Despite what appears to me to be a manufactured controversey about the story and film, there's no reason to suggest or believe the event which this film explores didn't happen or, that it has been grossly exagerrated or influenced so some could "choose to remember our Civil War" a certain- assumedly inaccurate - "way". Frankly, that sounds more like psychotherapy than historical analysis to a simple buff like me. Like most stories that are handed down through first hand oral accounts, there are things we don't know and, like much of our history, it is left up to historians and researchers to do their best, using the information available, to "fill in the blanks." As NPS historian, Mac pointed out:
"It is significant that not a single member of the 2nd South Carolina challenged the veracity of the story which became quiet well known in South Carolina by 1900. Kershaw was a prominent figure in South Carolina politcs after the war so had naturally developed some political opponents. Not one of them challenged Kerhaw’s statement about the Kirkland incident."
It would appear to me the criticism over how the story is presented by Aubrecht's production is a bit premature, since those criticizing it haven't even seen it.