Customer Reviews

The History Channel Presents Sherman's March

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Civil War recreationists would love this work. Maybe some volunteered as actors for it. People who love beards will like it too because every man here is sporting one.

I would have thought Sherman's March was just a line through part of the country. This documentary showed that he and his troops made a V-shaped pattern. In history classes, I heard little besides "Sherman's March helped to end the Civil War, now onto something different!" This work goes into detail about his strategy. He tried to traverse places that he knew would have food for his troops and their horses. He retaliated when Confederate troops tried various tactics.

Many historians have emphasized that abolitionists just opposed slavery; they wouldn't have lifted a finger to fight segregation, employment discrimination, or anti-miscegenation laws. Here, we learn that Sherman and some of his disciples did not think highly of the slaves they liberated. The works spell out that they were oppressive even as their military actions brought freedom. I'm glad this work didn't dance around this fact and didn't pretend that Sherman was loved by all or should be loved by modern citizens.

The work is made entirely of reenactments, but they are not cheesy like in most documentaries. Because of their high-quality, they recycle a lot of scenes and it gets repetitive. This documentary uses a lot of the fancy camera tricks that Vince McMahon wanted to use in his XFL program.

This is a great reenactment, presentation. It's not dull like some documentaries that just talk on and on with the same guy for an hour. This includes several different people knowledgeable in their respective fields be it civilian or military historian. Also it includes many re-en actors that will take part in the roles of Sherman and the men under his command, helping to take you back to that time in 1864 to let you experience it as if you were there.

This is definitely a must have to anyone interested in Sherman and his March.

For a brief introduction to Sherman's March, you can't go wrong with this DVD. I happened to be reading Shelby Foot's Civil War, which is a more in depth exploration of Sherman's March, but as a primer or introduction to what Sherman did in his march and why, you can't go wrong w/this dvd.

When I was in school, General Sherman was underrated. Sure, we'd spend about 20 minutes talking about him and his march through the south but it was so incomplete it was almost worthless to talk about him as the lessons didn't really reveal much of anything.

I'd love to go back and get my history teachers to show this. It's a great look at not only a key figure in the civil war but it also has a lot of good information on the war in general. It squashes a lot of myths and rumors in regards to Sherman (one example is that he targeted supply lines and buildings, not innocent people like many think). If you have any interest in the civil war, I recommend taking the time to watch this.

This is a very good depiction of the impact Sherman's March from Atlanta to Savannah and onward to Columbia had on the overall winning of the Civil War by the Union. There is no doubt that Sherman's strategy caused the Southern States to give up their fight for autonomy and separation from the Union. This DVD is highly recommended as it completes the overall picture of the Civil War and clarifies some potential misconceptions about Sherman's March. Buy It.

When it comes to Civil War documentaries, count me in the Ken Burns fan base. Re-enactment based videos always seem just a bit, well, cheesy to me after watching and re-watching Burns's masterful treatment of archival stills that seem almost to come to life and which, for the most part appear more lively than most re-enactment presentations.

That's why Sherman's March was such a pleasant surprise. I rated the presentation with a solid four stars, with the thought that it might have been five if I were re-enactment friendlier. I can say that it was a very enjoyable and informative 94 minutes I spent watching this presentation. This dvd is a very good presentation of this important and controversial chapter of the war. The re-enacting in this one was well done. While the twenty-first century re-enactors are neither as lean and hungry nor as raggedy as Sherman's bummers or especially the Confederates who tried to stop them, they do give the viewer a good visual sense of things like close-order marching and massed troops assaulting a fortified position-- things Burns' use of stills couldn't do. At the same time, though, as in many re-enactment heavy documentaries some of the same footage was used over and again throughout the feature, always a bit of a frustration. For those more interested in the process of re-enactments than I am, the behind the scenes "History in the Making" featurette is a nice bonus addition to the dvd.

"War is hell," Sherman famously said and his March to the Sea, from Atlanta to Savannah and then the subsequent push northward through the Carolinas to Virginia were proof of that for the Confederacy's civilian population. Was Sherman merely the first example of what came to be known as "total war," as the dvd says--or was he a virulent monster bordering on the sociopathic, as many southerners believed. The emotions on this still run deep, but the impressive array of historians gathered for their expert views seem to come down on the side of early total warrior. As one of them points out, Sherman was certainly more destructive of property than any other general in the Civil War, but he killed fewer humans than Grant--or it might be added, than Lee. The historical research behind the feature presentation is evident in the other bonus feature of the dvd, "Sherman's Total War Tactics," which contains far more period photographs than the feature presentation itself. The producers approached the project, they say, with the preconceived idea that Sherman's army burned every house, killed every animal, and poisoned every well in its path. But that turned out not to have been the case--instead Sherman targeted factories, rail lines, depots, warehouses and other facilities that aided the Confederate war effort. Of course, Sherman's army also burned the city of Columbia, South Carolina to the ground because the war had started in that state. Sherman and his men are not exonerated by the video, but neither are they vilified. The historians who serve as the video's `talking heads' are all Sherman-knowledgeable and most, possibly co-incidentally, are from southern universities. Their take seems to be that Sherman was doing a dirty and destructive job very well and in so doing hastened the end of the war by striking the heart of the Confederate homefront. This documentary is well worth your time and consideration of this interpretation.

The ultimate outcomes of the American Civil War of 1861-65 were both the preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery. Both were worthy historical outcomes from the perspective of today's militant leftists. The Civil War, however, went through various twists and turns socially, politically, morally and militarily before final victory. The docu-drama under review here presented by the History Channel takes a look at a big and decisive slice of the military aspect (and a little of the moral and political aspects as well along the way) - Union General Sherman's "total" war march through Georgia (and then north through the Carolinas to join up with General Grant before Richmond) in order to break the will of the Southern population to continue the fight.

Needless to say even today there are still some very deep emotions drawn out concerning this military strategy, North and South. As my sympathies lie with the North the title of this entry pretty much says it all- Honor the General's work. Why? As presented here the fundamental problem on the battlefield was to end the stalemate as quickly as possible by a military breakthrough. Head to head bloody encounters between the armies in the field were indecisive. That the South would at some point run out of resources, men and materials, could be projected. But at what cost in Union men and materials. Moreover a struggle to the bitter end would make political settlement that much harder (which turned out to be the case anyway). Under those circumstances bold actions like the seizure of the military and industrial depot that was Atlanta and a run to the coast at Savannah cutting off Southern supply lines (rail lines, really) was the beginning of wisdom.

Of course in Southern hagiography this strategy was beyond the pale and southerners, and particularly southern politicians from that time to this have made that point. Ironically Sherman's own personal feelings about blacks and slavery were not that far from the southerners but as a Union man and a military man he needed to take a bold move against the odds. Moreover, his policy of having his army `live off the land'
(foraying, in the etiquette of the day) could be justified on purely military grounds. Any competent commander will tell you that one way to keep army morale up is to have it do useful work with few causalities unless necessary. After many, too many, bloody encounters for seemingly nebulous objectives here was an army that was basically kept intact through the Georgia campaign and then later up through the Carolinas. Nice work, "bummers".

Much has been made, and I think correctly, that Sherman's efforts were the first serious application of the notion of "total" war with which we have over the last century and a half become all too familiar. Simply put, this is the notion that militarily virtually nothing is off limits, including civilian populations, in the pursuit of the military/political objectives of a campaign. The real question becomes then not for or against such strategies in principle but whether the cause is just. America's total war against the Vietnamese people in the 1960's and 70's is an example of the unjust use of that concept. Sherman's use, though, is a just example. Hail General Sherman and "Uncle Billy's boys".

This is considerably better than most Civil War films. In a rather dispassionate manner it describes and explains the significance of Sherman's march that introduced the world to the horrors of total war.

Some have called the general a war criminal who should have been prosecuted, but I've never quite understood that. The obvious criminals were those who took an oath of allegiance to the United States and its Constitution at West Point and then violated that oath by taking up arms against what they were sworn to defend. That constituted treason. Gen. George Thomas, a Union Commander and a Virginian, was chastised by a Confederate officer/prisoner after the battle of Nashville for going against his state. Thomas asked the Confederate if he remembered the oath both took at West Point, and when the man said yes, Thomas said, "Well, I kept mine." Lee did not. Johnston did not. Many others did not. And yet Sherman is accused of criminality.

My only reservation with this has to do with the Civil War re-enactors who played the roles of Sherman's men. Re-enactors always look too old, too fat, too clean and too self-conscious. By 1864 the uniforms were pretty shabby and tended to be eclectic. In fact, Sherman wore no signs of rank, lest he be the target of snipers. Look at the photographs of soldiers taken in the field in 1864--not those posed in studios for the home folks. There is a vast difference

Nonetheless, this is an accurate description of just how hellish war had become on both sides. Make it hellish enough and perhaps it will end. The March certainly shortened the Civil War, which must have seemed endless to those who were in it.

For the amount of time allocated this is a wonderful glimpse
into a very profound and high impact event.

This is an excellent resource to aid in any civil war lesson. My 5th grade students were engaged through the entire video. The reenactment, pictures, and commentary helped students to understand a difficult concept.