Boy, those confederate soldiers sure were swell fellas for not making Anderson's sons join up for the war just because he never owned slaves!
Yeeeeahright, that woulda happened.
And you'd think that dopey boy would have been smart enough to lose the confederate cap a little sooner, but then again none of Anderson's sons seemed too bright.
Strictly a B-Western cornfest.
I had the same question about the boy and the hat. I just watched this movie for the first time today and sat there thinking, "Get rid of that damn hat!" Geez! I could understand why the confederate soldiers kept their uniforms on after they escaped, it would have been a matter of pride but the boy was NOT a confederate soldier and since wearing the hat is what got him into trouble to begin with, you'd think he would have dropped the hat.
Be brave, reshape.
I was thinking the same thing. Boy, Hollywood really wasn't big on historical accuracy.
shareYou are sure a bunch of *beep* experts. The Army of Northern Virginia did not draft people, and that's who the Andersons were dealing with.
shareThanks. I love it when someone who KNOWS their history can give an answer!
shareActually, the April 1862 Conscription Act was applied to all Confederate armies. In fact General R.E. Lee (commander of the Army of Northern Virginia) indicated that the passage of the Conscription Act was a leading cause of dissertion in his army (for the reference check out Stephen W. Sears book on Chancellorsville pgs. 44-45).
I find it interesting that you are so quick to criticize when you do not have your facts in order - something to keep in mind the next time you feel like shooting your mouth off.
Thanks. I wondered that myself.
"I love corn!"
Well, the sixteen year old boy was just a sixteen year old boy. And he was on his own father's farm when the Union soldiers grabbed him.
I just saw an outstanding production of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" at the Old Globe Theater in San Diego.
You could drive a truck through some of implausible plot situations. And we're talking Shakespeare!
Why did the union cavalry charge with sabers into an entrenched line of infantry...wtf...kinda stupid tactics there...
shareCalvary charges happened all the time. A lot of tactics were outdated during the Civil War.
shareYou are correct in your assertion that many tactics employed during the Civil War were outdated. However, I must beg to differ with the statement that cavalry charges happened "all the time." It was already apparent to commanders at the war's onset that frontal charges by mounted men against infantry or artillery (especially in entrenched positions) were little more than a suicidal waste of men and horses. Examples such as Jeb Stuart's charge into a regiment of Zouaves at First Manassas (which was not a frontal assault) become exceedingly scarce after the first few months of the war. One notable exception was the extremely ill-advised cavalry charge ordered by Judson Kilpatrick, immediately following the repulse of Pickett's Charge on July 3, 1863. This charge resulted in the death of Elon Farnsworth, Kilpatrick's subordinate who led the charge (under protest), and in the decimation of Farnsworth's brave Vermont regiment. Little wonder Kilpatrick was given the less-than-complimentary nickname of "Kilcavalry".
Further, by 1864, when the events of "Shenandoah" occur, nearly all cavalrymen on both sides had abandoned the use of the saber. If they still carried sabers, they were likely to have been strapped to the saddle, as baggage. Pistols and, especially for the Union troopers, repeating carbines had come to be the preferred weapons. Swords had become little more than an obsolete hindrance. So, the highly unlikely cavalry charge depicted in "Shenandoah" is made even more dubious by the fact that the Union riders all go charging in, sabers aloft.
Despite these and many, many more historical inaccuracies, I still enjoy the movie as entertainment. Almost all of the details are wrong, but the film is spot-on in showing how this tragic conflict devastated the lives of America's people.
The inaccuracies that bothers me (because it's my special interest) is when the the doctor is leaving and says "I was born in Virginia, raised three sons and two daughters under her flag. The oldest son, Paul, lies buried somewhere in Pennsylvania. They say Gettysburg is where he fell. A place called Little Round Top."
While its possible that a solder from VA was somehow shot if he had strayed from his corps, it was Evander Law's Alabama brigade under colonel Oats in Longstreet's 1st corps that attacked Little Round Top.
I have a feeling that, since this movie was made at the centennial of the Civil War, they decided to throw out some big names, so the audience could feel it was more authentic.
Dr. Witherspoon also states that one of his sons is riding with Forrest. Its possible, but I'm not aware of any Virginians who rode with Nathan Bedford Forrest. All of his units were Tennesseans.
cassidy is correct. No Virginia regiments fought anywhere near Little Round Top. The closest VA units was Mahone's Brigade, which was stationed near the north of the Codori farm area and was barely engaged on July 2nd. The majority of the Virginians were in Ewell's 2nd Corps, which fought on the other end of the battlefield and in Pickett's Division, which assaulted the Union center on July 3rd. Little Round Top was on the extreme left of the Union line.
The Dr.'s line would have been better (and authentic) if he has said his son fell during Pickett's Charge!
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.
Even more amusing was the racially integrated Union Army unit that the kids ran into.
"I guess this isn't the right economic climate for an expensive, poorly-trained visionary."
I was amazed at how Hollywood or the book it was based on depicted volunteer Confederate soldiers raping and murdering Southern Virginians without even asking them for help. To me that kind a sounds odd NO. I would of thought men who fought with sticks and stones to defend there country from well equipped invaders would have treated the people they risked there lives for better than the Union invaders they were fighting against but that's just me using a thing called logic!
shareActually soldiers, deserters, and foragers from both armies could be very rough on populations of both loyalties or mixed loyalty, depending on the situation. The more ruthless and desperate the war made a man, the more of an equal opportunity looter and oppressor he would be.
Since the Union forces were better equipped, paid,and fed, and the Rebels ere often half starved, and since the war was mostly fought in southern areas, it became quite common for rebel soldiers or rebel deserters to steal, rape, etc. in the South, where they were, instead of in the north where they weren't.