i liked the first day of this documentary if lee had jackson at gettysburg the south would have won and i dont know how the men at pickets charge ever walked across the field seeing men to the left and right of them getting hit by cannons
I can honestly say that the men that gave their lives in the civil war would be ashamed to see what this nation has become. God was everything to those men. Now god is being exiled from the country they gave their lives to protect.
and i get my information from many books of proof and studies i spend more time doing that then sleeping history and science and cosmetology are very important so i study them for a long time each
no no no the north placed tariffs on england which angered the south so they seceded slavery was not the biggest part and lincoln said if the south came back they would still have slavery
@squeakyazn The south was purchasing English goods and the north wanted them to stop and pay a higher price for northern goods. It was forcing the South to be their customers. The norh also insisted that the south sell more of their cotton to the north rather than get a higher price in Liverpool. Slavery was okay as long as the north was making money off of it. The hypocracy was surely difficult to stomach for the south.
@Mrilovebears Uh, I don't know where you got your information from, but slavery DID have something to do with the CivilWar, and a big part of it, There was no problem with taxation, the only problem was that the south was angered that the north elected Lincoln to be president, the south grew furious but worried at the same time because they were worried that they thought Lincoln would ban slavery for good. So the south had no choice but to secede. and They did just that...
@Mrilovebears You probably had little information about the Civil War until your social studies class went over it. You are most likely saying exactly what you heard come out of your teacher's mouth.
I see the movie, as innacurate as it was in many aspects, has stimulated interest in the Civil War. I encourage people to get out their history books, do some research, to learn about the War. If you get the opportunity, go visit Gettysburg. It is worth it. If you get a chance, go see a re-enactment and talk to reenactors. You'd be amazed the knowledge they are more than willing to share.
Babylauncher3000@ most of the confederates wernt even given wepons they had to pick them up off a dead enemy so that might be how they got the springfields
Saw it a few days ago. I laughed out loud when every CSA soldier they portrayed was a slave owner. It's naive to think all of the men in the South lived like the O'Haras from Gone with the Wind. Most were dirt poor farmers. And I didn't see any Black Confederates either.
lol Apparently there is a ton of continuity errors in the film. For example, the entire confederate army in the movie is wearing vests or civilian clothing, and not the common standard issue coats of the time. Nearly all the confederates where shown to be using Springfields which where mostly owned by the union.
true but Robert E Lee was kicking the Union in the ass up to this point and his soldiers could have had stripped the springfields off of union dead, yes they had enfields but production would have been harder to get every gun in there
Americans fighting Americans. Beautiful commercial, and the tattered United States flag waving at the end of the commercial should be enough to bring one to tears. Let's hope we are intelligent enough and civil enough to never let this happen again.
Hey, I am from the south and proud of it, the cold hard facts are that the war is OVER, as badly as I would like southern policies not slavery to the close minded who thought the war was all about slavery, but states rights I can't help that. We need to stop calling Rednecks idiots, cousin kissers, and all this other crap. We are one nation and we need to stick together. I mean come on you make fun of the south for not getting out of the war but you keep bringing it up. Get a life! Good Day
I would prefer a completely CGI film of the civil war. It would prevent the closing of gettysburg for filming purposes, and it would avoid filming the wrong place, such as california. They would be able to replicate it exact, plus it would be cheaper than hiring hundreds of people to play small parts. And, we can replicate lincoln when he does his speech.
Many comments people have posted state that they think the show "sucked" because it was not 100% historically correct. Don't get me wrong, I am all about getting historical facts straight, which they might not have done completely, but what they did do was spark interest in the Civil War. Using a less-documentary type approach, and making it more like a short film, it had drawn in viewers that would less likely watch a show about the Civil War. I personally think it was entertaining.
@chickdrummerwoohoo the south realy didnt like lincolns view on slavery so they seceded from the union virginia was the first 2 secede then rest of the south seceded but south carolina tenesse and virginia forced north carolina 2 leave the union soon after the north attempted to invade the south failing after Robert e. Lee decided 2 invade th north look up some more on the internet.
It was the thing for slavery that set it all in motion really and with Lincoln elected it just went down hill because he had different ideas and the south did not like it what so ever so they succeeded.
@chickdrummerwoohoo It was mainly cause of Lincolns election, The south had warned the North that if Lincoln was elected, they would leave the Union. And just as they knew, Lincoln was elected president. And one after one, the Southern states seceded. The North fought the South to keep the nation preserved, and the South fought the North because of Lincolns election at first, but soon when they realized they were outguned and outnumbered, they decided to fight for their familes and homes.
@LegitPandaTV Conveniently left out any mention of slavery in your answer to chickendrummerwhoohoo, slavery was the central issue, and the spread of it into new states and territories. Lincoln was against expansion of slavery and this was the South's main issue. With an economy based on slavery, the South expected the North would eventually push to get rid of it altogether. I don't know why it's so hard to get this fact straight.
@LetFr33DomRing It wasn't mainly about slavery, it had a great part in the cause of the Civil War. At FIRST it was about slavery, but like I said, when the south found out that they would eventually lose, they decided not to fight to keep slavery alive, but instead for their homes and familes.
a lot of you don't understand, yes there may be gaps missing but there will always be gaps, as info gets passed along peices go missin. and the point of the movie to respect the lives lost on those days
a lot of you don't understand, yes there may be gaps missing but there will always be gaps, as info gets passed along peices go missin. and the point of the movie to respect the lives lost on tht day.
This was HORRIBLE history. I grant you: the special effects were nice, but this project left HUGE gaps in the actual ebb and flow of the battle and it failed miserably in the historical accuracy department! I am always so disappointed in big budget historical films as they too often miss the mark! Look at Mel Gibson's "Patriot" .
The Scott brothers should have seen "Gods and Generals" as at least someone tried to get it right. Absolutely disappointed in, of all channels: "History!"
who made this crap of all crap? Oh wait it was not an AMERICAN no wonder. How unauthentic and bad history. Blood and gore do not make history come alive.
It was more of just a regular documentary bu they did insights on some soldiers like you see at :23 on this video his name was Hamis Hummiston. But like I said it was reg. but it was still awesome!
If the Civil war was about slavery the north could of bought all the slaves to prevent war. You tube search "ron paul on the american civil war" He explains it perfectly.
@visry u know how much the slavery industry was back then? it was over 40 billion dollars, well either 4 or 40 billion. either one of those numbers put that into perspectable number of moneyback in those days. if the north bought allthe slaves thats like putting slavery in the north it doesnt work. and if it happened then the south just go buy more slaves. bad idea man
@visry which would have meant that the economy of the south would have collapsed, unless they bought new slaves. At which point, what? The north should have bought them again? And again after that? It wouldn't have been a workable solution for anyone. The idea of it is shockingly naive.
@stotelheim Slavery was phased out in all other countries. Union should of bought all of the slaves and released them like the brutish empire how much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans where it lingered for hundred years. Every other major country in world got rid of slavery without a civil war.
@visry yes, but the other countries didn't have an economy that relied on slavery. The south didn't have the resources that the north had, and as you can see by what happened to the region after slavery was banned, the rest of the non-slave economy really wasn't particularly viable.
Buying the slaves and then releasing them wouldn't have fixed the southern economy, unless it was done on a recurring basis, and the southern slave-owners would likely not have just sold their only economic resource
@visry The union could not allow the confederacy to secede. The south would never allow the union to buy their slaves because slavery was so deeply rooted in their tradition not to mention the South's entire economy was based on slavery. The union would have nothing to do with millions of former slaves too. You theory is extremely flawed.
@visry It was not a war about slavery it was about heritage and states rights. When American was made they made it where every states had rights of there laws but they broke that and that what the war was about. Its like if a new leader of American said no more state broders it would pissed off people. The south believed in states rights and the north take that from then. Most southern men in the army did not even had slaves.
@visry the civil war was fought not only becouse of slavery it was mostly about states rights and if we tryed to buy all of the slaves it would have never gotten passed congress becouse the southern ecnomy would have been greaty affected and the southern way of life would have been greatly disturbed, up to the point were there would have been a civil anyway,oh and the brithish dident have an economy totaly based on farming witch needed slavery
@visry You're assuming the Civil War was all over slavery. Really, the North and South had rapidly diverging lifestyles and cultures, so they were fighting over their identities. Slavery was just a small part of it.
@metashader Read the confederate constitution, in 1854 the republican party was born and one of the main issues with this new party was to get the country back on gods side and away from the grips of slavery and the democratic party.
@visry I don't believe you have a proper scope of just how integrated slavery was into our society. It was the largest business in the United States at the time, period. Buying out slavery we would literally be re-purchasing 20% of our own economy, that kind of action is just entirely infeasible. The British empire had chicken scratch compared to how much the United States had invested in slavery.
@1s23d But it didn't exist in the same fashion in those societies as it did in the United States. The United States developed a sophisticated and relatively modern slave trade. It was the only institution of slavery to not only survive, but thrive because of the industrial revolution. Other systems of slavery remained rudimentary and scarce in comparison to the widely accepted slave trade of the Southern United States
@TouAnjhad the first slaves came to the US as indentured servants in 1619, the second group came in 1620 but the colonists arrested the slave holders and freed the slaves based on the bible verses exodus 21:16 and deuteronomy 24:7. The republican party was formed in 1854 with the main goal of getting back to the founders vision of all men are created equal under god and of getting rid of the evil pracice of slavery.
@visry Oh, not to mention, the United States was the only country to actually develop such a modern system of slavery. The human trade had become such an industry as never seen in the world before then.
@visry ... That would've owned even more money! Also, dude a lot of the slave owners would give them up! The Union made a machine that picks the cotton and seeds out and it was extremely efficient! It could work 5x as fast as the slaves but guess what they still didn't give them up.
Wrong. What tactics were out of place? The Iron Brigade's assault on the railway cut was a charge. The Confederates did not assault Culps Hill in linear formation. It went pretty much as demonstrated...scrambling up the hill. So what are you talking about when you say the tactics were wrong? What specific scene?
This film did a disservice to the history of the battle. It was a joke, the way the tactics were portrayed. Banzai charges were not in vogue during the civil war. Confederates wore uniforms, not shirt sleeves and waist belts, which were unknown at the time.
@grampy1939 Who cares about what the soldiers wore during the civil war. So what if the wardrobe is inaccurate. Its the content shown that matters and in my opinion I thought this film was good.
I must say I was pretty impressed with this film that the history channel did.Yeh i know some out there say the actors weren't great and the uniforms weren't adiquit(sorry idk how spell it).But still people stop criticizing any little thing and look at the positives of it. How they told the story of both sides with 8 different people with various backgrounds was really good! However, I know the second day of there portrayal wasn't as good. It was still great and I learned alot!
I see a lot of comments below on how they did not get the history correct. Are you guys simply talking uniforms here? The most important aspects of the history are not getting the uniforms exactly right. What errors are you talking about? I didn't see anything glaring...as I said, I think they misconstrued a bit what happened on Day 2 on the Union left...but it wasn't entire inaccurate. The point of the show was to tell the story through 8 people who were there in their own words.
Guys, it wasn't supposed to be an analytical look at the battle. That story has been done on the History Channel (Gettysburg Unknown Civil War). Pros...focused on less well-known aspects...railway cut, XI Corps fleeing through town,Culps Hill, Barksdale's attack, non-Pickett brigade during Pickett's charge. Cons - misleading on Longstreet's uncoordinated 2nd day attacks and Sickles. But overall, it captured the human story and brutality of the fighting.
I dont know why the hell everone is freaking out, it wasnt that bad they just focused in on a smaller section of events rather than coverd the hole battle and missing the spicifics. and as far as a "civil war verson of 300" um..... it wasnt inaccurate information it was just focused in on specific people and events. so ease up
Lets see, they completely ignored all cavalry engagements during the battle including the first engagement with Buford's cavalry. They had men in cavalry uniforms manning cannons and fighting in the infantry. They made the south look like a bunch of hillbillies with no jackets. They put post-war crossed rifle brass on the iron brigade hats. I saw elastic suspenders. They used incorrect formations and tactics. More hollywood than history! Uniforms and equipment looked like halloween costumes.
@McCarthy331 I am a Civil War reenactor myself and never saw a call go out to the community for extras for this movie (at least Nationally). If they did use reenactors they found the worst ones out there. And/or outfitted them in inauthentic uniforms themselves (because even some of the worst reenactors would have better impressions than what were used in that film). Whoever was the historical consultant on this movie should never work on another Civil War film again.
@MultiArrow123 That's not the point. History channel has a responsibility to actually present history correctly. "Gettysburg" was an abomination to history.
ErickKinDC: I hope it gets people excited to learn more. But I take issue with it being sold so large (movie posters at our local theater) that it squandered a real good chance at getting people excited WHILE educating. Depicting it correctly is easier and, often, cheaper to do. The History Channel chose to spend more time touting executive producers Ridley and Tony Scott than insisting on perfection.
In a word. Disgusting. History channel should stick to Aliens and larry the cable guy and start to move out of the realm of history. Not only are they portraying Civil War tactics, uniforms, soldier life, etc, etc poorly they are doing a great disservice to everyone with their "story". They are not letting little things like historical accuracy get in the way of their Civil War version of "300". They have officially lost all credibility of a source of valid or factual information. Shame on them!
History Channel did not make the film. Ridley Scott and Tony did. I know those two are very talented, so I am guessing history channel gave them a lot of money for this. So they screwed up on some things. But, it is hard to recreate a civil battle. And all because they did not cover every engagement does not mean they are wrong.
Good grief. There seem to some very unrealistic expectations in this thread about what can and cannot be accomplished in a 2-hour (with commercials) docudrama on a topic as huge and complicated as Gettysburg. The purpose was to tell the story from the perspective of 8 people on the field. There were some errors, but the overall piece was fairly well done and should get people excited to learn more about the Civil War.
@EricKinDC "Unrealistic expectations" to use correct uniforms, equipment, history and tactics, etc? You don't ask much from something that is supposed to be teaching history. That's sad.
i do believe they said at the beginning that it was the account of the war though the lives of 8 people, they never said it was the whole story. i loved it.
@MultiArrow123 I guess you could say we bitch because it stings like a mother fucker when a n00b from out californy way completely tarnishes three days that define our nation's greatest struggle in our collective consciousness. If you can't take the time to do it right, why would you do it?
This is the worst attempt at a Civil War documentary ever made. While the writing is plain vanilla for general audiences, it is acceptable. Other than that and causing discussion of the subject, this video has no redeeming qualities. For those of you out there that think this is a true representation of the battle of Gettysburg or the American Civil War, you are sadly misinformed. There are too many historical mistakes to enumerate, so I won't bore you by doing so. Let me suggest you do some re
Nice try Ridley, but this is one of the most slipshod attempts ever conceived to tell the story of Gettysburg. If it piques anyone's interest and gets them to travel to PA to see the actual battlefield, more power to them. In the meantime it looks like the producers picked up a copy of Killer Angels, watched Gettysburg once or twice and decided to hire a bunch of stunt guys and crap wardrobe assistants.
So close to being great. A little more insight into correct uniforms (yellow stripes denote calvary not infantry), characters - Barksdale had flowing white hair, never wore a hat into battle, had his sword shot in two, etc., no cross rifles on Union Hardees. Never the less, compelling story telling and a gritty visual look made for a very entertaining two hours. Lets hope the History Channel gets back to history. For awile there I thought maybe they had run out! LOL
I can go on and on about the uniforms (totally incorrect) and the visual military depiction of the battle (wrong). But I will not nit pick because the general public doesn't know such things. But to have beards falling off during takes, showing rocky crags in the background, etc shows a very lazy attempt to tell this story. If you are not willing to make the small and cheap things correct, how can I trust that due diligence was done to research the story? Simply put, I can't. Bad show.
@lmvks That's because it was an honor to those men to carry the colors, and it showed how much they loved the flag. They were willing to drop their rifle and become defenseless to carry it. It was the ultimate in bravery.
Watched it, and was blown away. My thanks to History Channel, Tony and Ridley Scott, and everyone else responsible for putting this together. It was incredibly brilliant, insightful, tragic, and poignant. I hope a great many people put some time aside to watch it either on History, online, itunes, and so forth. Well worth a watch. (applause)
whats the song?
understatementband 8 months ago
you want to see a good fight?
type in and watch -
14th Indiana vs. Taylor Swift
We took care of business on Cemetery Hill
Now we are up against Taylor Swift
1967mustanggta 8 months ago
你刚去翻译这个，现在你要回去和喜欢
squashbro97 8 months ago
i clicked 'like' only for the song
rosalbina188 8 months ago
at 0:46 you can see the guy catching the flag before it drops
MrCsw123456789 8 months ago
@PajamaShark9 Yes, It is Real American History
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
Yes, it is True
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
what song is this
Wingzero5555 8 months ago
@Wingzero5555 Running Up That Hill by Placebo (it'a a cover, the original singer was Kate Bush)
rosalbina188 8 months ago
i liked the first day of this documentary if lee had jackson at gettysburg the south would have won and i dont know how the men at pickets charge ever walked across the field seeing men to the left and right of them getting hit by cannons
brian93ist 8 months ago
song?
projectzerobass 8 months ago
@projectzerobass placebo running up that hill
brian93ist 8 months ago
I can honestly say that the men that gave their lives in the civil war would be ashamed to see what this nation has become. God was everything to those men. Now god is being exiled from the country they gave their lives to protect.
300spartansrule 8 months ago
and i get my information from many books of proof and studies i spend more time doing that then sleeping history and science and cosmetology are very important so i study them for a long time each
Mrilovebears 8 months ago
and slavery was a part of the war im saying slavery was no reason for the seceding
Mrilovebears 8 months ago
no no no the north placed tariffs on england which angered the south so they seceded slavery was not the biggest part and lincoln said if the south came back they would still have slavery
Mrilovebears 8 months ago
@Mrilovebears ...why would the South be pissed off if a tariff was placed on English goods?
Logic fail.
squeakyazn 8 months ago
@squeakyazn The south was purchasing English goods and the north wanted them to stop and pay a higher price for northern goods. It was forcing the South to be their customers. The norh also insisted that the south sell more of their cotton to the north rather than get a higher price in Liverpool. Slavery was okay as long as the north was making money off of it. The hypocracy was surely difficult to stomach for the south.
stellalouise1 8 months ago
@stellalouise1 No, about Coal.
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
my point is lincoln is not who u think he is
Mrilovebears 8 months ago
what is the name of this song
CRMfanforLSU 8 months ago
lincoln is not who he seems he told his men to brutally murder president jefferson davis -_-
Mrilovebears 8 months ago
@Mrilovebears who gives a fuck its war
MrCsw123456789 8 months ago
@Mrilovebears Yeah, what is your point?
TheRedDeadNerd97 8 months ago
and i dont think of it as a civil war i think of it as the souths revolutionary war
Mrilovebears 8 months ago
slavery had nothing to do with the civil war it was cause the north taxed england cause the south was buying their goods instead of the north's
Mrilovebears 8 months ago
@Mrilovebears Uh, I don't know where you got your information from, but slavery DID have something to do with the CivilWar, and a big part of it, There was no problem with taxation, the only problem was that the south was angered that the north elected Lincoln to be president, the south grew furious but worried at the same time because they were worried that they thought Lincoln would ban slavery for good. So the south had no choice but to secede. and They did just that...
LegitPandaTV 8 months ago
@Mrilovebears You probably had little information about the Civil War until your social studies class went over it. You are most likely saying exactly what you heard come out of your teacher's mouth.
TheRedDeadNerd97 8 months ago
@Mrilovebears i agree people in the north owned slaves so how would it be over slavery?
brian93ist 8 months ago
Les recomiendo este vídeo: REVELACION NO EXISTE LA MUERTE
gallinitaciegav 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
21 are not Americans!
TheSalvation777 8 months ago
I wish you would show more History programs like this rather than stupid Ax Men and Swamp People
rufusmommy76 8 months ago 4
I see the movie, as innacurate as it was in many aspects, has stimulated interest in the Civil War. I encourage people to get out their history books, do some research, to learn about the War. If you get the opportunity, go visit Gettysburg. It is worth it. If you get a chance, go see a re-enactment and talk to reenactors. You'd be amazed the knowledge they are more than willing to share.
LetFr33DomRing 8 months ago
wtf is with the indie emo music
bottle2lip 8 months ago
Babylauncher3000@ most of the confederates wernt even given wepons they had to pick them up off a dead enemy so that might be how they got the springfields
ambientboss 8 months ago
i get chills everytime i see this.....beautiful
ambientboss 8 months ago 2
Saw it a few days ago. I laughed out loud when every CSA soldier they portrayed was a slave owner. It's naive to think all of the men in the South lived like the O'Haras from Gone with the Wind. Most were dirt poor farmers. And I didn't see any Black Confederates either.
Nightbreed24 8 months ago 3
lol Apparently there is a ton of continuity errors in the film. For example, the entire confederate army in the movie is wearing vests or civilian clothing, and not the common standard issue coats of the time. Nearly all the confederates where shown to be using Springfields which where mostly owned by the union.
Babylauncher3000 8 months ago
@Babylauncher3000
true but Robert E Lee was kicking the Union in the ass up to this point and his soldiers could have had stripped the springfields off of union dead, yes they had enfields but production would have been harder to get every gun in there
davcas113 8 months ago
what this song called?
398221002 8 months ago
@398221002 Running Up That Hill by Placebo
newchihuahua 8 months ago
@avaldex321 we will burn down the white house and the british
will hanlde the rest
398221002 8 months ago
I have to say these men who fought in these battles were some of Americas finest, on either side of the battlefield
RightGuyguy 8 months ago
Americans fighting Americans. Beautiful commercial, and the tattered United States flag waving at the end of the commercial should be enough to bring one to tears. Let's hope we are intelligent enough and civil enough to never let this happen again.
Brended2Perfection 8 months ago
Comment removed
RightGuyguy 8 months ago
Hey, I am from the south and proud of it, the cold hard facts are that the war is OVER, as badly as I would like southern policies not slavery to the close minded who thought the war was all about slavery, but states rights I can't help that. We need to stop calling Rednecks idiots, cousin kissers, and all this other crap. We are one nation and we need to stick together. I mean come on you make fun of the south for not getting out of the war but you keep bringing it up. Get a life! Good Day
RightGuyguy 8 months ago
@RightGuyguy i think u molest your cousin
qwertyuiop1111111119 8 months ago
@qwertyuiop1111111119
Is that your only argument, I mean come on all the people from New York I know are much smarter than this.
RightGuyguy 8 months ago
I know it is not Slavery because it is about Coal.
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
No, The Civil War Caused,and Slavery,andCoal.
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
This was an amazing show
CLAYmoreKy 8 months ago
Lol the giant shotgun cannon at the end made me s--- my pants! Talk about pwnage! Union FTW! :)
blazingoutlaw78 8 months ago
Man this special was great. I had been waiting to see it. Even though it was not a movie they made it like a movie with commentary. Go union! ;P
blazingoutlaw78 8 months ago
I would prefer a completely CGI film of the civil war. It would prevent the closing of gettysburg for filming purposes, and it would avoid filming the wrong place, such as california. They would be able to replicate it exact, plus it would be cheaper than hiring hundreds of people to play small parts. And, we can replicate lincoln when he does his speech.
PatrioticEagle50 8 months ago
Many comments people have posted state that they think the show "sucked" because it was not 100% historically correct. Don't get me wrong, I am all about getting historical facts straight, which they might not have done completely, but what they did do was spark interest in the Civil War. Using a less-documentary type approach, and making it more like a short film, it had drawn in viewers that would less likely watch a show about the Civil War. I personally think it was entertaining.
OfPureHound 8 months ago
@OfPureHound they could have at least filmed it in the east instead of southern california
johncashrocks221 8 months ago
@johncashrocks221 They filmed it in cale town south africa.
1s23d 8 months ago
@1s23d that's even worse
johncashrocks221 8 months ago
@OfPureHound True, you are right sir
RightGuyguy 8 months ago
my history teacher made me addicted to these!
teriakichcikan 8 months ago 13
@teriakichcikan the video never gets old
MrCsw123456789 8 months ago
What caused the Civil War?
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
@chickdrummerwoohoo the south realy didnt like lincolns view on slavery so they seceded from the union virginia was the first 2 secede then rest of the south seceded but south carolina tenesse and virginia forced north carolina 2 leave the union soon after the north attempted to invade the south failing after Robert e. Lee decided 2 invade th north look up some more on the internet.
killmastermurder 8 months ago
@chickdrummerwoohoo
really...
It was the thing for slavery that set it all in motion really and with Lincoln elected it just went down hill because he had different ideas and the south did not like it what so ever so they succeeded.
AceHanlon1 8 months ago
@chickdrummerwoohoo It was mainly cause of Lincolns election, The south had warned the North that if Lincoln was elected, they would leave the Union. And just as they knew, Lincoln was elected president. And one after one, the Southern states seceded. The North fought the South to keep the nation preserved, and the South fought the North because of Lincolns election at first, but soon when they realized they were outguned and outnumbered, they decided to fight for their familes and homes.
LegitPandaTV 8 months ago
@LegitPandaTV Conveniently left out any mention of slavery in your answer to chickendrummerwhoohoo, slavery was the central issue, and the spread of it into new states and territories. Lincoln was against expansion of slavery and this was the South's main issue. With an economy based on slavery, the South expected the North would eventually push to get rid of it altogether. I don't know why it's so hard to get this fact straight.
LetFr33DomRing 8 months ago
@LetFr33DomRing It wasn't mainly about slavery, it had a great part in the cause of the Civil War. At FIRST it was about slavery, but like I said, when the south found out that they would eventually lose, they decided not to fight to keep slavery alive, but instead for their homes and familes.
LegitPandaTV 8 months ago
What causes the Civil War?
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
@chickdrummerwoohoo slavery.
300spartansrule 8 months ago
Civil War is Real,and Our American History.
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
the Civil War ended in 1865.
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
It look soo Cool, but it is real war
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
18 people still dont think the war is over
Gonbeg2 8 months ago
Comment removed
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
North wear blue,and South wear in Civil War.
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
Comment removed
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
Comment removed
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
a lot of you don't understand, yes there may be gaps missing but there will always be gaps, as info gets passed along peices go missin. and the point of the movie to respect the lives lost on those days
fishshark2 8 months ago
a lot of you don't understand, yes there may be gaps missing but there will always be gaps, as info gets passed along peices go missin. and the point of the movie to respect the lives lost on tht day.
fishshark2 8 months ago
What's the name of the song
MotoX071 8 months ago
@MotoX071
Running Up That Hill by Placebo.
Sdwndr27 8 months ago
This show sucked. Bad history. Stick to UFO's and Pawn Stars...
fishcop444 8 months ago
This was HORRIBLE history. I grant you: the special effects were nice, but this project left HUGE gaps in the actual ebb and flow of the battle and it failed miserably in the historical accuracy department! I am always so disappointed in big budget historical films as they too often miss the mark! Look at Mel Gibson's "Patriot" .
The Scott brothers should have seen "Gods and Generals" as at least someone tried to get it right. Absolutely disappointed in, of all channels: "History!"
citadelsean 8 months ago
U bicthes got bad history this was american that did this !!!
xWebkinzFall2011 8 months ago
gettysburg & gods & generals are two good american civil war films dont know how accurate they are but they did give a good pi8cture of what happened
Ske11en 8 months ago
who made this crap of all crap? Oh wait it was not an AMERICAN no wonder. How unauthentic and bad history. Blood and gore do not make history come alive.
talleman1 8 months ago
When I watched this it was absolutely amazing when it comes out on DVD I am definately getting it!
wwedude121 8 months ago
@wwedude121 I haven't see it yet, could u tell me how it was. Was it like a documentary or something like the PACIFIC or BAND OF BROTHERS.
DOSU344 8 months ago
@DOSU344
It was more of just a regular documentary bu they did insights on some soldiers like you see at :23 on this video his name was Hamis Hummiston. But like I said it was reg. but it was still awesome!
wwedude121 8 months ago
If the Civil war was about slavery the north could of bought all the slaves to prevent war. You tube search "ron paul on the american civil war" He explains it perfectly.
visry 8 months ago 5
@visry u know how much the slavery industry was back then? it was over 40 billion dollars, well either 4 or 40 billion. either one of those numbers put that into perspectable number of moneyback in those days. if the north bought allthe slaves thats like putting slavery in the north it doesnt work. and if it happened then the south just go buy more slaves. bad idea man
EagleSrike202 8 months ago
@visry That video was awesome
RightGuyguy 8 months ago
@visry which would have meant that the economy of the south would have collapsed, unless they bought new slaves. At which point, what? The north should have bought them again? And again after that? It wouldn't have been a workable solution for anyone. The idea of it is shockingly naive.
stotelheim 8 months ago
@stotelheim Slavery was phased out in all other countries. Union should of bought all of the slaves and released them like the brutish empire how much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans where it lingered for hundred years. Every other major country in world got rid of slavery without a civil war.
visry 8 months ago 7
@visry British Empire*
visry 8 months ago
@visry I think Brutish is more apt, actually, when you consider how they kept their empire going.
stotelheim 8 months ago
@visry yes, but the other countries didn't have an economy that relied on slavery. The south didn't have the resources that the north had, and as you can see by what happened to the region after slavery was banned, the rest of the non-slave economy really wasn't particularly viable.
Buying the slaves and then releasing them wouldn't have fixed the southern economy, unless it was done on a recurring basis, and the southern slave-owners would likely not have just sold their only economic resource
stotelheim 8 months ago
@visry The union could not allow the confederacy to secede. The south would never allow the union to buy their slaves because slavery was so deeply rooted in their tradition not to mention the South's entire economy was based on slavery. The union would have nothing to do with millions of former slaves too. You theory is extremely flawed.
KaiserReich98 8 months ago
Comment removed
Ahamster1 8 months ago
@visry It was not a war about slavery it was about heritage and states rights. When American was made they made it where every states had rights of there laws but they broke that and that what the war was about. Its like if a new leader of American said no more state broders it would pissed off people. The south believed in states rights and the north take that from then. Most southern men in the army did not even had slaves.
SlipknotMaggotArmy3 8 months ago
@visry the civil war was fought not only becouse of slavery it was mostly about states rights and if we tryed to buy all of the slaves it would have never gotten passed congress becouse the southern ecnomy would have been greaty affected and the southern way of life would have been greatly disturbed, up to the point were there would have been a civil anyway,oh and the brithish dident have an economy totaly based on farming witch needed slavery
MrCornman3 8 months ago
@MrCornman3 The north was a lot more free market orientated than the south.
1s23d 8 months ago
@visry yeah Africa still has slavery and they kill each other for being from the other side of a river.
mrrossn 8 months ago
@visry I doubt the Southerners owuld've sold all their slaves.
ChristianWarriorUSA 8 months ago
@visry You're assuming the Civil War was all over slavery. Really, the North and South had rapidly diverging lifestyles and cultures, so they were fighting over their identities. Slavery was just a small part of it.
metashader 8 months ago
@metashader the confederacy was becoming a totlitarian police state under jefferson davis
1s23d 8 months ago
@metashader Read the confederate constitution, in 1854 the republican party was born and one of the main issues with this new party was to get the country back on gods side and away from the grips of slavery and the democratic party.
1s23d 8 months ago
@visry I don't believe you have a proper scope of just how integrated slavery was into our society. It was the largest business in the United States at the time, period. Buying out slavery we would literally be re-purchasing 20% of our own economy, that kind of action is just entirely infeasible. The British empire had chicken scratch compared to how much the United States had invested in slavery.
TouAnjhad 8 months ago
@TouAnjhad slavery was in all societies it was a universal institution
1s23d 8 months ago
@1s23d But it didn't exist in the same fashion in those societies as it did in the United States. The United States developed a sophisticated and relatively modern slave trade. It was the only institution of slavery to not only survive, but thrive because of the industrial revolution. Other systems of slavery remained rudimentary and scarce in comparison to the widely accepted slave trade of the Southern United States
TouAnjhad 8 months ago
@TouAnjhad the first slaves came to the US as indentured servants in 1619, the second group came in 1620 but the colonists arrested the slave holders and freed the slaves based on the bible verses exodus 21:16 and deuteronomy 24:7. The republican party was formed in 1854 with the main goal of getting back to the founders vision of all men are created equal under god and of getting rid of the evil pracice of slavery.
1s23d 8 months ago
@visry Oh, not to mention, the United States was the only country to actually develop such a modern system of slavery. The human trade had become such an industry as never seen in the world before then.
TouAnjhad 8 months ago
@visry ... That would've owned even more money! Also, dude a lot of the slave owners would give them up! The Union made a machine that picks the cotton and seeds out and it was extremely efficient! It could work 5x as fast as the slaves but guess what they still didn't give them up.
Agomongo1235 8 months ago
@visry people that lived in the north owned slaves
brian93ist 8 months ago
@brian93ist you listen in history class REALLY well.
GeckoKing44 8 months ago
song?
TheSwampcritter 8 months ago
@TheSwampcritter Running Up That Hill by Placebo on the album The Vampire Diaries
m4d4p3 8 months ago
@TheSwampcritter
Placebo- Running Up That Hill
sadmancho 8 months ago
While I liked this show I kinda liked the Lee and Grant one they showed earlier today more.
SVOddball 8 months ago
Dear History Channel, For the love of God, do not delete this video. You're going to piss off a lot of people if you do.
Mr2002MustangGT 8 months ago
Wrong. What tactics were out of place? The Iron Brigade's assault on the railway cut was a charge. The Confederates did not assault Culps Hill in linear formation. It went pretty much as demonstrated...scrambling up the hill. So what are you talking about when you say the tactics were wrong? What specific scene?
EricKinDC 8 months ago
thumbs up if the trailor was way more epic than the documentary :(
xhb42x 8 months ago
This film did a disservice to the history of the battle. It was a joke, the way the tactics were portrayed. Banzai charges were not in vogue during the civil war. Confederates wore uniforms, not shirt sleeves and waist belts, which were unknown at the time.
grampy1939 8 months ago
@grampy1939 Who cares about what the soldiers wore during the civil war. So what if the wardrobe is inaccurate. Its the content shown that matters and in my opinion I thought this film was good.
dorky979 8 months ago
great documentary devoted on this period in time when a nation was on the brink of self destruction.
romaarma30 8 months ago
If you want to learn something about real history, watch Lee & Grant instead of this awful production.
esvhd 8 months ago
@esvhd Lol that's on right now.
n0obzareback 8 months ago
@esvhd gettysburg was a documentary also not a hollywood movie. just as educational and informative as lee and grant.
romaarma30 8 months ago
@esvhd And i'm watching it right now, lol. :P
n0obzareback 8 months ago
I must say I was pretty impressed with this film that the history channel did.Yeh i know some out there say the actors weren't great and the uniforms weren't adiquit(sorry idk how spell it).But still people stop criticizing any little thing and look at the positives of it. How they told the story of both sides with 8 different people with various backgrounds was really good! However, I know the second day of there portrayal wasn't as good. It was still great and I learned alot!
EagleSrike202 8 months ago
I see a lot of comments below on how they did not get the history correct. Are you guys simply talking uniforms here? The most important aspects of the history are not getting the uniforms exactly right. What errors are you talking about? I didn't see anything glaring...as I said, I think they misconstrued a bit what happened on Day 2 on the Union left...but it wasn't entire inaccurate. The point of the show was to tell the story through 8 people who were there in their own words.
EricKinDC 8 months ago
@EricKinDC Very well said. You nailed it exactly.
fRoMeThEwEsT 8 months ago
Guys, it wasn't supposed to be an analytical look at the battle. That story has been done on the History Channel (Gettysburg Unknown Civil War). Pros...focused on less well-known aspects...railway cut, XI Corps fleeing through town,Culps Hill, Barksdale's attack, non-Pickett brigade during Pickett's charge. Cons - misleading on Longstreet's uncoordinated 2nd day attacks and Sickles. But overall, it captured the human story and brutality of the fighting.
EricKinDC 8 months ago
This took place at Gettysburg in the Civil War,and Yes,Civil War Week.
chickdrummerwoohoo 8 months ago
i do like how they told the story of the iron brigade on the first day ... i always thought that didnt get enough attention in other things ive seen
McCarthy331 8 months ago
I dont know why the hell everone is freaking out, it wasnt that bad they just focused in on a smaller section of events rather than coverd the hole battle and missing the spicifics. and as far as a "civil war verson of 300" um..... it wasnt inaccurate information it was just focused in on specific people and events. so ease up
McCarthy331 8 months ago
@McCarthy331 that said they could have done a better job... and talked about bufords cavilery on the first day and some other things
McCarthy331 8 months ago
Lets see, they completely ignored all cavalry engagements during the battle including the first engagement with Buford's cavalry. They had men in cavalry uniforms manning cannons and fighting in the infantry. They made the south look like a bunch of hillbillies with no jackets. They put post-war crossed rifle brass on the iron brigade hats. I saw elastic suspenders. They used incorrect formations and tactics. More hollywood than history! Uniforms and equipment looked like halloween costumes.
Nerfball6 8 months ago
@Nerfball6 didnt they use reenactors?
McCarthy331 8 months ago
@McCarthy331 I am a Civil War reenactor myself and never saw a call go out to the community for extras for this movie (at least Nationally). If they did use reenactors they found the worst ones out there. And/or outfitted them in inauthentic uniforms themselves (because even some of the worst reenactors would have better impressions than what were used in that film). Whoever was the historical consultant on this movie should never work on another Civil War film again.
Nerfball6 8 months ago
@MultiArrow123 That's not the point. History channel has a responsibility to actually present history correctly. "Gettysburg" was an abomination to history.
Nerfball6 8 months ago
Some people don't apresheate the history of this country
pavelradev1990 8 months ago
ErickKinDC: I hope it gets people excited to learn more. But I take issue with it being sold so large (movie posters at our local theater) that it squandered a real good chance at getting people excited WHILE educating. Depicting it correctly is easier and, often, cheaper to do. The History Channel chose to spend more time touting executive producers Ridley and Tony Scott than insisting on perfection.
JDBertAD 8 months ago
In a word. Disgusting. History channel should stick to Aliens and larry the cable guy and start to move out of the realm of history. Not only are they portraying Civil War tactics, uniforms, soldier life, etc, etc poorly they are doing a great disservice to everyone with their "story". They are not letting little things like historical accuracy get in the way of their Civil War version of "300". They have officially lost all credibility of a source of valid or factual information. Shame on them!
GSCCofVA 8 months ago
@GSCCofVA Your dumb
Robro40k 8 months ago
@GSCCofVA
History Channel did not make the film. Ridley Scott and Tony did. I know those two are very talented, so I am guessing history channel gave them a lot of money for this. So they screwed up on some things. But, it is hard to recreate a civil battle. And all because they did not cover every engagement does not mean they are wrong.
TheWinButton 8 months ago
@TheWinButton Actually, they got quite a bit wrong. From uniforms, tactics, story, weapons, landscape. Would you like me to go on?
bwenglish 8 months ago
Good grief. There seem to some very unrealistic expectations in this thread about what can and cannot be accomplished in a 2-hour (with commercials) docudrama on a topic as huge and complicated as Gettysburg. The purpose was to tell the story from the perspective of 8 people on the field. There were some errors, but the overall piece was fairly well done and should get people excited to learn more about the Civil War.
EricKinDC 8 months ago
@EricKinDC "Unrealistic expectations" to use correct uniforms, equipment, history and tactics, etc? You don't ask much from something that is supposed to be teaching history. That's sad.
Nerfball6 8 months ago
The best part of the entire show was the Geico commercial.
Nerfball6 8 months ago
i do believe they said at the beginning that it was the account of the war though the lives of 8 people, they never said it was the whole story. i loved it.
reaver697 8 months ago
why does everybody bitch if you dont like the show. dont watch it!!!
MultiArrow123 8 months ago
@MultiArrow123 I guess you could say we bitch because it stings like a mother fucker when a n00b from out californy way completely tarnishes three days that define our nation's greatest struggle in our collective consciousness. If you can't take the time to do it right, why would you do it?
EvolveSticker 8 months ago
@EvolveSticker tousha
MultiArrow123 8 months ago
This is the worst attempt at a Civil War documentary ever made. While the writing is plain vanilla for general audiences, it is acceptable. Other than that and causing discussion of the subject, this video has no redeeming qualities. For those of you out there that think this is a true representation of the battle of Gettysburg or the American Civil War, you are sadly misinformed. There are too many historical mistakes to enumerate, so I won't bore you by doing so. Let me suggest you do some re
ESVPROD 8 months ago
Nice try Ridley, but this is one of the most slipshod attempts ever conceived to tell the story of Gettysburg. If it piques anyone's interest and gets them to travel to PA to see the actual battlefield, more power to them. In the meantime it looks like the producers picked up a copy of Killer Angels, watched Gettysburg once or twice and decided to hire a bunch of stunt guys and crap wardrobe assistants.
EvolveSticker 8 months ago
So close to being great. A little more insight into correct uniforms (yellow stripes denote calvary not infantry), characters - Barksdale had flowing white hair, never wore a hat into battle, had his sword shot in two, etc., no cross rifles on Union Hardees. Never the less, compelling story telling and a gritty visual look made for a very entertaining two hours. Lets hope the History Channel gets back to history. For awile there I thought maybe they had run out! LOL
afrosippi 8 months ago
@afrosippi Because you were in the civil war? Take a seat.
beecer04 8 months ago
@beecer04 I know a little bit about it. More than most.
afrosippi 8 months ago
I can go on and on about the uniforms (totally incorrect) and the visual military depiction of the battle (wrong). But I will not nit pick because the general public doesn't know such things. But to have beards falling off during takes, showing rocky crags in the background, etc shows a very lazy attempt to tell this story. If you are not willing to make the small and cheap things correct, how can I trust that due diligence was done to research the story? Simply put, I can't. Bad show.
JDBertAD 8 months ago
netflix is now streaming WWII in HD.
reaver697 8 months ago
I love how nobody let the United States flag fall even if they knew they were easy targets they still went to grab the flag and not let it fall.
lmvks 8 months ago
@lmvks People fighting for the csa also did that...
akatsukifanboy102 8 months ago
@akatsukifanboy102 I'm talking about the video... -.-
lmvks 8 months ago
@lmvks That's because it was an honor to those men to carry the colors, and it showed how much they loved the flag. They were willing to drop their rifle and become defenseless to carry it. It was the ultimate in bravery.
Nerfball6 8 months ago
the costumes really sucked but it was pretty good last night
Mrilovebears 8 months ago
@Mrilovebears i agree the south was crazy to walk across the field the 3rd day
brian93ist 8 months ago
that guy looks like woody harrelson @00:24
DirtRoadBoy13 8 months ago
Watched it, and was blown away. My thanks to History Channel, Tony and Ridley Scott, and everyone else responsible for putting this together. It was incredibly brilliant, insightful, tragic, and poignant. I hope a great many people put some time aside to watch it either on History, online, itunes, and so forth. Well worth a watch. (applause)
RogueScholarBlue 8 months ago
@RogueScholarBlue
Agreed when this gets out on DVD i'm buying it. It was amazing!
wwedude121 8 months ago