Who has killed the most Americans? Why, your friend & mine, RE Lee.....Personally responsible for far more dead Americans than Kieser Bill, Tojo, & Hitler, in total! Shoulda hung that little twit, along with about 1000 other, 'deserving souls'....things would have gone a lot smoother for the next umpteen years...oh well, it's easy to be a Monday morn'n QB.
@TheKrapzapper Not a fair comment. It was a horrible war with lots of issues and he was on the losing side fighting a last ditch battle. Yes he killed lots of Americans. Some on his side and some on the other. It was the result of a brutal war and he was a major commander. But he is still a major American Hero honored for his courage and honor. Yet, yes, he was responsible for lots of deaths while doing his duty.
When he talked to Judge Stephen Douglas he declared" I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black" this was said on October 13 ,1858
Are you going to try to tell me slavery wasnt a factor. certainly it wasnt the ONLY factor. but it was one. the underlying issue was the north wasnt going to allow the south to split plain and simple. no matter what reason anyone comes up with.
A great group of generals commonly misunderstood in the "history" that is taught nowadays. My family came to Virginia and Kentucky in 1673 and has served in every war in American history. I am proud of my relatives from ones that served with Washington to, Johnston at Shiloh and to the present day Iraq and Afghanistan.
Damn bullshipdector! I Didn't know u were there to see all that horrible shit Gen. Lee did. You must be 180 years old now! As a matter of FACT Robert E. Lee detested slavery. Pick up a book & stop getting your info from the racist black panther party!
the confedecary is just sort of the north with washgington ordering the south around it would be the same with richmond as the capitol and it would control the rest of the south so the civil war was really just a mistake
He was named caretaker of the estate, but NEVER owned them, and began to free them before the EP was signed, but had to hold the slaves for 5 years as was ordered by the will. IF you don't believe me then look it up yourself. Will's are public documents. It won't do you any good to spread lies as they are easily refuted. Guess who had more slaves in his employ than Lee, GRANT. That's right him and his wife had a total of atleast 5 personal slaves. Lee only owned 1.
Lets study the REAL life of Lee. Not the distored version - which is almost as goofy as North Korea "study" of their leader.
Lee would be the first to say he does not deserve to be honored - and he would be right. While he was better to his slaves than some, we know he whipped two of them serverely for running away.
We also know he grew rich on slaves, like most Southern leaders.
We knew Lee thought inflicting pain on slaves was GODS way . God intended it to be painful, Lee said
The REAL Lee was nothing like you claimed. Lee never "whipped" his slaves and in fact only OWNED one, which he freed BEFORE the CW even started, and that was Reverend William Mack Lee. Anyway the ONE woman who claimed that a constable whipped her, her sister, and their cousin, on Lee's order, was NEVER taken seriously. And infact neither of the other two EVER collaborated her story, which came out AFTER Lee's death. He couldn't have gotten rich off the slaves because HE didn't own them.
actually, Lee commanded at very first the Virginia Militia, then commanded in 62 to 65 the ANV, it was only in 65, and very closer to wars end tht he was put over all armed forces of the conferacy, and by then it was to late for him to do anything with it, the war was being lost too rapidly everyday by then
Lee wasnt put into command of the then Army of Virginia, at the 7 days battles when joe johnston was shot in the leg, then jefferson davis replaced the wounded johnston with Lee, who had been at the onset of the war organizing the defense of Virginia, and was then commanding troops in modern day west virginia, up untill he took command, reorganized, and renamed the army, which became the famed ANV
north was fighting with one hand behind its back if it was losing supremely they would have just took out the other hand so the south had no chance of winning but i would have fought for the south
to a very large extent, the south was as well, look at Georgia for example, they had so many confederate uniforms, that they were supplying Nazi prisoners with those uniforms in WWII, Georgia's govenors comment was, that those uniforms were "for Georgians and Georgians only" so really, you cant look at the hand behind the back theory, because neither side brought out all of what they had throughout the entire war
no, no actually they didnt, read up a little on georgia in 64, they had, money, weapons, ammunition, uniforms, a lot of things we needed for the cause, but unless u were from geogia, u didnt get them, which, a lot of people think that every state band together to fight the north, which to a degree is true, however, the big thing was states rights, each state thought they were the best, and that they deserved everything, not the other states. so we did not in fact fight with everything we had.
because, a lot of tht was leadership, which is what killed us throughout the entire war, in the ANV, after jackson died, lee never had the commanders he needed, and in the army of tennessee, hood nor johnston either wanted to fight, or with hood when he did at franklin-nashville, he wrecked the army, and again going back to, they refused to send it to anyone but georgians, a lot of the army of tennessee, was not from georgia
@DarthMercanto but like I was saying, look at the times he didn't attack when he had the advantage, and when he did, his attacks were poorly planned, and ill fated
@csaboy27 I agree entirely, which is why Lee was so wise to place Johnston back in command once he was given authority to do so (granted by then Hood's ridiculous attacks had whittled the Army of Tennessee to almost nothing). Hood certainley wanted to attack though, in fact he told General Bragg that it was for a lack of offensive action that Johnston had been unable to route the Federals.
@DarthMercanto Well, I probobaly should've worded a few things differently, Hood was certainly a fighter, not much of a commander, but certainly a fighter, which earned him respect in the ranks, but was his biggest downfall when he was placed in command of an army, because rather than seeing the tactical fight, he saw simply another opportunity to impress the girl whos name I forget at the moment, and he was so physically and mentally unstable, he was in no position to command an Army
@DarthMercanto lol you put the wrong name, you need to substitute Hood for Lee the second time haha, but yes you are correct, it sums up well the qualities Hood possed, Lee warned Davis not to put Hood in command, but Davis stubborn as ever did it anyway
@csaboy27 Oh good Lord! I think I'll just delete that comment and try again lol (thanks for the heads up :P):
With that I certainley agree. I think General Robert E Lee put it best "General Hood is bold and reckless. Any other qualities of command which posses I cannot personally speak for."
Actualy at the end of the war right before the surrender of the army of northern virginia, Lee was in command of all southern armies according to an article I read
yup, the yankees has heavy industry as a big advantage, but south had the cotton. anyway in the end cotton was not enougth, but allies could have helped. also, yankees used irish and german immigrants off the ships to fight. man for man, south was superior.
In what way? This wasnt a game of football. The south fought for slavery - according to its own leaders at the time. Im not sure thats better man for man.
Nazi soldiers were better man for man than Americans too, So what.
at the time europe was haveing a drought or something so they needed more crops that the north had crops so europe didnt need cotton like they needed crops
@Rico8458 Yup. And if you look an the number of people dying and people who got hurt in battle you can see that the north really sucked.
The south wold have won if not for all the immegrants as the north used exactly after they came to america. And also the north said the war was on slavery so that other countrys wouldn't come and help the south.
@Rico8458 If the South was superior man for man, why didnt they win the war early on when they had the advantage and was spanking the Army of the Patomac during the first year of the war???????
@shellback1970 the obvious answer to that is staring you in the face. we did not invade the north, yet still when 50,000 men top the hill wanting to burn your house and fields what do you do?
@race88100 how did the war start again? Oh yeah the south fired the first shots on fort sumner. Ther was NO WAR until that happened. you can pull any reason you want out of your hat but there WAS NO ACCUAL WAR until that incident SO how againg did the war come from the NORTH????
@shellback1970 Gonna agree that the CS army fired first but the US army had no legal right after South Carolina left the Union. When the US refused to leave the CS bombed the fort.
@lordofthevids3 No legal right? lets say " KENT " decided they wanted to separate from the rest of England. Are you gonna tell me The rest of England has NO RIGHT to act?????? Its the same thing here.....
@shellback1970 Im sure there was a part in US constitution where a state could leave the union. It's down to interpritation but honestly i do like the idea of having less centerlised power. BTW the example u used is if a town wanted to leave a state it wouldn't survive. Every one is right in their own eyes m8.
@lordofthevids3 Theres nothing in the constitution giving a state the right to secede. On the other hand theres nothing in there that says they can't either. That was one of the huge issues that this war was about...Since the North won I guess the answer is "NO"
@shellback1970 I guess you are some nut that thinks the war was about slavery too? It wasn't and if so why did it take two years for Abe to sign the emancipation procalmation? Why did congress try twice before the war to abolish slavery but nobody would agree on it? Why did General Grant's wife release their slaves in 1864? Why did England abolish slavery in their country without going to war?
@shellback1970 Why did Lincoln himself say and this quote is skipped over ....He (the black man) is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color-perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas and the equal of every other man? This was spoken October 13,1858 before he was even president.
@race88100 So which should I believe? Did he really feel that way? I dont know. But his actions contradict this quote. As does the Gettysburg address. Could it be he had a change of heart? Again I have no idea.
@shellback1970 the north wasn't invaded until that little march across the south the union did. the city of Vicksburg didn't celebrate the 4th of July for 84 years after the war....
@1unreconstructedreb heres the deal though The North going into the South IS NOT an invasion. you see the North considers both areas part of ONE nation. to them its thier own country.
@1unreconstructedreb Dont act like an innocent victim here...The southerners waged war against and tried to destroy my nation...The southern population fully supported the rebel army.. In a sense they were the enemy just as much as the reb. army its self...they supplied them with food, horses, and just about every thing else...on the other hand Im not condoning rape or robbery which was unfortunately done.
But you shouldn't be supprised about how brutal people acted.There was a lot a stake.
I know the first song is "Dixie" and the second song at 0:42 is "Bonnie Blue Flag". But does anyone know who composed these symphonic versions, specifically?
This duo is on the original soundtrack of Ken Burns' "The Civil War", and according to the information included with the cassette, the songs were composed by Daniel Decatur Emmett ("Dixie", for certain) and performed by The New American Brass Band. That's what I can offer to you about this.
I watched a TV program in re the Civil War. The hstorian didn't have a kind word to say about John Bell Hood. I thought that he was an oustanding leader. How could a man do his job with such wounds?
I like to think of John Bell Hood as the South's version of Grant. Grant and Hood both fought Civil War battles like a "classic slugger" boxes a "sweet science" boxer. There wasn't anything fancy to either of their styles... just charge ahead.... take your licks and then knock the enemy out. JB Hood was tough as hell but he was the wrong man and in the wrong place at the wrong time to command the Army of Tennessee. You can't fault him for that... Jefferson Davis was to blame for that.
John Bell Hood, I beluieve, had lost an arm and a leg. He was loaded on ladnum and had to be strapped onto his horse. He should have been pensioned out oof the CSA. Such pain and his dependency on dope did cloud his combat decisions.
You can't help but feel bad for J.B. Hood. He caught a lot of shit after the war and of course he knew the failures in GA. and Tenn. and from what I understand it caused him a lot of personal problems. I know some guys in Tenn. who had ancestors who fought under him in the Army of Tenn. still talking shit about him. Jeff Davis should have never taken Joe E. Johnston out of command. He let his personal dislike of Old Joe fuck things up. Hell even William T. Sherman would have agreed with that.
I think General Sherman has been greatly misunderstood. He was seeing that Atlanta was supplying the enemy. To just uproot the railroads would not be enough so he set the place on fire. It was to take away the supplies and make the south at the disadvantage to surrender. The casualties were way too high & the war needed to come to an end. When fighting your equal you have to do the drastic to gain an advantage to win quicker. The quicker the war is over the less deaths occurred. It saved lives.
Actually they were evacuated before anything was set on fire. No one in Georgia was killed as far as civilians are concerned. In Georgia, it was not at all like the removal of the Cherokee Nation from the state of Georgia some years before w/an estimated 4000 Cherokees died in the transplantation. Also speaking of Georgia, it was not like Andersonville where Union soldiers were only given a teaspoon of salt to eat. It was in Georgia that the Prez. Jeff Davis was captured in Washington County.
since we were talking up GEORGIA, how about the fact that andersonville was undersupplied and could not give more. Vs Camp Douglas who had supplies but instead used torture devices. The Cherokees were voted to be kept by Georgia in the State Senate, it was Andrew Jackson that over ruled and moved them. And no one was evacuated, the either fleed or died. Do some research.
The South had all the "superior" officers, and "natural born fighters", and yet those idiots still lost. LOL! Doesn't surprise me, really. Just look at who the South voted for in the past 5 presidential elections. It is certainly the dumbest region of America.
I like to feel sexy....knowing someone is watching me ..wanting me...turns me on!BADLY! I like to flirt and pose..and sometimes i like to get WILD! how? ..he he..come in video and youll see:-)) maybe u can teach me something..or maybe i will ! come visit me at - MeetYourFling _dot_ COM - my user-id there is vicky-pvyj chat soon on cam :-) yruww
let me you tell you something aint no southern farm leave his family behind to fight fro no damn slavery as well over 90% of southerners nevr owned slaves, remember Civil war history was written by yankees that Hung our heroes
The South had control of COngress -- because it counted its slaves as citizens for representation. The south was starting to lose its power to be vile bastards -- and they cried like babies.
You should thank Lincoln for defeating slavery and the south. If Lincoln didn't keep freedom and the USA together -- your life would have been like in Nazi germany. In the south, no freedom of press, of religion. You could be hung if you had any BOOK the Southern slavers didn't like. Freedom?
no -- facist government is what the south was. You could be hung for having a book the southern politicians didnt like. You didnt have freedom of speech. Hell you could be sold if you were the wrong color. Lincoln saved the south from itself. My family is from the south, we fought FOR the south. But no one is perfect. We all have freedom today because of Lincoln.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What was honorable about them? Slave rape ? Selling your OWN children from those rapes into slavery? Enslaving others, forcing them to do your work, or killing them?
The CSA is no more -- or less -- honorable than Alqueda or Iran or Saddams people. Or the Nazis. If your southern sons were born in Iran, they would have done what Osama is doing.
your not very good at hisory the war was about states rights,less tax and less government and only 6% of southern people had slaves.the south only made 30% of the U.S population and had to pay 80% of all taxes collected by the federal government.the war was just these men fought for the idea of self rule they ARE HEROES.but some people as you are happy with an absolute controlling government and also it was the north that was the last to free slaves.stop googling and read a book.
the absolute control was by the south, till Lincoln put an end to their terror and evil culture. The government in the south could put you to death just for having the wrong book -- a book questioning slavery. You couldnt even talk about ending slavery. You had no freedom of speech, freedom of religion. We have freedom today BECAUSE of Lincoln
Do you enjoy repeating youself or something? every comment you left had the same stupid remark in it about "having a book about ending slavery youd be hung." You obviously know nothing about the south or the War Between the States.
Dude the civil war was not about slavery as you have obviously been taught in a public school from your liberal teachers. Don't you find it ironic that the emancipation proclamation didn't apply to any of the northern slave states?(i.e. West Virginia, kentucky, maryland, missouri)It was about state rights and not having a federal government telling the state what to do.
The civil war didnt start about slavery - and the north didnt even start it.
But the SOUTH said why they started the war -- why they were pulling away. And THEY said slavery -- so talk to them. Argue with them.
States rights was just a bs phrase meant "we want to continue to have no rights, to be able to hang people for freedom of speech, and to keep raping our slaves, and selling our own children from those rapes into slavery".
Human rights were more important than "states rights"
ohh, ok and i suppose Robert E. Lee fought for the south even though he was opposed to slavery. And Ulysses Grant owned slaves but fought for the north to free them right? At the begginning of the war the vast majority of the cotton in the south was exported to England and then brought back to the U.S. to be sold. The feds put a tarriff on all the goods in order to make the products made in northern factories cheaper than the ones made in England from the souths cotton.
Lee had slaves, sold many of them, bought many of them. Lee got rich on slaves. Lee had slave girls whipped naked, 75 lashes, then had salt rubbed in her wounds. Their crime? They tried to escape.
NOnsense about the stupid tarriff story you mention. The South controlled congress and the tarriffs. The south said why they started the war -- Lincoln didnt start it.
The south was like a spoiled brat -- had always got its way. Licoln was elected and it pissed the baby off.
Dude the North didnt start the war for any reason. The south did. Lincoln ended slavery when he could. Lincoln had no right to end slavery in the North -- only in the south cause it was under Marshall law.
Lincoln didnt tell the south they couldnt have slaves until long after the war started. Ending slavery was part of ending the south's ability to fight the war. Good move. Should FDR let Hitler keep his slaves in caves when he took over Hitler's land?
Love the video! Please checkout my video's and take a tour of Jackson's death at Chandler's office. A tour of Gaines Mill battlefield or Chancellorsville battlefield! Thanks my southern friends!
There was more French and German ancestory up north. If you go to some of these older small towns up north especially in Penn. Jersey etc. you can definately see the German influence in the architecture. But the north always had an advantage in man power and thats how they won the war, that and advantage in industry. For example when Stonewall Jackson was fighting the blue bellies in the Shenandoha Valley (1862) most of the Yankee army was made up of German immigrants who didn't know english.
Hell yeah my good man! I know my mom's side has been in the South a lot longer than my dad's but with a name like Cowan go figure. As for my dad's side If it weren't for a boat ride about 100 years ago I would be English. Although technically it took them about another 50 years to get from Canada down south ha ha. Shit one of these days I hope to go to England and drink a few beers in one of those old time pubs I am always hearing about. God bless ya man!
but england was the first european anti-slavery country,well....its not ideoligicaly coerent,but i believe it,England was in the top of its power,maybe they had a strategy to take all American states by weakening the stronger side
In my opinion, P.G.T Beauregard was one of the more capable generals. While Lee and Stonewall Jackson had most of the fame from winning battles in the east, Beauregard successfully defeated the Union in the First Battle of Bull Run. He also held six independent commands and, for a while, he Commanded the Army of Tennessee, one of the main field armies of the Confederates. His defense of Charleston was also exceptional. The city was never taken by a frontal assault by Union forces.
The South never stood a chance in the long run..Federals had all the means of production,and an almost 3 to 1 advantage in manpower,even before the Black troops fought..The South had great Commanders,a will to defend their Homeland,and little else..If the British would have come into the War on the South's side,that might have turned the tide
John B Gordon ( at 1:00 ) took a miniball under the left eye..You can make out the irregularity if you look close...Hardcore dude..These guys were badasses
Hey boys, lets stop fighting that one and get together on the next one. Aren't you tired of this same old,same old crap? These damm son of a bitch yankee know it alls will never learn anyway. Piss on them. Lets move on with todays reality.
Hood was put in charge because everyone knew that Johnston was going to "abandon" Atlanta. Peach Tree Creek, was Johnston's master mind. Hit the Union right when they crossed the river. Johnston always cared more about his army then the city. Johnston lost around 10,000 men fighting Sherman. Putting Hood in charge was the biggest blunder ever.
This has been flagged as spam show
"Lee never commander the Southern armies, only y=the army of Northen Vig. He would not fight out side of Vig."
Other than the times he did fight outside of Virginia like when he invaded Pennsylvania.
ElTejon47901 5 months ago
Comment removed
acerb45666555 5 months ago
Noone put's one of Lee's top Divison commander on the list, Joepsh Kreshaw
jtdragonrider 6 months ago
Who has killed the most Americans? Why, your friend & mine, RE Lee.....Personally responsible for far more dead Americans than Kieser Bill, Tojo, & Hitler, in total! Shoulda hung that little twit, along with about 1000 other, 'deserving souls'....things would have gone a lot smoother for the next umpteen years...oh well, it's easy to be a Monday morn'n QB.
TheKrapzapper 6 months ago
@TheKrapzapper Not a fair comment. It was a horrible war with lots of issues and he was on the losing side fighting a last ditch battle. Yes he killed lots of Americans. Some on his side and some on the other. It was the result of a brutal war and he was a major commander. But he is still a major American Hero honored for his courage and honor. Yet, yes, he was responsible for lots of deaths while doing his duty.
johnvernon2001 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When he talked to Judge Stephen Douglas he declared" I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black" this was said on October 13 ,1858
race88100 9 months ago
Are you going to try to tell me slavery wasnt a factor. certainly it wasnt the ONLY factor. but it was one. the underlying issue was the north wasnt going to allow the south to split plain and simple. no matter what reason anyone comes up with.
shellback1970 9 months ago
@shellback1970 wasn't a factor everybody had slaves
race88100 9 months ago
THE TRUE HEROES OF THIS WAR.
GREETINGS FROM TURKEY.
MrTyrannis 1 year ago
A great group of generals commonly misunderstood in the "history" that is taught nowadays. My family came to Virginia and Kentucky in 1673 and has served in every war in American history. I am proud of my relatives from ones that served with Washington to, Johnston at Shiloh and to the present day Iraq and Afghanistan.
billyslo87 1 year ago
Damn bullshipdector! I Didn't know u were there to see all that horrible shit Gen. Lee did. You must be 180 years old now! As a matter of FACT Robert E. Lee detested slavery. Pick up a book & stop getting your info from the racist black panther party!
krackermost 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pop Quiz!
Which Confederate general kept a hunting list in his own handwriting, of escaped slave girls?
Who paid six times the normal bounty to get a certain girl back, with her infant that is so light skinned, it could pass for white?
Who personally kept track what streets she might be on, what time of day.? When caught, who has her stripped and tied to post in his barn?
Who screams at her during her torture? Who then sells her infant?
Thats Robert E Lee
BullshipDetector 1 year ago
I'm related to one of these men,
coolcatevan9 1 year ago
@coolcatevan9 Hello,
There is a great new book out titled: GETTYSBURG… OTHER TIMES
It features Civil War generals in a accurate but most different way than before.
It is a great page-turning read and full of intrigue and revelation.
You can get your copy from my YouTube site (GETTYSBURGbook) or search Amazon or eBay.
GETTYSBURGbook 1 year ago
@GETTYSBURGbook cool
coolcatevan9 1 year ago
MY HEROES,GOD BLESS THE SOUTH!
pineywoods9 1 year ago
What about Edmund Kirby-Smith ?
gatortail77 1 year ago
Aus der Titelmusik hat Rebel Song ein Lied gemacht!
Wiffbiong 1 year ago
I hate the north. hatred for the yankees evil devils they are. one day they will pay and today they have obama over them as their king and ruler.
Rico8458 1 year ago
NORTHERN VICTORY FOREVER AND ALWAYS
ShawnC777 1 year ago
like most soldiers of the south they lost their homes,state and also their lives. Long Live
lifesupportsystem 2 years ago 6
northern gold bankers cut deal with england cotton buyers to doom the southland.
Rico8458 2 years ago
the confedecary is just sort of the north with washgington ordering the south around it would be the same with richmond as the capitol and it would control the rest of the south so the civil war was really just a mistake
killnuknow 2 years ago
all wars are mistaks ;)
ViccardXViccc 1 year ago
europe needed cotton. cotton was king.
Rico8458 2 years ago
yea but not has much as crops britishs anti slavery or north or something like that so british got there cotton from india
killnuknow 2 years ago
He was named caretaker of the estate, but NEVER owned them, and began to free them before the EP was signed, but had to hold the slaves for 5 years as was ordered by the will. IF you don't believe me then look it up yourself. Will's are public documents. It won't do you any good to spread lies as they are easily refuted. Guess who had more slaves in his employ than Lee, GRANT. That's right him and his wife had a total of atleast 5 personal slaves. Lee only owned 1.
supersambo723 2 years ago
Lets study the REAL life of Lee. Not the distored version - which is almost as goofy as North Korea "study" of their leader.
Lee would be the first to say he does not deserve to be honored - and he would be right. While he was better to his slaves than some, we know he whipped two of them serverely for running away.
We also know he grew rich on slaves, like most Southern leaders.
We knew Lee thought inflicting pain on slaves was GODS way . God intended it to be painful, Lee said
TaxSanity 2 years ago
The REAL Lee was nothing like you claimed. Lee never "whipped" his slaves and in fact only OWNED one, which he freed BEFORE the CW even started, and that was Reverend William Mack Lee. Anyway the ONE woman who claimed that a constable whipped her, her sister, and their cousin, on Lee's order, was NEVER taken seriously. And infact neither of the other two EVER collaborated her story, which came out AFTER Lee's death. He couldn't have gotten rich off the slaves because HE didn't own them.
supersambo723 2 years ago
Whats the difference?
J0rdan691 2 years ago
Robert E. Lee was actualy the main leader of the C.S.A. army.
chopperdixie1 2 years ago
actually, Lee commanded at very first the Virginia Militia, then commanded in 62 to 65 the ANV, it was only in 65, and very closer to wars end tht he was put over all armed forces of the conferacy, and by then it was to late for him to do anything with it, the war was being lost too rapidly everyday by then
csaboy27 2 years ago
no after the battle of bull run was lee put in to full command of the anv before that lee was in charge of the coastal defenses
killnuknow 2 years ago
Lee wasnt put into command of the then Army of Virginia, at the 7 days battles when joe johnston was shot in the leg, then jefferson davis replaced the wounded johnston with Lee, who had been at the onset of the war organizing the defense of Virginia, and was then commanding troops in modern day west virginia, up untill he took command, reorganized, and renamed the army, which became the famed ANV
csaboy27 2 years ago
north was fighting with one hand behind its back if it was losing supremely they would have just took out the other hand so the south had no chance of winning but i would have fought for the south
killnuknow 2 years ago
to a very large extent, the south was as well, look at Georgia for example, they had so many confederate uniforms, that they were supplying Nazi prisoners with those uniforms in WWII, Georgia's govenors comment was, that those uniforms were "for Georgians and Georgians only" so really, you cant look at the hand behind the back theory, because neither side brought out all of what they had throughout the entire war
csaboy27 2 years ago
if george did they made the confederates lose some wat cause the south had to take wat ever they could get and use
killnuknow 2 years ago
no the south used watever they had the south was finghting for its independce so they had to use every thing so they did use everything the had
killnuknow 2 years ago
no, no actually they didnt, read up a little on georgia in 64, they had, money, weapons, ammunition, uniforms, a lot of things we needed for the cause, but unless u were from geogia, u didnt get them, which, a lot of people think that every state band together to fight the north, which to a degree is true, however, the big thing was states rights, each state thought they were the best, and that they deserved everything, not the other states. so we did not in fact fight with everything we had.
csaboy27 2 years ago
then if they all that then why did they retreat at dalton and have to leave atlanta cause the didnt have have that much ammunition.
killnuknow 2 years ago
because, a lot of tht was leadership, which is what killed us throughout the entire war, in the ANV, after jackson died, lee never had the commanders he needed, and in the army of tennessee, hood nor johnston either wanted to fight, or with hood when he did at franklin-nashville, he wrecked the army, and again going back to, they refused to send it to anyone but georgians, a lot of the army of tennessee, was not from georgia
csaboy27 2 years ago
@csaboy27 I would argue that General Hood did want to fight, seeing as how he attacked Sherman within the first 24 hours of command.
DarthMercanto 1 year ago
@DarthMercanto but like I was saying, look at the times he didn't attack when he had the advantage, and when he did, his attacks were poorly planned, and ill fated
csaboy27 1 year ago
@csaboy27 I agree entirely, which is why Lee was so wise to place Johnston back in command once he was given authority to do so (granted by then Hood's ridiculous attacks had whittled the Army of Tennessee to almost nothing). Hood certainley wanted to attack though, in fact he told General Bragg that it was for a lack of offensive action that Johnston had been unable to route the Federals.
DarthMercanto 1 year ago
@DarthMercanto Well, I probobaly should've worded a few things differently, Hood was certainly a fighter, not much of a commander, but certainly a fighter, which earned him respect in the ranks, but was his biggest downfall when he was placed in command of an army, because rather than seeing the tactical fight, he saw simply another opportunity to impress the girl whos name I forget at the moment, and he was so physically and mentally unstable, he was in no position to command an Army
csaboy27 1 year ago
Comment removed
DarthMercanto 1 year ago
@DarthMercanto lol you put the wrong name, you need to substitute Hood for Lee the second time haha, but yes you are correct, it sums up well the qualities Hood possed, Lee warned Davis not to put Hood in command, but Davis stubborn as ever did it anyway
csaboy27 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@csaboy27 Oh good Lord! I think I'll just delete that comment and try again lol (thanks for the heads up :P):
With that I certainley agree. I think General Robert E Lee put it best "General Hood is bold and reckless. Any other qualities of command which posses I cannot personally speak for."
DarthMercanto 1 year ago
@csaboy27 Lee never commander the Southern armies, only y=the army of Northen Vig. He would not fight out side of Vig.
jtdragonrider 6 months ago
@jtdragonrider
Actualy at the end of the war right before the surrender of the army of northern virginia, Lee was in command of all southern armies according to an article I read
jonathan19691 6 months ago
Left out one of Lee's best Div. Commanders, Jospeh Kershaw
most people have not hread of him but when you study Lee's army he's one of the best.
dragonriderjt 2 years ago
yup, the yankees has heavy industry as a big advantage, but south had the cotton. anyway in the end cotton was not enougth, but allies could have helped. also, yankees used irish and german immigrants off the ships to fight. man for man, south was superior.
Rico8458 2 years ago 12
So what?
galept 2 years ago
Man for man south was superior?
In what way? This wasnt a game of football. The south fought for slavery - according to its own leaders at the time. Im not sure thats better man for man.
Nazi soldiers were better man for man than Americans too, So what.
TaxSanity 2 years ago
at the time europe was haveing a drought or something so they needed more crops that the north had crops so europe didnt need cotton like they needed crops
killnuknow 2 years ago
@Rico8458 Yup. And if you look an the number of people dying and people who got hurt in battle you can see that the north really sucked.
The south wold have won if not for all the immegrants as the north used exactly after they came to america. And also the north said the war was on slavery so that other countrys wouldn't come and help the south.
Damn 'em yankees.
Thebanjofellah 1 year ago
@Rico8458 If the South was superior man for man, why didnt they win the war early on when they had the advantage and was spanking the Army of the Patomac during the first year of the war???????
shellback1970 10 months ago
@shellback1970 the obvious answer to that is staring you in the face. we did not invade the north, yet still when 50,000 men top the hill wanting to burn your house and fields what do you do?
1unreconstructedreb 9 months ago
@1unreconstructedreb What? seriously? hello.... Lee invaded the north...ever hear of Gettysburg? That didnt happen in a southern state...
shellback1970 9 months ago
@shellback1970 Lee did not invade the North he took the war to the North where it came from.
race88100 9 months ago
@race88100 how did the war start again? Oh yeah the south fired the first shots on fort sumner. Ther was NO WAR until that happened. you can pull any reason you want out of your hat but there WAS NO ACCUAL WAR until that incident SO how againg did the war come from the NORTH????
shellback1970 9 months ago
@shellback1970 no one knows who fired the first shots because they don't have accurate historical information
race88100 9 months ago
@shellback1970 Gonna agree that the CS army fired first but the US army had no legal right after South Carolina left the Union. When the US refused to leave the CS bombed the fort.
lordofthevids3 7 months ago
@lordofthevids3 No legal right? lets say " KENT " decided they wanted to separate from the rest of England. Are you gonna tell me The rest of England has NO RIGHT to act?????? Its the same thing here.....
shellback1970 7 months ago
@shellback1970 Im sure there was a part in US constitution where a state could leave the union. It's down to interpritation but honestly i do like the idea of having less centerlised power. BTW the example u used is if a town wanted to leave a state it wouldn't survive. Every one is right in their own eyes m8.
lordofthevids3 7 months ago
@lordofthevids3 Theres nothing in the constitution giving a state the right to secede. On the other hand theres nothing in there that says they can't either. That was one of the huge issues that this war was about...Since the North won I guess the answer is "NO"
shellback1970 7 months ago
@shellback1970 Fair enough m8.
lordofthevids3 7 months ago
@shellback1970 I guess you are some nut that thinks the war was about slavery too? It wasn't and if so why did it take two years for Abe to sign the emancipation procalmation? Why did congress try twice before the war to abolish slavery but nobody would agree on it? Why did General Grant's wife release their slaves in 1864? Why did England abolish slavery in their country without going to war?
race88100 9 months ago
@shellback1970 Why did Lincoln himself say and this quote is skipped over ....He (the black man) is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color-perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas and the equal of every other man? This was spoken October 13,1858 before he was even president.
race88100 9 months ago
@race88100 So which should I believe? Did he really feel that way? I dont know. But his actions contradict this quote. As does the Gettysburg address. Could it be he had a change of heart? Again I have no idea.
shellback1970 9 months ago
@shellback1970 actually I made a mistake, Lincoln said after everybody was calling him the great emancipator and wanted to clarify himself.
race88100 9 months ago
@race88100 like I said to clarify himself the quote is usually skipped over
race88100 9 months ago
@shellback1970 the north wasn't invaded until that little march across the south the union did. the city of Vicksburg didn't celebrate the 4th of July for 84 years after the war....
1unreconstructedreb 9 months ago
@1unreconstructedreb heres the deal though The North going into the South IS NOT an invasion. you see the North considers both areas part of ONE nation. to them its thier own country.
shellback1970 9 months ago
@shellback1970
so your saying if the army came over the hill tomorrow with 50,000 men burning/rapeing/pillaging everything in sight you would call that what?
1unreconstructedreb 8 months ago
@1unreconstructedreb Dont act like an innocent victim here...The southerners waged war against and tried to destroy my nation...The southern population fully supported the rebel army.. In a sense they were the enemy just as much as the reb. army its self...they supplied them with food, horses, and just about every thing else...on the other hand Im not condoning rape or robbery which was unfortunately done.
But you shouldn't be supprised about how brutal people acted.There was a lot a stake.
shellback1970 8 months ago
Comment removed
1unreconstructedreb 6 months ago
Robert E Lee was A direct descendant of Robert the Bruce,King of Scotland.Deo Vindice
gemmagemma6969 2 years ago
For real?
BradNC11175 2 years ago
I know the first song is "Dixie" and the second song at 0:42 is "Bonnie Blue Flag". But does anyone know who composed these symphonic versions, specifically?
FOOSAG 2 years ago
This duo is on the original soundtrack of Ken Burns' "The Civil War", and according to the information included with the cassette, the songs were composed by Daniel Decatur Emmett ("Dixie", for certain) and performed by The New American Brass Band. That's what I can offer to you about this.
GuinevereJuliet 2 years ago
Why did you make this video? I'm just... asking.
Ilksol95 2 years ago
Very nice video...
Brig. Gen. Lewis Addison Armistead, is one of my favorites. His family motto was "Trust in God and fear nothing"
I think this country misses the caliber of men such as these.
HardyRoundtree 2 years ago
J.B. Hood was my G-G-G-Grandfather
CSAFD 3 years ago
sure
Twilight8888 3 years ago
CSAFD:
I watched a TV program in re the Civil War. The hstorian didn't have a kind word to say about John Bell Hood. I thought that he was an oustanding leader. How could a man do his job with such wounds?
Regards,
Ernst Becker
ErnstBecker 3 years ago
I like to think of John Bell Hood as the South's version of Grant. Grant and Hood both fought Civil War battles like a "classic slugger" boxes a "sweet science" boxer. There wasn't anything fancy to either of their styles... just charge ahead.... take your licks and then knock the enemy out. JB Hood was tough as hell but he was the wrong man and in the wrong place at the wrong time to command the Army of Tennessee. You can't fault him for that... Jefferson Davis was to blame for that.
BradNC11175 2 years ago
John Bell Hood, I beluieve, had lost an arm and a leg. He was loaded on ladnum and had to be strapped onto his horse. He should have been pensioned out oof the CSA. Such pain and his dependency on dope did cloud his combat decisions.
ErnstBecker 2 years ago
You can't help but feel bad for J.B. Hood. He caught a lot of shit after the war and of course he knew the failures in GA. and Tenn. and from what I understand it caused him a lot of personal problems. I know some guys in Tenn. who had ancestors who fought under him in the Army of Tenn. still talking shit about him. Jeff Davis should have never taken Joe E. Johnston out of command. He let his personal dislike of Old Joe fuck things up. Hell even William T. Sherman would have agreed with that.
BradNC11175 2 years ago
Were any of these ENEMY COMBATANTS ever SHOT?
AulicExclusiva 3 years ago
I think General Sherman has been greatly misunderstood. He was seeing that Atlanta was supplying the enemy. To just uproot the railroads would not be enough so he set the place on fire. It was to take away the supplies and make the south at the disadvantage to surrender. The casualties were way too high & the war needed to come to an end. When fighting your equal you have to do the drastic to gain an advantage to win quicker. The quicker the war is over the less deaths occurred. It saved lives.
annfidela 3 years ago
by killing innocent people and burning non militarily occupied towns?
civilwaronezeroone 3 years ago
Actually they were evacuated before anything was set on fire. No one in Georgia was killed as far as civilians are concerned. In Georgia, it was not at all like the removal of the Cherokee Nation from the state of Georgia some years before w/an estimated 4000 Cherokees died in the transplantation. Also speaking of Georgia, it was not like Andersonville where Union soldiers were only given a teaspoon of salt to eat. It was in Georgia that the Prez. Jeff Davis was captured in Washington County.
annfidela 3 years ago
so lets just pretend your right is it ok to make innocent people homless? i dont think so t think so
civilwaronezeroone 3 years ago
since we were talking up GEORGIA, how about the fact that andersonville was undersupplied and could not give more. Vs Camp Douglas who had supplies but instead used torture devices. The Cherokees were voted to be kept by Georgia in the State Senate, it was Andrew Jackson that over ruled and moved them. And no one was evacuated, the either fleed or died. Do some research.
rhslinebacker33 2 years ago
The South had all the "superior" officers, and "natural born fighters", and yet those idiots still lost. LOL! Doesn't surprise me, really. Just look at who the South voted for in the past 5 presidential elections. It is certainly the dumbest region of America.
ChrisArlingtonVA 3 years ago
it didn't have anything to do with 1/11th manpower or 1/32 military supplies or anything
Pooternackle 3 years ago
god bless you southern boys
11sid 3 years ago
Welcome to the viewing of the LOSERS who were defeated by SUPERIOR Union generals.
Oso1G 3 years ago
more like general. Grant was the reason the Union won the war, a good thing too. too bad he was an afull president.
thekiller678 3 years ago
What about General Chesnut?
NatashaNabokov 3 years ago
The South Gonna Rise Again!
CSAfanactic 3 years ago
LONG LIVE THE UNION
AAceo 3 years ago
DEATH TO THE UNION!
CSAfanactic 3 years ago
No mention of Kirby Smith??
goldstandardgirl 3 years ago
Merci de ne pas écrire sur les mâles visages de ces Messieurs ! A quoi sert-il de montrer des photos si c'est pour les taguer ?
berdub19 3 years ago
Hi,
Please, dont write on the faces of this peoples !
berdub19 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like to feel sexy....knowing someone is watching me ..wanting me...turns me on!BADLY! I like to flirt and pose..and sometimes i like to get WILD! how? ..he he..come in video and youll see:-)) maybe u can teach me something..or maybe i will ! come visit me at - MeetYourFling _dot_ COM - my user-id there is vicky-pvyj chat soon on cam :-) yruww
TelevisionMiranda 3 years ago
could somebody please tell me the name of the song that starts at 0:49 and ends at 1:15 it sounds brillant.
bearinmyoatmeal 3 years ago
The song that starts at 0:42 and ends 1:15 is called Bonnie Blue Flag.
-Alissa
Alissa815 3 years ago
let me you tell you something aint no southern farm leave his family behind to fight fro no damn slavery as well over 90% of southerners nevr owned slaves, remember Civil war history was written by yankees that Hung our heroes
TexarkanaBraveheart 3 years ago
The South had control of COngress -- because it counted its slaves as citizens for representation. The south was starting to lose its power to be vile bastards -- and they cried like babies.
You should thank Lincoln for defeating slavery and the south. If Lincoln didn't keep freedom and the USA together -- your life would have been like in Nazi germany. In the south, no freedom of press, of religion. You could be hung if you had any BOOK the Southern slavers didn't like. Freedom?
TaxSanity 3 years ago
SOUTH STILL HAS MANY BITCHES. LOSERS
AAceo 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
losers leaders
TeneileJ 3 years ago
that last comment is for markdouglasc he apparantly likes totalitarian government
raverswillrave 3 years ago
no -- facist government is what the south was. You could be hung for having a book the southern politicians didnt like. You didnt have freedom of speech. Hell you could be sold if you were the wrong color. Lincoln saved the south from itself. My family is from the south, we fought FOR the south. But no one is perfect. We all have freedom today because of Lincoln.
TaxSanity 3 years ago
This display makes my Southern Heart beat proud.
KENinTN1 3 years ago
Nanthan Bedford Forrest...ring a bell?
BFCats 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What was honorable about them? Slave rape ? Selling your OWN children from those rapes into slavery? Enslaving others, forcing them to do your work, or killing them?
The CSA is no more -- or less -- honorable than Alqueda or Iran or Saddams people. Or the Nazis. If your southern sons were born in Iran, they would have done what Osama is doing.
So if thats honorable -- fine.
MarkDouglasC 3 years ago
your not very good at hisory the war was about states rights,less tax and less government and only 6% of southern people had slaves.the south only made 30% of the U.S population and had to pay 80% of all taxes collected by the federal government.the war was just these men fought for the idea of self rule they ARE HEROES.but some people as you are happy with an absolute controlling government and also it was the north that was the last to free slaves.stop googling and read a book.
raverswillrave 3 years ago 2
the absolute control was by the south, till Lincoln put an end to their terror and evil culture. The government in the south could put you to death just for having the wrong book -- a book questioning slavery. You couldnt even talk about ending slavery. You had no freedom of speech, freedom of religion. We have freedom today BECAUSE of Lincoln
TaxSanity 3 years ago
Do you enjoy repeating youself or something? every comment you left had the same stupid remark in it about "having a book about ending slavery youd be hung." You obviously know nothing about the south or the War Between the States.
southwillriseagain21 3 years ago
Dude the civil war was not about slavery as you have obviously been taught in a public school from your liberal teachers. Don't you find it ironic that the emancipation proclamation didn't apply to any of the northern slave states?(i.e. West Virginia, kentucky, maryland, missouri)It was about state rights and not having a federal government telling the state what to do.
crazyinsanepanda101 3 years ago
The civil war didnt start about slavery - and the north didnt even start it.
But the SOUTH said why they started the war -- why they were pulling away. And THEY said slavery -- so talk to them. Argue with them.
States rights was just a bs phrase meant "we want to continue to have no rights, to be able to hang people for freedom of speech, and to keep raping our slaves, and selling our own children from those rapes into slavery".
Human rights were more important than "states rights"
MarkDouglasC 3 years ago
ohh, ok and i suppose Robert E. Lee fought for the south even though he was opposed to slavery. And Ulysses Grant owned slaves but fought for the north to free them right? At the begginning of the war the vast majority of the cotton in the south was exported to England and then brought back to the U.S. to be sold. The feds put a tarriff on all the goods in order to make the products made in northern factories cheaper than the ones made in England from the souths cotton.
crazyinsanepanda101 3 years ago
Lee had slaves, sold many of them, bought many of them. Lee got rich on slaves. Lee had slave girls whipped naked, 75 lashes, then had salt rubbed in her wounds. Their crime? They tried to escape.
NOnsense about the stupid tarriff story you mention. The South controlled congress and the tarriffs. The south said why they started the war -- Lincoln didnt start it.
The south was like a spoiled brat -- had always got its way. Licoln was elected and it pissed the baby off.
TaxSanity 3 years ago
TaxSanity, you need to learn how to read then study Lee's life.
dragonriderjt 2 years ago
Dude the North didnt start the war for any reason. The south did. Lincoln ended slavery when he could. Lincoln had no right to end slavery in the North -- only in the south cause it was under Marshall law.
Lincoln didnt tell the south they couldnt have slaves until long after the war started. Ending slavery was part of ending the south's ability to fight the war. Good move. Should FDR let Hitler keep his slaves in caves when he took over Hitler's land?
TaxSanity 3 years ago
Bravi! I camerati ITALIANI sono con voi! W Lee! W Mussolini! W l'Italia! W la confederazione!
valhalla973 3 years ago
those trumpet players are on fire
DiVeronica 4 years ago
Love the video! Please checkout my video's and take a tour of Jackson's death at Chandler's office. A tour of Gaines Mill battlefield or Chancellorsville battlefield! Thanks my southern friends!
TomCatScat1965 4 years ago
ane of yall know why RebalDad1861 left Youtube?
ThePatrioticPotatos 4 years ago
I have wondered that myself. If you ever find out, tell me. He took some of my favorite videos with him!
<:-(
AlabamaSoldier 3 years ago
I love European appreciation for the South, just so long as it's not a cover-up for hating America. Then I have a problem with it.
AlabamaSoldier 4 years ago
ENGLAND AND ULSTER FOR THE SOUTH
WhereEaglesDareUK 4 years ago
god bless the south!!!!
Garrett10124 4 years ago
yes,i know little about the american civil war,but I tink north was made by the same people,maybe i am wrong
ViriathusVingathor 4 years ago
There was more French and German ancestory up north. If you go to some of these older small towns up north especially in Penn. Jersey etc. you can definately see the German influence in the architecture. But the north always had an advantage in man power and thats how they won the war, that and advantage in industry. For example when Stonewall Jackson was fighting the blue bellies in the Shenandoha Valley (1862) most of the Yankee army was made up of German immigrants who didn't know english.
BradNC11175 2 years ago
The South made up of Scots, English, N,Irish.
WhereEaglesDareUK 4 years ago
Hell yeah my good man! I know my mom's side has been in the South a lot longer than my dad's but with a name like Cowan go figure. As for my dad's side If it weren't for a boat ride about 100 years ago I would be English. Although technically it took them about another 50 years to get from Canada down south ha ha. Shit one of these days I hope to go to England and drink a few beers in one of those old time pubs I am always hearing about. God bless ya man!
BradNC11175 2 years ago
ENGLAND FOR THE SOUTH
WhereEaglesDareUK 4 years ago
what i readed,was that your weapons went north.....
ViriathusVingathor 4 years ago
Well you are wrong and we gave the South a ship called the Alaba.
WhereEaglesDareUK 4 years ago
Sorry I mean Alabama
WhereEaglesDareUK 4 years ago
but england was the first european anti-slavery country,well....its not ideoligicaly coerent,but i believe it,England was in the top of its power,maybe they had a strategy to take all American states by weakening the stronger side
ViriathusVingathor 4 years ago
The South were our kin.
WhereEaglesDareUK 4 years ago
In my opinion, P.G.T Beauregard was one of the more capable generals. While Lee and Stonewall Jackson had most of the fame from winning battles in the east, Beauregard successfully defeated the Union in the First Battle of Bull Run. He also held six independent commands and, for a while, he Commanded the Army of Tennessee, one of the main field armies of the Confederates. His defense of Charleston was also exceptional. The city was never taken by a frontal assault by Union forces.
FOOSAG 4 years ago
just curious...what is the song name? its catchy.
FOOSAG 4 years ago
And what about General Nathan B. Forrest!?
He should be in second place, after Robert E. Lee.
Manfred1971 4 years ago
After Gettysburg,and the fall of Vicksburg in the West,it was a foregone conclusion as to what the outcome would be
rangerdgd1 4 years ago
The South never stood a chance in the long run..Federals had all the means of production,and an almost 3 to 1 advantage in manpower,even before the Black troops fought..The South had great Commanders,a will to defend their Homeland,and little else..If the British would have come into the War on the South's side,that might have turned the tide
rangerdgd1 4 years ago
John B Gordon ( at 1:00 ) took a miniball under the left eye..You can make out the irregularity if you look close...Hardcore dude..These guys were badasses
rangerdgd1 4 years ago 2
I agree we should have the won,and long live the south.
Nascar235 4 years ago 2
God bless Dixie
Hail From France
4KFov 4 years ago
ahhh its alright boys, were gonna win the next one. GOD BLESS DIXIE!!!
MATTCBCS55 4 years ago 3
I agree the South Should have won the war. Go Confederate
Nascar235 4 years ago 2
Hey boys, lets stop fighting that one and get together on the next one. Aren't you tired of this same old,same old crap? These damm son of a bitch yankee know it alls will never learn anyway. Piss on them. Lets move on with todays reality.
OldIronbutt 4 years ago
what?
JakeMan1569872 4 years ago
look away dixie, cuz your way of life shall be forgotten!
rkkkkjj 4 years ago
Hood was put in charge because everyone knew that Johnston was going to "abandon" Atlanta. Peach Tree Creek, was Johnston's master mind. Hit the Union right when they crossed the river. Johnston always cared more about his army then the city. Johnston lost around 10,000 men fighting Sherman. Putting Hood in charge was the biggest blunder ever.
rebel2276 4 years ago
anyway i agree confederate general is much more better than an union general...
MegatKirana 4 years ago
I'm glad that these comments have turned to a discussion of love for the southern instead of hatred.
JakeMan1569872 4 years ago
why is General Nathan Bedford Forrest not on this video??? and 2 others i didnt see johnson and that one that took over at shiloh
justinv99 4 years ago
J Kershaw, SC. one of the only non West point Divison Commanders that Lee appointed.
dragonriderjt 4 years ago
Does anyone have the lyrics to "Bonnie-Blue Flag"? It's a tune overshadowed by "Dixie" a lot of the time. We can't forget it.
AlabamaSoldier 4 years ago
I like Gordon. He lead the 6th Alabama in a courageous defense of the Bloody Lane at Antietem. Go Alabama! Show them what you can do!
AlabamaSoldier 4 years ago
my heart is filled with joy ever time i here Dixie theres no beter place but in the south
piplol2468 4 years ago
Every Confederate General was a true Southern Patriot and a Hero to be proud of.
There were no heroes and nothing to be proud of in that foreign invading army.
Rebel Yell !!!!!
MrTieDye 4 years ago
They are all my favorite generals. Hood is still one of my favorites. You can't say he didn't risk his life or that he didn't try.
todddoom 4 years ago