At Chancellorsville fought Poles from 58th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment fought against Poles 14th Louisiana Volunteers better known as 1st Regiment (Polish Brigade) in Colston's Division
The most heroic action by any Federal unit on the 2nd day was the 1st Minnesota, who charged the center of the field and lost over 70% of their strength. But the 1st Minnesota is hardly talked about because Chamberlain was a man who was obsessed with his own self image and adamantly pursued his exaggerated glory after the War.
Lee also came away with a lack of appreciation for just how hard the Yankees fought (11th Corps excepted) and that the AoP was far from "demoralized" as they felt that the high command had let them down but in the field they gave as good as they got. The fact is Joe Hooker caught Lee offguard with the best strategy employed against them and Lee was lucky he survived. Had Hooker, an experienced field commander who was always cool under fire, had his wits about him on May 3 who knows.
@Shafeone Had Longstreet and Hood not have been foraging for food. Lee would have his complete Army. With Hood and Longstreet present, Lee might have driven the Federal Army, not just over the river, but he might have destroyed Hooker's Army in detail.
@StonewallJackson26 But he didn't. And thus was he lucky to with the fight. It was a brilliant maneuver, don't get me wrong, but he HAD to do something desperate as Hooker had completely outmaneuvered and outflanked him. E.P. Alexander even offered that Hooker deployed the best strategy against them in the war. Lee was also very lucky in that Howards' XI corps, known as the AoP's least reliable, had been placed on the far flank by Hooker to keep them away from the fighting he anticipated.
The day AFTER Jackson's famous flank attack was the crucial day. May 3, 1863 is in fact the second bloodiest day of the war (only Antietam claimed more but that was a 12-hour battle rather than just 5 hours as was May3). Lee may have won the field but he suffered horrific casualties as a result...over 13,000 men he could ill-afford to lose and the positions of the two armies went back to the way it was pre-battle, each on one side of a river. Nothing more decisive than that for the cost.
Chancellorsville is one of those battles that hung on a few freak incidents. Lee never realized how LUCKY he got that on May 3 (when the ANV was divided, in a heavy firefight and at its most vulnerable) that Hooker was incapacitated with a concussion and unable to give clear orders but not wounded enough to relinquish command. Couch and Meade both saw an opportunity to drive wedge between the rebs who were getting cut to pieces and destroy Lee's army but Hooker was too dazed to consider it.
@Shafeone Well the Union preferred battles where the vastly outnumbered the CSA. Remember Fredericksburg CSA 60,000 Union 130,000(really brave of the Union over double the numbers) and guess what CSA victory you yankees are filth and your not even worth being spoken to, so I won't after this.
@Colton8646 Hooo-wee! Spit-TANG! We got ourselves a Johnny Reb who be wantin' ta pahty like its 1899! Name one general worth his salt from Sun Tzu to Patraus who DOESN"T prefer numebrical supoeriority in the attck? Military dicta calls for a 3:1 advantage when attacking fortified positions.I know that hiding behind a stone wall is much braver than assaulting the open fields of Marye's Heights but still. And I'd rather not be spoken to by the losing side anyway. I talk to winners. Not hicks.
@Colton8646 YOu what odds I really liked? The ones at Appomattox? You remember? The one where Robert E. Lee surrender to U.S. Grant? The won where the South LOST the war? You remember that one don't ya Johnny Reb? Spit-TANG! LOL. Get back under the hood.
@Shafeone Speaking of Appomattox, during their conversaton, Lee said to Grant "you didn't out fight me, you just out manned me" to which Grant agreed. The two men admired each other. Grant looked up to Lee and for the rest of his life, Lee would not allow an unkind word to be said about Grant in his presence. These were two men were realists who recognized the truth about each other and the war, not trash talking children. You should try to follow their example a bit more.
@stellalouise1 And what do you think Lee would have thought of Colton's comments? You think he would have liked the "you Yankees are filth and not even worth being spoken to" line? Please. Guys like Colton are pathetically trapped in two circles...1) a lost cause that was never worth fighting for and 2) an unassailable reality that is this: the South was crushed. Oh...and it's 2011 not 1861.
@Shafeone Maybe it seems that in your zeal to defend Union Generals who were, in fact, being micromanaged by Lincoln (when did he graduate from West Point?) and many of them being fired after nearly every battle, you appear to cast off on the Confederate generals a bit more than is called for? The Confederates earned their reputation, it isn't folklore and Lee was secure in this knowledge. Grant knew that the North had won and would have a heavy hand in writing history. To this day...we argue.
@stellalouise1 Certainly the Confederates had some excellent commanders. Lee, Jackson. Longstreet, Johnston to name a few. But the North had Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Meade, Hancock, etc. But they were not the demigods that lost causers who carve their images on the sides of mountains (literally) make them out to be. My zeal is for historical accuracy and fact is that Lee lost a higher % of men under his command than any general and Grant beat him in less than a year. Both sides deserve credit.
@Shafeone Personally, I LOVE Stone Mountain and Lee, Jackson & Davis all, very conveniently, have fantastic profiles for it. ; - ) The South does not admire them for what they wish they were but for what they actually were and Southerners have a long tradition honoring people who are, in fact, honorable. They lost, yet they were good & gifted men who "fought the good fight" with all they had. They get honor - that's the South for you. It's a good thing. Yankees just don't seem to get it.
Yeah baby, roll up that Yankee flank and send them bastards running back to where they came from. I wonder how this guys ancestor below was feeling when he had a reb chasing his ass with a bayonet.
@StonewallJackson26 The federal "Invaders" were only invading because your ancestors desecrated the Flag and spit on the Consitution they swore loyalty to
@markmason1000 from Virginia's ratification charter of the constitution which makes it part of it " in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will"
@markmason1000 Sworn loyalty to? That is from a Northern perspective. From a Southern perspective they had taken the same position that the Revolutionaries had taken in the 1770's. Our founding fathers were deemed traitors and rebels.
@StonewallJackson26 but the founding fathers gave their life and blood forging the Union, it was a slap in the face to everything they stood for tearing it apart
@StonewallJackson26 Proabably the same way the Rebs felt when the Maine boys chased their running scared asses all the way down Little Round Top I reckon.
@Shafeone Oh yeah the 15th Alabama who conducted a forced march of 15 miles just to get into position to attack the hill. With almost no water and men passing out from dehydration, a junior cadet unit could have defended that hill. All they had to do was roll rocks onto the Alabamians. Have you ever climbed that hill, it is steep as hell. The 20th Maine's stand was really not all that impressive when you consider they were fighting off exhausted and beleaguered troops.
@StonewallJackson26 Well you cannot climb it as it is against park rules (as anyone who frequents the place as often as I do know.) But you can see from the Devils' Den below and the summit above how steep it is. All the more reason NOT to attack it no? Seemed kinda like piss poor leadership on the Johnny's part. And I then assume by your logic you will freely give all the credit to the Reb's victory at Fredericksburg to the their POSITION, rather than the Rebs defending it yes?
@Shafeone Bullshit. I've climbed Little Round Top and was not reprimanded. I was investigating the rock formation at Devil's Den when I saw the hill and ran up it. Right through the 15th Michigan's position and onto the 20th Maine's flank. That is one steep motherfucker.
@StonewallJackson26 Just because you weren't reprimanded doesn't mean it was allowed. The park expressly prohibits climbing up the western face, the cleared slope facinf Devil's Den, because so many tourists would destroy the ground and litter it. You can visit the top vial the road and the wooded eastern face (where the 20th was located). It is steep. Showing that Confederate planners must have been high on overconfidence...if not hooch.
@StonewallJackson26 Did you see many people climbing it? I seem to recall a sign or two prohibiting it -- I didn't just imagine it I don't think -- but I could be wrong of course. One phone call to the visitor center could settle the issue but not that important to me. If it is to you go ahead. Having gone there for many years (as I'm sure you have too-not putting on airs) it's just one of the rules I thought was well known. Anyway, I do agree with your assessment. Broken and steep ground.
Ok enough of the comment fights We won you faggots lost and now were all americans again and still fighting this war. time to grow up fellas ps Go 54th Mass!
You really have to give credit to poor General Howard's 11th corps,if you were in the same situation I believe most people would run but the Union soldiers fought every step back they took slowing Jackson not much but enough to where it was getting dark outside.
@markmason1000 agreed they fought bravely and their list of dead proves it! the 11th Corps would have been ready if it weren't for the high command that called them cowards. the Ohio Brigade fought valiantly along with schurz's brigade who were ready for the attack as he disobeyed orders and changed front. My ancestor was in the 107th Ohio 2nd Division 11th Corps.
@markmason1000 Lincoln was a asshole I hope in the hell there is a csa in secret and I'am from California my ancestor was in the Confederate THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN
General Jackson was the very epitome for everything the South was fighting for. Naturally once the Federal Government was in control of public schools, including history books, they made the South appear as evil as possible, including the whole slavery debate, the South did have freed African American and Native American regiments fighting for their families and lands, despite was the history channel says. The federal government was imperial Britain, and the South were the patriots.
And another thing, me being half cherokee i know this well, if the North was fighting to free a race of people, then why after the war did they go out West, and nearly exterminate an entirely different race of people, including placing them in concentration camps, kidnapping their children and placing them in boarding schools where they beat, abused and brain washed them, stole their land, and killed off those who were defending their homes from the invaders?????
@wonderingheart89 Are you sure your suppose to be talking to me or that other guy? I support the actions of the CSA, and I totally agree with you. I too am Native American; Chippewa Nation, Bad River Indian Reservation located near Odanah Wisconsin, even though I dont live there I live in Virginia I just belong to that tribe but I support the CSA and states rights.
@wonderingheart89 I'm sure you fellow Black Americans would highly disagree with this statement. Just because there were some free blacks fighting in the Confederacy does not right the wrong of the continued institution of slavery in the Confederacy. Southern apologist can try and sugar coat it all they want, but the fact of the matter is one of the big "states rights" the south was fighting for was the right to keep slavery.
Lol, you'd have to apply for the freedom of information act to confirm this, but buddy, New York before civil war was one of the largest slave ports in the U.S.A - they marched slaves through all the cities, even pass D.C. to sell them to southern plantations to make a profit, and they actually increased this because at this time, plantation owners realized that sharecropping was far more advantageous because their slaves were free, but could still work their land
@Kravis63 In addition to that, the southern state governments before the federal troops invaded with already proposing the annexation of slavery to that of sharecropping, plus the church in the South was pushing for the move of ending slavery as well, of course you dont hear about because our current corrupted federation wants to cover its ass. When the civil war broke out and Southern imports were being blockaded, the South put a hold on the bill being passed.
However, what remaining slave holders, which were under 17% of the States total population, were already incorporating sharecropping on their plantations and an experiment and realized it was working far better than keeping them slaves. Plus, the North ahem had slaves of their own, including general Grant, so this is just hypocracy saying the South was fighting for slavery - its so obvious that that is completely not true.
@wonderingheart89 your wrong lincoln banished slavery with the emancipation proclamation, so the north did not have slaves, and as far as states rights you are correct that they do have rights, but federal law trumps state law
@yoyomon The north did have slaves in the four border states that sided with the union, the emancipation (1863) only freed slaves in the southern sates, the border states in the north with slaves were allowed to keep them since lincoln feared that if he freed all the slaves the border states would defect to the union, only until the 13 amend was slavery finally abolished there (1865)
@traltizer well actually in the case of Maryland it was put to a vote in 1864,Marylanders in the Union Army mostly voted to end slavery in the state and tipped the tide overwhelmingly in their favor
cpldust you are an idioit , who knows nothing of American history ! Your President sent troops in to the border states maryland Kentucky Delaware Missiour Had the rightfuly elected goverment arrested by federal troops there by setting into motion the WAR Againist Northeren agression (Civil war is when 2 sides fight for controll of one goverment The south was defending its self and had set up its own Goverement )Your idiot remarks Make the RevolutoioN VOid
cpldust you are an idioit , who knows nothing of American history ! Your President sent troops in to the border states maryland Kentucky Delaware Missiour Had the rightfuly elected goverment arrested by federal troops there by setting into motion the WAR Againist Northeren agression (Civil war is when 2 sides fight for controll of one goverment The south was defending its self and had set up its own Goverement )Your idiot remarks like you fellow Yankess would make the American Revolution void
whatever to all of your hypocrisy. If the confederates were blacks fighting for thier own country I don't think you'd be as sympathetic. The reality is that the south attacked u.s. military bases, (fort sumpter) killed american troops and destroyed american infrastructure (telegraph lines, railway lines.) The same as al qaeda. And slavery was just as barbaric as what the taliban do to women.The only difference is al qaeda is made of brown people and the confederacy was white. Still terrorists.
There were blacks fighting for the CSA and they weren't forced to, not a single soldier was killed at fort sumpter on either side, besides terrorism is defined as using violence and threats to frighten people into obeying, when did the CSA ever do that? As I said before it was the union that burned and looted southern towns, the CSA had better discipline, better generals, better strategy, and won most of the battles and lost fewer troops than the north, we were just outnumbered & outgunned.
@mrose1506 the confederates attacked fort sumpter because prior to secession, fort sumpter was empty and not used. As soon as south carolina seceded lincoln send troops and weaponry to fort sumpter, he was preparing to besiege charleston (one of the major southern cities at the time) The south carolina militia just attacked first
Fort Sumper was a U.S. militarized Tariff Collection facility. There were several vessels from the town that refused to stop to pay the tax on their supplies, and men from the fort boarded their ships, arrested everyone aboard, and confiscated everything, including the ships. This was the straw the broke the cammels back, and when the town was in an uproar over it, the governor sent word to the FT. commander, giving him 30 days to evacuate, which he used to fortify. Gov archives
@mrose1506 dude the south wernt terrorists they were just fed up with how the north was treating them,slavery wasnt the only reason the war started and plus when the confederates attacked fort sumpter no union troops were killed. the taliban and the confederates are two very different people the confederates wernt barbarians like you said they are, and finaly YOU WERENT ALIVE DURING THE WAR SO HOW COULD YOU POSIBLY KNO WAT THE SOUTH WAS OR WAS NOT DOING
@mrose1506 I hope you realize it was the union that burned down southern towns, killed southern civilians, arrested northern citizens for agreeing with the south, treated southern POWs like shit, and violated Article 2 section 10 of the Constitution of the United States of America which states "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." What Lincoln that was
@Oldcartoons571 In some cases yes, but in many no. Southern POW camps werent well equiped at all, they didnt have the food, the water, the space for the POWs because the south had no money. They were barely keeping their own army alive let alone feed the enemies. They just couldnt afford to spend anything on the prisoners, not to mention the souths POW camps were in the south where malaria was very common in the hot environments so many people died of that alone.
@mrose1506 illegal is this, he went to war with the CSA without a declaration of war from Congress, told certain states that he thought wouldnt seceed to raise an army and invade South Carolina and the other 'traitor' states, and he said he wanted to preserve the union, but he banned the U.S. postal service from the south so what that means is that he didnt recognize them as part of the U.S, the south was doing the right thing, amendment 10 says that what is not a power to the federal government
@mrose1506 is reserved to the states to decide like slavery or no child left behind or national health care. So the federal govt. is violating the const. there also, and of course the Declaration of Indep. says that if your country is not working for the likes of the people it is the peoples responsibility to overthrow the govt. and create one that reflects the views of the people, the govt works for us, we dont work for them.
@RevBillyRayCollins Federal law trumps state law, states have medical marijuana facilities but if the feds decide to raid it they can arrest the people for Sale of Narcotics
@yoyomon Technically a federal law against the sale of narcotics is unconstitutional since no where in the const. does it state that the feds have the right to deal with narcotics or that the states dont have the right to deal with narcotics, under the 10 amend the states have the right to deal with such issues since they arent denied to and since the feds arent approved to. The feds brake their own laws all the time.
This was not nearly as decisive a battle as the South likes to paint it. Fine Hooker withdraw back across the river, but that was it. Nothing changed -- except the South suffered another 17,000 losses they could ill afford...and losing jackson was worst of all. The men of the A o P kinda shrugged their shoulders at the whole affair. Clearly as Gettysburg showed, they were far from demoralized. Just a little miffed. They knew they should have won that one.
Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy; and when you strike and overcome him, never let up in the pursuit. Never fight against heavy odds if you can hurl your own force on only a part of your enemy and crush it. A small army may thus destroy a large one, and repeated victory will make you invincible. - Stonewall Jackson
Hooker Said himself "I just lost lost confidence in Joe Hooker." To allow a enemy that you outnumbered 70,000 to 40,000 whip you its patheic. Lincoln himself said "My God! My God! What will the country say?!" I say replace this idiot and hope that you find a commander that can whip Lee.
@haynes1776 Hooker never said that. That is one of the myths of Chancellorsville that even, surprisingly, was repeated on The Civil War series. That was a quote that a man named E.P. Halstead said Hooker uttered to Doubleday shortly after the fighting...but he waited until 1903 (when both men were dead) to recount it and it is completely out of character for Hooker who made it know he was concussed by a shell (as he certainly was) and not that he was either drunk or yellow.
MrRedqwerty - Defend with what? They were out of resources and low on troops. Please read Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants where he says that they also ran out of great leaders. Even if you take a best case scenario such as the one outlined in Newt's Gettysburg, it still would not have mattered. Look at the economics... the North actually grew and prospered during the Civil War, the South died.
The sad fact is that even if Jackson had not been killed and with Lee had won a complete victory here and at Gettysbury, it probably would not have mattered. The west was lost and the South was out of resources. Their only chance was bringing Britain into the war to help negotiate a peace.
@keydet72 Wrong. All the South had to do was put up an inpenetrable defense and show Lincoln that the cost of war was too high. Already in 1863 there were draft riots so maybe 4 more years and the war would be over.
Some elements of Oliver Howard's 11th sensed that a flank attack was coming. When they reported what they knew to Corps HQ, Howard was no where to be found. This was the ineptness that epitomized the Federal high command. Not only was Howard not present when the flank attack was executed. Hooker didn't even find out about the attack for several hours later.
@namtesyalp Yeah. The South had nothing to do with it. They just wanted to be left alone to rape Black women and thumb smash uppity bucks right? What's the harm in that?
@namtesyalp Oh I'm sorry. Blacks WEREN'T raped and thumb-smashed? AM I lying? Or is an ad hominem attack all you have? Discuss. (Family is from a border state by the way. So I'm a 'hybrid'.)
@CrispinRobles who says they were the good guys? Jackson and Lee were good men however they were in the wrong.They were fighting to preserve a cause that denied rights to human beings,dont believe me ask yourself why did South Carolina secede in the first place?
Good movie, a bit long though. About time they showed General Lee winning a battle.
The Union was not fooled on Jackson's flank attack, they just did not take it serious. 11th Corps officers should have taken it more serious from the reports of Union soldiers that could see the Confederates in the distance.
Hard to believe but Lee split his army right in Hooker's face, already outnumbered 2-1. They don't teach that at West Point.
I'm watchcing the Civil war on channedl 13 Foote talked about the unbelievable victory and smarts shown by Lee. it said the union was drinking coffee and playing cards when a boatload of deer and forest animals came through their camp, and the Rebels right behind, we are going to need balls like that in about 12 months, the modern clock ticks to.
Say what you want about the Confederates, but never ever talk about Lee and Jackson in the same breath as Confederate slave-owners and slavery. I still respect Lee for his military genius even if he was on the losing side of the war in the long run. Same goes for Jackson. Doesn't mean if you are on the losing side you are not necessarily a military genius.
@Lesnar316F5 The Union army was far from "crushed". As they showed just two months later in PA. In fact most of the men in the rank and file were dismayed that they were compelled to retreat back to the north bank of the Rapahannock as they sensed they'd given as good as they got...which Lee's casaulties of 13,000 readily show. Chancellorsville was a Pyrric victor if there ever was one. Lee's army suffered brutally, the AoP was quite intact and actually itching for a rematch-which they won.
Hooker was a damned fool. Definitely not fit to lead an Army. A corps perhaps. And Jackson was the most bold and darring SOB in the whole war. A brilliant general. When you lost Jackson you lost your right arm. The 11th Corps was crushed and routed( Of course the biggots of the time blamed the fact that they were dutchmen as the cause). but under the circumstances fought ok. They get a bad rap for their time in the AOP but avenged themselves out West under Grant and Sherman.
@chapdog82 Hooker was hardly a fool. He was an excellent corps commander and even an army commander...he rebuilt the AOP after Burnside's disastrous command. He caught Lee completely flat-footed at Chancellorsville and even the respected E.P. Alexander said that Hooker's turning movement was the most brilliant used againt them in the war. he was concussed by a shell during the crucial May 3 battle when Lee's army was divided and very vulnerable. Bad luck..not poor commanding lost this one.
If I was in Lincoln's shoes, I would have sent a ship, pulled the garrison out and sent them to Washington City. Then I would have sent a message to Davis and have him and his higher ups along with each Governor of all Southern States.
I would have them all come to Washington City, put them up in the Willard Hotel and open talks. If it took weeks or months great, anything to avoid a war or bloodshed.
So tell me why Lincoln did not do that? Why did he turn Napoleon III away from peace talks?
Yes, but what Lincoln did was illegal. Texas and Vermont are currently trying to legally secede. Is Obama going to call up 75,000 civilians and arm them and then with the National Guard, force both states to stay in the Union?
But the south had every right to secede from the union. What right did the north have to force their imperialism onto the south? Just goes to show typical free masonic imperialism!
If they had a right, which they didn't, they would have had to do it the right way, which they didn't. They didn't chose non-violence, they chose to appeal to the sword, and lost badly. The war crimes of the south alone gave the Union the right to defend itself.
More like, the Union telling them they couldnt break away and sending their armies south, what would you do? say okay Union, you can keep my land, rip me off with taxes and tel lsu what to do? No, the hatred between the south and north goes further back than the civil war. And the south had every right to secede. As free people, we dont have ot answer to any union, down with the tyrants in DC! to bad the Brits didnt burn the white house down completely!
uhmm....we told the Union troops there to abandon the fort, it was no longer their's (as it was in South Carolina) and to evacuate. They refused to do so, at that point they were trespassing on foreign land and that's when they were bombarded.
I'm sorry, I thought that we were talking about when the South first succeeded. You seem to have changed the argument all the way to the end of the war.
Did our founding fathers not succeed from the British? During the War of 1812, several New England States were trying to succeed. No one had any issues with that.
Once again you answer my point. The US was, at the time, fighting a war with Britain. I don't think they were paying much attention to what they thought was a joke, especially after the White House was burned down.
You know what, I don't remember. What were we arguing about? Let's just leave this discussion at this: Each person is entitled is their own opinion. Good day Mr. Rebel2276
Not sure whether this is supposed to be rhetorical or not, but there wouldn't have been a war, just a very hostile internal crisis, which would probably have led to a war, just much later. IMO I'd rather be dead than live without my limbs.
Now, I have too have a question for you Mr. Rebel. If we didn't have a war, would our country be the same today?
That is the "Million Dollar Question". I feel that there would have been tension and more smaller battles/Wars in the future. You have two sides that just hate each other. Take a look on this site for an example.
On the other hand, to avoid a war, they should have done what they always had did. Lets say we leave Kansas and the Nebraska Territory "Free Soil". The South would get New Mexico and the Arizona Territory. Two for Two, making both sides happy. No land after that.
Have a great Christmas with your family and New Years!
I asked my oldest son, Robert what he wanted for Christmas, he is out here with me. He replied "A damn towel head." lol I said, yes we all do. We are going on high alert for Christmas and New Years. My father fought in Vietnam always told me to NEVER let your guard down. I have an order that flat out states, I must detach one-third of my command for exodus. I need every man on the line and they pull this.
@rebel2276 the word is secede. Boys its all very simple - The south had every right to leave. There was no prohibition against it. The war was really about the growth of the central government and economy. The tax money for those growth schemes was to benefit the northern interests and came from the South. The southern economy made money from farming with slave labor and the South paid for nearly all the government expenses.
If Lincoln had kept his word, there would not have been any firing at all.
See what most people do not know, Lincoln sent a message to the Governor of South Carolina. Lincoln wrote that he would pull the soldiers out of the fort and abandon the fort as well.
What did Lincoln do? Three weeks later, he now wanted to resupply the garrison in the fort. Why not remove the troops and put them on a ship with the provisions already on the boat?
Lincoln got just what he wanted, war. He believe it would be one battle and the rebellion would be over with. He was very wrong, all that for one idiot.
If we're really going to go down to who was responsible for the deaths in the war, then I'm going to have to say that it was Lee's fault. If he had just fought for the Union like Lincoln asked him too, then the war would've been over in less than a year. He was the sole reason the war continued in the East.
Also, Lincoln wanted a swift end to the war, not a long drawn-out one. The reason why it was so bloody and long was due to the incompetence of his generals until Grant and Sherman appeared on the scene. Lincoln was no general. He knew it. Too bad he didn't get the cards he needed to win till much later.
@MrRedqwerty Lincoln was no idiot. He was very smart. He destroyed the United States of America and turned it into a centralized empire. Lincoln was a tyrant. Hope I cleared that up.
@MrRedqwerty Reunited through FORCE. What had once been a VOLUNTARY union was now a power grab by a centralized gov. The CONstitution even says that when the gov. doesn¿t suit the people it is their right to make another that does.
@troyalldis All right, no government is perfect. But then again, Lincoln was only preserving the dream of George Washington and all the founding fathers.
you try to take my land my forefather's bled for Im coming down south armed & in mass.. you may kill some of us..but not all of us. And if you're too arrogant to give ur colored a stake in the war, & free em & arm them against us.. Im taking them, making them solidiers & laborers & using em against ur arrogant asses. Then I'm gonna slash burn & destroy your property until you submit & give me my damn land back. I could give a damn that the south didn't wanna play union anymore.
@chapdog82 Are you from the north and talking about the south? lol
Because if you are you are poorly informed, the south did free and arm its black population, this also happened long time ago dude so chill out, and there will never be a Civil War in America again so by you saying you will come down here and burn our land is just stupid and ignorant of you.
If I misunderstood what you where saying then sorry, but it sounds like your against the south,
@XxPhillyGxX Dude..do you even realize what u just said? U said the south freed it's slaves and armed them against the north...lmao. R u seriously saying that?
Because last I checked u live in America..and not the CSA. If the south had freed and armed it's slaves you would need a passport to go to NYC today. France and England would have helped u end that war. But Southern Arrogance forbade such a thing. So your need for negro oppression saved the day for the Union.
@chapdog82 Haha your just full of either the lies they tell you in school or northern agrogance, General Forrest who was in charge of the Clavery for the south freed all 50 of his slaves and every one of them joined his Calvery, which was also made up of more black than white troops, they don't tell you that stuff in history class do they? lol The north won so they wrote the history books and say what happened, doesn't mean its true :)
@XxPhillyGxX Um, would YOU have liked to be a slave? Just curious. And didn;'t Forrest also member of the KKK? That bastion of integration. Many Blacks did fight for the South--but that was in return for gaining their freedom. NOT the other way around.
@Shafeone Yeah Forrest was a founding member of the KKK, doesn't change the fact that he freed all his slaves and they CHOOSE to join his Calvery. The KKK also isn't a blacks need to be slaves thing its just them thinking they are supiorior.
It doesn't matter if I would or wouldn't want to be a slave because I'm not, every race has been enslaved at one time or another so I don't have a pity party for blacks or anyone else.
@XxPhillyGxX ANd where are you getting this recounting? From his ex-slaves or the other members of Forrest's command. Slaves were granted freedom IF They fought...not the other way around. PLease cite the source of this claim.
@XxPhillyGxX Which "Northern" history books are you talking about? The books now are VERY fair about giving both sides. This isn't 1866 man. Foote (from Tenn. and Sears from CT both do great jobs showing both sides respect)
@Shafeone History books in general show the north as rightious and the south as evil, when in fact it was the norths fault in the first place and never had anything to do with slavery which is what most people believe these days.
@XxPhillyGxX "History books in general" such as? Whose books. What books are you citing that have you so incensed? Which authors are you referring to? I haven't seen any books written in the past 50 years haven't treated the South with respect. But the fact is, had the South won, slavery would have continued. And before you say the war wasnt about slavery, ask yourself this: if in 1861 the entire country north and south was all slave holding or all free, would the war still have come?
@Shafeone History books we read in high school for one, but don't expect me to remember there names after its been 4 years. The Civil War was about states rights which the North was denying the south, slavery would not still be around because it was already failing in our country, there where to many slaves and not enough work which put the slave traders out of business and made it so the owners just let them go.
@Shafeone And you want to talk about respect? Look at these idiots on here either saying the south where horrible and all this other crap, or the south people saying they will rise again! They learned these things from school where it has been indocternated into them, history is written by the winners, like is Germany won WW2 they would of said killing Jews was a good thing, use logic in this!
@XxPhillyGxX Would Germany have been right in saying that just because they won? The victor may frame the narrative, but not the morality of the issue. That verdict comes from a hgher plane.
@Shafeone It wouldn't matter if Germany where right or not, we would all of been raised speaking German and being brainwashed into thinking they where right. Just like what happens these day in America when it comes to the Civil War, although its less brainwashing and more biased opinion that they have to hear since they start learning history. Its a good thing Germany didn't win because what they did was wrong, and not all the Germans supported it anyways.
At Chancellorsville fought Poles from 58th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment fought against Poles 14th Louisiana Volunteers better known as 1st Regiment (Polish Brigade) in Colston's Division
boniek11101988 4 months ago
@boniek11101988 In other words, the North Poles fought the South Poles.
RPenta 3 weeks ago
most epicfail battle... ever..
NoobSnoopy 6 months ago
The most heroic action by any Federal unit on the 2nd day was the 1st Minnesota, who charged the center of the field and lost over 70% of their strength. But the 1st Minnesota is hardly talked about because Chamberlain was a man who was obsessed with his own self image and adamantly pursued his exaggerated glory after the War.
StonewallJackson26 8 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Hancock would later write of the 1st Minnesota: "I cannot speak too highly of this regiment and its commander in its attack."
Shafeone 7 months ago
Lee also came away with a lack of appreciation for just how hard the Yankees fought (11th Corps excepted) and that the AoP was far from "demoralized" as they felt that the high command had let them down but in the field they gave as good as they got. The fact is Joe Hooker caught Lee offguard with the best strategy employed against them and Lee was lucky he survived. Had Hooker, an experienced field commander who was always cool under fire, had his wits about him on May 3 who knows.
Shafeone 8 months ago
@Shafeone Had Longstreet and Hood not have been foraging for food. Lee would have his complete Army. With Hood and Longstreet present, Lee might have driven the Federal Army, not just over the river, but he might have destroyed Hooker's Army in detail.
StonewallJackson26 8 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 But he didn't. And thus was he lucky to with the fight. It was a brilliant maneuver, don't get me wrong, but he HAD to do something desperate as Hooker had completely outmaneuvered and outflanked him. E.P. Alexander even offered that Hooker deployed the best strategy against them in the war. Lee was also very lucky in that Howards' XI corps, known as the AoP's least reliable, had been placed on the far flank by Hooker to keep them away from the fighting he anticipated.
Shafeone 8 months ago
The day AFTER Jackson's famous flank attack was the crucial day. May 3, 1863 is in fact the second bloodiest day of the war (only Antietam claimed more but that was a 12-hour battle rather than just 5 hours as was May3). Lee may have won the field but he suffered horrific casualties as a result...over 13,000 men he could ill-afford to lose and the positions of the two armies went back to the way it was pre-battle, each on one side of a river. Nothing more decisive than that for the cost.
Shafeone 8 months ago
Chancellorsville is one of those battles that hung on a few freak incidents. Lee never realized how LUCKY he got that on May 3 (when the ANV was divided, in a heavy firefight and at its most vulnerable) that Hooker was incapacitated with a concussion and unable to give clear orders but not wounded enough to relinquish command. Couch and Meade both saw an opportunity to drive wedge between the rebs who were getting cut to pieces and destroy Lee's army but Hooker was too dazed to consider it.
Shafeone 8 months ago
@Shafeone Well the Union preferred battles where the vastly outnumbered the CSA. Remember Fredericksburg CSA 60,000 Union 130,000(really brave of the Union over double the numbers) and guess what CSA victory you yankees are filth and your not even worth being spoken to, so I won't after this.
Colton8646 7 months ago
@Colton8646 Hooo-wee! Spit-TANG! We got ourselves a Johnny Reb who be wantin' ta pahty like its 1899! Name one general worth his salt from Sun Tzu to Patraus who DOESN"T prefer numebrical supoeriority in the attck? Military dicta calls for a 3:1 advantage when attacking fortified positions.I know that hiding behind a stone wall is much braver than assaulting the open fields of Marye's Heights but still. And I'd rather not be spoken to by the losing side anyway. I talk to winners. Not hicks.
Shafeone 7 months ago
@Colton8646 YOu what odds I really liked? The ones at Appomattox? You remember? The one where Robert E. Lee surrender to U.S. Grant? The won where the South LOST the war? You remember that one don't ya Johnny Reb? Spit-TANG! LOL. Get back under the hood.
Shafeone 7 months ago
@Shafeone Speaking of Appomattox, during their conversaton, Lee said to Grant "you didn't out fight me, you just out manned me" to which Grant agreed. The two men admired each other. Grant looked up to Lee and for the rest of his life, Lee would not allow an unkind word to be said about Grant in his presence. These were two men were realists who recognized the truth about each other and the war, not trash talking children. You should try to follow their example a bit more.
stellalouise1 7 months ago
@stellalouise1 And what do you think Lee would have thought of Colton's comments? You think he would have liked the "you Yankees are filth and not even worth being spoken to" line? Please. Guys like Colton are pathetically trapped in two circles...1) a lost cause that was never worth fighting for and 2) an unassailable reality that is this: the South was crushed. Oh...and it's 2011 not 1861.
Shafeone 7 months ago
@Shafeone Maybe it seems that in your zeal to defend Union Generals who were, in fact, being micromanaged by Lincoln (when did he graduate from West Point?) and many of them being fired after nearly every battle, you appear to cast off on the Confederate generals a bit more than is called for? The Confederates earned their reputation, it isn't folklore and Lee was secure in this knowledge. Grant knew that the North had won and would have a heavy hand in writing history. To this day...we argue.
stellalouise1 7 months ago
@stellalouise1 Certainly the Confederates had some excellent commanders. Lee, Jackson. Longstreet, Johnston to name a few. But the North had Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Meade, Hancock, etc. But they were not the demigods that lost causers who carve their images on the sides of mountains (literally) make them out to be. My zeal is for historical accuracy and fact is that Lee lost a higher % of men under his command than any general and Grant beat him in less than a year. Both sides deserve credit.
Shafeone 7 months ago
@Shafeone Personally, I LOVE Stone Mountain and Lee, Jackson & Davis all, very conveniently, have fantastic profiles for it. ; - ) The South does not admire them for what they wish they were but for what they actually were and Southerners have a long tradition honoring people who are, in fact, honorable. They lost, yet they were good & gifted men who "fought the good fight" with all they had. They get honor - that's the South for you. It's a good thing. Yankees just don't seem to get it.
stellalouise1 7 months ago
Yeah baby, roll up that Yankee flank and send them bastards running back to where they came from. I wonder how this guys ancestor below was feeling when he had a reb chasing his ass with a bayonet.
StonewallJackson26 8 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Probably the same way your ancestor felt after my ancestor pushed him and what was left of his unit back off cemetary ridge
markmason1000 8 months ago
@markmason1000 Too bad your ancestor didn't catch a piece of shrapnel in the face.
StonewallJackson26 8 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 too bad yours didn't rot in a Federal prison until the end of the war
markmason1000 8 months ago
@markmason1000 If any one deserved prison time it was the Federal invaders.
StonewallJackson26 8 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 The federal "Invaders" were only invading because your ancestors desecrated the Flag and spit on the Consitution they swore loyalty to
markmason1000 8 months ago
@markmason1000 from Virginia's ratification charter of the constitution which makes it part of it " in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will"
DrKorn5 8 months ago
Comment removed
markmason1000 8 months ago
@markmason1000 Sworn loyalty to? That is from a Northern perspective. From a Southern perspective they had taken the same position that the Revolutionaries had taken in the 1770's. Our founding fathers were deemed traitors and rebels.
StonewallJackson26 8 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 but the founding fathers gave their life and blood forging the Union, it was a slap in the face to everything they stood for tearing it apart
markmason1000 8 months ago
@markmason1000 Right. But our founding fathers were also REBELS and according to our colonial masters they were TRAITORS.
StonewallJackson26 8 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Or shot down by his own men? Ooops.
Shafeone 8 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Proabably the same way the Rebs felt when the Maine boys chased their running scared asses all the way down Little Round Top I reckon.
Shafeone 8 months ago
@Shafeone Oh yeah the 15th Alabama who conducted a forced march of 15 miles just to get into position to attack the hill. With almost no water and men passing out from dehydration, a junior cadet unit could have defended that hill. All they had to do was roll rocks onto the Alabamians. Have you ever climbed that hill, it is steep as hell. The 20th Maine's stand was really not all that impressive when you consider they were fighting off exhausted and beleaguered troops.
StonewallJackson26 8 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Well you cannot climb it as it is against park rules (as anyone who frequents the place as often as I do know.) But you can see from the Devils' Den below and the summit above how steep it is. All the more reason NOT to attack it no? Seemed kinda like piss poor leadership on the Johnny's part. And I then assume by your logic you will freely give all the credit to the Reb's victory at Fredericksburg to the their POSITION, rather than the Rebs defending it yes?
Shafeone 7 months ago
@Shafeone Bullshit. I've climbed Little Round Top and was not reprimanded. I was investigating the rock formation at Devil's Den when I saw the hill and ran up it. Right through the 15th Michigan's position and onto the 20th Maine's flank. That is one steep motherfucker.
StonewallJackson26 7 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Just because you weren't reprimanded doesn't mean it was allowed. The park expressly prohibits climbing up the western face, the cleared slope facinf Devil's Den, because so many tourists would destroy the ground and litter it. You can visit the top vial the road and the wooded eastern face (where the 20th was located). It is steep. Showing that Confederate planners must have been high on overconfidence...if not hooch.
Shafeone 7 months ago
@Shafeone Funny. I didn't see any sings forbidding climbing it. Nor was I told by any tour guides or park officials.
StonewallJackson26 7 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Did you see many people climbing it? I seem to recall a sign or two prohibiting it -- I didn't just imagine it I don't think -- but I could be wrong of course. One phone call to the visitor center could settle the issue but not that important to me. If it is to you go ahead. Having gone there for many years (as I'm sure you have too-not putting on airs) it's just one of the rules I thought was well known. Anyway, I do agree with your assessment. Broken and steep ground.
Shafeone 7 months ago
in the end war is hell no matter the motvie your fighting it...
1990Freddiemercury 9 months ago
Ok enough of the comment fights We won you faggots lost and now were all americans again and still fighting this war. time to grow up fellas ps Go 54th Mass!
BostonBruinsOWN 9 months ago
You really have to give credit to poor General Howard's 11th corps,if you were in the same situation I believe most people would run but the Union soldiers fought every step back they took slowing Jackson not much but enough to where it was getting dark outside.
markmason1000 9 months ago
@markmason1000 agreed they fought bravely and their list of dead proves it! the 11th Corps would have been ready if it weren't for the high command that called them cowards. the Ohio Brigade fought valiantly along with schurz's brigade who were ready for the attack as he disobeyed orders and changed front. My ancestor was in the 107th Ohio 2nd Division 11th Corps.
AmericanCWOVI 9 months ago
@AmericanCWOVI God bless your ancestor for answering President Lincoln call to preserve the Union
markmason1000 8 months ago
@markmason1000 Lincoln was a asshole I hope in the hell there is a csa in secret and I'am from California my ancestor was in the Confederate THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN
woodcchuck2020 8 months ago
General Jackson was the very epitome for everything the South was fighting for. Naturally once the Federal Government was in control of public schools, including history books, they made the South appear as evil as possible, including the whole slavery debate, the South did have freed African American and Native American regiments fighting for their families and lands, despite was the history channel says. The federal government was imperial Britain, and the South were the patriots.
wonderingheart89 1 year ago
@wonderingheart89 Damn straight.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 year ago
@RevBillyRayCollins
And another thing, me being half cherokee i know this well, if the North was fighting to free a race of people, then why after the war did they go out West, and nearly exterminate an entirely different race of people, including placing them in concentration camps, kidnapping their children and placing them in boarding schools where they beat, abused and brain washed them, stole their land, and killed off those who were defending their homes from the invaders?????
wonderingheart89 1 year ago
@wonderingheart89 Are you sure your suppose to be talking to me or that other guy? I support the actions of the CSA, and I totally agree with you. I too am Native American; Chippewa Nation, Bad River Indian Reservation located near Odanah Wisconsin, even though I dont live there I live in Virginia I just belong to that tribe but I support the CSA and states rights.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 year ago
@wonderingheart89 I'm sure you fellow Black Americans would highly disagree with this statement. Just because there were some free blacks fighting in the Confederacy does not right the wrong of the continued institution of slavery in the Confederacy. Southern apologist can try and sugar coat it all they want, but the fact of the matter is one of the big "states rights" the south was fighting for was the right to keep slavery.
Kravis63 1 year ago
@Kravis63
Lol, you'd have to apply for the freedom of information act to confirm this, but buddy, New York before civil war was one of the largest slave ports in the U.S.A - they marched slaves through all the cities, even pass D.C. to sell them to southern plantations to make a profit, and they actually increased this because at this time, plantation owners realized that sharecropping was far more advantageous because their slaves were free, but could still work their land
wonderingheart89 1 year ago
@Kravis63 In addition to that, the southern state governments before the federal troops invaded with already proposing the annexation of slavery to that of sharecropping, plus the church in the South was pushing for the move of ending slavery as well, of course you dont hear about because our current corrupted federation wants to cover its ass. When the civil war broke out and Southern imports were being blockaded, the South put a hold on the bill being passed.
wonderingheart89 1 year ago
@Kravis63
However, what remaining slave holders, which were under 17% of the States total population, were already incorporating sharecropping on their plantations and an experiment and realized it was working far better than keeping them slaves. Plus, the North ahem had slaves of their own, including general Grant, so this is just hypocracy saying the South was fighting for slavery - its so obvious that that is completely not true.
wonderingheart89 1 year ago
@wonderingheart89 your wrong lincoln banished slavery with the emancipation proclamation, so the north did not have slaves, and as far as states rights you are correct that they do have rights, but federal law trumps state law
yoyomon 1 year ago
@yoyomon The north did have slaves in the four border states that sided with the union, the emancipation (1863) only freed slaves in the southern sates, the border states in the north with slaves were allowed to keep them since lincoln feared that if he freed all the slaves the border states would defect to the union, only until the 13 amend was slavery finally abolished there (1865)
RevBillyRayCollins 1 year ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Maryland, Deleware, and Rhode Island had slaves until the 13th Amendment in 1865 abolished it.
traltizer 1 year ago
@traltizer Yes I know
RevBillyRayCollins 1 year ago
@traltizer well actually in the case of Maryland it was put to a vote in 1864,Marylanders in the Union Army mostly voted to end slavery in the state and tipped the tide overwhelmingly in their favor
markmason1000 11 months ago
cpldust you are an idioit , who knows nothing of American history ! Your President sent troops in to the border states maryland Kentucky Delaware Missiour Had the rightfuly elected goverment arrested by federal troops there by setting into motion the WAR Againist Northeren agression (Civil war is when 2 sides fight for controll of one goverment The south was defending its self and had set up its own Goverement )Your idiot remarks Make the RevolutoioN VOid
deovinice 1 year ago
cpldust you are an idioit , who knows nothing of American history ! Your President sent troops in to the border states maryland Kentucky Delaware Missiour Had the rightfuly elected goverment arrested by federal troops there by setting into motion the WAR Againist Northeren agression (Civil war is when 2 sides fight for controll of one goverment The south was defending its self and had set up its own Goverement )Your idiot remarks like you fellow Yankess would make the American Revolution void
deovinice 1 year ago
@proudnewfoundlander1
Exactly
commandersheperd1 1 year ago
Sadly, none of the comments deal directly with this video.... Just idiots arguing on youtube....
Proudnewfoundlander1 1 year ago
whatever to all of your hypocrisy. If the confederates were blacks fighting for thier own country I don't think you'd be as sympathetic. The reality is that the south attacked u.s. military bases, (fort sumpter) killed american troops and destroyed american infrastructure (telegraph lines, railway lines.) The same as al qaeda. And slavery was just as barbaric as what the taliban do to women.The only difference is al qaeda is made of brown people and the confederacy was white. Still terrorists.
mrose1506 1 year ago
There were blacks fighting for the CSA and they weren't forced to, not a single soldier was killed at fort sumpter on either side, besides terrorism is defined as using violence and threats to frighten people into obeying, when did the CSA ever do that? As I said before it was the union that burned and looted southern towns, the CSA had better discipline, better generals, better strategy, and won most of the battles and lost fewer troops than the north, we were just outnumbered & outgunned.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 year ago
@RevBillyRayCollins exactly
cpldust 1 year ago
@mrose1506 the confederates attacked fort sumpter because prior to secession, fort sumpter was empty and not used. As soon as south carolina seceded lincoln send troops and weaponry to fort sumpter, he was preparing to besiege charleston (one of the major southern cities at the time) The south carolina militia just attacked first
Pooternackle 1 year ago
@Pooternackle
Fort Sumper was a U.S. militarized Tariff Collection facility. There were several vessels from the town that refused to stop to pay the tax on their supplies, and men from the fort boarded their ships, arrested everyone aboard, and confiscated everything, including the ships. This was the straw the broke the cammels back, and when the town was in an uproar over it, the governor sent word to the FT. commander, giving him 30 days to evacuate, which he used to fortify. Gov archives
wonderingheart89 1 year ago
@mrose1506 dude the south wernt terrorists they were just fed up with how the north was treating them,slavery wasnt the only reason the war started and plus when the confederates attacked fort sumpter no union troops were killed. the taliban and the confederates are two very different people the confederates wernt barbarians like you said they are, and finaly YOU WERENT ALIVE DURING THE WAR SO HOW COULD YOU POSIBLY KNO WAT THE SOUTH WAS OR WAS NOT DOING
cpldust 1 year ago
the confederacy was the al qaeda of their day.Lee bin laden Jackson zarquawi. Death to traitors and terrorists.
mrose1506 1 year ago
@mrose1506 I hope you realize it was the union that burned down southern towns, killed southern civilians, arrested northern citizens for agreeing with the south, treated southern POWs like shit, and violated Article 2 section 10 of the Constitution of the United States of America which states "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." What Lincoln that was
RevBillyRayCollins 1 year ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Oh bullshit. The South treated war criminals just as bad as the north. You were black and captured? Good luck.
Oldcartoons571 10 months ago
@Oldcartoons571 In some cases yes, but in many no. Southern POW camps werent well equiped at all, they didnt have the food, the water, the space for the POWs because the south had no money. They were barely keeping their own army alive let alone feed the enemies. They just couldnt afford to spend anything on the prisoners, not to mention the souths POW camps were in the south where malaria was very common in the hot environments so many people died of that alone.
RevBillyRayCollins 10 months ago
@mrose1506 illegal is this, he went to war with the CSA without a declaration of war from Congress, told certain states that he thought wouldnt seceed to raise an army and invade South Carolina and the other 'traitor' states, and he said he wanted to preserve the union, but he banned the U.S. postal service from the south so what that means is that he didnt recognize them as part of the U.S, the south was doing the right thing, amendment 10 says that what is not a power to the federal government
RevBillyRayCollins 1 year ago
@mrose1506 is reserved to the states to decide like slavery or no child left behind or national health care. So the federal govt. is violating the const. there also, and of course the Declaration of Indep. says that if your country is not working for the likes of the people it is the peoples responsibility to overthrow the govt. and create one that reflects the views of the people, the govt works for us, we dont work for them.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 year ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Federal law trumps state law, states have medical marijuana facilities but if the feds decide to raid it they can arrest the people for Sale of Narcotics
yoyomon 1 year ago
@yoyomon Technically a federal law against the sale of narcotics is unconstitutional since no where in the const. does it state that the feds have the right to deal with narcotics or that the states dont have the right to deal with narcotics, under the 10 amend the states have the right to deal with such issues since they arent denied to and since the feds arent approved to. The feds brake their own laws all the time.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 year ago
@mrose1506 man i would love to see it if you could go back in time walk up to Lee and Jackson and say that to there faces
cpldust 1 year ago
This was not nearly as decisive a battle as the South likes to paint it. Fine Hooker withdraw back across the river, but that was it. Nothing changed -- except the South suffered another 17,000 losses they could ill afford...and losing jackson was worst of all. The men of the A o P kinda shrugged their shoulders at the whole affair. Clearly as Gettysburg showed, they were far from demoralized. Just a little miffed. They knew they should have won that one.
Shafeone 1 year ago
Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy; and when you strike and overcome him, never let up in the pursuit. Never fight against heavy odds if you can hurl your own force on only a part of your enemy and crush it. A small army may thus destroy a large one, and repeated victory will make you invincible. - Stonewall Jackson
RevBillyRayCollins 1 year ago
Rebel yell 2:40
darkside3330 1 year ago
TRIAL VERSION
BaronVonKenny 1 year ago
YEE-HAW long live the south!
toot65 1 year ago
This movie was gay. It sucked ass.
40AcreMule 1 year ago
@40AcreMule
lol. A union man ehh? good man.
chapdog82 1 year ago
Hooker Said himself "I just lost lost confidence in Joe Hooker." To allow a enemy that you outnumbered 70,000 to 40,000 whip you its patheic. Lincoln himself said "My God! My God! What will the country say?!" I say replace this idiot and hope that you find a commander that can whip Lee.
haynes1776 1 year ago
@haynes1776 Hooker never said that. That is one of the myths of Chancellorsville that even, surprisingly, was repeated on The Civil War series. That was a quote that a man named E.P. Halstead said Hooker uttered to Doubleday shortly after the fighting...but he waited until 1903 (when both men were dead) to recount it and it is completely out of character for Hooker who made it know he was concussed by a shell (as he certainly was) and not that he was either drunk or yellow.
Shafeone 1 year ago
WHY THE FUCK DOES IT SAY TRIAL VERSION
Pheeelupwashere 1 year ago
Music from 5:32- 6:02, best music of this video. Love it!!
demeandr121 1 year ago
MrRedqwerty - Defend with what? They were out of resources and low on troops. Please read Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants where he says that they also ran out of great leaders. Even if you take a best case scenario such as the one outlined in Newt's Gettysburg, it still would not have mattered. Look at the economics... the North actually grew and prospered during the Civil War, the South died.
keydet72 1 year ago
@keydet72 There's something called reconstruction buddy. Look it up.
MrRedqwerty 1 year ago
@MrRedqwerty You sir, have a keep grasp of the obvious.
keydet72 1 year ago
The sad fact is that even if Jackson had not been killed and with Lee had won a complete victory here and at Gettysbury, it probably would not have mattered. The west was lost and the South was out of resources. Their only chance was bringing Britain into the war to help negotiate a peace.
keydet72 1 year ago
@keydet72 Wrong. All the South had to do was put up an inpenetrable defense and show Lincoln that the cost of war was too high. Already in 1863 there were draft riots so maybe 4 more years and the war would be over.
MrRedqwerty 1 year ago
Some elements of Oliver Howard's 11th sensed that a flank attack was coming. When they reported what they knew to Corps HQ, Howard was no where to be found. This was the ineptness that epitomized the Federal high command. Not only was Howard not present when the flank attack was executed. Hooker didn't even find out about the attack for several hours later.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
Trial Version
mappoprimo 1 year ago
lincoln caused the deaths of 600,000 americans fighting many the very grandsons of the founding fathers
namtesyalp 1 year ago
@namtesyalp Yeah. The South had nothing to do with it. They just wanted to be left alone to rape Black women and thumb smash uppity bucks right? What's the harm in that?
Shafeone 1 year ago
@Shafeone you are a yankee asshole
namtesyalp 1 year ago
@namtesyalp Oh I'm sorry. Blacks WEREN'T raped and thumb-smashed? AM I lying? Or is an ad hominem attack all you have? Discuss. (Family is from a border state by the way. So I'm a 'hybrid'.)
Shafeone 1 year ago
@namtesyalp are you still pissed that you can't own slaves? get over it, bigot.
lacrymologyst 1 year ago
its too bad jackson had to die because of this masterpiece
evilclown9911 1 year ago
Let us cross the river and rest under the shade of the trees
btwall60 1 year ago
The good guys won this one. Too bad they didn't win every one of them.
CrispinRobles 2 years ago 9
I wish the South had won the war too. Maybe next time.
Lesnar316F5 1 year ago
the South? it will rise again in about one full year. the modern "debt bomb" is about to go off,
btwall60 1 year ago
@CrispinRobles The North won?
Shafeone 1 year ago
@CrispinRobles who says they were the good guys? Jackson and Lee were good men however they were in the wrong.They were fighting to preserve a cause that denied rights to human beings,dont believe me ask yourself why did South Carolina secede in the first place?
markmason1000 10 months ago
If Jackson had survived, the issue of slavery might be going on right now.
esamhk 2 years ago
Good movie, a bit long though. About time they showed General Lee winning a battle.
The Union was not fooled on Jackson's flank attack, they just did not take it serious. 11th Corps officers should have taken it more serious from the reports of Union soldiers that could see the Confederates in the distance.
Hard to believe but Lee split his army right in Hooker's face, already outnumbered 2-1. They don't teach that at West Point.
Great video, Halolord66!
rebel2276 2 years ago 14
Lee split his army into 3 smaller ones, and crushed the Union army. Lee and Jackson are the best American generals ever! Fact!
Lesnar316F5 1 year ago 3
I'm watchcing the Civil war on channedl 13 Foote talked about the unbelievable victory and smarts shown by Lee. it said the union was drinking coffee and playing cards when a boatload of deer and forest animals came through their camp, and the Rebels right behind, we are going to need balls like that in about 12 months, the modern clock ticks to.
btwall60 1 year ago
Say what you want about the Confederates, but never ever talk about Lee and Jackson in the same breath as Confederate slave-owners and slavery. I still respect Lee for his military genius even if he was on the losing side of the war in the long run. Same goes for Jackson. Doesn't mean if you are on the losing side you are not necessarily a military genius.
Nelsonwmj 1 year ago 2
@Lesnar316F5 The Union army was far from "crushed". As they showed just two months later in PA. In fact most of the men in the rank and file were dismayed that they were compelled to retreat back to the north bank of the Rapahannock as they sensed they'd given as good as they got...which Lee's casaulties of 13,000 readily show. Chancellorsville was a Pyrric victor if there ever was one. Lee's army suffered brutally, the AoP was quite intact and actually itching for a rematch-which they won.
Shafeone 7 months ago
@rebel2276
Hooker was a damned fool. Definitely not fit to lead an Army. A corps perhaps. And Jackson was the most bold and darring SOB in the whole war. A brilliant general. When you lost Jackson you lost your right arm. The 11th Corps was crushed and routed( Of course the biggots of the time blamed the fact that they were dutchmen as the cause). but under the circumstances fought ok. They get a bad rap for their time in the AOP but avenged themselves out West under Grant and Sherman.
chapdog82 1 year ago
@chapdog82 Hooker was hardly a fool. He was an excellent corps commander and even an army commander...he rebuilt the AOP after Burnside's disastrous command. He caught Lee completely flat-footed at Chancellorsville and even the respected E.P. Alexander said that Hooker's turning movement was the most brilliant used againt them in the war. he was concussed by a shell during the crucial May 3 battle when Lee's army was divided and very vulnerable. Bad luck..not poor commanding lost this one.
Shafeone 1 year ago
@rebel2276 11th corps was made up of a bunch of illiterate german immigrants
gobabygo90809 1 year ago
Poor 11th Corps, always in the wrong area at the wrong time.
rebel2276 2 years ago
If I was in Lincoln's shoes, I would have sent a ship, pulled the garrison out and sent them to Washington City. Then I would have sent a message to Davis and have him and his higher ups along with each Governor of all Southern States.
I would have them all come to Washington City, put them up in the Willard Hotel and open talks. If it took weeks or months great, anything to avoid a war or bloodshed.
So tell me why Lincoln did not do that? Why did he turn Napoleon III away from peace talks?
rebel2276 2 years ago
Because Lincoln had sworn an oath to preserve the Constitutional Union. Some people think honor, faith, and virtue mean something.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Yes, but what Lincoln did was illegal. Texas and Vermont are currently trying to legally secede. Is Obama going to call up 75,000 civilians and arm them and then with the National Guard, force both states to stay in the Union?
rebel2276 2 years ago
If he did, then he is no better than Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin or King George to me!
seamuspowers 2 years ago
But the south had every right to secede from the union. What right did the north have to force their imperialism onto the south? Just goes to show typical free masonic imperialism!
seamuspowers 2 years ago
If they had a right, which they didn't, they would have had to do it the right way, which they didn't. They didn't chose non-violence, they chose to appeal to the sword, and lost badly. The war crimes of the south alone gave the Union the right to defend itself.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
More like, the Union telling them they couldnt break away and sending their armies south, what would you do? say okay Union, you can keep my land, rip me off with taxes and tel lsu what to do? No, the hatred between the south and north goes further back than the civil war. And the south had every right to secede. As free people, we dont have ot answer to any union, down with the tyrants in DC! to bad the Brits didnt burn the white house down completely!
seamuspowers 2 years ago
Actually, the South initiated hostilities by firing on Ft Sumpter.
And when you rebell, there is but won exception to charges of treason. That standard was not met by the south.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
uhmm....we told the Union troops there to abandon the fort, it was no longer their's (as it was in South Carolina) and to evacuate. They refused to do so, at that point they were trespassing on foreign land and that's when they were bombarded.
TxTechRox123 2 years ago
Yeah, but no one in the North really believed that the South had succeeded. They all thought it was a joke.
MrRedqwerty 2 years ago
Really? So over 300,000 Union soldiers were killed and a million or so wounded. Sounds like some "Joke".
rebel2276 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I thought that we were talking about when the South first succeeded. You seem to have changed the argument all the way to the end of the war.
MrRedqwerty 2 years ago
Did our founding fathers not succeed from the British? During the War of 1812, several New England States were trying to succeed. No one had any issues with that.
rebel2276 2 years ago
I guess you've answered your own question. Several New England States compared to 11 states is quite a big difference.
MrRedqwerty 2 years ago
There is a difference, nobody questioned those New England states that wanted to succeed.
On top of that, they were going to sell out to the British, for a "Separate Peace".
Anymore questions while I teach History 101 here?
rebel2276 2 years ago
Once again you answer my point. The US was, at the time, fighting a war with Britain. I don't think they were paying much attention to what they thought was a joke, especially after the White House was burned down.
MrRedqwerty 2 years ago
What point? Coming from a person that claims the Union thought the war was a joke, I am not going to take so serious.
rebel2276 2 years ago
You know what, I don't remember. What were we arguing about? Let's just leave this discussion at this: Each person is entitled is their own opinion. Good day Mr. Rebel2276
MrRedqwerty 2 years ago
I agree, but answer me this one question.
If Lincoln was never born, would we have war in 1861? Just your opinion, of course.
Have a good day, Sir (Night on your side)
rebel2276 2 years ago
Not sure whether this is supposed to be rhetorical or not, but there wouldn't have been a war, just a very hostile internal crisis, which would probably have led to a war, just much later. IMO I'd rather be dead than live without my limbs.
Now, I have too have a question for you Mr. Rebel. If we didn't have a war, would our country be the same today?
MrRedqwerty 2 years ago
That is the "Million Dollar Question". I feel that there would have been tension and more smaller battles/Wars in the future. You have two sides that just hate each other. Take a look on this site for an example.
On the other hand, to avoid a war, they should have done what they always had did. Lets say we leave Kansas and the Nebraska Territory "Free Soil". The South would get New Mexico and the Arizona Territory. Two for Two, making both sides happy. No land after that.
rebel2276 2 years ago
Have a great Christmas with your family and New Years!
I asked my oldest son, Robert what he wanted for Christmas, he is out here with me. He replied "A damn towel head." lol I said, yes we all do. We are going on high alert for Christmas and New Years. My father fought in Vietnam always told me to NEVER let your guard down. I have an order that flat out states, I must detach one-third of my command for exodus. I need every man on the line and they pull this.
rebel2276 2 years ago
there was John Brown
btwall60 1 year ago
He he was hung.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276 the word is secede. Boys its all very simple - The south had every right to leave. There was no prohibition against it. The war was really about the growth of the central government and economy. The tax money for those growth schemes was to benefit the northern interests and came from the South. The southern economy made money from farming with slave labor and the South paid for nearly all the government expenses.
Masonictoaster9 1 year ago
@Masonictoaster9 I agree with you 110%.
rebel2276 1 year ago
2 things in response to this:
1) The British did burn down the white house completely.
2) There wouldn't have been a war if the SOUTH hadn't fired on the Union first.
MrRedqwerty 2 years ago
If Lincoln had kept his word, there would not have been any firing at all.
See what most people do not know, Lincoln sent a message to the Governor of South Carolina. Lincoln wrote that he would pull the soldiers out of the fort and abandon the fort as well.
What did Lincoln do? Three weeks later, he now wanted to resupply the garrison in the fort. Why not remove the troops and put them on a ship with the provisions already on the boat?
Lincoln turned down peace commissioners.....
rebel2276 2 years ago
Last I checked, a fort's more secure than a boat. Plus, it's not like the attack did much of anything. So I guess it evens out.
MrRedqwerty 2 years ago
Lincoln got just what he wanted, war. He believe it would be one battle and the rebellion would be over with. He was very wrong, all that for one idiot.
rebel2276 2 years ago
Hope you're not calling Lincoln an idiot?
MrRedqwerty 2 years ago
He was responsible for the deaths of between 620,000 to 700,000 people. That is an idiot.
Had he never ran for President, would we have war?
Slowly the truth is coming out about the real Lincoln, finally.
rebel2276 2 years ago
If we're really going to go down to who was responsible for the deaths in the war, then I'm going to have to say that it was Lee's fault. If he had just fought for the Union like Lincoln asked him too, then the war would've been over in less than a year. He was the sole reason the war continued in the East.
MrRedqwerty 2 years ago
Lee was that good, but he was not going to raise his sword against his own family.
Would you? Would anyone?
rebel2276 2 years ago 3
Also, Lincoln wanted a swift end to the war, not a long drawn-out one. The reason why it was so bloody and long was due to the incompetence of his generals until Grant and Sherman appeared on the scene. Lincoln was no general. He knew it. Too bad he didn't get the cards he needed to win till much later.
Nelsonwmj 1 year ago
Unfortuneatley, all Grant and Sherman did was sacrifice troops wherever necessary. Most notably Grant's Overland Campaign.
MrRedqwerty 1 year ago
@MrRedqwerty Lincoln was no idiot. He was very smart. He destroyed the United States of America and turned it into a centralized empire. Lincoln was a tyrant. Hope I cleared that up.
Masonictoaster9 1 year ago
@Masonictoaster9 Sorry it hasn't. What I see is that he reunited a once divided nation. Restored a REPUBLIC not create an empire.
Do a little more research. Perhaps you got the US mixed up the the Romans.
MrRedqwerty 1 year ago
@MrRedqwerty Reunited through FORCE. What had once been a VOLUNTARY union was now a power grab by a centralized gov. The CONstitution even says that when the gov. doesn¿t suit the people it is their right to make another that does.
troyalldis 1 year ago
@troyalldis All right, no government is perfect. But then again, Lincoln was only preserving the dream of George Washington and all the founding fathers.
MrRedqwerty 1 year ago
@troyalldis
you try to take my land my forefather's bled for Im coming down south armed & in mass.. you may kill some of us..but not all of us. And if you're too arrogant to give ur colored a stake in the war, & free em & arm them against us.. Im taking them, making them solidiers & laborers & using em against ur arrogant asses. Then I'm gonna slash burn & destroy your property until you submit & give me my damn land back. I could give a damn that the south didn't wanna play union anymore.
chapdog82 1 year ago
@chapdog82 Are you from the north and talking about the south? lol
Because if you are you are poorly informed, the south did free and arm its black population, this also happened long time ago dude so chill out, and there will never be a Civil War in America again so by you saying you will come down here and burn our land is just stupid and ignorant of you.
If I misunderstood what you where saying then sorry, but it sounds like your against the south,
XxPhillyGxX 1 year ago
@XxPhillyGxX Dude..do you even realize what u just said? U said the south freed it's slaves and armed them against the north...lmao. R u seriously saying that?
Because last I checked u live in America..and not the CSA. If the south had freed and armed it's slaves you would need a passport to go to NYC today. France and England would have helped u end that war. But Southern Arrogance forbade such a thing. So your need for negro oppression saved the day for the Union.
chapdog82 1 year ago
@chapdog82 Haha your just full of either the lies they tell you in school or northern agrogance, General Forrest who was in charge of the Clavery for the south freed all 50 of his slaves and every one of them joined his Calvery, which was also made up of more black than white troops, they don't tell you that stuff in history class do they? lol The north won so they wrote the history books and say what happened, doesn't mean its true :)
XxPhillyGxX 1 year ago
@XxPhillyGxX Um, would YOU have liked to be a slave? Just curious. And didn;'t Forrest also member of the KKK? That bastion of integration. Many Blacks did fight for the South--but that was in return for gaining their freedom. NOT the other way around.
Shafeone 1 year ago
@Shafeone Yeah Forrest was a founding member of the KKK, doesn't change the fact that he freed all his slaves and they CHOOSE to join his Calvery. The KKK also isn't a blacks need to be slaves thing its just them thinking they are supiorior.
It doesn't matter if I would or wouldn't want to be a slave because I'm not, every race has been enslaved at one time or another so I don't have a pity party for blacks or anyone else.
XxPhillyGxX 1 year ago
@XxPhillyGxX ANd where are you getting this recounting? From his ex-slaves or the other members of Forrest's command. Slaves were granted freedom IF They fought...not the other way around. PLease cite the source of this claim.
Shafeone 1 year ago
@XxPhillyGxX Which "Northern" history books are you talking about? The books now are VERY fair about giving both sides. This isn't 1866 man.
Shafeone 1 year ago
@XxPhillyGxX Which "Northern" history books are you talking about? The books now are VERY fair about giving both sides. This isn't 1866 man. Foote (from Tenn. and Sears from CT both do great jobs showing both sides respect)
Shafeone 1 year ago
@Shafeone History books in general show the north as rightious and the south as evil, when in fact it was the norths fault in the first place and never had anything to do with slavery which is what most people believe these days.
XxPhillyGxX 1 year ago
@XxPhillyGxX "History books in general" such as? Whose books. What books are you citing that have you so incensed? Which authors are you referring to? I haven't seen any books written in the past 50 years haven't treated the South with respect. But the fact is, had the South won, slavery would have continued. And before you say the war wasnt about slavery, ask yourself this: if in 1861 the entire country north and south was all slave holding or all free, would the war still have come?
Shafeone 1 year ago
@Shafeone History books we read in high school for one, but don't expect me to remember there names after its been 4 years. The Civil War was about states rights which the North was denying the south, slavery would not still be around because it was already failing in our country, there where to many slaves and not enough work which put the slave traders out of business and made it so the owners just let them go.
XxPhillyGxX 1 year ago
@Shafeone And you want to talk about respect? Look at these idiots on here either saying the south where horrible and all this other crap, or the south people saying they will rise again! They learned these things from school where it has been indocternated into them, history is written by the winners, like is Germany won WW2 they would of said killing Jews was a good thing, use logic in this!
XxPhillyGxX 1 year ago
@XxPhillyGxX Would Germany have been right in saying that just because they won? The victor may frame the narrative, but not the morality of the issue. That verdict comes from a hgher plane.
Shafeone 1 year ago
@Shafeone It wouldn't matter if Germany where right or not, we would all of been raised speaking German and being brainwashed into thinking they where right. Just like what happens these day in America when it comes to the Civil War, although its less brainwashing and more biased opinion that they have to hear since they start learning history. Its a good thing Germany didn't win because what they did was wrong, and not all the Germans supported it anyways.
XxPhillyGxX 1 year ago
@Shafeone But as for learning more about what it was really like you have to study to find that stuff out by yourself.
XxPhillyGxX 1 year ago