Re: Gettysburg
JOHN WOODFORD MANLEY (jwmanl01@msuacad.morehead-st.edu)
Tue, 5 Oct 1993 11:39:31 ECT
Some comments from a new list member...
The film "Gettysburg" looks to be an honest attempt at showing
the battle as it was and the soldiers as they could have been. The
TNT special gave some good insight as to the lengths the film crew
went to insure accuracy. As to another member's belief that re-enactors
are more concerned with parade drills or close order marching, I urge
him to talk to some. Most re-enactors are informed, albeit amateur,
historians, and will go to any lengths to portray the Civil War soldier
as accurately as possible, even if it means getting their uniforms dirty!
I finished Michael Shaara's novel THE KILLER ANGELS recently,
and I hope the film is up to the fine standards of the book. I would
recommend Shaara's work to anyone, even though it is "historical fiction".
Granted, the author had to take some liberties with individual personalities,
but his depictions echo other accepted accounts. The pieces regarding
Lo Armistead and Winfield Scott Hancock are very interesting and well-drawn.
I have a hard time taking Shaara's interpretation of Marse Robert at face
value. I think Lee knew exactly what he was doing at Gettysburg, as he did
at all his other battlefields, but simply got desperate for a victory he
believed would break the Union's will to fight. Even if the Confederacy
had won at Gettysburg, they did not have the troop strength to pose a
threat to Washington D.C. The real tragedy at Gettysburg was that Meade
failed to pursue Lee as he retreated. If he had, he could have caught Lee
with his back to the Potomac, and destroyed the Confederates, and possibly
ended the war a full year earlier. Yet history is not the study of "what
might have been"s, so I'll leave it at that.
Thanks so much for listening. I'll be looking forward to some
movie reviews of "Gettysburg" next week.
Chip Manley