Heard just short time ago that one of my greatgreatgreat...granduncles was one of those southern flag bearers at this battle, so have quite chilling feeling to see this one
@Whiskeypapa17 Have you been to the Battlefield of the Battle of Nashville, I've been a along time ago. The Battle of Nashville was really the last battle that broke the Army of Tennessee aswell as Franklin before which was allot like Pickett's charge but bloodier.
The movie is not bad but overly dramatic, especially the music which is at times almost vomit inducing. Fighting scenes are good, very exciting and scary. Some of the actors's fake beards are laughable. I wish Huston could have had The Red Badge of Courage as he wanted. It would probably be the best civil war movie ever.
Well most of the South in my opinon were fighting for state independence. Slavery also fueled most of the conflict, but overall most Southerners were under attack that the "union" of all the states were being coerced on them by A. Lincoln. The South was wanting to keep the same style of government that was established in 1776
@diggyu *** Like all wars poor guys fighting and giving up there lives so some rich guy can have more of the things that make him happy.*** I have to disagree with you, diggyu. Many wars have been fought senselessly, for no good purpose but NOT all of them. Some things are worth fighting to the death for, and some wars are justified. History turns on them and sometimes for the better - but not always. As long as there are tyrannical aggressors in the world, war is a sad necessity.
If Lee had listened to Jackson's suggestion to sweep around the Union to threaten Washington, it would have most likely have been a one-sided fight... Although a great American General, he made his greatest blunder attacking the Federal Army while they were entrenched on the hill.
@MrP4TR10T It was James Longstreets suggestion that Lee place The Army of Northern Virginia between Washington and Meades Army of the Potomac. Jackson was wounded at Chancellorsville on the 2nd of May and died on the 10th this was two months before Gettysburg
@MrP4TR10T If only Stonewall wasn't shot & killed accidentaly by his own men. In my opinion, Jackson dying was the turning point of the war. If it was same situation, maybe Lee would of heeded advice if came from Stonewall.
Lincoln and the Federals were obviously not interested in Social justice, and it is provable if you would just take a look at post Civil War treatment of the Western Native. The problem that I have with Lincoln's War is that of all Confederate dead, probably less than 1% owned Slaves themselves, they were too poor.
You should have sympathy for Southern soldiers, because they were not responsible for the sins you condemn them for. Should you and I be blamed for our Government bombing villages.
@TheWoodsmenJoe let me rephrase, i do agree with you that the south had to surrender because of food issues, if they had more food they could POSTPONED the surrender, but ineviably no matter how much food, the south would have lost to overwhelming numbers, better equipment, cavalry, artillery and navy forces
Iam with the south cause my political instinct says that Slavery had NOTHING to do with the war and i see the war as a constest for the soul of the nation that became USA, from the one side the industrial internationalist decadent parliamentarian north and from the other the agricultural traditional and very much culturally European south that represented the values of the European settlers
@TheWoodsmenJ i have to disagree with you there, the confederates did indeed kill more Union troops, but they couldnt kill twice as many as there own casulties and the union troops had double the amount of soldiers the Confederates had, plus the union navy was winning the fight at sea
@TheWoodsmenJoe Yes, many starved to death and went for days without food. Many times what persuaded men to fight the most was that they knew that they could get food from the enemy so they really many times fought for food. A Confederate from a Louisiana regiment once heard a Irish soldiers yell "Come on boys! They have food in their haversacks!"
As stupid as it seems to most people to attack straight at the middle of the union line you still gotta think... It almost worked. Talk about incredible
If this battle was won, the glorious Confederate States of America could have possibly gained its independance on July 4th. God has a funny way of speaking to us haha :) God bless those Southern heroes
July 3rd was a double whamy for the Southern cause. Vicksberg fell the same day. Because the South lost controll the Mississippi River, troop and supply movement from Texas, Arkansas, ad Louisiana. was difficult. If the "little roundtop" could have been secured earlier and JEB Stuart's participation injected sooner, many things would have changed that day. Getteysburg would not have been as much as a strategic victory for the South as much as it would have been physocolgocal defeat to the North.
this comment sums up everything everyone has been arguing back and forth about "an Army fights on its stomach". That is the biggest reason Lee had to surrender April 9 1865. The Lord only knows how long the war would have continued, if Lee had the supplies he needed for his men. Statistics show that the Confederates killed far more Union troops, That is the only reason the South lost was because they got starved out plan and simple.
@finalfrontier001 Actually the South won most of the battles, the North just won the most importand battles. The South had great generals like Patrick Cleburne the "Stonewall of the West", Nathane Beford Forrest, John Hunt Morgan, and many others. Lee fought off a enemy with superior numbers for years. Northern generals were horrible and used frontal attacks and got more men killed then they should have.
@finalfrontier001 First, learn to spell "Confederates", then you can look things up and study them better. They had the best generals in the world but the south was vastly outnumbered and had no industry to support the war effort. You have not studied the war in even a cursory fashion or you would never say that. It is one of the indisputible facts of the war.
@MrWileyk The feeling amongst the working classes of the mill towns of northern England was so pro Union and anti slavery that I dought that any British government would have declared for the South Mr. I don't think any European country would have recognised the Confederacy after Lees invasion of Maryland was repulsed in the Autumn of 1862 and certainly not after the Empancipation Proclamation. By July 1863 it was far too late.
I do not understand why gettysburg is so over played i mean yeah three bloodiest days but strategically what did it accomplish for either side? not shite
@bluegrassreb1 A major part for that is that the reenactment units would not participate unless Hollywood kept to historical fact and not change anything. The troops basically put the producers between a rock and a hard place for the film.
This is the beginning of the video? Showing clips from Turner's Gettysburg movie showing the artillery attack before Pickett's Charge? Its Gettysburg in reverse.?
I am from California and I live in Washington State, I am not even Southern. I just think making a stand against the Federal Government was something that proved to be valuable over the Years. The idea that a civil populace would rise up against a Federal Government. It was a deterrent for the Government. It became clear that America did not want a strong centralized government full of bureaucrats operating with impunity and omnipotent power.
@StonewallJackson26 You know i have no problem with people standing up to the federal government, but when those people OWN slaves, it's kind of hard to symphatize with them, regardless of the motives of the north or lincoln, you had to pull for the north, otherwise millions would have staye dinefinitely in ne of the most barbaric and inhumane systems the world has ever known
@Ruffneckization Who are those people? 5% of the South owned Slaves. A VAST MINORITY. Not to mention, not all Slaves were treated badly. Slavery is wrong yes, but you can't blame poor-middle class Southerners for the lifestyles of aristocrats.
However Slavery would have eventually ended, with the impending Industrial Revolution.
@StonewallJackson26 Somewhat true, and somewhat untrue. The South had intended for Slavery to die away in around 100 or so years for their nation. Now while I may be born & raised in Texas, I reenact these battles, and I only do so in Union colors. Reason being is the county I'm born in, voted Union, my ancestor who was UNJUSTLY blamed for the Union defeat at Bull Run is the main overall reason I wear Blue proudly.
@SoulKiller7Eternal Weird considering Texas won their own independence, without Federal support. They joined the Union voluntarily. Texas above anyone had every right to secede.
I on the other hand am from California originally. And if I did reenactments, I would proudly wear Grey.
@StonewallJackson26 They did join the Union out of choice, yes. But when the time came for the vote to secede? Only ONE man told Texas how stupid they were, and they didn't listen. Infact, a Union Calv unit was raised in the area I live in.
Now, General Garnett here is an ancestor I share the same last name with, although I'm not as directly related to him as I am, McDowell. I may honor him as a General, but I do not shed a tear for how he died...vaporized by a Union cannon.
@StonewallJackson26 Fun Fact: If officers under my ancestor General McDowell had obeyed his orders, the battle would have ended in favor of the Federal forces and a much different turn out of the war.
@StonewallJackson26 Uh...where are you getting your stats from? A census from 1860 shows ONE THIRD of southern families owned slaves totaling almost 4 MILLION slaves (but whose counting)...and not all slaves were treated BADLY? Are you serious? Have you read Frederick Douglas, or the countless other writers who documented the brutality they suffered as slaves? And that's like saying oh well some rapists use a condom...and "eventually" wouldve ended? How about ended TOO late?
@StonewallJackson26 Actually it is very accurate based on what we know today. Around 1/3 families down South owned slaves, which totaled around 4 million.
Now some slaves were treated fairly, some of those in the South did help runaway slaves.
@SoulKiller7Eternal I don't think so. That is the first time I have ever heard that figure. The REAL figure is between 5%-10%. 1/3 just isn't true. 1/3 of the people in the South did not have the money to house slaves. You're bullshitting.
"They are slaves, they aint white, they ain't my equal. I own them...they can sleep in the mud." - If they didn't have the money to house them...they slept in whatever they could find.
@StonewallJackson26 We aren't talking about the soliders! "Rich man's war, poor man's fight." Ever heard the phrase because it doesn't seem like it? Im beginning to doubt how much you know about the current said statistics of the past.
@SoulKiller7Eternal How could you claim that 1/3 of the Southern population before the War was rich enough to own Slaves. Slaves were EXPENSIVE. Not just to purchase, but to house, clothe, feed, tend to medically.
@StonewallJackson26 You are missing the point! Not every slave would care enough to feed, clothe, or give them medical aid! Scraps from the dinner table, ragtag clothes, and "you'll be alright." (plans where the body is to be buried)
You are FORGETTING, not ALL Slave Owners are KIND! Jeez get some information under your belt or I'm not gonna waste my time replying to your uneducated crap.
@SoulKiller7Eternal How would a RICH slave owner benefit if his slave is sick and can't work. Or is malnourished and it messes with his/her productivity? Now your true negative nature is becoming transparent. Your argument is false my friend.
@StonewallJackson26 My "negative' nature is being shown at the lack of intellect you show on this matter & your failure to even remotely understand my point in the least.
I'm done here until you can figure out EXACTLY the point I'm trying to relay to you here.
@StonewallJackson26 Wow, ya'll are arguing about slavery, but no one is arguing about how inaccurate this movie is uniform, drill and tactic wise. How about that artillery drill LOL!!!!!! and the infantry drill LOL and the horrible acting.!?!?!? Owell, I guess lessons lost are not lessons learned. Also, has soulkiller ever seen the great victory of the Georgia flag? It was a modified ANV battleflag. Since people saw it as racist they changed to a 1st national.
@StonewallJackson26 Don't waste you're time with his Union-Biased "I hate the South" debates. He does not know shit about the war, challenge him on the battles. He's like a whiny fourteen year old, that pretends to know everything but knows nothing.
Now Google, Battle of Waterloo, go to wikipedia. Look at the charts. And what does it say? " Decisive Coalition Victory." Get it? Are we making hedge way? There is a difference.
This is exactly why a detest certain people from the North East. Arrogant Sons of bitches, who continue to argue, even after making a fool of themselves.
@StonewallJackson26 Actually I am from one of your beloved slave states actually and come from a family of US Marines. I just also accept that I was born in the 1900s and not 1800s.
@Shafeone Did you google Gettysburg and Waterloo yet, to find out the difference? Can we admit now, that you are wrong, and are arguing from a position of polarized, extreme ignorance and now you are trying to save face, claiming your family was US Marines? If your family is Marines, I am sure they are disgusted by your lack of historical knowledge. Their own family member doesn't even know what a decisive victory is. Yet you insult me 100 times as I try to explain this to you.
@StonewallJackson26 As I said four times now. If your definition (and Wiki's of course) of 'decisive' is that the opposing force must be completely annihilated then it was not. And as I said, neither was Midway. Alamein, Trenton. Normandy. etc. So I ask YOU: was Normandy not decisive? How about Alamein? What about Barbarossa (NOT to be confused as you do with "Blue" which was a separate campaign).
@Shafeone Now we are back to WW2. Apparently YOUR definition of decisive is different from Wikipedia and the rest of the world. Honestly, are you really this arrogant? Are you going to continue to argue for Gettysburg being a decisive victory?
@StonewallJackson26 LOL. I have CONTRIBUTED to Wiki! Sheez. And the same guys who called Waterloo decisive (it was) probably didn't write up Gettysburg. Do you want me to go on there and update it to read 'decisive'? Honestly dude. I am back on battles that did not result in annihilation of the opposition but certainly were decisive. Midway? Called the most decisive battle of the Pacific? Yet the IJN was quite intact. Decisive changes momentum and power. Gettysburg did both.
@StonewallJackson26 Nope. Although it suffered ~28k casualties and lost permanently 17k plus many of its best officers Lee's army survived. Since the Luftwaffe wasn't destroyed in the summer of 1940 then the Battle Of Britain wasn't decisive either. Sine the Afrika Corps survived Alamein that too was inconsequential. Since the Ostheer survived Barbarossa that too mattered little in the war. Since the IJN still had a massive surface fleet after Midway, that battle was a footnote. Got it.
@StonewallJackson26 LOL. With all due respect how am I to take a man seriously who is so pathetically caught up in the long dead Confederacy that he actually presumes to use as his handle "StonewallJackson." I mean really dude. GROW UP. It is 2011, not 1861. And arguing with you using facts and logic is not much different than shooting small game. (Of course rabbits and squirrels--which I assume are your diet--show more brains when they're under the gun...in your case the gun I use is history.)
Fist off, he didn't "use" the handle stonewall. It was given to him by a higher ranked offiver who was trying desperately to rally his own troops in the first battle of bulls run.
Said handle given to him for his stubborn defense at a stonewall that bought the time needed to turn the tide and, here's the kicker for you. Route the federal flank and spark the initiateive that would later become known as "the great skidaddle."
On top of which, Stonewall had served to be one of
@GojyotheFeared Wow. I was talking about the YOUTUBE POSTER'S handle, not Genl. T.J. Jackson himself--called that by General Bernard E. Bee at 1st Bull run (KIA) if you want to know who gave him the nickname.
@StonewallJackson26 Stonewall Jackson was an awesome man. You hate him, because he wore grey, so to you, he's probably the anti christ. It is you that needs to grow up and stop looking at the War through a filtered lenses. Your history is elementary at best and doesn't deviate from the slant that is rammed down our throats in 3rd grade.
@StonewallJackson26 jackson was a GREAT general. He was also a religious fanatic and a true eccentric. Genius, they say, borders on insanity. I see the inbreeding is taking its toll down there because I was taking YOU to task, "StonewallJackson26" for daring to call yourself the same name as that truly gifted man. And please, although I imagine 3rd grade is what you would called "higher education" I assure you my knowledge of the war goes well beyond stories my grand-pappy told me. Spit-TANG!
I know who gave him the nickname just as much as the the fact that Petersburg was another virtual Vicksburg though with key variations and differences.
I've studied quite a bit beyond my highschool learnings and have discovered a great deal more than what could be condensed into an hour period 5 days a week.
But upon viewing the comment postings more closely, I apologize. I realize now just who you were originally referring too and and withdraw any insult I may have said/typed
Don't I know it. I've dealt with a lot of people who think nothing of insulting others simply because of fheir faith, race, nationality or sexual orientation.
They don't look over the facts and instead go by what they either were told by their parents or other authority figures of their day to day lives or simply because that's what they believe and think themselves to be right regardless of reality.
@Shafeone I see your arrogance is effecting your train of thought. Sears is a Connecticut man who can see outside the box. He is not blinded by false hyperbole and Federal propaganda. You have a biased frame of reference and you wilt when met with stern opposition. I am sure your knowledge of the Civil War lies within the confines of a Rand McNally textbook.
@StonewallJackson26 Ah great. So then you DO agree with Sears' contention that Lee was out-generalled by Meade yes? And you must then also agree with Sears' argument that Hooker's strategy against Lee out-witted him and that Lee was vey lucky that Hooker suffered concussion on May 3? Or is that just "Yankee propoganda"? Or is Sears wrong? He's just one viewpoint, but I gravitated towards him because my own studies of Lee pointed me in the same direction...and I grew up idolizing Lee.
@Shafeone I don't know where you read your history, but the IJN was not intact after Midway. The backbone of their fleet was ripped out. The era of the battleship was over by 1942, so whatever fleet they had left was essentially useless for offensive operations, thus allowing for momentum to shift in American favor. While the whole fleet wasn't destroyed, neither was the entire ANV in 1863. And power was most certainly shifting towards the US by then. Source: Rear Adm. Takata, IJN
@JLakeProductions From memory: Akagi, Soryu, Hiryu and Kaga were sunk. But Nagumo's strike force and Yamamoto's surface fleet behind still far outnumbered the US fleet. And not sure if your history books end in June 1942 but the battles up and down the slot (Savo Island was an absolute IJN victory) showed that there was still plenty of fight in the IJN. Yes power was shifting. But the IJN was far from destroyed yet.
@JLakeProductions And if you bothered to read the thread you would see that I was making the OBVIOUS statement that Gettysburg was decisive to a man who thought it not so because the Reb army wasn't completely annihilated as was the VI army at Stalingrad. By that argument then he must believe that Midway was also not decisive because the vas majority of the Japanese fleet remained intact...albeit four of their carriers and many of their best pilots lost. Decisive to me means a game changer.
@StonewallJackson26 You seem obsessed by the ludicrous notion that only a battle that results in the total destruction of an enemy can be considered "decisive." That would limit the list of decisive engagements in history to a tiny collection of massacres or mass capitulations. Many decisive engagements are classified as such because they fundamentally alter the course of a given conflict.In the CW Antietam, Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Atlanta immediately come to mind but there are others I bet.
Let's not forget Cold Harbor and Spotsylvania Courthouse.
While these battles failed to prevent further union advancements, they did serve the purpose of delaying and proving that though smaller in number and vastly lacking in the ways of material and supplies, the south still had teeth and grit.
Petersburg is also an example that thinking little of the enemy on the battle field by letting petty squables among your own ranks take precident over the battle can prove costly.
@GojyotheFeared They didn't alter the course of the war though like the others did. The root word of 'decisive' is 'decide.' Antietam, Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Atlanta helped to decide who would win the war. These other battles were blood-letting delaying the inevitable. And with a general like Grant opposing Lee, there would be no Southern faux victories this time.
@StonewallJackson26 Okay. So then as you say, a victory is not "decisive" unless the opposing force is completely annihilated yes? So then I ask you again: Was the Battle Of Midway decisive or no? How about the Battle Of Britain? How about Barbarossa? Don't skirt it. Answer the question then we can talk. Otherwise you are hopelessly trapped in your rhetorical corner.
@Shafeone Midway is a decisive victory, but it is hard to compare Naval to land battles. It is decisive because the Japs lost 4 Aircraft Carriers, thus air power for thousands of miles in every direction.
But see you are comparing Sea and Air battles, to land battles, you're stretching. If Gettysburg was decisive it would be listed as such, which it isn't. Even though Lee lost, he still had the initiative, and his forces were intact. But stop comparing this with WW2 Air/Sea battles
@StonewallJackson26 The bulk of the Japanese surface fleet was intact. They lived to fight--and win--battles another day. Yet you call it 'decisive'? Why? How is losing four carriers (not all the carriers in the IJN) and having to pull back different than Lee losing 21% of his men and many of his best generals and being compelled to retreat? (He didn't choose to leave as that implies he had the option to stay. His army was grievously wounded). And Barbarossa? The largest land battle ever?
@StonewallJackson26 A retreating army, which Lee's army was from July 4 on, by its very definition does not hold the initiative. And that's the point. On June 30 was "on the aggressive" as he called it. By July 4 he was in full retreat. The CSA would never again have the strength to invade the North. The chances of a settlement with CSA separation was gone. And soon Grant would take over and end it. Lee may not have suffered a Waterloo, but his goal of inflicting a Saratoga was dashed forever.
@Shafeone OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lee's Army left Gettysburg, on their own initiative. Do you even know what initiative means????? The Union did not have the initiative at Gettysburg, they counter attacked and responded to what the Rebs were doing accordingly. Initiative just means that it is your decision on what the next move will be. Lee left because he decided to leave. His Army wasn't crushed and it didn't disintegrate, he left on his own INITIATIVE!!!!
@StonewallJackson26 So you, um, define the initiative as thus: "Making a decision to retreat from enemy soil as quickly as you can before your defeated and horribly bloodied army that just suffered a major repulse from which it will never fully recovered, is missing a third of its experienced officer corps,has only enough ammo for one more fight so far from home, and is now threatened by a victorious enemy in full concentration disrupting your foraging on which your army subsisted." Alrighty.
@Shafeone Hey fuckstick! How do you accomplish a decisive victory if YOU DON'T EVEN ATTACK. The Federals retreated the first day, then strictly defended for the next 2. Lee's biggest lost was Pickett's devision, however all 3 of his corps were intact and able to mount stiff resistance if needed, maybe that is why Meade didn't counter attack when the Rebs were reeling.
@StonewallJackson26 Gee I don't know military genius. Let's go back to 216 B.C. and see how Hannibal did it to Varro at Cannae by letting the Romans attack him and drawing them in to crush them against their own bulk along the sides. Called the double-envelopment. Defensive tactic that turns offensive at the right time. You should read about it some time. And f***st**k? I know for you rednecks its what you call your wife/sisters (same thing) but really. Lose your temper lose the argument.
@Shafeone No let's not go back to 216BC. I am not going to be dragged into your muddled argument. You are a glib idiot who can't receive information. You just want to give it. You can't listen at all and you're impossible to reason with. People like you is what brought forth Civil Conflict. Ignorance
@StonewallJackson26 LOL. Let's not go back to you answering my question with that dreaded bane of all lost causers and redneck southern apologist/revisionists: KNOWLEDGE. LOL. (By the way, I guarantee you Cannae is a battle that both Lee and Jackson surely studied indepth at the Point and VMI)
@StonewallJackson26 Ah ok. So you argue then that Lee could have stayed in PA as long as he wanted right? But for some reason he just decided to leave before the barrels were even cold because...why again? And he left with a 17 mile wagon train in a pouring rain even though he could have stayed as long as he wanted right? OMG!!! Look, in military circles when you say you have "the initiative," it means you are calling the shots as to the direction/tempo of the campaign. Lee was RETREATING.
@Shafeone I know what initiative means. I have been trying to explain it to you for days, yet you keeping arguing. Lee left Gettysburg because he for one, lost 2 days of straight assaults against an elevated, FORTIFIED enemy, and he realized that he could not sustain his Army for long in PA, because of supply shortages.
One reason why Lee didn't accomplish all he wanted to at Chancellorsville. Because 2 of his best, Longstreet and Hood's Division were foraging in the Shenandoah.
@StonewallJackson26 "I know what initiative means." LOL. Sure you do. Sure you do. There there. You have as much command of that basic military term as you do "decisive." Keep digging Johnny Reb. Keep digging.
@StonewallJackson26 I assume "Jag" is defined as "people who can rip Southern Lost Cause Revistionist redneck's ignorant arguments so tainted in Southern propaganda that they actually believe Gettysburg was not a decisive loss and Lee held the initiative on July 4 to shreds?" guilty as charged then. Punching out. I'll give you the last word. Doesn't matter to me. I have history and cold hard facts on my side. You have lost cause dreams.
@Shafeone Nah, the South lost. The Civil War is over. America is the greatest country in the World. I would fight and die if the situation came that my country was under attack. I only fly the American flag, I do not own a Confederate one. However I would hang the Confederate flag if I bought one. It's just a flag.
I am just a Civil War buff who likes to study this intricate conflict. I respect both sides, and I can't deny the South's steadfast bravery.
@Shafeone Yeah, pretty Easy to defend places like Little Round Top. Elevate yourself on a hillside, fortify your men and beat back tired, thirsty Alabamians who conducted a forced march of 15 miles just to get into position. Then Chamberlain glorifies his actions that could have been handled by junior cadets. Me commanding a regiment of men could have defended Little Round Top.
@StonewallJackson26 Yeah, pretty easy to defend places like Marye's Heights--sorry, I mean Little Round Top. All the more reasons as Longstreet said not to attack them. But yer boy Lee did just the same didn't he. That's how you lose battles...and he did.
@Shafeone When you are invaded by a foe 3 times your size, you need to find a Stonewall here and there. At Gettysburg the South assaulted a numerically superior foe with firepower for weeks on end.
@Shafeone Lee had no choice. His Army was under supplied. Didn't Napoleon say and army fights on its stomach. Lee had to attack soon because his Army was isolated in PA with no hope for resupply until they were safely back into VA. IDIOT!
@Shafeone See I could make fun of Union soldiers and crack jokes about their losses at Fredericksburg, but I won't. I respect them the same. You however like to make fun of dead Southerners. I would never make fun of Northern dead.
@StonewallJackson26 Why should I stop comparing WW2 battles to the CW? Do your standards of what is decisive and not only apply to 1861-65 then new rules apply? This is an interesting theory you're developing. Midway, Barbarossa, Borodino (Napoleanic), even Marathon (I mean, heck Darius' army wasn't annihilated by the Greeks right?) are not decisive by your 1861-65 measure. But you know they are. Look, I'm sorry your side lost. But they did. As one Yankee said" facts are stubborn things."
@StonewallJackson26 Oh I'm sorry. I wasn;t aware that Sheridan was not under Grants command and doing his bidding. How foolish of me. Keep digging Reb. See, this is easy for me because I have the historical record on my side. You have revisionist b.s. And that's why you are red in the face and I am not toying with you like the ignorant lost causer redneck you clear are. Spit-TANG!
@Shafeone By 1864, the cavalry regiments had been condensed, and a Cavalry Corps was created under Phillip Sheridan. So Sheridan is most responsible for the capture of food depots you clown.
@StonewallJackson26 So then you are telling me Sheridan was operating on a totally independent command. That he did NOT answer to US Grant yes? (By the way, who, er, made Sheridan his cavalry chief? Who had the foresight to move him from infantry command? Who, in fact, was Sheridan serving under throughout much of the war? I'll give you a hint. Rhymes with 'ant'.)
@Shafeone You've just changed the argument. First we're talking about what the definition of decisive is, and you put your foot in your mouth, Now we're back to Calvary. I am not going to debate with you at your jive.
Did Gettysburg result in the destruction of a given Army?
damn the confederates
snoop466 9 hours ago
insane and pure stupid
TheLonelyandsick 2 days ago
My great great great grandfathers brother died on the third day of battle.
LegoMovies29 6 days ago
Heard just short time ago that one of my greatgreatgreat...granduncles was one of those southern flag bearers at this battle, so have quite chilling feeling to see this one
hopsista321 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pro-slavery confederate bastards
rancidfan39 2 weeks ago
pro-slavery confederate bastards
rancidfan39 2 weeks ago
@rancidfan39 Pro Union cocksuckers
eric5906 3 days ago
pro-slavery confederate bastards
rancidfan39 2 weeks ago
@rancidfan39
yeah its a shame they didnt win.stupid north fighting for niggers
whiteEngland1488 1 week ago
@whiteEngland1488 what?
rancidfan39 1 week ago
@whiteEngland1488 You mad Crumpet cunt? HAHAHA Stick that black dick up your ass and spin on itXDXDXDXDXDDDD
TheImperialistStates 6 days ago
@rancidfan39 Eat my shit, Yankee. Fuck nut.
eric5906 3 days ago
@eric5906 Your the fag. Your into werd bondage shit, whipping people who are your slaves. Fuck off.
rancidfan39 3 days ago
pro-slavery confederate bastards
rancidfan39 2 weeks ago
@rancidfan39 What are you, a fag?
eric5906 3 days ago
I first saw this movie in Nashville in 1993. As Pickett's Charge began you colud hear people weeping openly. The Civil War breaks your heart.
Whiskeypapa17 2 weeks ago
@Whiskeypapa17 Have you been to the Battlefield of the Battle of Nashville, I've been a along time ago. The Battle of Nashville was really the last battle that broke the Army of Tennessee aswell as Franklin before which was allot like Pickett's charge but bloodier.
AUG351 1 week ago
The movie is not bad but overly dramatic, especially the music which is at times almost vomit inducing. Fighting scenes are good, very exciting and scary. Some of the actors's fake beards are laughable. I wish Huston could have had The Red Badge of Courage as he wanted. It would probably be the best civil war movie ever.
steikarloka 2 weeks ago
@steikarloka
The music is melodramatic for sure. Some better, more subtle music pieces would've definitely made this movie better
flyinghippos102 1 week ago
I'm a yankee but this is one of the last movies that had a true depiction of America at that time.
bkl139 2 weeks ago
11 people need to learn some goddamn respect for their country's past
mcherubrock92 2 weeks ago
БРАВО / BRAVO !!!
GREETINGS FROM SERBIA
MegaMikss 2 weeks ago
@voodoochef100 I agree. I'm not saying forget it. I'm saying stop arguing about it.
dancejmk 3 weeks ago
@MrJaffa2015 one confederate soldier decribed a "lingering pink mist" after a cannonball ripped through the left of his group.......just awful.
manop98 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well most of the South in my opinon were fighting for state independence. Slavery also fueled most of the conflict, but overall most Southerners were under attack that the "union" of all the states were being coerced on them by A. Lincoln. The South was wanting to keep the same style of government that was established in 1776
larryhurst3 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
larryhurst3 3 weeks ago
war is young men dying and old men talking
defmouse14 1 month ago
Like all wars poor guys fighting and giving up there lives so some rich guy can have more of the things that make him happy.
diggyu 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@diggyu *** Like all wars poor guys fighting and giving up there lives so some rich guy can have more of the things that make him happy.*** I have to disagree with you, diggyu. Many wars have been fought senselessly, for no good purpose but NOT all of them. Some things are worth fighting to the death for, and some wars are justified. History turns on them and sometimes for the better - but not always. As long as there are tyrannical aggressors in the world, war is a sad necessity.
stellalouise1 2 weeks ago
Go south
TheTexden 1 month ago
Why bother arguing about this war? It's over. Focus on changing today, this period of history is...history.
dancejmk 1 month ago
@dancejmk ......"he who forgets history, is doomed to repeat it"
voodoochef100 3 weeks ago
Yeeee haaa GET DEM YANKEES
Dercommandingofficer 1 month ago
If Lee had listened to Jackson's suggestion to sweep around the Union to threaten Washington, it would have most likely have been a one-sided fight... Although a great American General, he made his greatest blunder attacking the Federal Army while they were entrenched on the hill.
MrP4TR10T 1 month ago
@MrP4TR10T It was James Longstreets suggestion that Lee place The Army of Northern Virginia between Washington and Meades Army of the Potomac. Jackson was wounded at Chancellorsville on the 2nd of May and died on the 10th this was two months before Gettysburg
YaxKukMo1426 1 month ago
@YaxKukMo1426 Ah yes!! I knew what I typed sounded wrong to me. Thank you for the correction.
MrP4TR10T 1 month ago
@MrP4TR10T If only Stonewall wasn't shot & killed accidentaly by his own men. In my opinion, Jackson dying was the turning point of the war. If it was same situation, maybe Lee would of heeded advice if came from Stonewall.
voodoochef100 3 weeks ago
No, we can't be blamed, because we have no control over what the Elitists do.
StonewallJackson26 1 month ago
Lincoln and the Federals were obviously not interested in Social justice, and it is provable if you would just take a look at post Civil War treatment of the Western Native. The problem that I have with Lincoln's War is that of all Confederate dead, probably less than 1% owned Slaves themselves, they were too poor.
You should have sympathy for Southern soldiers, because they were not responsible for the sins you condemn them for. Should you and I be blamed for our Government bombing villages.
StonewallJackson26 1 month ago
RIP Richard Jordan
planetrockford 1 month ago
A thank you needs to go out to Chamberlain and the 20th Maine for saving our Yankee butts at Gettysburg...
neominois 1 month ago
@Finalfrontier001
The confederates had the best general in the entire new worlds which was Robert E. Lee....
XTheComradeX 1 month ago
@TheWoodsmenJoe let me rephrase, i do agree with you that the south had to surrender because of food issues, if they had more food they could POSTPONED the surrender, but ineviably no matter how much food, the south would have lost to overwhelming numbers, better equipment, cavalry, artillery and navy forces
Poodendog 2 months ago
I am against slaver but with the south.
And iam from Greece.
Iam with the south cause my political instinct says that Slavery had NOTHING to do with the war and i see the war as a constest for the soul of the nation that became USA, from the one side the industrial internationalist decadent parliamentarian north and from the other the agricultural traditional and very much culturally European south that represented the values of the European settlers
Napoleontas 2 months ago
@TheWoodsmenJ i have to disagree with you there, the confederates did indeed kill more Union troops, but they couldnt kill twice as many as there own casulties and the union troops had double the amount of soldiers the Confederates had, plus the union navy was winning the fight at sea
Poodendog 2 months ago
@Poodendog Lee did not have enough food to supply for his men and a few other little things but the biggest reason was not enough food
TheWoodsmenJoe 2 months ago
Comment removed
AUG351 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheWoodsmenJoe Yes, many starved to death and went for days without food. Many times what persuaded men to fight the most was that they knew that they could get food from the enemy so they really many times fought for food. A Confederate from a Louisiana regiment once heard a Irish soldiers yell "Come on boys! They have food in their haversacks!"
AUG351 1 month ago
@MrDixieLove ur views are wrong in so many ways... sigh
Poodendog 2 months ago
As stupid as it seems to most people to attack straight at the middle of the union line you still gotta think... It almost worked. Talk about incredible
Merhianblade 2 months ago
If this battle was won, the glorious Confederate States of America could have possibly gained its independance on July 4th. God has a funny way of speaking to us haha :) God bless those Southern heroes
MrDixieLove 2 months ago
July 3rd was a double whamy for the Southern cause. Vicksberg fell the same day. Because the South lost controll the Mississippi River, troop and supply movement from Texas, Arkansas, ad Louisiana. was difficult. If the "little roundtop" could have been secured earlier and JEB Stuart's participation injected sooner, many things would have changed that day. Getteysburg would not have been as much as a strategic victory for the South as much as it would have been physocolgocal defeat to the North.
Robert31352 2 months ago
Gettysburg was one the most bloodiest battles yes, but it was fought in July 1863 the war did not end until April 18 65
TheWoodsmenJoe 2 months ago
this comment sums up everything everyone has been arguing back and forth about "an Army fights on its stomach". That is the biggest reason Lee had to surrender April 9 1865. The Lord only knows how long the war would have continued, if Lee had the supplies he needed for his men. Statistics show that the Confederates killed far more Union troops, That is the only reason the South lost was because they got starved out plan and simple.
TheWoodsmenJoe 2 months ago
@TheWoodsmenJoe
confedarates lost lots of battles beacuse they had shit generals with no experiebce when they lost Jackson they lost the WAR
finalfrontier001 1 month ago
Comment removed
AUG351 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@finalfrontier001 Actually the South won most of the battles, the North just won the most importand battles. The South had great generals like Patrick Cleburne the "Stonewall of the West", Nathane Beford Forrest, John Hunt Morgan, and many others. Lee fought off a enemy with superior numbers for years. Northern generals were horrible and used frontal attacks and got more men killed then they should have.
AUG351 1 month ago 2
@finalfrontier001 First, learn to spell "Confederates", then you can look things up and study them better. They had the best generals in the world but the south was vastly outnumbered and had no industry to support the war effort. You have not studied the war in even a cursory fashion or you would never say that. It is one of the indisputible facts of the war.
stellalouise1 1 month ago
@TheWoodsmenJoe Thank you Sherman!!!!
neominois 1 month ago
I want be there!
usbmp4voice 2 months ago
WE WERE SO CLOSE TO VICTORY
MrDixieLove 2 months ago
@MrDixieLove
all we needed was just a bit more troops or a successful cavalry charge
Leonidas19981 2 months ago
@MrWileyk The feeling amongst the working classes of the mill towns of northern England was so pro Union and anti slavery that I dought that any British government would have declared for the South Mr. I don't think any European country would have recognised the Confederacy after Lees invasion of Maryland was repulsed in the Autumn of 1862 and certainly not after the Empancipation Proclamation. By July 1863 it was far too late.
YaxKukMo1426 2 months ago
I do not understand why gettysburg is so over played i mean yeah three bloodiest days but strategically what did it accomplish for either side? not shite
CONOR1861 2 months ago
amazing movie.
somehow it wasnt biased like most hollywood is.
bluegrassreb1 2 months ago 17
@bluegrassreb1 When you accurately portray history, there is no biased parts... aggreed that this was a great movie...!!!
neominois 1 month ago
@bluegrassreb1 A major part for that is that the reenactment units would not participate unless Hollywood kept to historical fact and not change anything. The troops basically put the producers between a rock and a hard place for the film.
AggieDon2012 3 weeks ago
I like this movie
neatoday 2 months ago
This is the beginning of the video? Showing clips from Turner's Gettysburg movie showing the artillery attack before Pickett's Charge? Its Gettysburg in reverse.?
antares4s 2 months ago
I am from California and I live in Washington State, I am not even Southern. I just think making a stand against the Federal Government was something that proved to be valuable over the Years. The idea that a civil populace would rise up against a Federal Government. It was a deterrent for the Government. It became clear that America did not want a strong centralized government full of bureaucrats operating with impunity and omnipotent power.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 You know i have no problem with people standing up to the federal government, but when those people OWN slaves, it's kind of hard to symphatize with them, regardless of the motives of the north or lincoln, you had to pull for the north, otherwise millions would have staye dinefinitely in ne of the most barbaric and inhumane systems the world has ever known
Ruffneckization 1 month ago
@Ruffneckization Who are those people? 5% of the South owned Slaves. A VAST MINORITY. Not to mention, not all Slaves were treated badly. Slavery is wrong yes, but you can't blame poor-middle class Southerners for the lifestyles of aristocrats.
However Slavery would have eventually ended, with the impending Industrial Revolution.
StonewallJackson26 1 month ago
@StonewallJackson26 Somewhat true, and somewhat untrue. The South had intended for Slavery to die away in around 100 or so years for their nation. Now while I may be born & raised in Texas, I reenact these battles, and I only do so in Union colors. Reason being is the county I'm born in, voted Union, my ancestor who was UNJUSTLY blamed for the Union defeat at Bull Run is the main overall reason I wear Blue proudly.
SoulKiller7Eternal 1 month ago
@SoulKiller7Eternal Weird considering Texas won their own independence, without Federal support. They joined the Union voluntarily. Texas above anyone had every right to secede.
I on the other hand am from California originally. And if I did reenactments, I would proudly wear Grey.
StonewallJackson26 1 month ago
@StonewallJackson26 They did join the Union out of choice, yes. But when the time came for the vote to secede? Only ONE man told Texas how stupid they were, and they didn't listen. Infact, a Union Calv unit was raised in the area I live in.
Now, General Garnett here is an ancestor I share the same last name with, although I'm not as directly related to him as I am, McDowell. I may honor him as a General, but I do not shed a tear for how he died...vaporized by a Union cannon.
SoulKiller7Eternal 1 month ago
@StonewallJackson26 Fun Fact: If officers under my ancestor General McDowell had obeyed his orders, the battle would have ended in favor of the Federal forces and a much different turn out of the war.
SoulKiller7Eternal 1 month ago
@StonewallJackson26 Uh...where are you getting your stats from? A census from 1860 shows ONE THIRD of southern families owned slaves totaling almost 4 MILLION slaves (but whose counting)...and not all slaves were treated BADLY? Are you serious? Have you read Frederick Douglas, or the countless other writers who documented the brutality they suffered as slaves? And that's like saying oh well some rapists use a condom...and "eventually" wouldve ended? How about ended TOO late?
Ruffneckization 1 month ago
@Ruffneckization 1/3?...... nonsense. No truth in that at all.
StonewallJackson26 1 month ago
@StonewallJackson26 Actually it is very accurate based on what we know today. Around 1/3 families down South owned slaves, which totaled around 4 million.
Now some slaves were treated fairly, some of those in the South did help runaway slaves.
SoulKiller7Eternal 1 month ago
@SoulKiller7Eternal I don't think so. That is the first time I have ever heard that figure. The REAL figure is between 5%-10%. 1/3 just isn't true. 1/3 of the people in the South did not have the money to house slaves. You're bullshitting.
StonewallJackson26 1 month ago
@StonewallJackson26 Here is the mindset of an early South White Guy.
"They are slaves, they aint white, they ain't my equal. I own them...they can sleep in the mud." - If they didn't have the money to house them...they slept in whatever they could find.
SoulKiller7Eternal 1 month ago
@SoulKiller7Eternal So you speak for every Southerner now?
Point being is that at least 99% of all Southern soldiers were too poor to own Slaves. They weren't fighting for the purpose of Slavery.
StonewallJackson26 1 month ago
@StonewallJackson26 We aren't talking about the soliders! "Rich man's war, poor man's fight." Ever heard the phrase because it doesn't seem like it? Im beginning to doubt how much you know about the current said statistics of the past.
SoulKiller7Eternal 1 month ago
@SoulKiller7Eternal How could you claim that 1/3 of the Southern population before the War was rich enough to own Slaves. Slaves were EXPENSIVE. Not just to purchase, but to house, clothe, feed, tend to medically.
StonewallJackson26 1 month ago
@StonewallJackson26 You are missing the point! Not every slave would care enough to feed, clothe, or give them medical aid! Scraps from the dinner table, ragtag clothes, and "you'll be alright." (plans where the body is to be buried)
You are FORGETTING, not ALL Slave Owners are KIND! Jeez get some information under your belt or I'm not gonna waste my time replying to your uneducated crap.
SoulKiller7Eternal 1 month ago
@SoulKiller7Eternal How would a RICH slave owner benefit if his slave is sick and can't work. Or is malnourished and it messes with his/her productivity? Now your true negative nature is becoming transparent. Your argument is false my friend.
StonewallJackson26 1 month ago
@StonewallJackson26 My "negative' nature is being shown at the lack of intellect you show on this matter & your failure to even remotely understand my point in the least.
I'm done here until you can figure out EXACTLY the point I'm trying to relay to you here.
SoulKiller7Eternal 1 month ago
@SoulKiller7Eternal See ya later...... btw. you had no point to begin with.
StonewallJackson26 1 month ago
@StonewallJackson26 Wow, ya'll are arguing about slavery, but no one is arguing about how inaccurate this movie is uniform, drill and tactic wise. How about that artillery drill LOL!!!!!! and the infantry drill LOL and the horrible acting.!?!?!? Owell, I guess lessons lost are not lessons learned. Also, has soulkiller ever seen the great victory of the Georgia flag? It was a modified ANV battleflag. Since people saw it as racist they changed to a 1st national.
larsjake 1 month ago
@StonewallJackson26 So which is more racist? a 1st national or an ANV battle standard? LOL
larsjake 1 month ago
@StonewallJackson26 no its FACT, would you like me to send you the links?
Ruffneckization 1 month ago
Now you've lost the argument, when I am all of a sudden a redneck. I know you've run out of engaging material.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Don't waste you're time with his Union-Biased "I hate the South" debates. He does not know shit about the war, challenge him on the battles. He's like a whiny fourteen year old, that pretends to know everything but knows nothing.
rebel2276 2 months ago 13
Comment removed
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
"and let no man forget today, that you are from old Virginia!"
Damn, no matter what side you root for, that line always sends chills down my spine.
The sheer courage of these men is awe inspiring.
GojyotheFeared 2 months ago
Hey guys..........I just farted
PRCLIMAX 2 months ago
You never answered my question. Did Gettysburg result in the destruction of a given Army?
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
Now Google, Battle of Waterloo, go to wikipedia. Look at the charts. And what does it say? " Decisive Coalition Victory." Get it? Are we making hedge way? There is a difference.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
This is exactly why a detest certain people from the North East. Arrogant Sons of bitches, who continue to argue, even after making a fool of themselves.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Actually I am from one of your beloved slave states actually and come from a family of US Marines. I just also accept that I was born in the 1900s and not 1800s.
Shafeone 2 months ago
Comment removed
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@Shafeone Did you google Gettysburg and Waterloo yet, to find out the difference? Can we admit now, that you are wrong, and are arguing from a position of polarized, extreme ignorance and now you are trying to save face, claiming your family was US Marines? If your family is Marines, I am sure they are disgusted by your lack of historical knowledge. Their own family member doesn't even know what a decisive victory is. Yet you insult me 100 times as I try to explain this to you.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 As I said four times now. If your definition (and Wiki's of course) of 'decisive' is that the opposing force must be completely annihilated then it was not. And as I said, neither was Midway. Alamein, Trenton. Normandy. etc. So I ask YOU: was Normandy not decisive? How about Alamein? What about Barbarossa (NOT to be confused as you do with "Blue" which was a separate campaign).
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone Now we are back to WW2. Apparently YOUR definition of decisive is different from Wikipedia and the rest of the world. Honestly, are you really this arrogant? Are you going to continue to argue for Gettysburg being a decisive victory?
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 LOL. I have CONTRIBUTED to Wiki! Sheez. And the same guys who called Waterloo decisive (it was) probably didn't write up Gettysburg. Do you want me to go on there and update it to read 'decisive'? Honestly dude. I am back on battles that did not result in annihilation of the opposition but certainly were decisive. Midway? Called the most decisive battle of the Pacific? Yet the IJN was quite intact. Decisive changes momentum and power. Gettysburg did both.
Shafeone 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shafeone Did Gettysburg result in the destruction of a given Army?
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shafeone YES or NO? Did Gettysburg result in the destruction of a given Army?
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Nope. Although it suffered ~28k casualties and lost permanently 17k plus many of its best officers Lee's army survived. Since the Luftwaffe wasn't destroyed in the summer of 1940 then the Battle Of Britain wasn't decisive either. Sine the Afrika Corps survived Alamein that too was inconsequential. Since the Ostheer survived Barbarossa that too mattered little in the war. Since the IJN still had a massive surface fleet after Midway, that battle was a footnote. Got it.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone No, I don't understand you at all. You're completely ignorant.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
Comment removed
Shafeone 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 LOL. With all due respect how am I to take a man seriously who is so pathetically caught up in the long dead Confederacy that he actually presumes to use as his handle "StonewallJackson." I mean really dude. GROW UP. It is 2011, not 1861. And arguing with you using facts and logic is not much different than shooting small game. (Of course rabbits and squirrels--which I assume are your diet--show more brains when they're under the gun...in your case the gun I use is history.)
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone
Fist off, he didn't "use" the handle stonewall. It was given to him by a higher ranked offiver who was trying desperately to rally his own troops in the first battle of bulls run.
Said handle given to him for his stubborn defense at a stonewall that bought the time needed to turn the tide and, here's the kicker for you. Route the federal flank and spark the initiateive that would later become known as "the great skidaddle."
On top of which, Stonewall had served to be one of
GojyotheFeared 2 months ago
@GojyotheFeared Wow. I was talking about the YOUTUBE POSTER'S handle, not Genl. T.J. Jackson himself--called that by General Bernard E. Bee at 1st Bull run (KIA) if you want to know who gave him the nickname.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Stonewall Jackson was an awesome man. You hate him, because he wore grey, so to you, he's probably the anti christ. It is you that needs to grow up and stop looking at the War through a filtered lenses. Your history is elementary at best and doesn't deviate from the slant that is rammed down our throats in 3rd grade.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
Comment removed
Shafeone 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 jackson was a GREAT general. He was also a religious fanatic and a true eccentric. Genius, they say, borders on insanity. I see the inbreeding is taking its toll down there because I was taking YOU to task, "StonewallJackson26" for daring to call yourself the same name as that truly gifted man. And please, although I imagine 3rd grade is what you would called "higher education" I assure you my knowledge of the war goes well beyond stories my grand-pappy told me. Spit-TANG!
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone
I know who gave him the nickname just as much as the the fact that Petersburg was another virtual Vicksburg though with key variations and differences.
I've studied quite a bit beyond my highschool learnings and have discovered a great deal more than what could be condensed into an hour period 5 days a week.
But upon viewing the comment postings more closely, I apologize. I realize now just who you were originally referring too and and withdraw any insult I may have said/typed
GojyotheFeared 2 months ago
@GojyotheFeared No worries mate. It's easy to be 'ready shoot aim' on these threads. I do it all the time.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone
"it's easy to be 'ready shoot aim'"
Don't I know it. I've dealt with a lot of people who think nothing of insulting others simply because of fheir faith, race, nationality or sexual orientation.
They don't look over the facts and instead go by what they either were told by their parents or other authority figures of their day to day lives or simply because that's what they believe and think themselves to be right regardless of reality.
Some people just don't learn.
GojyotheFeared 2 months ago
Comment removed
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shafeone I see your arrogance is effecting your train of thought. Sears is a Connecticut man who can see outside the box. He is not blinded by false hyperbole and Federal propaganda. You have a biased frame of reference and you wilt when met with stern opposition. I am sure your knowledge of the Civil War lies within the confines of a Rand McNally textbook.
You are so misguided.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Ah great. So then you DO agree with Sears' contention that Lee was out-generalled by Meade yes? And you must then also agree with Sears' argument that Hooker's strategy against Lee out-witted him and that Lee was vey lucky that Hooker suffered concussion on May 3? Or is that just "Yankee propoganda"? Or is Sears wrong? He's just one viewpoint, but I gravitated towards him because my own studies of Lee pointed me in the same direction...and I grew up idolizing Lee.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone I don't know where you read your history, but the IJN was not intact after Midway. The backbone of their fleet was ripped out. The era of the battleship was over by 1942, so whatever fleet they had left was essentially useless for offensive operations, thus allowing for momentum to shift in American favor. While the whole fleet wasn't destroyed, neither was the entire ANV in 1863. And power was most certainly shifting towards the US by then. Source: Rear Adm. Takata, IJN
JLakeProductions 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JLakeProductions From memory: Akagi, Soryu, Hiryu and Kaga were sunk. But Nagumo's strike force and Yamamoto's surface fleet behind still far outnumbered the US fleet. And not sure if your history books end in June 1942 but the battles up and down the slot (Savo Island was an absolute IJN victory) showed that there was still plenty of fight in the IJN. Yes power was shifting. But the IJN was far from destroyed yet.
Shafeone 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JLakeProductions And if you bothered to read the thread you would see that I was making the OBVIOUS statement that Gettysburg was decisive to a man who thought it not so because the Reb army wasn't completely annihilated as was the VI army at Stalingrad. By that argument then he must believe that Midway was also not decisive because the vas majority of the Japanese fleet remained intact...albeit four of their carriers and many of their best pilots lost. Decisive to me means a game changer.
Shafeone 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did Gettysburg result in the destruction of a given Army??????
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 You seem obsessed by the ludicrous notion that only a battle that results in the total destruction of an enemy can be considered "decisive." That would limit the list of decisive engagements in history to a tiny collection of massacres or mass capitulations. Many decisive engagements are classified as such because they fundamentally alter the course of a given conflict.In the CW Antietam, Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Atlanta immediately come to mind but there are others I bet.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone
Let's not forget Cold Harbor and Spotsylvania Courthouse.
While these battles failed to prevent further union advancements, they did serve the purpose of delaying and proving that though smaller in number and vastly lacking in the ways of material and supplies, the south still had teeth and grit.
Petersburg is also an example that thinking little of the enemy on the battle field by letting petty squables among your own ranks take precident over the battle can prove costly.
GojyotheFeared 2 months ago
@GojyotheFeared They didn't alter the course of the war though like the others did. The root word of 'decisive' is 'decide.' Antietam, Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Atlanta helped to decide who would win the war. These other battles were blood-letting delaying the inevitable. And with a general like Grant opposing Lee, there would be no Southern faux victories this time.
Shafeone 2 months ago
Comment removed
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Okay. So then as you say, a victory is not "decisive" unless the opposing force is completely annihilated yes? So then I ask you again: Was the Battle Of Midway decisive or no? How about the Battle Of Britain? How about Barbarossa? Don't skirt it. Answer the question then we can talk. Otherwise you are hopelessly trapped in your rhetorical corner.
Shafeone 2 months ago
Comment removed
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@Shafeone Midway is a decisive victory, but it is hard to compare Naval to land battles. It is decisive because the Japs lost 4 Aircraft Carriers, thus air power for thousands of miles in every direction.
But see you are comparing Sea and Air battles, to land battles, you're stretching. If Gettysburg was decisive it would be listed as such, which it isn't. Even though Lee lost, he still had the initiative, and his forces were intact. But stop comparing this with WW2 Air/Sea battles
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 The bulk of the Japanese surface fleet was intact. They lived to fight--and win--battles another day. Yet you call it 'decisive'? Why? How is losing four carriers (not all the carriers in the IJN) and having to pull back different than Lee losing 21% of his men and many of his best generals and being compelled to retreat? (He didn't choose to leave as that implies he had the option to stay. His army was grievously wounded). And Barbarossa? The largest land battle ever?
Shafeone 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 A retreating army, which Lee's army was from July 4 on, by its very definition does not hold the initiative. And that's the point. On June 30 was "on the aggressive" as he called it. By July 4 he was in full retreat. The CSA would never again have the strength to invade the North. The chances of a settlement with CSA separation was gone. And soon Grant would take over and end it. Lee may not have suffered a Waterloo, but his goal of inflicting a Saratoga was dashed forever.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lee's Army left Gettysburg, on their own initiative. Do you even know what initiative means????? The Union did not have the initiative at Gettysburg, they counter attacked and responded to what the Rebs were doing accordingly. Initiative just means that it is your decision on what the next move will be. Lee left because he decided to leave. His Army wasn't crushed and it didn't disintegrate, he left on his own INITIATIVE!!!!
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 So you, um, define the initiative as thus: "Making a decision to retreat from enemy soil as quickly as you can before your defeated and horribly bloodied army that just suffered a major repulse from which it will never fully recovered, is missing a third of its experienced officer corps,has only enough ammo for one more fight so far from home, and is now threatened by a victorious enemy in full concentration disrupting your foraging on which your army subsisted." Alrighty.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone Hey fuckstick! How do you accomplish a decisive victory if YOU DON'T EVEN ATTACK. The Federals retreated the first day, then strictly defended for the next 2. Lee's biggest lost was Pickett's devision, however all 3 of his corps were intact and able to mount stiff resistance if needed, maybe that is why Meade didn't counter attack when the Rebs were reeling.
You are so glib it's unbelievable.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Gee I don't know military genius. Let's go back to 216 B.C. and see how Hannibal did it to Varro at Cannae by letting the Romans attack him and drawing them in to crush them against their own bulk along the sides. Called the double-envelopment. Defensive tactic that turns offensive at the right time. You should read about it some time. And f***st**k? I know for you rednecks its what you call your wife/sisters (same thing) but really. Lose your temper lose the argument.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone No let's not go back to 216BC. I am not going to be dragged into your muddled argument. You are a glib idiot who can't receive information. You just want to give it. You can't listen at all and you're impossible to reason with. People like you is what brought forth Civil Conflict. Ignorance
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 LOL. Let's not go back to you answering my question with that dreaded bane of all lost causers and redneck southern apologist/revisionists: KNOWLEDGE. LOL. (By the way, I guarantee you Cannae is a battle that both Lee and Jackson surely studied indepth at the Point and VMI)
Shafeone 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Ah ok. So you argue then that Lee could have stayed in PA as long as he wanted right? But for some reason he just decided to leave before the barrels were even cold because...why again? And he left with a 17 mile wagon train in a pouring rain even though he could have stayed as long as he wanted right? OMG!!! Look, in military circles when you say you have "the initiative," it means you are calling the shots as to the direction/tempo of the campaign. Lee was RETREATING.
Shafeone 2 months ago
Comment removed
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@Shafeone I know what initiative means. I have been trying to explain it to you for days, yet you keeping arguing. Lee left Gettysburg because he for one, lost 2 days of straight assaults against an elevated, FORTIFIED enemy, and he realized that he could not sustain his Army for long in PA, because of supply shortages.
One reason why Lee didn't accomplish all he wanted to at Chancellorsville. Because 2 of his best, Longstreet and Hood's Division were foraging in the Shenandoah.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 "I know what initiative means." LOL. Sure you do. Sure you do. There there. You have as much command of that basic military term as you do "decisive." Keep digging Johnny Reb. Keep digging.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone You are by far the biggest jag off I've ever encountered on YouTube.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 I assume "Jag" is defined as "people who can rip Southern Lost Cause Revistionist redneck's ignorant arguments so tainted in Southern propaganda that they actually believe Gettysburg was not a decisive loss and Lee held the initiative on July 4 to shreds?" guilty as charged then. Punching out. I'll give you the last word. Doesn't matter to me. I have history and cold hard facts on my side. You have lost cause dreams.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone A jag off is a PA term. It is an assholish person who is annoying either by choice or by ignorance.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@Shafeone Nah, the South lost. The Civil War is over. America is the greatest country in the World. I would fight and die if the situation came that my country was under attack. I only fly the American flag, I do not own a Confederate one. However I would hang the Confederate flag if I bought one. It's just a flag.
I am just a Civil War buff who likes to study this intricate conflict. I respect both sides, and I can't deny the South's steadfast bravery.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 By the way. That was a 17 mile wagon rain of wounded men.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone Yeah, pretty Easy to defend places like Little Round Top. Elevate yourself on a hillside, fortify your men and beat back tired, thirsty Alabamians who conducted a forced march of 15 miles just to get into position. Then Chamberlain glorifies his actions that could have been handled by junior cadets. Me commanding a regiment of men could have defended Little Round Top.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Yeah, pretty easy to defend places like Marye's Heights--sorry, I mean Little Round Top. All the more reasons as Longstreet said not to attack them. But yer boy Lee did just the same didn't he. That's how you lose battles...and he did.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone When you are invaded by a foe 3 times your size, you need to find a Stonewall here and there. At Gettysburg the South assaulted a numerically superior foe with firepower for weeks on end.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 All the more reason NOT to attack. What is your point other than Lee acted foolishly? Keep digging.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone Lee had no choice. His Army was under supplied. Didn't Napoleon say and army fights on its stomach. Lee had to attack soon because his Army was isolated in PA with no hope for resupply until they were safely back into VA. IDIOT!
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@Shafeone See I could make fun of Union soldiers and crack jokes about their losses at Fredericksburg, but I won't. I respect them the same. You however like to make fun of dead Southerners. I would never make fun of Northern dead.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StonewallJackson26 By the way. That was a 17 mile wagon rain of wounded men.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Why should I stop comparing WW2 battles to the CW? Do your standards of what is decisive and not only apply to 1861-65 then new rules apply? This is an interesting theory you're developing. Midway, Barbarossa, Borodino (Napoleanic), even Marathon (I mean, heck Darius' army wasn't annihilated by the Greeks right?) are not decisive by your 1861-65 measure. But you know they are. Look, I'm sorry your side lost. But they did. As one Yankee said" facts are stubborn things."
Shafeone 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shafeone Again, just check wiki. Does it say Gettysburg was decisive? NO!
Check out Waterloo, that was Decisive.
Check out Yorktown, that was Decisive.
Check out the Siege of Vicksburg. That is a Decisive Union Victory.
Once again Gettysburg was not a Decisive Victory.
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing???
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
Their supplies were cut by SHERIDAN! God you're a poser, a joke, posing as a civil war student.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Oh I'm sorry. I wasn;t aware that Sheridan was not under Grants command and doing his bidding. How foolish of me. Keep digging Reb. See, this is easy for me because I have the historical record on my side. You have revisionist b.s. And that's why you are red in the face and I am not toying with you like the ignorant lost causer redneck you clear are. Spit-TANG!
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone By 1864, the cavalry regiments had been condensed, and a Cavalry Corps was created under Phillip Sheridan. So Sheridan is most responsible for the capture of food depots you clown.
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 So then you are telling me Sheridan was operating on a totally independent command. That he did NOT answer to US Grant yes? (By the way, who, er, made Sheridan his cavalry chief? Who had the foresight to move him from infantry command? Who, in fact, was Sheridan serving under throughout much of the war? I'll give you a hint. Rhymes with 'ant'.)
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone You've just changed the argument. First we're talking about what the definition of decisive is, and you put your foot in your mouth, Now we're back to Calvary. I am not going to debate with you at your jive.
Did Gettysburg result in the destruction of a given Army?
StonewallJackson26 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 It sounds like your definition of "decisive" is one in which one side is