I understand that any historical documentary has to make choices (although the emergence of the internet means that a "director's cut" can be made available).
In #Grant's case, were some of the limits self-imposed? @HISTORY
Lots of ads, lots of previews, and some interesting (and debatable) choices on what to spend time on and what to pass over or quickly summarize. #Grant@HISTORY
I wonder how much running time there really was over three nights at two hours/night, and how that compared to 2002's @AmExperiencePBS Grant program.
So, what did we learn about Grant and alcohol? Any real answers? We learned something about "Grant the butcher." But what about the complexities of the Lincoln-Grant relationship? What about Grant during the Johnson administration?
One could make the case that #Grant offered a truncated version of President Grant and Reconstruction. But what else did one really learn about the Grant presidency?
And what about Grant the private man ... his relationship with his father; his relationship with Julia and the children (who basically disappear during the war, although Julia and some of the children were with him a good deal of the time)? What about nepotism?
There are interesting omissions. General Order No. 11? The third term? Grant's 1872 reelection? Grant saving Lee from being tried for treason? Grant's pointed critical comments on Reconstruction?
And there's some laziness and sloppiness that someone could have corrected if there was a review of the entire documentary. Some things would have been very, very easy to address. Some people associated with the production of the series have been a little snippy about this.
I'm not talking about people who served simply as talking heads. Talking heads rarely see the final product. They don't even know when they will appear. I'm talking about the upper levels of production and advising. #Grant
You tell me: what were the major themes, and how well do you think they were handled, keeping in mind that there are time constraints? If you want to add something, what would you take out or trim?
I really wonder about reenactments that don't really reenact. All we hear about afterwards is comments about authenticity followed by "so what?" Is this "combat porn"? Does it distort and detract as much as it contributes? #Grant
In short, be fair as you look at #Grant@HISTORY. Understand the nature of the vehicle. But you can also be critical, and meaningful and useful criticisms should not be cavalierly dismissed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Visual portrayals of what happened in Wilmer McLean's parlor on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Court House are worth some study.
Here's a simple early version: two generals, one table.
The table is a curious effort to bring together elements of the two tables involved in the event. Grant said at a brown wood oval table; Lee sat at a squarish marble table. Grant's chair was a swivel desk chair backed in leather, while Lee sat in a high-backed chair.
Yet it took a while for artists to include those four pieces of furniture, let alone to assign them to the general who used them.
As true Americans commemorate the anniversary of Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox, let's recall that the events of April 9 marked an end to one of the most successful pursuits in military history ... one that is often underappreciated.
In some sixteen days the US forces under Grant's command repulsed a breakout attempt, severed Confederate supply lines and railroads, forced the evacuation of Petersburg and the the Confederate capital at Richmond.
That's for starters.
They then outmarched a foe determined to escape, blocked any chance of the enemy combining forces in North Carolina, then headed the insurgents off before they could reach the protection of the Blue Ridge Mountains.
In the process the foe suffered nearly 50% losses.
Tomorrow is the anniversary of Robert E. Lee's surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House.
Most of us recall the generous terms Grant offered Lee, which stood in contrast to his reputation as "Unconditional Surrender" Grant.
But what about Lee?
After all, on April 6, at the battle of Sailor's Creek, Lee watched as his army crumbled under US attacks. "My God, has the army dissolved?" Lee declared in desperation.
Lee was in dire straits.
Gone was any chance of uniting with Confederate forces under Joseph E. Johnston in North Carolina.
Gone also was the chance of dealing any sort of significant blow against his foe.
All that was left was to continue westward to the protection of the Blue Ridge Mountains.
A few notes on Ulysses S. Grant's personal involvement with the institution of slavery prior to the American Civil War for those who might be interested ...
Grant grew up in an antislavery home. As a boy his father had worked in a tannery owned by Owen Brown, who had a son named John. I bet you've heard of him.
As a boy Grant attended a preparatory school in Ripley, Ohio, run by Reverend John Rankin.
What else did Rankin run? A stop on the Underground Railroad.
Recall Eliza's fording the Ohio in *Uncle Tom's Cabin*?
The real life event took place in this vicinity. The Eliza in question was Eliza Harris.
What stake did non-slaveholding southern whites have in the protection and preservation of slavery? Why would they support secession? Why would they go to war?
Reasonable questions.
First, not all white southerners supported the Confederacy. There were Unionists. There were also deserters.
The Confederacy had to resort to conscription in 1862 to recruit its ranks. Even Lee complained about desertion and questioned the commitment of Confederate civilians.
Still, a lot of non-slaveholding whites did support secession and joined the Confederate armed forces.
Does that meant that the Confederacy did not rest upon the foundation on slavery?