Yes, there are plenty of minor nitpicks, but, by and large, you will be hard-pressed to find another historical drama that puts as much effort into at least trying to get the facts right.
As for the discussion of Gettysburg as the "turning point" of the Civil War, I would say that, in most ways, it is overblown. The true turning point was the Fall of 1862. At that point, not only were Confederate armies advancing into Northern Territory in both the East and the West, but the Brits were actually thinking about recognizing the Confederacy (which in turn would have led to the French, who were only waiting on the Brits, to recognize as well). That would have led to the British navy breaking up the Union blockade and, perhaps, even war between the Union and the Brits. Fortunately, Lee's invasion was turned back at Antietam, which cooled the Brits ardor quite a bit. Then, in the aftermath of the battle, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which cooled the Brits ardor even more (it would have been nearly impossible politically for the Brits to fight "on the side of slavery"). Soon after that, the Confederate invasion of Eastern Kentucky also collapsed.
I will say this about Gettysburg as a turning, it was probably the last time in the war where the Confederacy could even semi-realistically hope to win the war on the battlefield. Yes, it would have been a ridiculous long shot, but, if you try hard enough and suspend disbelief in large enough quantity, you can see a path to it happening: On the second day, Longstreet's attack manages to unhinge the Union line and the Union army is destroyed; after taking tens of thousands of prisoners and large stores of ammo, Lee quickly marches on Washington before Grant or any other Union troops can make it there and assist in its defense; he overwhelms the defenses of Washington and essentially takes Lincoln hostage; At the same time, the draft riots in New York City spread throughout the Union because, among other things, there are insufficient organized Union troops near enough to assist in putting them down; Between civil unrest, unwillingness of additional men to enlist (or submit to the draft) and Washington occupied, the Union cause collapses and they sue for peace on the basis of separation.
Once Pickett's charge collapsed, the Confederacy no longer had a realistic hope of winning a battle (or series of battles) that could "win the war" by themselves. Sure, there was always potential for a political victory brought about indirectly by the actions on the battlefield. For example, if they could have held Sherman out of Atlanta for a few more months, perhaps, sufficient number of Americans would have voted for McClellan who ran on a peace platform in the election of 1864. And, who knows, maybe if Early actually makes it into the streets of Washington and, say, burns down the Capitol in 1864 or if Hood destroys Schofield's Army at Spring Hill in November 1864 and then takes Nashville a week later before raiding into Kentucky, maybe war weariness takes hold in the north or draft riots start up again... and maybe that, in turn, gives the Brits some impetus to finally join in on the Confederate side. The thing is that all of these were not only comically unlikely but they would required a series of outside forces (the Brits, the American voters, draft rioters) over which the Confederates had no direct control to enter the equation.
reply
share