battle (Longstreet's involvement, Stuart's dissapearance, Chamberlain and the 20th Maine, Devil's Den, Buford's Calvary, the Armistead/Hancock brotherhood torn on the field - to name a few)

The inclusion of Sickles was awesome - the general who paid for his position - they forgot to mention that his leg after the battle was placed in Washington DC on display at the Health/Science Museum - and Sickles would bring family and friends to visit his own leg - still today his shin bone is on exhibit.  Quite a character (the man he killed was Francis Scott Key's Son btw).

I wish they didn't spend so much time on Culp's Hill - because the battle was so large (if you ever get a chance to go out there, I suggest it, whether you know a lot, or a little on the battle itself - it is sacred ground, and always pours your emotions out.  I'm glad it wasn't a duplicate to the movie Gettysburg - but in some ways, I was bummed, as were my students, by some of the things left out.  Tonight's Grant and Lee will be very neat to watch for me.

I thought it was a solid show especially for those relatively new to the battle.  I liked that they spent so much time on Culp's Hill because it is a relatively under covered part of the battle that actually was probably the high water mark of the Confederacy not Pickett's charge(if they had gotten across the Baltimore Pike Road there would have been serious issues).  I liked that they seemed to focus on less covered aspects of the battle.

One disappointment, since they were covering somewhat obscure actions, was that they didn't cover the countercharge of the 1st Minnesota on the 2nd day of the battle.  They saved the union line from being breached by throwing themselves against an entire brigade(Wilcox and part of Barksdale's I believe) and suffered an 82% causality rate as a result.  This would be a significant and dramatic element to add and there is plenty of info on it.

At the end I thought it was a good bit of dramatic history to get folks interested

[ChicosBailBonds]

Did anyone sit down and watch this last night?  If so, I was just wondering what your responses were to the documentary.  As a US History teacher, and who takes his students to Gettysburg, PA every year - I will hold my opinions on the documentary - I just want others opinions.

 

They sent me the advanced DVD copies two weeks ago and my son and I watched some of it over Memorial Day weekend.  We enjoyed it, kept him engaged which is what I was looking for.

As far as the accuracy goes, well that's always up for debate like anything these days.  Civil War buffs were apparently ticked off about certain parts.  History was one of my majors and one thing the profs told me, perhaps it was Theoharris but I can't remember....history is not concrete.  There are versions of history and if someone tells you history is established and documented then you can find someone else that can present a different accounting.  There is as much bias in history writing as there is anything else.

[Mayor McCheese]

I thought it was a solid show especially for those relatively new to the battle.  I liked that they spent so much time on Culp's Hill because it is a relatively under covered part of the battle that actually was probably the high water mark of the Confederacy not Pickett's charge(if they had gotten across the Baltimore Pike Road there would have been serious issues).  I liked that they seemed to focus on less covered aspects of the battle.

One disappointment, since they were covering somewhat obscure actions, was that they didn't cover the countercharge of the 1st Minnesota on the 2nd day of the battle.  They saved the union line from being breached by throwing themselves against an entire brigade(Wilcox and part of Barksdale's I believe) and suffered an 82% causality rate as a result.  This would be a significant and dramatic element to add and there is plenty of info on it.

At the end I thought it was a good bit of dramatic history to get folks interested

Yes!  The 1st Minnesota is so important to the battle.  When I go out there with my students we take time to look at their monument, and I explain the story of their fight to the students - one that even Hancock himself said "My God! Is This It?" - Due to the reinforcements to the round tops and Sickles - the 1st MN was left to protect using around 250 men to 1200 charging confederates, they didn't only defend, they charged back - with an 82% casualty rate - it was the highest % any regiment faced in the battle - but they did their duty.  Proud that they were Midwesterners like myself.  Even with this casualty rate, they still fought on the 3rd day, defending Cemetary Ridge from Pickett's Charge.

[Blackhat]

Got to see where the volunteer 15th Wisconsin or the "Norwegian Regiment" took a stand during the Chickamauga battle.  Took heavy losses and it's where Col. Hans Heg died (the dude with a statue in madison).   

[Canadian Dimes]

Surprised Peyton Manning didnt hand deliver it himself....

[ChicosBailBonds]

Surprised Peyton Manning didnt hand deliver it himself....

No, he was too busy doing some commercial spots for us the last few weeks with Eli and Archie....some football spoofs in the event the season is delayed.  Good to see you back, it's been so long I was afraid you were incarcerated or worse.

[Skatastrophy]

No, he was too busy doing some commercial spots for us the last few weeks with Eli and Archie....some football spoofs in the event the season is delayed.  Good to see you back, it's been so long I was afraid you were incarcerated or worse.

He took exactly one month off.  Sounds like a temp-ban to me.

[DegenerateDish]

Mayor McCheese (or anyone else for that matter), not trying to steer this off topic, but does anyone else watch the "How the States Got Their Shapes" show? I find it fascinating, and dumb as it sounds, never though to consider how/why states have their borders formed. Never realized how much the Civil War played into the shaping of states. Illinois, for example, would have no border on Lake Michigan if not for the Civil War. Also never knew about the (to this day) controversy surrounding the TN/GA border.

[GGGG]

How could the civil war have any impact on the wi/il border?  That border was set decades before the civil war began.

[GGGG]

Watching it now. Its ok. A little over-produced. Pales in comparison to ken burns.

[DegenerateDish]

How could the civil war have any impact on the wi/il border?  That border was set decades before the civil war began.

I should have re-phased. The border was decided before the actual war, but because of how deep south Illinois runs geographically, the border (before the Civil War, but still in the era of North vs South climate building), Illinois politcked for and received a more northern border than what was originally granted. The new border included Lake Michigan, and was strategic for the North (even pre Civil War). Illinois had to agree to build the I&M canal in order to be granted this border, thereby giving the North a water route that connected the Mississippi to Lake Michigan, to the Atlantic. It's all in a recent episode of the show, it's worth a watch.

[GGGG]

Ah. Makes sense. I read the book a couple years ago and found it facinating.

[Jay Bee]

Ah. Makes sense. I read the book a couple years ago and found it facinating.

But was it fascinating?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Watching it now. Its ok. A little over-produced. Pales in comparison to ken burns.

Ken Burns had plenty of issues with his stuff over the years as well.  Again, bias knows no bounds when it comes to who is telling the story and the lens they use...nothing wrong with that as it's human nature but too many people watch these things and think its the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

[GGGG]

Ken Burns had plenty of issues with his stuff over the years as well.  Again, bias knows no bounds when it comes to who is telling the story and the lens they use...nothing wrong with that as it's human nature but too many people watch these things and think its the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

I was specifically talking about the production quality of the presentation.  Some of the stuff I see from History Channel is informative, but they really could tell the same story in about half the time because they constantly re-tell the same things and are overuse the "acting."

[Mayor McCheese]

Ken Burns had plenty of issues with his stuff over the years as well.  Again, bias knows no bounds when it comes to who is telling the story and the lens they use...nothing wrong with that as it's human nature but too many people watch these things and think its the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

One of the best things I heard, and what I tell my students - is that History is NOT concrete.  Very rarely do we have information that is the end all be all.  And I advise them that since history is not concrete - be open to ask questions, do some investigation, and personalize yourself with History - over the year, I would say about 60-70% understand this message and follow the instructions.

And yes, I do watch How the States get their Shapes - it's ok, I learn new information I didn't have a clue about.  It is better then a lot of the stuff they have on the History Channel these days.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

One of the best things I heard, and what I tell my students - is that History is NOT concrete.  Very rarely do we have information that is the end all be all.  And I advise them that since history is not concrete - be open to ask questions, do some investigation, and personalize yourself with History - over the year, I would say about 60-70% understand this message and follow the instructions.

And yes, I do watch How the States get their Shapes - it's ok, I learn new information I didn't have a clue about.  It is better then a lot of the stuff they have on the History Channel these days.

what, ax men and swamppeople isn't historical enough for you?

I was shocked to turn on history a week or 2 ago and see a show on the war of 1812.  didn't get to watch much, but it was nice to actually see them run a show where you could learn something.

[Benny B]

Did anyone sit down and watch this last night?  If so, I was just wondering what your responses were to the documentary.  As a US History teacher, and who takes his students to Gettysburg, PA every year - I will hold my opinions on the documentary - I just want others opinions.

A very good friend of mine is a Civil War buff.  It's his hobby.  He's an attorney with an undergrad degree in general studies.  Said he only took one history class in college and that they never covered the Civil War.  He's been to Gettysburg a dozen times "just for the hell of it," nearly every place of significance in Georgia and the Carolinas, sends a $100 bottle of wine every Christmas to an acquaintance who happens to be a great-great-great grandson (or something like that) of a wealthy landowner that attended West Point with Grant (and gave him some priceless letters, memorabilia, etc.), buys any documentary, book, etc. published on the topic... it's freakish how he can rattle on for hours about how someone's three-legged blind cat caught a field mouse one day and that set off a chain of events that ultimately led to Sherman being dubbed Uncle Billy by his men.

I'm still burnt out on the six-hour lecture he gave me on the Civil War a few years ago while we waited for one of his clients to show up for court.

[wildbillsb]

As the Battle of Gettysburg sesquicentennial approaches, you may want to read THE KILLER ANGELS by Michael Shaara.  Very readable look at the personalities /behaviors of the principal generals/leaders leading up to and during the battle.  The book is historical fiction, a very fast read, utterly absorbing and a wonderful intro to this complex pivotal battle of the Civil War.

[ChicosBailBonds]

One of the best things I heard, and what I tell my students - is that History is NOT concrete.  Very rarely do we have information that is the end all be all.  And I advise them that since history is not concrete - be open to ask questions, do some investigation, and personalize yourself with History - over the year, I would say about 60-70% understand this message and follow the instructions.

And yes, I do watch How the States get their Shapes - it's ok, I learn new information I didn't have a clue about.  It is better then a lot of the stuff they have on the History Channel these days.

You are an A+ teacher for teaching that way in my opinion.  Well done.   My kids come home from school and everyday I try to ask them about what they learned in school.  There are days when I hear what they learned and how concretely driven into their heads it was and I ask if the teacher said this was absolute or open for interpretation.  Certain things, math principles and such, are absolute.  Other subjects are not....history is one of them.  Let's put it this way, I enjoy parent teacher meetings.   

[Mayor McCheese]

You are an A+ teacher for teaching that way in my opinion.  Well done.   My kids come home from school and everyday I try to ask them about what they learned in school.  There are days when I hear what they learned and how concretely driven into their heads it was and I ask if the teacher said this was absolute or open for interpretation.  Certain things, math principles and such, are absolute.  Other subjects are not....history is one of them.  Let's put it this way, I enjoy parent teacher meetings.  

One of the best things I got from a parent was she came up and said "What are you doing to my daughter... you are turning her into a nerd - instead of her normal TV, I am catching her watching historical things..."

To tell you the honest truth - my goal for the class is to gain an understanding of the history, but also an appreciation and a respect - and to enjoy it so that when they leave my classroom, learning doesn't cease.

[HouWarrior]

One of the best things I got from a parent was she came up and said "What are you doing to my daughter... you are turning her into a nerd - instead of her normal TV, I am catching her watching historical things..."

To tell you the honest truth - my goal for the class is to gain an understanding of the history, but also an appreciation and a respect - and to enjoy it so that when they leave my classroom, learning doesn't cease.

Keep up the great teaching effort. Teaching continuing thought, and lifetime learning is a priceless gift you are imparting.
I am addicted to documentaries, and find the Netflix instant download service(appleTV, Roku, new HDTV sets --for access), are loaded with commercial free History Channel, PBS, and independent (not aired elsewhere) docus.

[ChicosBailBonds]

One of the best things I got from a parent was she came up and said "What are you doing to my daughter... you are turning her into a nerd - instead of her normal TV, I am catching her watching historical things..."

To tell you the honest truth - my goal for the class is to gain an understanding of the history, but also an appreciation and a respect - and to enjoy it so that when they leave my classroom, learning doesn't cease.

Nice compliment.  My son was doing some Roman history the other day in 6th grade and he got done with his report and said to me..."I love this stuff...I love history....I'm a total nerd about this stuff"

[Henry Sugar]

Not really related to Gettysburg, but it is related to the Civil War.

Who had the best Civil War Facial Hair?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Who-Had-the-Best-Civil-War-Facial-Hair.html

[GGGG]

I'm going with Alpheus Williams and the rest of you are wrong.

[mu03eng]

I think you have to go with the only one on that list that has a hair "style" named after them, Ambrose Burnside is the answer and its not even close.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Surprised Peyton Manning didnt hand deliver it himself....

Like I said, they've been a bit busy, but have it on good authority they are huge Gettysburg buffs.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/06/10/peyton-manning-eli-manning-directv-commercial-police-officers-ads/

[HouWarrior]

I think you have to go with the only one on that list that has a hair "style" named after them, Ambrose Burnside is the answer and its not even close.

Yup
Best hair , on top, was the flowing locks of the youngest  general, George Armstrong Custer, as he led those fightin' Wolverines

[Mayor McCheese]

The better question is:  Can we bring the facial hair styles of the 1860's back?

[leever]

The better question is:  Can we bring the facial hair styles of the 1860's back?

Let's start with Buzz!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Like I said, they've been a bit busy, but have it on good authority they are huge Gettysburg buffs.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/06/10/peyton-manning-eli-manning-directv-commercial-police-officers-ads/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/23/introducing-football-cops/


Having some fun

[BrewCity83]

The better question is:  Can we bring the facial hair styles of the 1860's back?

Have you seen some of the major league bullpens lately?

[HouWarrior]

Have you seen some of the major league bullpens lately?

Best baseball facial hair--
75 Brewers
White Sox in the 70s,
 and all of MLB before the turn of 1900