Blood and Fury: America's Civil War

It is understood that the American Civil War was a series of complex and pressing events that can cause one to devote their life to researching and studying, yet never come closer to fully understanding it. That in mind no series, how well funded or produced, could ever do the war true justice in both scope and scale or in accurately portraying the men who fought it. However most good studios and projects will do as much research as possible to ensure their information and their portrayal of the war is as accurate as possible America Heroes Channel and Cream Productions do not know what research is. 

The focus of my scorn comes from the complete and utter lack of authentic recreations of the war. While their narrative may contain some positive points and usefully intriguing information, the show would have done so much better with a slide show of period photographs much in the vein of Ken Burns the Civil War

What this company put to film resembles nothing of the American Civil War.  It is outright a travesty. I could fill this very page with more criticisms to the inaccuracies seen in just the first episode and their 360 shoot combined. There are more details wrong than ever right.  The old phrase the Devils in the Details was meant for this.

Many of you would ask "why does it matter if their uniforms or accurate, it looked cool!" While having museum grade quality uniforms is exciting and accurate it is also very expensive and understandably so when film companies look for a step below.  The uniforms here are not a step below, they are floors. The confederate uniforms for one resemble NOTHING ever worn by a Southern soldier. They are fictions. The Federal soldiers headware is again so disappointing as to resemble a block than a kepi or forage cap.  As someone who has worked in the Historical film industry and had to work with very low budget pictures, it is still obtainable for us to have uniforms that resemble at the least what the real Mccoy did.

The tactics are abysmal. They actually just lack tactics .  The entire film resembles a bunch of men playing paintball in the woods.  This production would have you believe the soldiers of the American Civil War ran around the woods in small clusters hiding behind rocks and trees, then dashing off in a wild charge at the enemy.  False. It actually is a disservice. The American Civil War was known for its nearly static battle lines drawn out in brigade fashion that slugged it out within a few hundred yards.  And when they did close within a hundred yards the result was devastating. Having background extras to work with is difficult, again I know from personal experience.  But having an actual adviser on set makes all the difference. How can you make a dozen men look like 300 in a battle line?  Good film making. Good editing. A DP who knows how to shoot around their limitations. Clearly this production had none of those.

Again to close, why does it matter? Why does it matter that we need authentic representation of uniforms, equipment and materials. Because this show pitched the idea of using recreation scenes of battle. They chose the medium.  Cream Productions and AHC could have picked talking heads and slide shows of original images with graphics of moving battle lines.  But they wanted to be edgy so they chose battle scenes.  So now they pay that price.  Look at the other reviews, the stars given.  We are all upset.  Cream Productions has been blocking users and deleting comments because of the flood of negative responses they've received. 

This is our history, do not take it for granted and think you can deliver a cheap, researchless project.

One episode I thought should have been named "The John Adams Jr show, it was about Fredericksburg but left out everything except what the great grandson of a President went through! Of course I am predudice about it. You see, the pontoon boat which he went over & back on had my great-great grandfather & my namesake was on the pontoon boat, as captain of the boat. But he wasn't so lucky and was shot in the head! No mention of any of the others who never made it back and forth! Then Gettysburgh the h being origninal because us Scots founded a lot of the PA cities but when the English got here the names were changed, no mention was made of the fact that Lee's army had to buy their cannon fuses from a different company because the normal on had been flooded out. Well the new ones were made with made with more juice in the powder and caused a hotter blast, sending most shots well past where they were intended to go. And nobody, EVER, mentions that four of the original 13 colonies put in the Articles of Confederation, the contract that made the country, that they had the right of withdrawl from the Union at anytime. They were PA., MA., New York and Virginia! But Lincoln totally ignored this, which in fact made the countries creation a joke! And I had between 24-30 union fighters in my family as we were coal miners & slaves for 200 years!

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.

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.

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.