@Z3kedog It's people like you that give the USA a bad name. The Confederacy was not a loser, it defeated the Union numerous times outnumbered, but either way the South wasn't going to win because it was 22 million Yankees vs 9 million Rebels. General Lee defeated the Union when the Union was twice his size in the Battle of Chancellorsville. The Confederacy was not a Loser, and neither was the Union. They both fought brave for themselves. If you have nothing nice to say, please keep it to urself.
I find it a shame that in schools they teach that the civil war was a fight about slaver and only slavery. Luckily I come from a southern family and they taught me better.
What kind of kid can think that thousands of men died for slavery.... Slavery is not a good thing... but no white men at that time would have died for it...
thats a gross misconception. they werent dying for slavery. they were dying to protect there homes. most were not part of the plantation artistocracy. those who were, justified it in the name of states rights to determine how they alone would handle the issue of slavery and not be dictated by the north, hence the reason for secession. yes, there were fanatics like edmund ruffin. but those were few. even robert e.lee didnt believe in slavery. but there was a fierce loyalty to defend virginia.
@terminator5791 Yeah, the confederates who were outnumbered 3-5 to 1, starving, outgunned, outnavied, disease-ridden, and had been through multiple offensives through superior forces "got their assed handed to them". Funny thing is they almost broke through the Union line, despite a horrible battle decision by Lee. Until 1863, the confederates didn't lose any battles on the eastern front. They only lost because they went on the offensive. Antietam and Ghettysburg. After Jackson died.
@LibranEsq Don't cheer for the confederacy, neither side was more moral than the other in the civil war, cheer for the actual united STATES, not the United State. Thats what the war was over, states rights, which was the main idea behind the United States in the first place, sadly, revisionist history has corrupted our view of things and a good principle was defeated under the guise of a noble cause. Maryland and Delaware were slave states, just for everyones info, also see wage slavery.
@LibranEsq So you would much rather have slavery? Or are you just saying that for moral reasons? Well if there was slavery it would be ended anyways. You still live in and the Confederates and Union died along with the war.
@blokdeblok I dont believe in slavery. My gripe is with the federal government of the united states. I wish the rebels killed it off back then so it wouldnt even exist today. They were right:
bit harsh with the language there! The cannon fire was a bit to high, Did little damage. The charge was ,, well in vain. The trees are still there,, the high water mark. By luck or just good fortune the union had better ground. It's a long walk across that field.
TheLostidea, to answer your question, "I" don't judge generals before or after the Civil War. Yes Southern people did judge Longstreet for what he did after the war. I don't get caught up in what Longstreet did after the war. I could care less if he opened a ice cream shop with Grant and Sherman and moved to Maine. I judge all generals for what they did during the war. For as much writing and fault finding Longstreet wrote, he himself never won a major battle/campaign on his own. That I judge.
@rebel2276- I'm not talking about you judging him for what he did after the war. But the people in the South never forgave him for joining the Republican party following the war is all I meant and I think that the betrayal they felt has led to how badly his image to this day. Although there was a school or church is the South that not too long ago had a sign saying Lee should have listened to Longstreet. And from what I've gathered about him wanting to send 30,000 on Pickets charge was because-
@rebel2276- He knew it was a bad plan and even thought that sending the 30,000 men was going to result in a massive defeat, but sending half that amount was going to be a massacre.
@TheLostIdea We have to look at Pickett's Charge and realize that only 6,000 Confederates pushed on to the Emittsburg Road. John Micheal Priest proved that eleven years ago in a article in the North&South Magazine. We have read what 6,000 Confederates did, suppose all 12,000 stayed in the charge? Many people are confused thinking, 12,000 Confederates went in the charge and failed. Half either ran back or got down and found any cover they could.
@rebel2276 You're suggesting that this fellow "proved" something that every other historian disagrees with? I think you're putting too much stock into the musings of a single writer. All other sources say that all 12K bravely stayed in the charge, though it's true that many on the left wing routed under flanking fire from units swinging off from Cemetery Hill.
@Crymson1 That "Fellow" is one of the best historians in the business. John Michael Priest proved that only 6,000 Confederates pushed on to the Emmitsburg Road. Refer to "North&South" Magazine, Volume 1, Issue 6, pages 42-55. MG. Trimble who was one of the division commanders in Pickett's Charge wrote, that he saw hundreds if not thousands of Confederates running back to the woods. Letters are primary sources. So yes. Mr. Priest broke that myth.
@Crymson1 We all know what Pickett had said to Lee, after the charge. But what many people do not know, is what Longstreet said to Pickett. (Pickett) "General, I am ruined; my division is gone, it is destroyed." (Longstreet) replied, "Things are not that bad, you will find an impressive number of your men in the woods behind me." Kemper's brigade alone lost 500 men before even marching off. Kemper lost 678 men and 341 of them were captured and wounded. Many men refused to advance or got down.
@Crymson1 The total loss of Pickett's charge was "4,802". The Union controlled that part of the battlefield reported capturing, "1,234" Wounded and Captured, "1,530" Non-Wounded and Captured. The Union reported they buried 801 Confederates as well. "1,237" wounded Confederates made it back to the Confederate lines (As reported from Confederates records at the National Archives). Mr. Priest will disagree with 99.9% of historians, because they never did exhausting research on it.
@Crymson1 I normally live in Washington DC, when I am not out here in Afghanistan. My research team and I dig very deep at the National Archive and Library of Congress. Since 99% of book writers/historians don't live in Washington DC, they don't have the time or luxury to spend at either building. This is why we edit their books, magazines, movies, etc. I have been in this business for thirty years, I had the most family in the Civil War and most that fought for the Union.
@rebel2276 Writers who must do research for their books will travel to do so. No offense, but the idea that quality history authors will avoid certain sources just because they do not live nearby is laughably incorrect.
@rebel2276 Isn't that part of it though? That only 6,000 pushed forward? I sort of comes of as saying we would have won the game if it wasn't for the other team scoring those touchdowns. From what I have read 5000 SURVIVED the Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble charge. A minor miracle in itself.
@oneputtsteven The "6,000" that pushed on, were the main casualties, pretty much 98% were killed, wounded/captured and non-wounded/captured. John Michael Priest estimated that the total loss was "4,802". "If" 12,000 or so Confederates went into the charge then one-fourth went down. Now this would not include, Confederates that were wounded and made it back to their lines. It is impossible to know the real loss.
Now, D.H. Hill did not want to give up anymore brigades. He had given up, Daniel, Pettigrew and Davis's brigades. Lee wanted more brigades and Lee and D.H.Hill argued over that. Lee argued that D.H.Hill did not need that many men, he was on the defense in South Eastern Virginia. Using hindsight, Lee was correct. Lee wanted to destroy the AOP and too many times he almost did, just to have either his lieutenants screw something up or the AOP retreated across a river, high ground, etc.
"Americans are being told in these days that they owe a debt of support to Irish Independence, because the Irish fought with us in our own struggle for independence. Yes, the Irish did, and we do owe a debt of support. But it was the Orange Irish who fought in our Revolution, and not the Green Irish."
wow i got to take a field trip there but im to pussy cuz there was 1 million people that died there and alot of people say it was the most bloodest battle ever and everyone says its haunted im scared
@CM99501 Certainly the bloodiest day in American military history CM but I know the British army suffered more than 19000 killed and 39000 wounded on July 1 1916 during the first day of the Somme Campaign. In two weeks in October 1941 during the Battle of Vyasma 150 000 Red Army soldiers were KILLED.
@tzepesh20 The tactics used at that time were based on previous battle experience and theory. The reason for the high casualty rate was because the tactics did not take into account the advances in weaponry. The smoothbore flintlock musket used previously was nowhere near as accurate as the rifled percussion musket. As for the "slavers," very few Southern soldiers ever owned slaves. Slavery was the moral issue of the war, not the entire reason for the war.
movie sucked besides the battle scenes. Still could have been a little more accurate on what happens to human bodies when they get hit with cannons point blank.
Actually live 15 minutes from Gettysburg and go there all the time now know exactly what won the war for UNION ie Washington and The North ..I bought book on actuall cannons...from the Museum there...what won the war ie Harpers Ferry Antietam and of course Gettysburg was pure physics----RIFLING that s is...Rifles and Cannons used by North were Rifled and rapid loading!
@CBAsystems By the time of Gettysburg, half of the ANV'S artillery was captured Union artillery. At Second Manassas, the Confederates captured around 30 artillery pieces, 47 at Harper's Ferry, 22 at 2nd Winchester, 5 at Martinsburg, Seven Days was even worse, Glendale/Frayser's Farm--16 Artillery pieces captured. Gaines' Mill--19 Pieces were captured. 1st Bull Run--27 Pieces captured. Sharpsburg--1-Ten Pound Parrott, Gettysburg--7 artillery. Many more but out of typing space in this little box.
Recall an issue perhaps a year. . or couple of years ago. . about states wanting to return captured standards that had been on display elsewhere. Perhaps you know more on this.
@Mahbu To answer your question, ALL flags Union and Confederate belonged to their own governments. The Medal of Honor was first awarded to Union soldier for turning in captured Confederate flags. So it was not for bravery or gallantry, as it is now. Both governments put out a order that all flags captured belonged to the government and not that soldier. That system worked to a point, but not all flags were turned in. Some were torn up, some kept as trophies long gone in history.
@Mahbu I wish both sides would stop acting like little kids and turn over the flags. Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois have Confederate flags. There are more Union states that have one-ten flags. I personally don't care or get into the whole feud. I just find captured Union flags and that is it. That will be book number one, books two-ten will also be about captured stuff. I work with the best vexologists in America, so that was a huge help. My research team is generally 25-100 officers and friends.
@Mahbu We will never find every single captured Union or Confederate flags, guidons, artillery flags etc. I am going to stop at One-Thousand and call it over with. After nearly Twenty years it has been frustrating. Many Northern states, currently play stupid and do not want to help. But like usual, they will send me what Confederates flags they still illegally hold. But that is help to my counterparts, who search for CSA flags.
I like finding the unknown stuff in the Civil War. Missing Union/Confederate regimental strengths and losses. Captured flags, artillery, companies up to armies. That is what I do, I take some time off, come on here, answer people's questions, check if someone has found something interesting as well. I look everywhere for info on subjects I cover. Hence being up 3-4 in the morning.
But it doesn't even go that far. A person might look at what you or I say and simply side with one of us because it sounds convenient. It's truly a depressing thing but then you usually can't expect much from the internet. It is partly why I have little patience for others here. But then there are gems out there, hidden beneath the shit and worthless rock.
Like, for instance, your flag mission. That is interesting. In fact, I vaguely. . .
@Mahbu I try not to take a side, as I am not from the North nor South, or really anywhere. Both of my parents were Army officers so we moved a lot. I joined the Army at 17 so I have lived in Germany, Hungary, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan (My favorite), Panama, Honduras, etc. Overall, the US. Government should come out one day and just tell the truth about the war. But they will not, so 99% of Americans will live in ignorance.
trying to get history straight. That being said, in these day and age, you or are not immune to bias or agenda.
As is the case with Longstreet. Where as I believe he is wrongfully blamed for a lot of things, you suggest he is an incompetent commander. Basically, we can argue in circles and cite different books if you really want.
There is one thing, by the way, I do understand. Entirely. History is not always an accurate creature. Yes, we may have records on this battle or that action sometimes it's based on bias or agenda. Sometimes it's only one perspective, like how you argued against Longstreet and his memoirs and his peers. The further back in history we go, the less we accurately know as the quality of records vary greatly. And sometimes people embellish. But I suppose that is why we have men like you
@Mahbu Yes, I keep it fair down the line. I am not from the South nor the North. Nor the East or West. I tend to be the referee in debates because the majority of people believe what they were told to read in school. For us 1% out there, we know that much of that is bullshit. But really does it matter? Wow I write 100 books proving the Union was wrong, wow. Even with millions of sources, wow. So as you can see that has never been a path I was going to write on.
In an ideal world we would all keep things fair but it seems like "fair" doesn't matter to a lot of people. It's hard not to get jaded or cynical when most people don't seem to care or lack the patience. It's fine to believe something, "right" or "wrong" but when you lack sufficient reason beyond "I was told this". For instance, you had done your research and I do mine and from that we believe what we believe.
On the topic of Gettysburg, I did read the Gettysburg campaign. ANd, of course, I have all the wealth of knowledge from elementary and high school from those outdated beaten up books we had to wrap up in paper bag covers because we had to return them. While others doodled on that paper, I. . also doodled but I also dreamed of what it'd be like. What went on in the heads of these men facing each other from opposite view points.
@Mahbu I read on the Civil War a lot in High School, more then my Eleventh grade history teacher did, lol. I had to teach the class. Overall, I am just looking for myself back then.
As for the battle, I am only vaguely familiar with it so I started reading on about it as soon as you mentioned it. So far, I'm not as convinced as you are but maybe as I read more that'll be changed. The gist of what I'm gathering though is that he gave a strong attack on Hooker and nearly succeeded but then Hooker was reinforced. That doesn't sound that terrible to me. Even the best generals have bad days, right?
As for the battle, I am only vaguely familiar with it so I started reading on about it as soon as you mentioned it. So far, I'm not as convinced as you are but maybe as I read more that'll be changed. The gist of what I'm gathering though is that he gave a strong attack on Hooker and nearly succeeded but then Hooker was reinforced. That doesn't sound that terrible to me. Even the best generals have bad days, right?
@Mahbu Longstreet turned his division around to face Hooker's division. Only when A.P Hill showed up then the Confederate turned the battle around. Longstreet made a huge mistake by not watching his left flank. Thus BG. Winfield Hancock got around Longstreet's left flank and waited. Sure enough BG. Early was sent to the left and the 5th NC and 24th Va were tore up and Early was wounded. Early was enraged with Longstreet for not informing him of any Union soldiers on the left.
@rebel2276- I am not trying to be confrontational, but if Longstreet was so terrible and Lee picked him to be his right hand man for the whole war doesn't that make it Lee's fault. I mean he should have gotten rid of him if he was so terrible. And if Gettysburg was Longstreet's fault like Lee claimed years later then why did he keep him in such a high rank for 2 more years. Wasn't Longstreet shot by his own men because he was scouting behind the lines in a repeat of what happened to Jackson?
@TheLostIdea Longstreet was not Lee's "Right hand man". If you recall, when Jackson lost his left arm (Chancellorsville), Lee said, "He has lost his left, I have lost my right". Longstreet actually did want to leave the ANV, he wanted to go west and link up with General Joe Johnston. They had a father/son relationship going back to after 1st Bull Run. After Jackson died, Longstreet was all that Lee had left, per say as a senior Corps commander. Longstreet never won a battle/campaign on his own.
@TheLostIdea Yes, Longstreet was shot in the throat at the Wilderness. The impact lifted him up on his horse. What went down was, MG. Martin Luther Smith ANV Chief of Engineers, found a railroad that swung around the left of Hancock's position. Thus, four brigades were sent to outflank Hancock. Mahone--Wofford--GT. Anderson and Davis' brigade behind GT. Anderson. Longstreet launched his attack and the 4 brigades attacked at the same time, Hancock's men were stuck in a "L" situation.
@TheLostIdea Now the four CSA brigades attacking the left flank merged in with the main force and that caused confusion and friendly fire. Thus, this was the point Longstreet was hit. Longstreet would not return to duty till October 1864. LT. General Richard H. Anderson would take over the 1st Corps, till Longstreet returned. Jackson was hit on a night recon mission, Longstreet was hit during the day time by soldiers in Mahone's VA brigade.
@TheLostIdea After the battle of Gettysburg and the ANV returned to Virginia. Longstreet wrote his uncle a letter and in the letter he wrote that "General Lee should have put double the men in the final charge." As you can read, that is a huge difference then the "Hollywood" movie "Gettysburg". In the movie they portray Longstreet trying to convince Lee, not to attack and that Longstreet said they should move between the AOP/Washington City, etc. People watch Hollywood and believe what they see
@rebel2276 Yes he should have put in 30,000 men. But he didn't and that was Longstreet's issue. Lee shouldn't have attacker for just the reason Longstreet said. He didn't have enough men. And of the men he did cobble together only one was from a fresh division (the only one not yet engaged in fact). The other two were from shot up divisions commanded by replacements as both Heth and Pender had been wounded (Pended fatally). That's why Hill had 2:3 divisions but Longstreet was in command.
@Shafeone The blame goes to Jefferson Davis. Lee wanted more brigades to go into Pennsylvania. He wanted Corse and Jenkin's brigades (That were in Pickett's division), he wanted Ransom, Cooke and Evan's brigades as well. In Pettigrew's brigade the 44th NC all 812 men were left guarding Hanover Junction, doing nothing. Lee needed to be approved by the Confederate Congress to go into Pennsylvania. Lee complained, he did not have enough men, thus it was the fault of Davis and Congress.
@rebel2276 NOOOO. The blame goes to Robert E Lee for ordering 12.000 men to assault a position that maybe could have been taken with 30,000. A great commander works with the resources he has and, regardless of the fact that he SHOULD have had more, he DID have less and that is what matters. Keep trying. Lee should have said "Gee I really wish Davis had listened because then I could have assaulted that line. But, since he didn't I can't. Time to try a different strategy. Hubris my dear Reb.
@TheLostIdea After Jackson died Longstreet clearly became Lee's most trusted and respected Liutenant and for good reason. Longstreet had aquitted himself well in every battle and had that rarest of abilities in this age of GPS we do not appreciate: he could command large bodies of troops who were often beyond visual range with just couriers and parchment and not get flustered. At Antietam (9 months before Jackson died) Lee called Longstreet "My old war horse." Old Pete was THE MAN.
@Mahbu Now to top that off, as arrogant Longstreet could be, he lied to General Joe Johnston about the battle and signed his name and "Commanding 2nd Corps". There were no Corps established yet, but Longstreet tended to promote himself. Longstreet skipped the chain of command and wrote directly to General Cooper about getting A.P. Hill promoted to MG. Now Longstreet did not care about promoting A.P. Hill, he just wanted to command more then one division so as to be a "Corps Commander". lol
@Mahbu If you really knew how Longstreet was a down right piece of shit only looking out for himself, you would not have debated with me from day one. Thus as I told you, you need to read more on Longstreet and the A.N.V. Like usual, everyone replies, "I do, I read a lot!" but for some odd reason those people have no idea or clue what I am typing to them. Between 55,000-60,000 Civil War books have been written, I have covered at least half of those so far. I own well over 10,000 books.
For that reason, Rebel, I have perused various memoirs and journals as I've always wanted to get their perspectives. The quality of biographies varied from place to place. Contrary to your opinion, I have actually read works on Lee. . Lee being one of them. No surprise, I'm sure, that I've read what Longstreet had to say. I've had the pleasure of reading Three Months in the Southern States. An Honorable Defeat was interesting. I've read a number of books criticizing Abraham Lincoln --
@Mahbu I don't get into Slavery, who started the war, politics, estimates of formations, biography's etc. I am just concentrated on finding Union flags that were captured. My counterparts are working on Confederate flags captured. We hope to come out with the first ever two book series on captured flags. The Union flags are much more difficult to track down. So I do that, edit everything when I have time, work at the Pentagon and I will be back in Afghanistan hopefully in two months.
The issue of slavery has been one of special interest of me. Not because of race or because of morality but it fascinates me how intensely the two sides are on the issue. How the "South" vehemently denies it and how the "North" fiercely accuses it. What I have learned is that the issue is far from simple and what puzzles me is why it's still a point of contention. Godwin forgive me, but World War II happened more recently yet we've forgiven the Germans for Nazism. Or so it seems.
@Mahbu We have proven that the war was not about slavery, even with the long missing letter found at the National Archives. Lincoln clearly blamed the Pope and the Jesuits for starting the war. I will type the letter in the next post. Let me know what you think of it.
@dbjkatz We dig very deep at the National Archives and we have found many letters that have never been published (and never will be). Lincoln blamed the Pope and Jesuits for starting the war. They start all the wars.
Send me a PM and I will type you my copy of Lincoln's letter.
@Mahbu "The Civil War would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of our noblest sons." "Through all their councils theologians, and common laws....their conscience orders them to burn my wife, strangle my children and cut my throat when they find their opportunity."
@Mahbu "Sooner or later the light of common sense will make it clear to everyone that no liberty of conscience can be granted to men who are sworn to obey a Pope who pretends to have the right to put to death those who differ from him in religion."
Interesting to note, that Hitler claimed, he was "Greatly influenced" by the Jesuits...
@Mahbu "Sooner or later the light of common sense will make it clear to everyone that no liberty of conscience can be granted to men who are sworn to obey a Pope who pretends to have the right to put to death those who differ from him in religion."
My grandfather ran the CIA from 1955-1963 and when Kennedy was assassinated he knew it was a set up. Kennedy did not want to get involved in Vietnam. Big companies make big money off wars.
And you sound like a bitter idiot trying to prove things to whiny little kids (it never occurred to you that the age might be inaccurate?). I believe we are at a stalemate.
@Mahbu There is no stalemate, you posted to me first. You typed your point about Longstreet, as I typed before I don't judge him for what he did after the war. If you knew what he did during the war you would not be here debating at all. Read more on the Battle of Williamsburg and just before Fair Oaks/Seven Pines. That should give you a good understanding on Longstreet. I am not typing that he was a total failure but I believe he is overrated. But Lee had no other veteran Corps commander.
That's not the stalemate I referred to, Rebel. I meant the stalemate of obnoxious. And I was judging him both based on what he did during the war and after because, maybe not you, but many people judged him solely after the war. This is important because between now and then, him and you, those people had all the power to write all the books they wanted on why they thought he was terrible. The insinuation being that any of the books we might've read unjustly portrayed him.
But if you really want to turn this int a dick size comparison. . excuse me. . a reading comparison. Okay. Fine. Let me get my glasses.
To begin with. Google does wonders. You'll find just about anything on the internet, but to be fair quality standards are pretty low and rightfully believes wikipedia to be a credible source?
History was never my major but an interest because so much happened before I was even born (by the way, my age is inaccurate as it is irrelevant).
@Mahbu Wikipedia is horrible, it would take me Twenty years to edit all that garbage out. But I am not going to waste my time with it. Google is great, try "Google Books". I prefer the National Archives and Library of Congress here in Washington DC. I have to search everywhere for information on my future books. It was a huge challenge that not many top historians wanted to get into but I like the challenge.
--- because I had gotten into an argument not unlike this. I still didn't agree but it was a gesture of good faith and an attempt to understand the opposing viewpoint.
Now, you may not approve, but I've always enjoyed what the History and Military channels put up in their documentaries. And, indeed, any documentary on any war has always had my attention. Sure, details are skimmed, but a person is left to fill in the blanks and look around themselves ---
Because you do care. Maybe you're mad, maybe you're not. I don't know. I don't care to know. What you do with your life is your problem. All I know is that you claim to not care but any reasonable person would just walk away. You might ask "why don't you walk away" to which I will tel you that I've made no indication of not caring nor any claim that I am "done with you". I am just having a discussion on a topic you are free to leave and re-enter at your discretion.
Grumbling bitterly about a broken dream. And C.) He's a convenient target so that all the blame can be taken from Lee and other venerated figures. Heaven forbid Lee get blamed for the disaster that was Pickett's charge.
But there's no doubt, no dispute that the artillery barrage did not do what was intended. That Stuart was unable to get behind the lines to attack from both sides. That Ewell couldn't divert or gain ground to support Pickett's charge.
The result was terrible for moral. And you may sneeze at the number of dead, wounded, and captured, but for an army with limited manpower, it's something. Longstreet or not, that attack did not have a chance of success beyond making them all "brave".
@Mahbu You go believe what you want to and I am going to stick with what I have read on Longstreet in nearly Thirty years. Again, you need to read more on the A.N.V and Longstreet to fully understand.
I've read plenty enough, Rebel. Plenty. Telling me to "read more" may've been a 'clever' debate tactic when we were all sixteen know-it-alls but it doesn't cut it because it doesn't prove or back up anything. It's just a cop out/diversion.
I don't even like Longstreet. But I recognize he gets far too much flak for things that were typically out of his control or because a.) he wasn't General Lee and b.) because he wanted to get back to normal rather than . . .
@Mahbu I doubt you have read anything, keep convincing yourself that. Your arrogant and don't want to pay attention to what I had to type. Great, move on and bother someone else.
Says the man who says "who cares, move on little kid" and "I've read all these fancy books so look at how important I am". What kills me is that you had to go and make a new post to say "who cares" as if something nagged you so much you had to come back.
You didn't even try to convince me. You just threw out "I READ BOOKS AND SO I AM RIGHT". And you didn't even argue against my points. You went off on tangents.
But if you're done. So be it. We are all free to go where we want.
@Mahbu Your 26 years old, what experience do you have? Please detail your years and decades of research. Your arrogant and immature, get over yourself. It does not matter what I type, you will not pay attention and for once on YouTube, I am not going to waste my time with you. Opps you didn't get me mad, either, I read that you like to pride your arrogant ass to piss people off. Well it didn't happen here, so try that on someone else.
Except what are you doing, Rebel? You aren't being mature in the least. You aren't even taking the higher ground. It isn't even an issue of pride over "pissing people off". I'm making a point that might HELP you. For instance, "I'm not going to waste my time with you"? What are you doing right now? WHAT ARE YOU DOING? You just made a post to me. You already said you were done. You move on. But you come back? Why?
So? You deemed me not worth your time. Normally that means moving on to the next person. Are things that slow or do you secretly care?
Anyway, mister expert, if you feel there is a book you want to recommend, throw it out and if I haven't read it I'll see what it has to offer.
I've also read the Passing of Armies because Chamberlain had always interested me. A defender leading a bayonet charge? How deliciously outside the box! Though, of course, he surely wasn't the only important
@Mahbu I am not going to waste my time if you are not going to pay attention to what I type. No matter what I type your not going to believe it. Great, move on then.
Granted, it is severely restricted but otherwise they seemed to have moved on.
We appear to be carrying on in two different tones and it confuses me so I'm going to drop the hostile for sake of convenience. Besides, I'm much more interested in your mission regarding flags. You see, I am a hopeless romantic and I miss the days that flags or standards were carried into battle. Where they mattered so much that men would fight and die to protect or retrieve it, such as the Aquila.
I don't need to try anything else because you're doing it to yourself. If you're done, you won't respond and you'll move on like the adult you claim to be. Which I doubt. But maybe you'll try and prove me wrong by not responding in some kind of "spiteful" action. Or maybe you'll respond and tell me how much you don't care. . by caring to post a response and address me. Who you've apparently deemed not worthy of time yet given me just as much time as you did before.
What is typical of Longstreet apologist is what he did after the war and not when he messed up during the war. Longstreet's East Tennessee campaign was horrible, Fort Saunders what a bloody failure. Guess what? He had nobody to blame but himself and guess what he did? He blamed McLaws of course, it was always someone else that messed up not Longstreet. Longstreet would have done this and that and he had the chance to shine. As an independent commander he failed. Please type his victories.
Furthermore, you don't need to kill, wound, or capture. You should know that. Moral is just as important and if people are turning back then the artillery did its job just fine. If people refused to charge, if people didn't fire back then they are combat ineffective and the defenders did their job.
If those people did charge? Maybe they'd have gained a bit more ground, who knows, but they didn't because artillery and ranks of people with guns scare people.
Even if Union lines were breached proper, losses in soldiers and leadership and supplies would not be able to sustain what numbers were left and they were still surrounded.
I don't blame Longstreet for not wanting to attack. Bravery does not automatically acquit stupidity. The men on the attack were brave but the attack itself was probably extremely stupid.
@Mahbu Pickett's Charge was not as bad as we had thought it had been. John Michael Priest proved that nearly ten years ago, that only half the Confederates he marched to Emmitsburg Road. The rest either got down or ran back into the wounds. Priest believes about 6,000 Confederates reached Emmitsburg Road and about 1,100 went down at the fence. The rest were either killed, wounded/captured or captured. Source: North&South Magazine, Vol 1, Issue 6.
I'm. . not sure what you're saying now. I assume you mean woods. Which I believe in. That great deal hid at the road or fled But the way you make it sound is absurd. Estimates place the total casualties at upwards of 6,000 (1,000+ dead, and a great many more wounded). "Not as bad"? That's pretty bad. Especially as it accomplished nothing but, as they say in the movie "men in tall hats beating their chests" talking about how brave these men were.
The thing about Gettysburg? Slow or not, it was likely doomed to fail from the start. For one thing, they were low on supplies. However, more importantly, three significant elements had failed prior:
Stuart was stopped cold before getting behind enemy lines to exploit any gaps. Ewall's attack was countered and ineffective. The artillery barrage accomplished NOTHING.
@Mahbu Low on supplies? Lee's Army gathered up around 15,000-20,000 horses, 50,000 head of cattle, at least 35,000 sheep, probably as many hogs, chickens, anything on two to four legs was game. Lee went into Pennsylvania to resupply his entire army. So how is that "Doomed to fail from the start?" Many people just read about the three day battle, but not the three weeks before that. Lee's men in Pennsylvania were well supplied on food and luxury's they had not had since the beginning of the war
Your mistake, Rebel, is believing that I refer to the entire campaign when I refer to Pickett's charge. Like Sherman, Lee was effectively living off the land because the CSA couldn't resupply them. Your other mistake is assuming that supplies means only food. All those luxuries mean absolutely nothing to the brigades that were on the attack. People that needed rations, ammunition, etc. to hold together an offensive.
Longstreet did not order the charge Lee did Longstreet told him that no 15,000 men ever made could take the postion and wanted to move around the flank at big round top. I mean i agree deff not one of the greatest general ever but just sayin.
@munchaotz The truth about your post, first off, General Lee put General Longstreet in charge of "Pickett's Charge". The plan was to have the reserves follow up a breakthrough (Which there was) but Longstreet did not put in Posey-Thomas-Mahone brigades. So you can imagine the Confederates that made it to the the Union lines and looked back and saw no help coming.
Longstreet was blamed by many Confederate generals for losing the battle of Gettysburg. Lee himself in 1869 blamed Longstreet.
Lee did not. That's a fabrication by critics after the fact. Critics who wanted to blame him because he was a "reconstructed rebel". Because he decided to participate as a REPUBLICAN of the day and because he willingly used black troops. The south felt betrayed and they were unjustified in this sentiment so they turned on him and made him into a scapegoat to protect Lee's image. How sad.
@Mahbu Lee wrote a letter to Senator Wigfall from Texas in 1869, the year before Lee passed away. In the letter Lee blamed Longstreet for the loss at Gettysburg on July 2nd. With the words of, "I wish he would have attacked sooner then later." Longstreet as we know attacked at 4PM on July 2nd. Lee wanted an early morning attack, because Lee's latest intelligence reported no Union soldiers in the Peach Orchard.
Again, it's not Lee. I told you that. It's the people that came after Lee. It's the people that want to absolve Lee of any fault or blame. It's the people that want to deny any possible criticism of the south. It's the people that want to shift all blame on former heroes who they thought betrayed them. Longstreet makes a perfect scapegoat because he disagreed with Lee on the attack, because he became a republican and sided with Grant after the war.
@Mahbu I don't judge Confederate nor Union generals on what they did after the war. I judge them during the war. I am far to busy working on books, editing, creating regimental detailed maps on battles that have none. After nearly thirty years reading on the Civil War, I got a little tiresome of reading another book on Gettysburg. So I thought what has not been written. I figured that out and the nineteen years the project is going well.
You don't need to be from the South, Rebel. Would it surprise you if I said I came from Mississippi or Virginia? Birthplace and location only partly effect a person and by no means limit a person's thought. You can be a Bostonian and be a Republican. You can be a Texan and a Liberal.
You may not be worried about how his conduct was after the war, but it did many others and that sentiment carried over through the ages and had a lasting influence on future views.
@Mahbu That is how Southern people saw it, add on the fact that Longstreet bad mouthed Lee did not help him either. I judge Longstreet on how he did in the war. So let me start off here, after the battle of First Bull Run, Longstreet and General Joe Johnston became very good friends. It was Johnston that had Longstreet promoted to Major General and senior at that. He moved up from brigade command to third in the Confederate Army, just below MG. Gustavus Woodson Smith.
For instance, the lost cause. Certainly the tone of many books regarding Longstreet have carried that venom from all those people bitter over Longstreet's choices and conflict with Lee.
I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the civil war like you, because I'm not, but I like to think I have a better grasp than most. I have studied the root causes and the results out of intense interest to see what drove brother against brother.
@Mahbu MG. Smith was not suited for command and thus Lee took over. Now Lee did not know Longstreet had taken the wrong road he was assigned to and then argued with MG. Huger, over who had seniority and who had the right of way. So of course Huger objected and pointed out that he was on the correct road (He was). Joe Johnston never reported the incident and it never reached Lee ears.
I will say this. It's a bit premature to say that you're older when you don't even know me. Unless you're well past your sixties, I don't rightly understand why you'd make such a claim.
I only have limited knowledge on Williamsburg but it seems like it was Early who made larger blunders, not Longstreet, based on poor scouting.
What really strikes me as odd, though, is that if Lee was really as great as we all say, I'm certain that he'd be a better judge of character.
@Mahbu At the small rear guard battle after Yorktown, April 1862, the Battle of Williamsburg was fought. Longstreet was in command and almost lost control of the battle and lost more then he needed to. Longstreet wrote to Johnston claiming a victory and Johnston took him for his word. so basically whatever Longstreet did, Joe Johnston would cover it up. Thus none of this was brought to Lee's attention.
If Longstreet really was as big a blundering fool as you seem to indicate, no amount of covering would protect him for long, assuming Lee was as involved and as brilliant as legends proclaim. It's strange, then, that Longstreet became, what was it, the "staff in his right hand"?
I'm not telling you that Longstreet was the greatest General alive, I'm telling you that he was competent. That he fulfilled his role but is unjustly blamed to cover for the entirety of the South and Lee.
@Mahbu By 9AM, Lee asked his staff what was taking Longstreet so long to attack. Then 10AM, then 11 and then 12 and every time, Lee asked his staff the same question. I highly doubt Lee was considered what Longstreet had done after the war, besides Lee died in 1870. So he would not be biased towards Longstreet because he became a REPUBLICAN. Longstreet never won a campaign on his own (Suffolk and East Tenn) so there is no excuse there. But typically people like yourself will use that excuse.
Not to be a massive party pooper nice vid by the way but the charge was called Pickets charge by name the Union general was indeed called hancock but the two gentlemen who led the confedrate line on the day their names escape me but Pickett didnt actually lead the charge.
@95jjs completely agree, especially since they're battle plan is just "shoot and charge" and then get they're ass raped by the opposing guns. what stupidity.... why the hell would you charge guns head on...
Good video. I'd love to see this movie remade and have the battle scenes much more graphic, such as when the men are hit with cannon fire. In real life I would imagine they'd fall apart as opposed to falling down.
Good video. I'd love to see this movie remade and have the battle scenes much more graphic, such as when the men are hit with cannon fire. In real life I would imagine they'd fall apart as opposed to falling down.
The original music to these scenes are better. Great movie though.
Screech8703 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lee could Have won if He just folowed longstreet's plan not to attack tHe union troops directly...but to tHreaten wasHngton D.C.
aethelwond99 3 months ago
@Irockmarkdowns lol u sound a lil mad there bro, take a chill pill, its all over, ended 150 years ago, nothing to be crying over.
thewowgamer100 3 months ago
@Z3kedog It's people like you that give the USA a bad name. The Confederacy was not a loser, it defeated the Union numerous times outnumbered, but either way the South wasn't going to win because it was 22 million Yankees vs 9 million Rebels. General Lee defeated the Union when the Union was twice his size in the Battle of Chancellorsville. The Confederacy was not a Loser, and neither was the Union. They both fought brave for themselves. If you have nothing nice to say, please keep it to urself.
thewowgamer100 3 months ago
@thewowgamer100
Err..are you retarded? The Confederates may have had their share of victories but they lost the most important ones.
"The Confederacy was not a Loser, and neither was the Union."
Uhm no..the Confederacy lost the important battles, and lost the war, you fucking inbred shit for brains moron.
Irockmarkdowns 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My great, great, great, uncle, Richard Yeadon Blackwell of Lauderdale Mississippi died in Pickett's Charge.
360Nomad 4 months ago
If you ask me there were two losers in this war, the confederacy and the people.
Z3kedog 4 months ago
I find it a shame that in schools they teach that the civil war was a fight about slaver and only slavery. Luckily I come from a southern family and they taught me better.
Z3kedog 4 months ago
The south is my home. I would defend it just like these men.
Virginiaboy131 5 months ago
The south had the right to break away! In a way, we did. We still have our confederate flags in the south.
Virginiaboy131 5 months ago
"I Have no Division"...... Bold words with a Heart on It's Own.
Xydan7 5 months ago
"I have no division." was the line that stood out the most for me in this movie.
Psiros2161 5 months ago
What kind of kid can think that thousands of men died for slavery.... Slavery is not a good thing... but no white men at that time would have died for it...
Jabthecat 6 months ago
thats a gross misconception. they werent dying for slavery. they were dying to protect there homes. most were not part of the plantation artistocracy. those who were, justified it in the name of states rights to determine how they alone would handle the issue of slavery and not be dictated by the north, hence the reason for secession. yes, there were fanatics like edmund ruffin. but those were few. even robert e.lee didnt believe in slavery. but there was a fierce loyalty to defend virginia.
bigblondman1 5 months ago
Yes they did get their asses handed to them, first off the confederates roke through one part and then almost immediateley after were cut downn.
terminator5791 6 months ago
Confederates obviously go their ass handed to them
terminator5791 6 months ago
@terminator5791 Yeah, the confederates who were outnumbered 3-5 to 1, starving, outgunned, outnavied, disease-ridden, and had been through multiple offensives through superior forces "got their assed handed to them". Funny thing is they almost broke through the Union line, despite a horrible battle decision by Lee. Until 1863, the confederates didn't lose any battles on the eastern front. They only lost because they went on the offensive. Antietam and Ghettysburg. After Jackson died.
Andrew33416 6 months ago
The Union had more deaths compare to the Confederates...but the Union can make up for their losses, while the Confederates CANNOT!
KnightsHospitallerBC 7 months ago
I wish the rebels won the war... Fuck the american army. Long Live the Confederate states of america !!!
LibranEsq 7 months ago 2
@LibranEsq Don't cheer for the confederacy, neither side was more moral than the other in the civil war, cheer for the actual united STATES, not the United State. Thats what the war was over, states rights, which was the main idea behind the United States in the first place, sadly, revisionist history has corrupted our view of things and a good principle was defeated under the guise of a noble cause. Maryland and Delaware were slave states, just for everyones info, also see wage slavery.
Andrew33416 6 months ago
@Andrew33416 GO CONFEDERATES!! WOOOOOOO!!
Desvena 6 months ago
@LibranEsq So you would much rather have slavery? Or are you just saying that for moral reasons? Well if there was slavery it would be ended anyways. You still live in and the Confederates and Union died along with the war.
blokdeblok 6 months ago
@blokdeblok I dont believe in slavery. My gripe is with the federal government of the united states. I wish the rebels killed it off back then so it wouldnt even exist today. They were right:
LibranEsq 6 months ago
Original soundtrack was far better.
360Nomad 7 months ago
bit harsh with the language there! The cannon fire was a bit to high, Did little damage. The charge was ,, well in vain. The trees are still there,, the high water mark. By luck or just good fortune the union had better ground. It's a long walk across that field.
pdgolf99 8 months ago
mother fucker why you showing us this shit i heard about it now i have to see it
Ajdin9 8 months ago
IF THE REAL BATTLE GETTYSBURG SOLDIERS WATCHED THIS MOVIE,THEY COME BACK FROM DEAD,AND KICK THE STUPID DIRECTORS WHITE ASS.
planta46 8 months ago
United States of America... such a bad history
redrooster241 8 months ago
@redrooster241 How, we made great history.
NWFWMbudwieser 8 months ago
@NWFWMbudwieser bad history of a pointless war, massacring the true people of america, and just plain stupidity throughout the world's history.
redrooster241 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@redrooster241 hate all you want. atleast our civil war wasnt like an african one. 48 women getting raped every day, or was it every hour?
Aronz1000 7 months ago
Yeah , fuck niggers !
Bangavsam 9 months ago
@Bangavsam Well fuck you, racist peace of white trash,
wazupwazup747 9 months ago
One of the must shocking and sad things to hear is when Pickett said that he had no division.
redsoul888 9 months ago
TheLostidea, to answer your question, "I" don't judge generals before or after the Civil War. Yes Southern people did judge Longstreet for what he did after the war. I don't get caught up in what Longstreet did after the war. I could care less if he opened a ice cream shop with Grant and Sherman and moved to Maine. I judge all generals for what they did during the war. For as much writing and fault finding Longstreet wrote, he himself never won a major battle/campaign on his own. That I judge.
rebel2276 9 months ago
@rebel2276- I'm not talking about you judging him for what he did after the war. But the people in the South never forgave him for joining the Republican party following the war is all I meant and I think that the betrayal they felt has led to how badly his image to this day. Although there was a school or church is the South that not too long ago had a sign saying Lee should have listened to Longstreet. And from what I've gathered about him wanting to send 30,000 on Pickets charge was because-
TheLostIdea 9 months ago
@rebel2276- He knew it was a bad plan and even thought that sending the 30,000 men was going to result in a massive defeat, but sending half that amount was going to be a massacre.
TheLostIdea 9 months ago
@TheLostIdea We have to look at Pickett's Charge and realize that only 6,000 Confederates pushed on to the Emittsburg Road. John Micheal Priest proved that eleven years ago in a article in the North&South Magazine. We have read what 6,000 Confederates did, suppose all 12,000 stayed in the charge? Many people are confused thinking, 12,000 Confederates went in the charge and failed. Half either ran back or got down and found any cover they could.
rebel2276 9 months ago
@rebel2276 You're suggesting that this fellow "proved" something that every other historian disagrees with? I think you're putting too much stock into the musings of a single writer. All other sources say that all 12K bravely stayed in the charge, though it's true that many on the left wing routed under flanking fire from units swinging off from Cemetery Hill.
Crymson1 9 months ago
@Crymson1 That "Fellow" is one of the best historians in the business. John Michael Priest proved that only 6,000 Confederates pushed on to the Emmitsburg Road. Refer to "North&South" Magazine, Volume 1, Issue 6, pages 42-55. MG. Trimble who was one of the division commanders in Pickett's Charge wrote, that he saw hundreds if not thousands of Confederates running back to the woods. Letters are primary sources. So yes. Mr. Priest broke that myth.
rebel2276 9 months ago
@Crymson1 We all know what Pickett had said to Lee, after the charge. But what many people do not know, is what Longstreet said to Pickett. (Pickett) "General, I am ruined; my division is gone, it is destroyed." (Longstreet) replied, "Things are not that bad, you will find an impressive number of your men in the woods behind me." Kemper's brigade alone lost 500 men before even marching off. Kemper lost 678 men and 341 of them were captured and wounded. Many men refused to advance or got down.
rebel2276 9 months ago
@Crymson1 The total loss of Pickett's charge was "4,802". The Union controlled that part of the battlefield reported capturing, "1,234" Wounded and Captured, "1,530" Non-Wounded and Captured. The Union reported they buried 801 Confederates as well. "1,237" wounded Confederates made it back to the Confederate lines (As reported from Confederates records at the National Archives). Mr. Priest will disagree with 99.9% of historians, because they never did exhausting research on it.
rebel2276 9 months ago
@Crymson1 I normally live in Washington DC, when I am not out here in Afghanistan. My research team and I dig very deep at the National Archive and Library of Congress. Since 99% of book writers/historians don't live in Washington DC, they don't have the time or luxury to spend at either building. This is why we edit their books, magazines, movies, etc. I have been in this business for thirty years, I had the most family in the Civil War and most that fought for the Union.
Have a good day, sir
rebel2276 9 months ago
@rebel2276 Writers who must do research for their books will travel to do so. No offense, but the idea that quality history authors will avoid certain sources just because they do not live nearby is laughably incorrect.
Crymson1 9 months ago
@rebel2276 Isn't that part of it though? That only 6,000 pushed forward? I sort of comes of as saying we would have won the game if it wasn't for the other team scoring those touchdowns. From what I have read 5000 SURVIVED the Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble charge. A minor miracle in itself.
oneputtsteven 9 months ago
@oneputtsteven The "6,000" that pushed on, were the main casualties, pretty much 98% were killed, wounded/captured and non-wounded/captured. John Michael Priest estimated that the total loss was "4,802". "If" 12,000 or so Confederates went into the charge then one-fourth went down. Now this would not include, Confederates that were wounded and made it back to their lines. It is impossible to know the real loss.
rebel2276 9 months ago
@rebel2276 Wasn't as high as 98% and I heard there was 28,000 pushed on, I imagine more than this movie but am not sure.
steve5123456789 8 months ago
ONE OF THE MOST GREATEST BATTLES IN HITORY,AND ITS REPRESENTED IN THIS WAY,
I CANT BELIVE THIS.
planta46 9 months ago
1:30 the slowest charge in history
TheMonoman14 9 months ago
@TheMonoman14 hhaahhahahah AJJJJAJAJAJ THE SLOWEST CHARGE THATS TRUE,JAJAJAJAJAJAJJA
planta46 9 months ago
Fastone1412, excellent choice on the music for the video! Beautiful!
rebel2276 9 months ago
Now, D.H. Hill did not want to give up anymore brigades. He had given up, Daniel, Pettigrew and Davis's brigades. Lee wanted more brigades and Lee and D.H.Hill argued over that. Lee argued that D.H.Hill did not need that many men, he was on the defense in South Eastern Virginia. Using hindsight, Lee was correct. Lee wanted to destroy the AOP and too many times he almost did, just to have either his lieutenants screw something up or the AOP retreated across a river, high ground, etc.
rebel2276 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Owen Wister - A Square Deal:
"Americans are being told in these days that they owe a debt of support to Irish Independence, because the Irish fought with us in our own struggle for independence. Yes, the Irish did, and we do owe a debt of support. But it was the Orange Irish who fought in our Revolution, and not the Green Irish."
GaraGambini 10 months ago
long live the south, Deo vindice!
TheRealVanillaTwix 10 months ago
I wonder when humans will learn the vital lesson, before or after we are extinct.
Sidslotm 10 months ago
FLY THE STARS AND BARS AND THE BONNIE BLUE AND SHOW THE EASTERN ESTABLISHMENT THE RESPECT THEY DESERVE!
ERROLCUSTERFLYNN4EVR 10 months ago
were learning about the civil war in school and i heard the bloobiest battle was the vicksburg battle
beasted00 11 months ago
wow i got to take a field trip there but im to pussy cuz there was 1 million people that died there and alot of people say it was the most bloodest battle ever and everyone says its haunted im scared
Theedrumguy1000 11 months ago
@Theedrumguy1000 nah its not haunted but the bloodiest battle was Anteadem i think
15,000 killed in one day i belive
CM99501 11 months ago
@CM99501 Certainly the bloodiest day in American military history CM but I know the British army suffered more than 19000 killed and 39000 wounded on July 1 1916 during the first day of the Somme Campaign. In two weeks in October 1941 during the Battle of Vyasma 150 000 Red Army soldiers were KILLED.
Caracalla23 11 months ago
@Theedrumguy1000 Oh fuck off will you.
Caracalla23 11 months ago
@tzepesh20 The tactics used at that time were based on previous battle experience and theory. The reason for the high casualty rate was because the tactics did not take into account the advances in weaponry. The smoothbore flintlock musket used previously was nowhere near as accurate as the rifled percussion musket. As for the "slavers," very few Southern soldiers ever owned slaves. Slavery was the moral issue of the war, not the entire reason for the war.
MikeWinpeg 11 months ago
that music is the beginning of the video? 0:00 a 1:00
0RedDjinn 11 months ago
movie sucked besides the battle scenes. Still could have been a little more accurate on what happens to human bodies when they get hit with cannons point blank.
RonHatred 1 year ago
people from the same nation kills each other...
rebelpy 1 year ago
Actually live 15 minutes from Gettysburg and go there all the time now know exactly what won the war for UNION ie Washington and The North ..I bought book on actuall cannons...from the Museum there...what won the war ie Harpers Ferry Antietam and of course Gettysburg was pure physics----RIFLING that s is...Rifles and Cannons used by North were Rifled and rapid loading!
CBAsystems 1 year ago
@CBAsystems By the time of Gettysburg, half of the ANV'S artillery was captured Union artillery. At Second Manassas, the Confederates captured around 30 artillery pieces, 47 at Harper's Ferry, 22 at 2nd Winchester, 5 at Martinsburg, Seven Days was even worse, Glendale/Frayser's Farm--16 Artillery pieces captured. Gaines' Mill--19 Pieces were captured. 1st Bull Run--27 Pieces captured. Sharpsburg--1-Ten Pound Parrott, Gettysburg--7 artillery. Many more but out of typing space in this little box.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276 How much was in Charlestown, WV as the time? Now it is so modern and a small casino there..
CBAsystems 1 year ago
Recall an issue perhaps a year. . or couple of years ago. . about states wanting to return captured standards that had been on display elsewhere. Perhaps you know more on this.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu To answer your question, ALL flags Union and Confederate belonged to their own governments. The Medal of Honor was first awarded to Union soldier for turning in captured Confederate flags. So it was not for bravery or gallantry, as it is now. Both governments put out a order that all flags captured belonged to the government and not that soldier. That system worked to a point, but not all flags were turned in. Some were torn up, some kept as trophies long gone in history.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@Mahbu I wish both sides would stop acting like little kids and turn over the flags. Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois have Confederate flags. There are more Union states that have one-ten flags. I personally don't care or get into the whole feud. I just find captured Union flags and that is it. That will be book number one, books two-ten will also be about captured stuff. I work with the best vexologists in America, so that was a huge help. My research team is generally 25-100 officers and friends.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@Mahbu We will never find every single captured Union or Confederate flags, guidons, artillery flags etc. I am going to stop at One-Thousand and call it over with. After nearly Twenty years it has been frustrating. Many Northern states, currently play stupid and do not want to help. But like usual, they will send me what Confederates flags they still illegally hold. But that is help to my counterparts, who search for CSA flags.
rebel2276 1 year ago
I like finding the unknown stuff in the Civil War. Missing Union/Confederate regimental strengths and losses. Captured flags, artillery, companies up to armies. That is what I do, I take some time off, come on here, answer people's questions, check if someone has found something interesting as well. I look everywhere for info on subjects I cover. Hence being up 3-4 in the morning.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
But it doesn't even go that far. A person might look at what you or I say and simply side with one of us because it sounds convenient. It's truly a depressing thing but then you usually can't expect much from the internet. It is partly why I have little patience for others here. But then there are gems out there, hidden beneath the shit and worthless rock.
Like, for instance, your flag mission. That is interesting. In fact, I vaguely. . .
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu I try not to take a side, as I am not from the North nor South, or really anywhere. Both of my parents were Army officers so we moved a lot. I joined the Army at 17 so I have lived in Germany, Hungary, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan (My favorite), Panama, Honduras, etc. Overall, the US. Government should come out one day and just tell the truth about the war. But they will not, so 99% of Americans will live in ignorance.
rebel2276 1 year ago
trying to get history straight. That being said, in these day and age, you or are not immune to bias or agenda.
As is the case with Longstreet. Where as I believe he is wrongfully blamed for a lot of things, you suggest he is an incompetent commander. Basically, we can argue in circles and cite different books if you really want.
Mahbu 1 year ago
There is one thing, by the way, I do understand. Entirely. History is not always an accurate creature. Yes, we may have records on this battle or that action sometimes it's based on bias or agenda. Sometimes it's only one perspective, like how you argued against Longstreet and his memoirs and his peers. The further back in history we go, the less we accurately know as the quality of records vary greatly. And sometimes people embellish. But I suppose that is why we have men like you
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Yes, I keep it fair down the line. I am not from the South nor the North. Nor the East or West. I tend to be the referee in debates because the majority of people believe what they were told to read in school. For us 1% out there, we know that much of that is bullshit. But really does it matter? Wow I write 100 books proving the Union was wrong, wow. Even with millions of sources, wow. So as you can see that has never been a path I was going to write on.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
In an ideal world we would all keep things fair but it seems like "fair" doesn't matter to a lot of people. It's hard not to get jaded or cynical when most people don't seem to care or lack the patience. It's fine to believe something, "right" or "wrong" but when you lack sufficient reason beyond "I was told this". For instance, you had done your research and I do mine and from that we believe what we believe.
Mahbu 1 year ago
Merely the important person on that hill who was able to tell his story.
Mahbu 1 year ago
On the topic of Gettysburg, I did read the Gettysburg campaign. ANd, of course, I have all the wealth of knowledge from elementary and high school from those outdated beaten up books we had to wrap up in paper bag covers because we had to return them. While others doodled on that paper, I. . also doodled but I also dreamed of what it'd be like. What went on in the heads of these men facing each other from opposite view points.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu I read on the Civil War a lot in High School, more then my Eleventh grade history teacher did, lol. I had to teach the class. Overall, I am just looking for myself back then.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
As for the battle, I am only vaguely familiar with it so I started reading on about it as soon as you mentioned it. So far, I'm not as convinced as you are but maybe as I read more that'll be changed. The gist of what I'm gathering though is that he gave a strong attack on Hooker and nearly succeeded but then Hooker was reinforced. That doesn't sound that terrible to me. Even the best generals have bad days, right?
Mahbu 1 year ago
@rebel2276
As for the battle, I am only vaguely familiar with it so I started reading on about it as soon as you mentioned it. So far, I'm not as convinced as you are but maybe as I read more that'll be changed. The gist of what I'm gathering though is that he gave a strong attack on Hooker and nearly succeeded but then Hooker was reinforced. That doesn't sound that terrible to me. Even the best generals have bad days, right?
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Longstreet turned his division around to face Hooker's division. Only when A.P Hill showed up then the Confederate turned the battle around. Longstreet made a huge mistake by not watching his left flank. Thus BG. Winfield Hancock got around Longstreet's left flank and waited. Sure enough BG. Early was sent to the left and the 5th NC and 24th Va were tore up and Early was wounded. Early was enraged with Longstreet for not informing him of any Union soldiers on the left.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276- I am not trying to be confrontational, but if Longstreet was so terrible and Lee picked him to be his right hand man for the whole war doesn't that make it Lee's fault. I mean he should have gotten rid of him if he was so terrible. And if Gettysburg was Longstreet's fault like Lee claimed years later then why did he keep him in such a high rank for 2 more years. Wasn't Longstreet shot by his own men because he was scouting behind the lines in a repeat of what happened to Jackson?
TheLostIdea 10 months ago
@TheLostIdea Longstreet was not Lee's "Right hand man". If you recall, when Jackson lost his left arm (Chancellorsville), Lee said, "He has lost his left, I have lost my right". Longstreet actually did want to leave the ANV, he wanted to go west and link up with General Joe Johnston. They had a father/son relationship going back to after 1st Bull Run. After Jackson died, Longstreet was all that Lee had left, per say as a senior Corps commander. Longstreet never won a battle/campaign on his own.
rebel2276 10 months ago
Comment removed
TheLostIdea 9 months ago
@TheLostIdea Yes, Longstreet was shot in the throat at the Wilderness. The impact lifted him up on his horse. What went down was, MG. Martin Luther Smith ANV Chief of Engineers, found a railroad that swung around the left of Hancock's position. Thus, four brigades were sent to outflank Hancock. Mahone--Wofford--GT. Anderson and Davis' brigade behind GT. Anderson. Longstreet launched his attack and the 4 brigades attacked at the same time, Hancock's men were stuck in a "L" situation.
rebel2276 10 months ago
@TheLostIdea Now the four CSA brigades attacking the left flank merged in with the main force and that caused confusion and friendly fire. Thus, this was the point Longstreet was hit. Longstreet would not return to duty till October 1864. LT. General Richard H. Anderson would take over the 1st Corps, till Longstreet returned. Jackson was hit on a night recon mission, Longstreet was hit during the day time by soldiers in Mahone's VA brigade.
rebel2276 10 months ago
@TheLostIdea After the battle of Gettysburg and the ANV returned to Virginia. Longstreet wrote his uncle a letter and in the letter he wrote that "General Lee should have put double the men in the final charge." As you can read, that is a huge difference then the "Hollywood" movie "Gettysburg". In the movie they portray Longstreet trying to convince Lee, not to attack and that Longstreet said they should move between the AOP/Washington City, etc. People watch Hollywood and believe what they see
rebel2276 10 months ago
@rebel2276 Yes he should have put in 30,000 men. But he didn't and that was Longstreet's issue. Lee shouldn't have attacker for just the reason Longstreet said. He didn't have enough men. And of the men he did cobble together only one was from a fresh division (the only one not yet engaged in fact). The other two were from shot up divisions commanded by replacements as both Heth and Pender had been wounded (Pended fatally). That's why Hill had 2:3 divisions but Longstreet was in command.
Shafeone 9 months ago
@Shafeone The blame goes to Jefferson Davis. Lee wanted more brigades to go into Pennsylvania. He wanted Corse and Jenkin's brigades (That were in Pickett's division), he wanted Ransom, Cooke and Evan's brigades as well. In Pettigrew's brigade the 44th NC all 812 men were left guarding Hanover Junction, doing nothing. Lee needed to be approved by the Confederate Congress to go into Pennsylvania. Lee complained, he did not have enough men, thus it was the fault of Davis and Congress.
rebel2276 9 months ago
@rebel2276 NOOOO. The blame goes to Robert E Lee for ordering 12.000 men to assault a position that maybe could have been taken with 30,000. A great commander works with the resources he has and, regardless of the fact that he SHOULD have had more, he DID have less and that is what matters. Keep trying. Lee should have said "Gee I really wish Davis had listened because then I could have assaulted that line. But, since he didn't I can't. Time to try a different strategy. Hubris my dear Reb.
Shafeone 9 months ago
@TheLostIdea After Jackson died Longstreet clearly became Lee's most trusted and respected Liutenant and for good reason. Longstreet had aquitted himself well in every battle and had that rarest of abilities in this age of GPS we do not appreciate: he could command large bodies of troops who were often beyond visual range with just couriers and parchment and not get flustered. At Antietam (9 months before Jackson died) Lee called Longstreet "My old war horse." Old Pete was THE MAN.
Shafeone 9 months ago
@Mahbu Now to top that off, as arrogant Longstreet could be, he lied to General Joe Johnston about the battle and signed his name and "Commanding 2nd Corps". There were no Corps established yet, but Longstreet tended to promote himself. Longstreet skipped the chain of command and wrote directly to General Cooper about getting A.P. Hill promoted to MG. Now Longstreet did not care about promoting A.P. Hill, he just wanted to command more then one division so as to be a "Corps Commander". lol
rebel2276 1 year ago
@Mahbu If you really knew how Longstreet was a down right piece of shit only looking out for himself, you would not have debated with me from day one. Thus as I told you, you need to read more on Longstreet and the A.N.V. Like usual, everyone replies, "I do, I read a lot!" but for some odd reason those people have no idea or clue what I am typing to them. Between 55,000-60,000 Civil War books have been written, I have covered at least half of those so far. I own well over 10,000 books.
rebel2276 1 year ago
For that reason, Rebel, I have perused various memoirs and journals as I've always wanted to get their perspectives. The quality of biographies varied from place to place. Contrary to your opinion, I have actually read works on Lee. . Lee being one of them. No surprise, I'm sure, that I've read what Longstreet had to say. I've had the pleasure of reading Three Months in the Southern States. An Honorable Defeat was interesting. I've read a number of books criticizing Abraham Lincoln --
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu I don't get into Slavery, who started the war, politics, estimates of formations, biography's etc. I am just concentrated on finding Union flags that were captured. My counterparts are working on Confederate flags captured. We hope to come out with the first ever two book series on captured flags. The Union flags are much more difficult to track down. So I do that, edit everything when I have time, work at the Pentagon and I will be back in Afghanistan hopefully in two months.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
The issue of slavery has been one of special interest of me. Not because of race or because of morality but it fascinates me how intensely the two sides are on the issue. How the "South" vehemently denies it and how the "North" fiercely accuses it. What I have learned is that the issue is far from simple and what puzzles me is why it's still a point of contention. Godwin forgive me, but World War II happened more recently yet we've forgiven the Germans for Nazism. Or so it seems.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu We have proven that the war was not about slavery, even with the long missing letter found at the National Archives. Lincoln clearly blamed the Pope and the Jesuits for starting the war. I will type the letter in the next post. Let me know what you think of it.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
Lincoln blamed the Pope and the Jesuits for starting the Civil War?
Huh???
I've heard plenty of crazy theories over the years, but that one takes the cake :P
dbjkatz 7 months ago
@dbjkatz We dig very deep at the National Archives and we have found many letters that have never been published (and never will be). Lincoln blamed the Pope and Jesuits for starting the war. They start all the wars.
Send me a PM and I will type you my copy of Lincoln's letter.
Thank you and have a good night.
rebel2276 6 months ago
@Mahbu "The Civil War would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of our noblest sons." "Through all their councils theologians, and common laws....their conscience orders them to burn my wife, strangle my children and cut my throat when they find their opportunity."
Continue
rebel2276 1 year ago
@Mahbu "Sooner or later the light of common sense will make it clear to everyone that no liberty of conscience can be granted to men who are sworn to obey a Pope who pretends to have the right to put to death those who differ from him in religion."
Interesting to note, that Hitler claimed, he was "Greatly influenced" by the Jesuits...
rebel2276 1 year ago
@Mahbu "Sooner or later the light of common sense will make it clear to everyone that no liberty of conscience can be granted to men who are sworn to obey a Pope who pretends to have the right to put to death those who differ from him in religion."
My grandfather ran the CIA from 1955-1963 and when Kennedy was assassinated he knew it was a set up. Kennedy did not want to get involved in Vietnam. Big companies make big money off wars.
rebel2276 1 year ago
Then stop posting back to me, why why? You sound like some whiny little kid.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
And you sound like a bitter idiot trying to prove things to whiny little kids (it never occurred to you that the age might be inaccurate?). I believe we are at a stalemate.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu There is no stalemate, you posted to me first. You typed your point about Longstreet, as I typed before I don't judge him for what he did after the war. If you knew what he did during the war you would not be here debating at all. Read more on the Battle of Williamsburg and just before Fair Oaks/Seven Pines. That should give you a good understanding on Longstreet. I am not typing that he was a total failure but I believe he is overrated. But Lee had no other veteran Corps commander.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
That's not the stalemate I referred to, Rebel. I meant the stalemate of obnoxious. And I was judging him both based on what he did during the war and after because, maybe not you, but many people judged him solely after the war. This is important because between now and then, him and you, those people had all the power to write all the books they wanted on why they thought he was terrible. The insinuation being that any of the books we might've read unjustly portrayed him.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@rebel2276
But if you really want to turn this int a dick size comparison. . excuse me. . a reading comparison. Okay. Fine. Let me get my glasses.
To begin with. Google does wonders. You'll find just about anything on the internet, but to be fair quality standards are pretty low and rightfully believes wikipedia to be a credible source?
History was never my major but an interest because so much happened before I was even born (by the way, my age is inaccurate as it is irrelevant).
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Wikipedia is horrible, it would take me Twenty years to edit all that garbage out. But I am not going to waste my time with it. Google is great, try "Google Books". I prefer the National Archives and Library of Congress here in Washington DC. I have to search everywhere for information on my future books. It was a huge challenge that not many top historians wanted to get into but I like the challenge.
Have a good evening, I might be back on later.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
--- because I had gotten into an argument not unlike this. I still didn't agree but it was a gesture of good faith and an attempt to understand the opposing viewpoint.
Now, you may not approve, but I've always enjoyed what the History and Military channels put up in their documentaries. And, indeed, any documentary on any war has always had my attention. Sure, details are skimmed, but a person is left to fill in the blanks and look around themselves ---
Mahbu 1 year ago
@rebel2276
Because you do care. Maybe you're mad, maybe you're not. I don't know. I don't care to know. What you do with your life is your problem. All I know is that you claim to not care but any reasonable person would just walk away. You might ask "why don't you walk away" to which I will tel you that I've made no indication of not caring nor any claim that I am "done with you". I am just having a discussion on a topic you are free to leave and re-enter at your discretion.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@rebel2276
Grumbling bitterly about a broken dream. And C.) He's a convenient target so that all the blame can be taken from Lee and other venerated figures. Heaven forbid Lee get blamed for the disaster that was Pickett's charge.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Who cares, move on little kid.
rebel2276 1 year ago
But there's no doubt, no dispute that the artillery barrage did not do what was intended. That Stuart was unable to get behind the lines to attack from both sides. That Ewell couldn't divert or gain ground to support Pickett's charge.
The result was terrible for moral. And you may sneeze at the number of dead, wounded, and captured, but for an army with limited manpower, it's something. Longstreet or not, that attack did not have a chance of success beyond making them all "brave".
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu You go believe what you want to and I am going to stick with what I have read on Longstreet in nearly Thirty years. Again, you need to read more on the A.N.V and Longstreet to fully understand.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
I've read plenty enough, Rebel. Plenty. Telling me to "read more" may've been a 'clever' debate tactic when we were all sixteen know-it-alls but it doesn't cut it because it doesn't prove or back up anything. It's just a cop out/diversion.
I don't even like Longstreet. But I recognize he gets far too much flak for things that were typically out of his control or because a.) he wasn't General Lee and b.) because he wanted to get back to normal rather than . . .
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu I doubt you have read anything, keep convincing yourself that. Your arrogant and don't want to pay attention to what I had to type. Great, move on and bother someone else.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
Says the man who says "who cares, move on little kid" and "I've read all these fancy books so look at how important I am". What kills me is that you had to go and make a new post to say "who cares" as if something nagged you so much you had to come back.
You didn't even try to convince me. You just threw out "I READ BOOKS AND SO I AM RIGHT". And you didn't even argue against my points. You went off on tangents.
But if you're done. So be it. We are all free to go where we want.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Your 26 years old, what experience do you have? Please detail your years and decades of research. Your arrogant and immature, get over yourself. It does not matter what I type, you will not pay attention and for once on YouTube, I am not going to waste my time with you. Opps you didn't get me mad, either, I read that you like to pride your arrogant ass to piss people off. Well it didn't happen here, so try that on someone else.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
Except what are you doing, Rebel? You aren't being mature in the least. You aren't even taking the higher ground. It isn't even an issue of pride over "pissing people off". I'm making a point that might HELP you. For instance, "I'm not going to waste my time with you"? What are you doing right now? WHAT ARE YOU DOING? You just made a post to me. You already said you were done. You move on. But you come back? Why?
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu I work on Civil War stuff and answer people's questions on YouTube like yours.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
So? You deemed me not worth your time. Normally that means moving on to the next person. Are things that slow or do you secretly care?
Anyway, mister expert, if you feel there is a book you want to recommend, throw it out and if I haven't read it I'll see what it has to offer.
I've also read the Passing of Armies because Chamberlain had always interested me. A defender leading a bayonet charge? How deliciously outside the box! Though, of course, he surely wasn't the only important
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu I am not going to waste my time if you are not going to pay attention to what I type. No matter what I type your not going to believe it. Great, move on then.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
Granted, it is severely restricted but otherwise they seemed to have moved on.
We appear to be carrying on in two different tones and it confuses me so I'm going to drop the hostile for sake of convenience. Besides, I'm much more interested in your mission regarding flags. You see, I am a hopeless romantic and I miss the days that flags or standards were carried into battle. Where they mattered so much that men would fight and die to protect or retrieve it, such as the Aquila.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@rebel2276
I don't need to try anything else because you're doing it to yourself. If you're done, you won't respond and you'll move on like the adult you claim to be. Which I doubt. But maybe you'll try and prove me wrong by not responding in some kind of "spiteful" action. Or maybe you'll respond and tell me how much you don't care. . by caring to post a response and address me. Who you've apparently deemed not worthy of time yet given me just as much time as you did before.
Mahbu 1 year ago
What is typical of Longstreet apologist is what he did after the war and not when he messed up during the war. Longstreet's East Tennessee campaign was horrible, Fort Saunders what a bloody failure. Guess what? He had nobody to blame but himself and guess what he did? He blamed McLaws of course, it was always someone else that messed up not Longstreet. Longstreet would have done this and that and he had the chance to shine. As an independent commander he failed. Please type his victories.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
Furthermore, you don't need to kill, wound, or capture. You should know that. Moral is just as important and if people are turning back then the artillery did its job just fine. If people refused to charge, if people didn't fire back then they are combat ineffective and the defenders did their job.
If those people did charge? Maybe they'd have gained a bit more ground, who knows, but they didn't because artillery and ranks of people with guns scare people.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@rebel2276
Even if Union lines were breached proper, losses in soldiers and leadership and supplies would not be able to sustain what numbers were left and they were still surrounded.
I don't blame Longstreet for not wanting to attack. Bravery does not automatically acquit stupidity. The men on the attack were brave but the attack itself was probably extremely stupid.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Pickett's Charge was not as bad as we had thought it had been. John Michael Priest proved that nearly ten years ago, that only half the Confederates he marched to Emmitsburg Road. The rest either got down or ran back into the wounds. Priest believes about 6,000 Confederates reached Emmitsburg Road and about 1,100 went down at the fence. The rest were either killed, wounded/captured or captured. Source: North&South Magazine, Vol 1, Issue 6.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
I'm. . not sure what you're saying now. I assume you mean woods. Which I believe in. That great deal hid at the road or fled But the way you make it sound is absurd. Estimates place the total casualties at upwards of 6,000 (1,000+ dead, and a great many more wounded). "Not as bad"? That's pretty bad. Especially as it accomplished nothing but, as they say in the movie "men in tall hats beating their chests" talking about how brave these men were.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@rebel2276
The thing about Gettysburg? Slow or not, it was likely doomed to fail from the start. For one thing, they were low on supplies. However, more importantly, three significant elements had failed prior:
Stuart was stopped cold before getting behind enemy lines to exploit any gaps. Ewall's attack was countered and ineffective. The artillery barrage accomplished NOTHING.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Low on supplies? Lee's Army gathered up around 15,000-20,000 horses, 50,000 head of cattle, at least 35,000 sheep, probably as many hogs, chickens, anything on two to four legs was game. Lee went into Pennsylvania to resupply his entire army. So how is that "Doomed to fail from the start?" Many people just read about the three day battle, but not the three weeks before that. Lee's men in Pennsylvania were well supplied on food and luxury's they had not had since the beginning of the war
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
Your mistake, Rebel, is believing that I refer to the entire campaign when I refer to Pickett's charge. Like Sherman, Lee was effectively living off the land because the CSA couldn't resupply them. Your other mistake is assuming that supplies means only food. All those luxuries mean absolutely nothing to the brigades that were on the attack. People that needed rations, ammunition, etc. to hold together an offensive.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@PrUnEJulcEtHeThIrD
Longstreet did not order the charge Lee did Longstreet told him that no 15,000 men ever made could take the postion and wanted to move around the flank at big round top. I mean i agree deff not one of the greatest general ever but just sayin.
munchaotz 1 year ago
@munchaotz The truth about your post, first off, General Lee put General Longstreet in charge of "Pickett's Charge". The plan was to have the reserves follow up a breakthrough (Which there was) but Longstreet did not put in Posey-Thomas-Mahone brigades. So you can imagine the Confederates that made it to the the Union lines and looked back and saw no help coming.
Longstreet was blamed by many Confederate generals for losing the battle of Gettysburg. Lee himself in 1869 blamed Longstreet.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
Lee did not. That's a fabrication by critics after the fact. Critics who wanted to blame him because he was a "reconstructed rebel". Because he decided to participate as a REPUBLICAN of the day and because he willingly used black troops. The south felt betrayed and they were unjustified in this sentiment so they turned on him and made him into a scapegoat to protect Lee's image. How sad.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Lee wrote a letter to Senator Wigfall from Texas in 1869, the year before Lee passed away. In the letter Lee blamed Longstreet for the loss at Gettysburg on July 2nd. With the words of, "I wish he would have attacked sooner then later." Longstreet as we know attacked at 4PM on July 2nd. Lee wanted an early morning attack, because Lee's latest intelligence reported no Union soldiers in the Peach Orchard.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
Again, it's not Lee. I told you that. It's the people that came after Lee. It's the people that want to absolve Lee of any fault or blame. It's the people that want to deny any possible criticism of the south. It's the people that want to shift all blame on former heroes who they thought betrayed them. Longstreet makes a perfect scapegoat because he disagreed with Lee on the attack, because he became a republican and sided with Grant after the war.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu I don't judge Confederate nor Union generals on what they did after the war. I judge them during the war. I am far to busy working on books, editing, creating regimental detailed maps on battles that have none. After nearly thirty years reading on the Civil War, I got a little tiresome of reading another book on Gettysburg. So I thought what has not been written. I figured that out and the nineteen years the project is going well.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
You don't need to be from the South, Rebel. Would it surprise you if I said I came from Mississippi or Virginia? Birthplace and location only partly effect a person and by no means limit a person's thought. You can be a Bostonian and be a Republican. You can be a Texan and a Liberal.
You may not be worried about how his conduct was after the war, but it did many others and that sentiment carried over through the ages and had a lasting influence on future views.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu That is how Southern people saw it, add on the fact that Longstreet bad mouthed Lee did not help him either. I judge Longstreet on how he did in the war. So let me start off here, after the battle of First Bull Run, Longstreet and General Joe Johnston became very good friends. It was Johnston that had Longstreet promoted to Major General and senior at that. He moved up from brigade command to third in the Confederate Army, just below MG. Gustavus Woodson Smith.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
For instance, the lost cause. Certainly the tone of many books regarding Longstreet have carried that venom from all those people bitter over Longstreet's choices and conflict with Lee.
I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the civil war like you, because I'm not, but I like to think I have a better grasp than most. I have studied the root causes and the results out of intense interest to see what drove brother against brother.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu MG. Smith was not suited for command and thus Lee took over. Now Lee did not know Longstreet had taken the wrong road he was assigned to and then argued with MG. Huger, over who had seniority and who had the right of way. So of course Huger objected and pointed out that he was on the correct road (He was). Joe Johnston never reported the incident and it never reached Lee ears.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
I will say this. It's a bit premature to say that you're older when you don't even know me. Unless you're well past your sixties, I don't rightly understand why you'd make such a claim.
I only have limited knowledge on Williamsburg but it seems like it was Early who made larger blunders, not Longstreet, based on poor scouting.
What really strikes me as odd, though, is that if Lee was really as great as we all say, I'm certain that he'd be a better judge of character.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu At the small rear guard battle after Yorktown, April 1862, the Battle of Williamsburg was fought. Longstreet was in command and almost lost control of the battle and lost more then he needed to. Longstreet wrote to Johnston claiming a victory and Johnston took him for his word. so basically whatever Longstreet did, Joe Johnston would cover it up. Thus none of this was brought to Lee's attention.
rebel2276 1 year ago
@rebel2276
If Longstreet really was as big a blundering fool as you seem to indicate, no amount of covering would protect him for long, assuming Lee was as involved and as brilliant as legends proclaim. It's strange, then, that Longstreet became, what was it, the "staff in his right hand"?
I'm not telling you that Longstreet was the greatest General alive, I'm telling you that he was competent. That he fulfilled his role but is unjustly blamed to cover for the entirety of the South and Lee.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu By 9AM, Lee asked his staff what was taking Longstreet so long to attack. Then 10AM, then 11 and then 12 and every time, Lee asked his staff the same question. I highly doubt Lee was considered what Longstreet had done after the war, besides Lee died in 1870. So he would not be biased towards Longstreet because he became a REPUBLICAN. Longstreet never won a campaign on his own (Suffolk and East Tenn) so there is no excuse there. But typically people like yourself will use that excuse.
rebel2276 1 year ago
God save the South!
Damn Yankee´s!
93Archangel 1 year ago
that was a pretty good video, good job
deerkiller26 1 year ago
This was the waterloo of the US civil war.
larcm3 1 year ago
Not to be a massive party pooper nice vid by the way but the charge was called Pickets charge by name the Union general was indeed called hancock but the two gentlemen who led the confedrate line on the day their names escape me but Pickett didnt actually lead the charge.
Hauntedman1 1 year ago
at 1:40 pistel whip at 1:46 powned in the face
wfield123 1 year ago
yeah pwn them confedrets
wfield123 1 year ago
medeieval battles are the best these ones suck
95jjs 1 year ago
@95jjs completely agree, especially since they're battle plan is just "shoot and charge" and then get they're ass raped by the opposing guns. what stupidity.... why the hell would you charge guns head on...
skate4life890 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good video. I'd love to see this movie remade and have the battle scenes much more graphic, such as when the men are hit with cannon fire. In real life I would imagine they'd fall apart as opposed to falling down.
Supersaurus2012 1 year ago
Good video. I'd love to see this movie remade and have the battle scenes much more graphic, such as when the men are hit with cannon fire. In real life I would imagine they'd fall apart as opposed to falling down.
Supersaurus2012 1 year ago
Nicely done, thanks. That was an epic battle. Greetings from Poland.
Rogvist 1 year ago
1:45 retard family getting blown in the face!
mymoneyisyourmoney 1 year ago