Little Powell wrote:
Like I said, there may have been small inaccuracies (well some of them were big) but it was still overall an enjoyable program.. To me, any Civil War program is worth a watch.. Unfortunately most of them are inaccurate, but still entertaining and that's why I recommended it.
I generally concur, Mr. Powell, especially for one, such as yourself, who is well-versed in this epic battle. But, for those who are not, I personally find the half-truths and innuendos obnoxious as they continue to foster ignorance in the general public who is usually not so "well-versed." For example, the reference to "...shoes in Gettysburg." This left the impression that this was the sole (no pun intended) reason for Heth's (who was not mentioned) troops moving on Gettysburg. Wouldn't it have been more honest to address the real reason(s) for moving on Gettysburg rather than to perpetuate this disproved myth, without even questioning Heth's post-battle justification of "shoes?" (In the military, we used to call Heth's justification CYA.)
Another example I noted was the cavalry Lt. on Culp's Hill. I merely caught a flash of the yellow shoulder board and had to "re-wind" to verify his presence. The average viewer would not have seen nor noticed it, let alone understand its significance. I would imagine the production team were not even awares of this anachronism during the filming. When I was working on
Son of Morning Star in addition to "dying" at the Big Horn seven times (various scenes) I also was asked to assist in addressing IWP cavalry uniforms. Early in the film, I noted to the director that the First Sgt. was wearing officer's trousers which were inaccurate. His response was simply, "Well, no one else will know!"
A more recent example of "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" occurred at the local Civil War Roundtable just two weeks ago tonight. Two former colleagues of mine, both history teachers, coerced me into accompanying them to the meeting and, in the spirit of conviviality, I agreed!
On tap for the evening's agenda was a presentation by three of the local members who had recently attended a Gettyburg Symposium at the Gettysburg College (perhaps some of you are familiar with annual event). One of the three had attended 10 of the past 11 events and was expounding on the 3rd day, concentrating on Picket's Charge. When asked by a visitor how many were involved in the Charge, he authoritatively responded, "There were 30 to 40,000 men charging across that plain...and half of them were killed!"
In an ironic twist of fate, one of my colleagues over an earlier luncheon had asked the same questions and I had printed out a copy of "A Survey of Union and Confederate Casualties at Gettysburg" by Philip Antrade for the
Battle of Gettysburg Resource Center revised in 2004 and which is available on the Web. In general terms, there were about 13,000 that crossed the field and circa 5,000 KIA, and WIA for the ENTIRE day. I was hesitant to address these discrepancies but did not feel comfortable in allowing these errors to go unchallenged!
"Well, Hanger," you might ask, "What is your point?" Simply put, we do a disservice to the memory of these men whenever we paint a falsehood, either intentionally or accidentally. Additionally, we sully our own reputation for honesty, veracity and competence. Quite frequently a student will ask me a question for which I do not have a sound answer. Rather then "bluff" with an uncertain answer, my response is to simply state, "That's a good question. I'm not sure (or don't know) but I will find the answer for you."
Finally, when I read, watch or listen to the "Expert" and fradulent data is presented as factual, I am always hesitant to believe much of what they say.
Sorry for the soapbox!
Have a great Sunday.
Jack Hanger
Fremont, NE