Had the issue with it I have with most documentaries like that. The overplaying of the hardships overcome and the key triumphs. It is especially true of war leaders because so often their brilliant tactics would have been disasters if not for a poor decision by someone else. Grant's decision to attack at first light of the second day at Shiloh would have been a disaster if the rebs had been ready...and they likely would have been ready if their leader hadn't been wounded while leading from the front on day 1 and replaced with someone far less ready for the job who called off the dogs at the first sight of resistance and didn't have his troops prepared for a counter-attack.

That has always been one of the knocks on Grant...in the end, his strength was that he was willing to commit forces to die in order to win because he knew he had all the advantages in the long run in men and materials. It's described as his calmness under fire, from the other view, it could be seen as his disregard for anything but winning the war at any cost. His predecessors wouldn't do that.

On a side note, that is a very common theme in that war. The rebs had the best, most charismatic leaders who ended up dead or wounded in major battles because they led from the front. Like so many other things in the war, the rebs didn't have the depth to survive that.

Imagine if Jackson had been at Gettysburg and led the army in on the first day rather than Hooker....if that Army pushed through a small Brigade defense on the first day and took Cemetery Ridge, the whole battle changes and maybe the whole war in the east. The loss of McClellan's army there would have left nothing between there and DC and Lee's army at full strength.