Paid Advertisement
Historynet/feed historynet feedback facebook link Weider History Group RSS feed Weider Subscriptions Historynet Home page

Civil War: The Untold Story, a New Five-Part Series on PBS

By Gerald D. Swick 
Originally published on HistoryNet.com. Published Online: March 27, 2014 
Print Friendly
16 comments FONT +  FONT -

Civil War: The Untold Story from Great Divide Pictures (How the West was Lost) is a five-part series that will air on many PBS stations this year. Exact air dates vary from station to station, but most will begin running the series at the beginning of April. Click here to see which PBS stations will be broadcasting this outstanding program and projected debut dates.

Any program that calls itself Civil War: The Untold Story immediately begs the question, Which untold story within such a broad subject? Chris Wheeler, who wrote, produced, and directed the series, answered that question in a June 2013 HistoryNet interview: the series revolves around the war in the Western Theater (the Appalachians to the Mississippi Valley); the role of African Americans in securing their own freedom; the political concerns of Abraham Lincoln; and the effect of the war on civilians in the South.

HistoryNet's senior editor, Gerald Swick, recently viewed the five-part series, including a sneak preview of the fifth episode that was held in a restored 1937 movie theater in Franklin, Tennessee, a town that witnessed some of the bloodiest hours of the war. Similar previews are being held at select theaters in other states.

* * *

Civil War: The Untold Story deserves a spot among the top documentaries on that war. Its cinematography is excellent. The use of CGI is limited, but the scene of Union gunboats steaming down the Tennessee River is both dramatic and beautiful.

Battle scenes are intense and do a good job of communicating the varied terrain on which individual battles were fought, from Fort Donelson to Vicksburg to Atlanta and beyond. The sections on Chattanooga and Kennesaw Mountain give viewers a very good idea of the steep slopes up which Union troops had to advance into Confederate fire. The shots from behind earthworks depict clearly why frontal attacks were suicidal and show the hazards soldiers faced daily from sharpshooters when two armies entrenched close to each other. The reenactments of hospital scenes and wounded on the battlefields give visual proof of Major General William Tecumseh Sherman's statement, "War is cruelty and there is no use trying to reform it." Some viewers may find the battle scenes and those of the aftermath unsettling.

Elizabeth McGovern
Elizabeth McGovern
Serving as counterpoint to this carnage is the soothing voice of the narrator, Elizabeth McGovern, known to millions of Downton Abbey fans as Cora, Countess of Grantham. The music that plays softly in the background is also gentle and beautiful.

The historians who serve as commentators do an excellent job of presenting information, much of which will surprise viewers. (For example, an anti-war Democrat who had been exiled from Ohio ran a campaign from Canada, seeking to become Ohio's governor in the 1864 elections.)

The battle scenes are so engrossing that at times I found myself impatient to get on to the next fight whenever the series veered away to cover other aspects of the war. But the series covers those other aspects effectively as well. Situation maps clearly show the geographic challenges of defending or conquering such a large area. Little-known information is offered about slaves who freed themselves with their own two feet and tried to create communities in the "contraband camps" the Union armies were forced to set up when confronted unexpectedly with thousands of runaway slaves.

The overarching "untold" aspect of series is that it covers the Western Theater of Operations. One of the commentators, Amy Murrell Taylor, associate professor of history at the University of Kentucky, states, "You could argue (the war) was won in the West … To understand how the war affected people you must understand what happened in the West."

Eric A. Jacobson, historian, Battle of Franklin Trust, points out that the Mississippi Valley was the most important economic route through America; Union leaders realized victory required taking the war beyond the Appalachians.

For most of the war's four years, Union successes in the West were the only good news sustaining Northern morale. One of the most telling maps comes in the fourth episode, showing the location of the armies in Virginia in 1864, still fighting over the same ground they were contesting at the beginning of the war, while the Western Theater shows Union forces there had advanced hundreds of miles. Without the victories of the Western Theater, it is doubtful Lincoln could have kept sufficient support for the war.

This theme is a welcome change of pace from documentaries' well-trod ground of the Virginia-Maryland-Pennsylvania theater of operations. Each of the major eastern battles is also mentioned within the chronology of the series in order to give context, but they are summarized quickly.

Battles

Confederates advance up Snodgrass Hill during the Battle of Chickamauga. Photo by Justin Koehler
Confederates advance up Snodgrass Hill during the Battle of Chickamauga. Photo by Justin Koehler
Among the battles depicted, Shiloh, in Tennessee, captures the fear of surprised, green Union soldiers fleeing in front of the Confederate tidal wave, and the commentators throw in details not usually mentioned.

Armies of both sides are shown creating the trench works that would surround Vicksburg. To help explain the importance of capturing Vicksburg, Mississippi, high on its bluffs above "the Father of Waters," viewers are told Indiana's governor warned Lincoln Indiana would vote to secede if the Mississippi River wasn't reopened.

At Chickamauga, much of the confused, close-quarters fighting takes place in woods. In discussing the all-Scandinavian 15th Michigan Regiment, the program explains that about 25% of the Union army was comprised of immigrants. The United States was the last remaining democracy in the world at the time; all other experiments had failed or were brutally crushed. Europe was watching closely to see—to quote Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address—"whether this nation or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, could long endure."

The depiction of the Union attack near Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia, shows all too well what soldiers of 1864 already knew: attacking prepared works, especially upslope, was a very, very bad idea.

Slavery, Contrabands and Black Soldiers
Early in the first episode, the subject of slavery and its role in splitting apart the nation is examined. The points made in the narration and among the commentators attempt to explain the Peculiar Institution in ways that help viewers to understand it from a mid-19th century perspective. Among the problems slavery presented for Northern states was that those states were "very white supremist," and slavery brought blacks into America, for example. Jefferson Davis maintained slavery had become the basis of world commerce and civilization. The South's desire to expand slavery into new territories, more so than its existence where it already was, fueled the pro- and anti-slavery divisions that tore the country apart. This segment was one of the best and most balanced discussions of the subject of slavery I've come across in Civil War documentaries. I wish it focused more on slavery and attitudes toward it among the western states (South and North), in keeping with its war in the West theme, however.

Runaway slaves during the war forced Lincoln and his commanders to answer questions that hadn't been considered in the original mission to preserve the Union. General Benjamin Butler, hearing some runaways describe how they were forced to build defenses for the Confederacy, termed such runaways "contraband" and declared they did not have to be returned because they were part of the Confederate war effort. Later, Lincoln took that same view in his Emancipation Proclamation. Word of the proclamation spread rapidly among slaves, leading thousands to leave their bondage and seek protection behind Union lines.

Emma Stephenson, emancipated slave who volunteered as a nurse with Sherman's Army.
Emma Stephenson, emancipated slave who volunteered as a nurse with Sherman's Army.
What to do with such large numbers of people in need of shelter and food was another problem Northern leaders hadn't contemplated, but the program shows that, around Corinth at least, the contrabands solved those problems for themselves—until their community was uprooted. The story of those who fled slavery isn't always a happy one: the program tells about Ebenezer Creek in Georgia, where Sherman's officers cut the pontoon bridges, stranding 5,000 black refugees. General Joseph Wheeler's Confederate cavalry soon arrived. Some of the refugees reportedly were shot; some drowned in the creek's icy waters; the rest were returned to their masters.

Eventually manpower needs and political pressures opened the ranks of the U.S. military to segregated black regiments, known as Colored Troops or Regiments of African Descent. The program mentions some of their battles, with special focus on Milliken's Bend, Louisiana and Fort Pillow, Tennessee.

Others served in other ways. The series tells the story of Emma Stephenson. Born a slave and liberated by advancing Union troops, she attached herself to Sherman's army, serving as a nurse.

Civilians
Except for some raids and a couple of major invasions of the North, the war was fought on Southern soil. Southern homes and businesses were burned, women and children came under artillery and rifle fire, livestock was seized to feed or equip armies of both sides. Within The Untold Story actors and actresses portray common people of the South whose letters and diaries survived to tell their stories.

A mother in Vicksburg huddles in a cave, shielding her child as dirt falls from the ceiling when shells explode outside. Union troops pillage a humble cabin, home to a widow and her children, stealing what they want and trashing the rest. A husband in the Confederate army sends letters to his wife expressing his love and longing for her.

Sins of Omission
As stated earlier, Civil War: The Untold Story is very well done. The acting is generally credible, the battle scenes believable, the stories of civilians, both white and black, are informative. Even history buffs who are well informed about the war in the Western Theater will learn some new things. And, as a friend who watched the first episode with me said, "They pulled out all the stops for the cinematography."

My only complaints are sins of omission. In telling any historical story, decisions have to be made about what to keep in and what to leave out. In this case, the capture of both Nashville and New Orleans in 1862 merit only a few seconds' mention, as does the Battle of Stones River (Murfreesboro). Hoover's Gap, Tennessee, is overlooked entirely, despite the fact it was the fight that convinced Lincoln's War Department repeaters were more than just a tool for wasting ammunition; it also opened the door to maneuver Braxton Bragg's Confederate army out of Tennessee in 1863. Viewers may quibble over whether these and a few other events merited more attention, but Civil War: The Untold Story is definitely worth watching—all five hours of it.

Sneak previews are being held at theaters in about two dozen communities. If one comes within driving distance of where you live, don't miss the opportunity to see an episode on the big screen.

Click here to watch an out-take of Civil War The Untold Story on vemio.


16 Responses to “Civil War: The Untold Story, a New Five-Part Series on PBS”


  1. 1
    mark says:

    leave a reply? it's a comment. anyway, PBS is supposed to be objective, right? the untold story? sounded like the same old anti-southern non-sense to me. untold still. emancipation proclamation is given credibility, but no mention of the part that said we should send the blacks back to Africa. I'm shocked that people are still crying about inequality and praising the great dictator Lincoln as if he were some kind of angel. all this federalism has led us to the place we are now. Obama legislating from his desk instead of presenting plans to congress. sees himself as the new Lincoln? that should tell you something about the old one.

  2. 2
    Thad McConchie says:

    "…emancipation proclamation is given credibility, but no mention of the part that said we should send the blacks back to Africa…."

    Er…perhaps that is because there is nothing in the Emancipation Proclamation about sending blacks to Africa. Read the text…

    http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html

    • 2.1
      Dave says:

      I believe there were 2 versions of the emancipation proclamation issued – the first was called the preliminary emancipation proclamation which did contain reference to sending the freed slaves to a colony in Africa. When the final version was issued Lincoln struck that part out.

  3. 3
    James Dalton says:

    Being born and raised in Chattanooga, and having grown up wandering the woods of the Chickamauga Battlefield, seen and touched the monuments of Missionary Ridge, Lookout Mountain, and visited the site of Andrews Raiders in Ringgold GA.
    its becomes plainly obvious that the Civil War is not forgotten here. it is a part of life that insinuates itself on a persons mind even when simply driving along the Ridge top road and seeing Civil War Cannon in the front yards of stately old Chattanooga Homes.
    for me,this series has brought to life the deeper meaning of these Monuments and Battlefields and put a more realistic face upon these events which are a part of our everyday life here.
    Bravo to those that have worked so hard on it.

    • 3.1
      Chris Wheeler says:

      Mr. Dalton,

      Thanks for your kind words about our series. We echo your thoughts and tried to capture the sentiments you expressed in our film. In the end, it is a tribute the brave men who fought on both sides of the battlefield.

      Chris Wheeler
      Producer/Director

  4. 4
    Jon Bell says:

    I can appreciate Black Americans, like Dr. Gates, taking deserved pride in the role played by Blacks during the era of the Civil war. There are documented cases of many heroic deeds by Black soldiers and selfless contributions by other Blacks not in uniform.

    That said, there seems to be a concentrated effort on the part of revisionist historians, including Dr, Gates, to vastly overstate the role of Blacks during the American Civil War and especially the impact of Blacks on the wars outcome.

    This revisionist effort has resulted in a widespread, and incorrect, assumption that the Civil War was all about the issue of slavery. It was not! The proof? No where, North or South, will you find in period newspapers, letters, broadsides, etc., a call to arms based on \freeing the slaves\, or \protecting the institution of slavery\. If you read the personal narratives of those who fought on either side, rarely will you find any reference to the issue of slavery. When you do find those references it usually appear in something written after the Emancipation Proclamation. Who better to explain their motivation to go to war than those that did it? I had 3 grt grt grandfathers who served in the Union Army, as well as a dozen or more, grt grt uncles. Several of them died during the war. From some of their letters and information from their pension files there is no doubt they all went to war to \preserve the Union\.

    So lets set the record straight, few soldiers on either side went to war motivated by the issue of slavery. Was it an issue? Absolutely. Was it the cause of the eventual hostilities? Absolutely not!

    As to overstating the role played by Black soldiers in the Civil War? The highest estimates state that Black troops may have made up as much as 10% of the Union army. Though there are several examples of outstanding performances by individual Black regiments, and individual Black soldiers, the participation of Black units in the Union Army had no impact on the wars eventual outcome. The 54th Mass., as presented in the movie \Glory\, failed miserably in their attempt to take Ft. Wagner by storm in July 1863. They accomplished nothing towards shortening the war, but in fairness neither did their white counterparts who failed in three subsequent assaults on Ft. Wagner. The Black regiments involved in the Battle of the Crater during Grant;s 1864-1865 siege of Richmond. VA were decimated by the Confederate defenders. Once again, though a valiant effort, an effort without significantly contributing to the South's defeat.

    To answer the question of significance regarding Black soldiers in the Union army simply boils down to an honest answer to the following question. If there had been no recruitment of Black soldiers by the Union army, would the absence of Black soldiers resulted in a different outcome to the Civil War? Obviously, at least to anyone with some knowledge of the Civil War, the answer is \NO\!

    Now we have a PC effort on the part of revisionist historians to create a significant role by Blacks in the Battle of Gettysburg. Frankly, it is a fantasy. That said, I will say this. For every example of Black contributions to the cause of the North at Battle of Gettysburg, I can come up with an example of Black contributions to the cause of the South during the same battle.

  5. 5
    Bob Morrison says:

    Jon,

    Maybe you missed the first episode of Civil War: The Untold Story. For the Confederacy, secession and the war were all about slavery.

    An excellent summary of the South's pre-war rationale for the war – with links to the historical documents – is here:

    http://ronelfran.hubpages.com/hub/What-Confederates-Said-Caused-the-Civil-War

    Check it out.

  6. 6
    S Joe Bradley says:

    The 15th Michigan was not at Chickamauga. The 15th Wisconsin was here and had many men of Nordic descent and is likely the Scandanavian regiment to which you refer. Of course, the 8th Kansas in the same brigade with the 15th Wis., was also filled with men named Ole and Hans.

  7. 7
    Karen Nason Abdulfattah says:

    Thank you so much for producing this fine series. I have thoroughly enjoyed the segments that I have seen. Maybe enjoyed isn't the right word. I have learned a lot by watching. It was a horrible, bloody mess that pitted neighbors against neighbors, brothers against brothers, etc. Being from Ohio I found it interesting that a campaign was run from Canada by an anti-war supporter who wanted to run for Governor. Interesting enough, Ohio still is the swing state that both Democrats and Republicans want to win. Some things never change. I lived in North Carolina for 20 years, working as a Registered Nurse. The IED damage we saw from Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq reminded me of the gut shots in the series. And the surgeons trying to save lives doing amputations without the use of anesthesia. Anyway, I think it is a wonderful series. I had an excellent American History Teacher my Senior year in High School and I wasn't that interested. It was the only class I had. I owe a great apology to Mr. Paul Pfeiffer for being so bored. I learned a lot in his class but I could have learned a whole lot more. He was almost trancelike when he spoke of the battles and the battlefields he had visited. Thanks again! I think I am going to check out some courses to take~~~after all, it IS OUR History.

    • 7.1
      Dixon Grubbs says:

      One point of correction: surgeons had anesthesia and used it regularly. Ether had first been used in 1841, chloroform in 1846. But the time of the war the advantages of anesthesia had been recognized, not only in the comfort of the patient, but also in his or her chances of survival.

  8. 8
    James Tolar (JT) says:

    Every time someone talks about the Civil War I hear the same old thing Slavery, I wish folks would just understand that slavery wasn't the problem. Slavery was going on before America was even discovered, so how can they put the blame on the south for slavery when slavery was here even before America was even America.
    Here is something for thought:

    The British threat to American self-government led to war in 1775. The Northern threat to Southern self-government led to war in 1861.On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was issued and the right to self-determination was proclaimed. Between December 1860 and June 1861 Southern states declared their independence and self-determination was proclaimed. The Revolutionary rebels, a few of whom owned slaves, defeated the British Empire, won Independence and today are considered patriots. The Southern rebels, a few of whom owned slaves lost their bid for independence and are not afforded the same respect for attempting the very same thing for the same reasons? Because the winners write the history and the lies have not ceased for 150 years.

    Slavery thrived under the United States flag from 1776 to 1865 and at least 100 years before that under the British flag in America. The Confederate flag flew a mere four years. Yet it’s the Confederate flag that’s always attacked.

    As I watched the show I agreed an I disagreed, at the ended it really upset me when the narrator stated that 200,000 thousand slaves fought for the union army an 40,000 died. And stated nothing of how many southern black troops there were fightin for there southern county, cause that's all they had. The union army made them in the bringing, ditch diggers, stretcher bears, servants to the generals an officers, before they even put a gun in there hands. Abe Lincoln had slaves in the white house, the states of Maryland an Delaware were slave states but didn't join the Confederate States of America. What I'm sayin is that slavery wasn't the reason the War Between the States was fought..

    • 8.1
      Bob Morrison says:

      James,

      Slavery was the reason the "War Between the States" was fought. I'll give you the same answer I gave Jon Bell above.

      "Maybe you missed the first episode of Civil War: The Untold Story. For the Confederacy, secession and the war were all about slavery.

      "An excellent summary of the South's pre-war rationale for the war – with links to the historical documents – is here:

      http://ronelfran.hubpages.com/hub/What-Confederates-Said-Caused-the-Civil-War

      "Check it out."

      • 8.1.1
        Geo Wilson says:

        Re: Mr Morrison' comment.
        For the Confederacy, the secession was over the North over-taxing the South and threatening to cut off the South's access to the Northern and European cotton buying markets.
        Cotton production was the life blood of the South and key to its wealth and way of life. When the North threatened to end that economy and way of life, the South felt that the only way for their economy to survive was to secede from the Union since the North would no longer give them any political or economic relief.
        Slavery was not a concern in the South. Access to cotton markets was.
        The restrictions placed on the growth of slavery in the new Western states was just one more example of the North's oppression of the South, and just one more reason to leave a Union that gave them no reason to stay. That was the scope of the South's concern about slavery in the months before the start of the war.
        It was about state's rights and their right to leave the Union: when that Union no longer provided any benefit for them to stay, the South organized to leave that Union and form their own economic Confederacy to compete with the North and withhold their cotton from Northern mills and factories until they could get their market prices.
        They were prepared for political and economic repercussions.
        In spite of the rhetoric, the South had no real expectation that such a move would wind up in armed combat. It was Lincoln's election that provoked the secession, and it was Lincoln's blockade of Fort Sumter that ignited the Northern War of Aggression on the South.
        Mr Morrison's comments to the contrary. the South was winning the economic war with the North. The Northern factory owners put considerable pressure on Lincoln to end the armed conflict and to respond to the economic demands of the South.
        It was in the later years of the war (1863), when the economic and political costs of the war became so high, Northern support for the conflict began to really fade. But Lincoln's views regarding slavery had radically changed. Lincoln now used these social issues to re-inspire his Northern supporters and the mill and factory owners to see the conflict through to the end, in his commitment to keep the Union intact.

      • 8.1.2
        Bob Morrison says:

        This is a reply to 8.1.1 from Geo Wilson below, placed here because there was no reply "button" with his comment.

        Thank you, Mr. Wilson for making my point.

        Yes, the Civil War was about the South’s economy. That economy was not sustainable unless slavery not only continued, but expanded. “The restrictions placed on the growth of slavery in the new Western states” that you noted were not “just one more” reason for secession, but the dominant reason, so dominant that all other reasons – high tariffs, the status of escaped slaves, etc. – paled in comparison. Prior to the war, the political battle lines had been clearly laid out between the South’s designs on new lands for their slave economy and the anti-slavery strategy of denying new territory for human bondage.

        The flurry (and fury!) of historical documents prior to the war make this clear. They barely note any reason other than the South’s “peculiar institution” to justify secession. Mississippi’s declaration of secession is among the most explicit, emphatically linking cotton, commerce, and the southern way of life to the need for slaves. Mr. Wilson, retrospective rationalization, laying the blame on Lincoln, and the North’s internal politics during the war do not alter why the southern states seceded.

        As for “states’ rights,” they were not the reason for the war, but instead merely one legal/moral argument to rationalize secession. Property rights, religious beliefs, and moral and genetic superiority were other, more callous and less “politically correct” rationalizations for slavery and hence secession.

        By the way, Mr. Wilson, you have your history confused. Lincoln did not blockade Fort Sumter.

  9. 9
    Chris Wheeler says:

    Missing from your analysis is the obvious: with the exception of the very end of the war, blacks who were part of the Confederate war effort did so forcibly as slaves; those fighting for the Union were freemen who volunteered. The two simply cannot be compared, which is why we did not make this a part of our documentary.

  10. 10
    Constitutional Republican says:

    Im sick of history revisionism. The war was not only about slavery and anyone who teaches or try's to change the real meaning behind the war 150 years after the war is only in it for the money. The writer obviously has been indoctrinated through the US liberal education system. Tell me writer… What's your thoughts on communism, socialism, social justice and Marxiism? Let's hear about the real you through your own words and not through a historical, history revisionist film. So let's hear your thoughts!! Additionally what's your thoughts on Noam Chomsky, Doris Kearns Goodwin and other historically inaccurate tale tellers?!



Leave a Reply

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Related Articles


History Net Images Spacer
Paid Advertisement
Paid Advertisement
History Net Daily Activities
History net Spacer
History net Spacer
Historynet Spacer
HISTORYNET READERS' POLL

Which of these wars resulted in the most surprising underdog upset?

View Results | See previous polls

Loading ... Loading ...
History net Spacer
STAY CONNECTED WITH US
RSS Feed Daily Email Update
History net Spacer History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement
What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by Weider History, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

From Our Magazines
Weider History

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Achtung Panzer! | StreamHistory.com
Today in History | Ask Mr. History | Picture of the Day | Daily History Quiz | Contact Us

Copyright © 2014 Weider History. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Advertise With Us | Subscription Help | Privacy Policy