Gettysburg deleted scene 7 - Longstreet and Fremantle

[WilhelmEbert]

I love how everyone has a deep southern accent and then they've just put one kiddy Englishman in the middle.

[kmtb1991]

had lee actually doe what longstreet had suggested the war might have gone very differently

[AstridVue]

This is one of the few deleted scenes that I think should remain out of the movie, but should still be included as an extra. Freemantle's speech is a little too pedantic, but is useful to those who at this point still didn't understand Longstreet's preference of defensive tactics. The scene also helps define the awkward but endearing relationship that developed between the two men. I think Freemantle was someone Longstreet fully expected to detest but ended up really liking.

[HouseMD112]

What is the name of the march at the end?

[AstridVue]

@HouseMD112 It is a traditional Irish song written by Thomas Moore. I was so happy it was included in the film. There are several traditional renditions to be found on YT. It's always been a favorite song of mine but even more so after a Joe Strummer & the Mescaleros' version was used in Black Hawk Down. (I tried posting links, but it kept giving me errors, so hope you don't mind doing a little searching.)

[TchaikovskyFDR]

It wasnt even in the VHS cassette i have that was made when it was first on the market

[Crymson1]

What a horrible scene.

[hovanti]

Interesting, I never saw this; thank you for putting this up.

[lopido]

Most of the south still hated longstreet for his actions after the civil war.. They say this movie changed there mind.

[roadend78]

liverpool helped the south with guns men and ships .the rest of the uk was on the union side .

[Tyler13R]

@martinwellborne you're correct, but how likely or unlikely it was is completely irrelevant to the point I was making in response to earlier comments. It was purely hypothetical. 

[Talbot6832]

Wow, what a terrible stereotypical performance by that actor playing Freemantle.

[Steak3131]

I remember that we watched this movie on the week before the last in my junior year of high school in history class. My friends and I were making all sort of Fremantle jokes about it. "Topographical battlefield postion" was one. Still, I must admit that Fremantle was, by far, my favourite character from the movie.

[PEPEDEBARRO]

Lee was great but at Gettysburg he tought he was Napoleon -- and he had not men enough for that "Borodino style" frontal attack. I belive that that move was against his own rules.

[willobi]

i say.. it's a terry thomas wanna be by gad.

[BenAliGtor]

That movie didn't really do Freemantle any favors- portraying him as a stereotypical English fop. And it's unlikely he would have been in his red uniform at Gettysburg: British neutrality was a delicate matter.

Still and all....the character was a lot of fun.

[rob9641]

@BenAliGtor I think I remember the cinematographer saying he tried to get some red into the film because there was just so much blue, gray and butternut.

[alexp9999]

@BenAliGtor

haha yeah, he's pretty good. you know the British, they always go off to war with a cheerful face =D

[flattop32355]

@BenAliGtor If I read Fremantle's book correctly, he was not in any way present in an official capacity, but merely as a private citizen of Britain travelling at his own expense observing across the South, having entered the country through the Gulf Of Mexico and eventually arriving at the Army of Northern Virginia late in his journey. He seemed to be granted exceptional access to Confederate commanders, however, all along the way.

[3L24]

@BenAliGtor alot of the forgion millatary peopler sent to waqtch the civil war wore there unfiroms in case there postion was over run so they would not be treated as a rebal and get the treatment sa pfprgion officer

[deerhunter59ify]

@Dogapsa My kids love History and the battle of Gettysburg. One is 12 and one is 10. Do you think they ought to see these 4 letter words while reading about history? You have no class and your comments should be taken off. Maybe you should get on a porn sight!

[FreeErmine]

It was the french army that showed the most modern attitude during the crimean campaign (probably a cause for the defeat in 1870 due to that stupid arrogance of theirs).

During that period even England had internal problems and a loss of even partial magnitude during US civil war battles would have devastated british convictions and beliefs.

Those advisors and the menaces were low cards in a big game during that period - but not of any significance for the outcome of the war. Only politics.

[WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1]

@FreeErmine

Just out of interest, what specifically are you referring to by 'internal problems' in England during the period?

[SocratesRulz]

Yeah brilliant! Attack the high ground where they are entrenched. Lee definitely should have swung around to the southeast and waited for attack. Pride comes before the fall.

[Knasterreal1]

This is not deleted scenes. Atleast not in the nordic dvd's

[CrazyDoncovA]

Tom Berenger is awesome

[rob9641]

@CrazyDoncovA Berenger did one of his best jobs with this role. It's not an easy role - Longstreet is sullen much of the time and grieving the loss of his children and the need to follow orders he disagrees with, but Berenger has to make us like him and sympathize with him too and sustain that thru the whole film. Nice job.

[legendarytoyou]

*sigh* that strategy would've worked had it not been for Pickets Charge. had Lee waited and then started fainting toward the south to Washington we'd have a Confederate Flag flying in Washington right now T.T

[skymooseft]

I am looking for the scene where an officer says something like.... "I don't want to serve a king in England. I'll be damned if I server one in Washington." Does anyone have a link to that scene? Thanks

[rob9641]

@skymooseft it's not posted anyplace I know of

[Knasterreal1]

@skymooseft

That scene is brigadier Jim Kemper (the politician) under General Pickett on the first night when they discuss life at Longstreets Corps HQ.

[ColZechs]

@skymooseft I think the scene you are thinking of takes place around the poker "table" in Longstreet's camp the night of the first day of battle. It's Pickett, Freemantle, Garnett, and Kemper, and it's Kemper who says the line. It's right before Pickett's analogy of the gentlemen's club.

[TheCommunistColin]

@skymooseft That was Jim Kemper talking to Freemantle about "the cause". It's the "Gentleman's Club" scene in the film.

[feistythecat]

@skymooseft  It's the scene where Longstreet's div commanders are talking around the campfire on the evening of Jul 2

[JohnP538]

@skymooseft You are looking for General James Kemper's speech to Col. Fremantle. It is part of the discussion around the campfire after Pickett introduces Garrnet, Armisted and Kemper. The movie ends with Kemper saying his wound is mortal, but he survived and became Virginia's governor.

[mbabist01]

Tyler13R: The French were even more impressed. Jules Verne's novel, "From Earth to the Moon," had American scientists build a huge cannon (cast in the ground) in Florida. I think Verne based the gun on the Dahlgren, but I'm not sure...

[Perculsor]

Fremantle was worth including in the movie because his writings made him an international celebrity (more so than the German or Austrian observers), and also because British intervention in the war was one factor that could have tipped the scales in favor of the Confederacy.

[mbabist01]

My one big complaint of the movie was the Brit in uniform. All he carried with him was a gray hunting suit, and a "large black sombrero I was given in Texas." And, where are the German and Austrian observers?

[rob9641]

This was a film of the book "The Killer Angels." The characters, incidents, etc. are those that were in the book, not necessarily ALL of those that were actually at Gettysburg. For the film, they had to pare it down even more, or it would have been even longer than the 4 hours it was.

[gcini577]

Fremantle (the Brit in uniform) was in fact not an emissary sent by the British government. Actually he was a military tourist. Following his return to England he wrote with strong conviction that the Union would be defeated. It does seem a bit odd to have placed Fremantle in a military uniform but nonetheless he was present, observed the battle, and wrote about it later on.

[mbabist01]

Yes, I know, I've read "Frementle's Diary." I know that the Austrian, Ross, wore his uniform on the second day, but Fremantle traveled light. In fact, he arrived in New York in time for the draft riot!

[RedcoatT]

They put him into uniform because it was a simple but effective way to show why an Englishman was wandering around Gettysburg at that time asking questions, even if it wasn't historically correct

[VictorLepanto]

In brief: The claim is that, as Lee would be totally idiotic to attack Meade frontally, a front attack would be utterly unexpected. Being unexpected, it would thus be utterly brilliant. I dare anyone to stand where Lee stood at Gettysburg; look across that vast, flat, empty field & not conclude he was utterly mad. If I was Longstreet, I'd have Lee taken into custody as deranged from PTSD or whatever they would have called it then.

[rob9641]

You forget the ANV had made a breakthru in that area on day 2 and come very close in other places. Lee was convinced they were meant to win, God was telling them "one more good push." I've stood there many times, and while I never would have ordered it, I'm not a West Point trained, deeply religious 1863 general who had pulled off miracle off after miracle for the past 2 1/2 years.

[VictorLepanto]

Those who the god's will destroy they 1st make mad. As I have said in other places. Lee did well in places close to home where he was familiar. When he went North into new territory, he got his fingers burned. Longstreet blamed Lee for this disaster, I agree w/ him. Lee turned what was meant as a foraging expedition into a main force battle. Lee never learned from Washington's example from the Revolution. Good thing too, slavery & the rebellion were crushed b/c he wasted his forces.

[colindominy]

Thank you for posting this deleted scene, rob9641. Having replayed it a number of times & listened / watched closely .. I think I can see how sensible it was to have this dialogue by Col. Fremantle deleted .. especially his latter-scripted piece .. from, say 1.12 to about 1.30. A very verbose, 'awkward' piece of script-writing, if I may be so bold. It lacks a certain credibility. Nonetheless .. I have great affection for the entire finished piece of cinema, and Ron Maxwell's talented work.

[rob9641]

I've deleted some posts. If anybody wants to have at anybody else, do it privately, not on my video.

[Evocati2008]

Hey, i did, but the guy would just keep going at it on here. Not by my design, but hell, if he wanted a tussle, I'll oblige 100% of the time.

[rob9641]

I get it. But once people have had their say, if I find it a pain to slog through, I'll delete it when I see it.

[Turnback]

Horrible scene. Could easily have turned into a Monty Python sketch.

[hartshornguy]

yes war elephants.

[Tyler13R]

If I remember correctly, the Brits were more then a little impressed with the power, technology, and tactics of both American armies! They basically reported back to England that they really had a lot of work to do to be on par with US military power.

[BigMrFirebird]

Not heard this before. I've read the consensus of the Euro observers was that the American forces were amateurish, with the exception being the potential of the new ironclads.

[dropkick426]

Amateurish...that's funny. Yet I bet either army, Northern Virginia or Potomac, would have whipped any European army of the time. And we've never lost to Europeans in any war we've fought.

[BigMrFirebird]

And yet the irony is that both sides looked to Europe, especially the French, for military inspiration.

[sdacj]

@dropkick426 Except for the war of 1812 - we lost to the British.

[Talbot6832]

@dropkick426 It may have been able to win in Virginia or Maryland, but not on the open plains of Europe against a well armed French/Prussian Army. And certainly foreign observers would have evaluated the 1st Bull Run and determined that it was a shambles. As with anything experience breeds efficiency.

[Talbot6832]

@Tyler13R I suppose you can cite this then? The British Army was a small army used primarily for imperial policing. Don't go comparing it to a drafted army like that of the Union/Confederacy. They had 2 different objectives. If the need arose the British were capable of raising a massive army quickly; this was shown in the First World War.

[Tyler13R]

@Talbot6832 You seem to be picking a needless fight. Show me where I'm comparing anything? I simply remember reading that British observers were very impressed by what they saw and reported back than they had some serious work to do.

However, in my opinion you are very correct about the Brits being in policing mode and able to form a massive army in a hurry...but they still would have gotten their butts handed to them by the US at that time in a much bigger way then 100 years previously.

[061369317]

@Talbot6832 A massive British army assembled in a hurry during the WW1 ?

Well, let's check this preposterous claim...in 1918, the British army (including CEF and ANZAC) was some 70 divisions strong, the French army was around 95-105, and had been so since late 1914, while the British army only reached 50 divisions by 1916.

The AEF (US) was 31 divisions strong at November 11, 1918, but the US divisions were 26,000 men strong, nearly the double of the other armies divisions sizes.

[donwild50]

There were British observers with the North later in the war (after the uproar over the Trent Affair had died down.) However, Freemantle was there because, while there were British consuls and an ambassador to the North, no such officials were sent to the Confederacy. To do so would have been tantamount to recognition, something the British were in no hurry to grant. Britain wanted to see what the Confederates were doing, but it had to remain unofficial.

[Minnexyz]

How come there wasn't a British observer on the Union side?

[rob9641]

I guess you'll have to ask the British, but maybe because they got all their cotton from the South and they wanted to see if the South could win the war so they could recognize the Confederacy.

[hartshornguy]

if the british wanted to protect their life line of cotton from the south they would have entered earlier and faster by smashing the blockade, and helping protect the key port cities of the south. because with brtish involvemnet they could have just ended it. the british empire was not a empire that hesitated. The south won enough substantial battles but needed help out west, like nashville and even out further where sibley was in new mexico.

[jland3622]

the brits were never gonna side with the south as long as slavery was still an issue. earlier in this scene longstreet tells fremantle that they (the south) should have freed the slaves themselves then fired on ft. sumter then maybe the british would have joined the south.

[hartshornguy]

true but they traded with other european countries that endorsed and made money off it. It wasnt so much that te brits had this great theological dogma against slavery, the only reason I can see is because the csa poised no threat to the last remaining english strong hold in the new world which was canada. the enlgish feared the bigger united states, along with that the french wanted support in mexico to back up maximillion. even the pope, pope gregory the III i think, defend jefferson davis

[jland3622]

you have to understand the british had many holdings elsewhere in the world to throw money and resources at. slavery was the main reason the brits did not come into the war reguardless of what other european countries ideals of slavery were. if the south had freed the slaves themselves and the war had continued then i think the brits come in or lend a large amount of support to the confederacy. otherwise the brits don't touch that war with a 10 foot pole.

[BigMrFirebird]

The folks in the cotton mills of northern England went on strike against working with cotton from the CSA because of its links with slavery. Even Lincoln wrote them to thank them for their support.

[Turnback]

Well I think Lincoln actually entered earlier and faster by instructing his diplomats to convey, in no uncertain terms, that interference meant war. Primarily a naval war, similar to the Quasi War with France. By 1861 the US navy was formidable, albeit smaller than the British. To aid the CSA they would need to smash the blockade and that would have come with a heavy price. Slavery aside, I also do not think the British public would have supported another North American adventure.

[Coleburg]

If they had entered the war, there would have been a famine in the UK. They were far too dependent on the Union.

Not to mention that Canada would have been invaded and certainly lost along with all territories in the Hemisphere. The British never had a large standing army.

They would have also had to fight the Russians again who were eagerly hoping for such a war to happen. The truth is, they were very lucky they didn't get involved. Parliament would never have accepted the casualties.

[VictorLepanto]

It is my understanding that Lincoln & Seward allowed the Russian Navy to anchor in New York harbor for the duration of the war. This relationship was the basis for the Alaska deal.

If I was Lincoln, I'd have had made a deal w/ Russia. If you back us up against the British, you can take & India & we will take Canada & the Caribbean. The Quebecquers would have supported a rebellion. American Irish agents could have infiltrated Ireland. This is obviously why the Southern diplomacy had no chance.

[Coleburg]

Yes, perhaps the main danger of British involvement besides the loss of Canada would have been full Union support for the Irish. Even though the Union had a lot more soldiers, they didn't start conscripting for years and there was a huge number of Irish in the East who would have signed up to fight England. One can imagine what an army of Irish-Americans and full scale shipments of arms to Ireland would have done to the rule there. Way, way too much downside for the Brits to get involved.

[VictorLepanto]

@Coleburg: & the British would have gotten no support from France under Napolean III. Nappy three sticks was tied down in Mexico, w/ plenty of secret help from Federal agents eager to keep him busy there. Remember, for the duration of the war, Russia still had border w/ Canada. Britain could not have defended their Indian & Canadian holdings. Seward had effectively checkmated any possible British support for the South. That is discounting internal British resistance to supporting slavery.

[mbabist01]

@Coleburg Well, many former members of the Irish Brigade DID fight against English rule in Canada after the war. They were handily defeated.

[britboyal]

@VictorLepanto that would have never happened, Russia had only just lost the Crimean War against the British and French in 1856, the war had been a major defeat that pointed out the backwards nature of the Russian military

at any rate it would disrupt the balance of power in Europe, France didnt side with the Confederacy because Britain decided it wouldnt, and France didnt want to go it alone, Russia siding against Britain would lead to its allies in Europe attacking Russia on its home turf

[VictorLepanto]

@britboyal: Maybe, maybe not, a defeat could mean a psychological need for revenge. One of the major drive behind WWII (for Germany that is). Support from the Americans might have made the Russians reevaluate their chances. The British would have been hopeless over extended. For gaining British Columbia & India, the Russian would have risked much. The Russian Navy was given anchorage in New York for the duration.

[britboyal]

@VictorLepanto perhaps, but i just cant see it, i dont think Europe wouldve stood for Russia getting more land, it couldve turned into another Seven Years War style conflict

[VictorLepanto]

@britboyal: That was the whole strategy of the Union vis-a-vis European involvement in the Civil War. Dangle all these terrible possibilities b/f the world, & watch everyone stay nice & quiet. Cutting the South off & letting it die was the whole Union strategy. The South was low on industrial production (they couldn't make many of their own weapons) & on capital (one of the prime motives for the rebellion). By raising the cost of obtaining foreign support, we made a Southern victory impossible.

[Talbot6832]

@Coleburg I hope no one took your word for truth.

[bookkeeper57]

Because the British had a political stake in the success of the Confederacy, and

were a huge market for their surplus cotton.

[hartshornguy]

they had observers from sian, sp?, austria hungary, prussia. prussia wanted to give them war elephants almost like hannibal fighting the romans.

[Sokra01]

I think you mean Sian elephants. Prussia would had some delivery problems with african animals.

[hartshornguy]

ah good point =)

[RedcoatT]

There were British observers on the Union side, but Freemantle is remembered because he wrote a famous book on Gettysburg and his travels in the South

[Sokra01]

Perhaps a little bit too much a caricature of a british officer.

But a nice red uniform.

[hartshornguy]

he was part of the cold stream gurad, the same guard that watches the palace today.

[corporal1c]

That would be The Coldstream Guards, The longest serving Regiment in the British Army. Second to None.

[BigMrFirebird]

Don't the Scots Guards claim that, too?

[FredDude27]

This scene is featured in the extra-long TV version..For some reason there isnt an extended DVD version :-(

[guyman117]

Lee was a briliant commander but Im sure everyone can agree that he should have listened to Longstreet.

[410boredatwork]

@guyman117 General Longstreet was a brilliant defensive battlefield tactician he proved that at Fredrecksburg he also knew the south's only hope at winning a victory in Pennsylvania would only happen if General Lee were to position his army between Washington and the Union army once the southern army entrenced Meade would of been forced to attack under pressure from Lincoln and then it would of been game over Meade would of been forced to throw his army into a meat grinder 

[guyman117]

@410boredatwork You see my point?

[410boredatwork]

@guyman117 YES

[johan12564]

@410boredatwork That is true, that is true indeed. Had Lee listened to Longstreet, Souith would have won. The developement would have been, just the way you describes it. Thank God, Lee did not listened, and the Union was saved. God has his own ways, blinded the eyes of the commander.

[mkeithharris]

@johan12564 counterfactual history is useless. You have no idea at all what would have happened had Lee taken a different course. Why don't we talk about what did happen instead of dwell on what didn't. "What if" questions have no utility whatsoever.

[johan12564]

@mkeithharris I tell you what happened. Lee failed miserably, that's what happened. The campaign went wrong when Lee started to chase the enemy (instead of following his overall startegi, which was defensive). That is his order to converge all units towards Gettysburg. Now he will have to fight on grounds he has not sufficient knowledge of. Than, one mistake leads to another. I could mention them all, but I will not do that.

[mkeithharris]

@johan12564 do you have any idea at all what you are talking about? Or...do you get all of your Civil War history from bad movies?

[mkeithharris]

@guyman117 not so much....Longstreet wanted to disengage - Lee had momentum on his side.

[johan12564]

@mkeithharris What fucking momentum? The momentum was lost, once the union troops were digged in on the highgrounds, formed in the very known fishhook position. The only alternative at this point was going to the right, just as Longstreet suggested. Thank God, Lee didn,t listened, and the Union was saved.

[mkeithharris]

@johan12564 HAHA nice language - I love these tough guy knobs on Youtube who have virtual balls of steel HAHAHA. You watch too many movies, dude. And commanders who leave the field after a victory don't command for very long. You should be thanking Strong Vincent and David Ireland for their defense of the extreme flanks of the Union line. Two guys your movie doesn't really mention.

[johan12564]

@mkeithharris Never mind my language. It's fundamental. Do not attack where the enemy is strong. Do not attack uphill. Do not attack when you lack sufficient knowledge of the ground or of the strength of the enemy.

You must force the union troops to come out of their strong positions, and the only way to do so is by threatening Washington. That is to move to the right.

[Mahbu]

@guyman117

Longstreet actually catches a lot of flak but it's mostly because he was a "reconstructed rebel" that believed in reconstruction, equal rights, and joined the republican party. The south viewed him as a traitor and unjustly heaped a lot of blame on him.

But Pickett's charge was likely doomed to fail as all its supporting elements failed. Stuart failed to get behind enemy lines, supplies were short, the artillery barrage failed, and Ewell's supporting action was countered.

[BenAliGtor]

@Mahbu That is certainly true. A lot of the "Longstreet Lost It All At Gettysburg" rhetoric arose out of the postwar Southern Historical Society and was promugated by Jubal Early. Perhaps to divert attention from his own blunders? In any even, Lee certainly never denigrated Longstreet: he was always his "old war horse."

[Mahbu]

@BenAliGtor

That's what I said. From all that I've read, Lee never had anything particularly terrible to say about the man. Longstreet might not be the greatest general or even in the top fifty of all time, but he wasn't terrible and he did do fairly well. Much better than, say, Burnside or Mcclellan.

[zipsrule]

@BenAliGtor Part of the historiography that most people are unaware of.

[gw7709]

berenger kinda reminds me of george w. bush at around :36, haha , just his speech patterns

[CULAVE]

James Lancaster is very good at the 'Queens English' accent. He fitted right into the role

[littlefun22]

Anyone know the name of the tune at the end of this clip? Been searching for years, and I think it has lyrics.

[rob9641]

The Minstrel Boy - "The Minstrel Boy to the war has gone, in the ranks of death you will find him; his father's sword he hath girded on and his wild harp slug behind him. 'Land of Song,' sang the warrior bard, 'though all the world betrays thee, one sacred sword thy rights shall guard, one faithful harp shall praise thee." It's Irish.

[littlefun22]

Thanks. I appreciate it.

[hartshornguy]

if you could my favorite part in the movie is the last 16 seconds of this clip with father corby giving the 69th their last rights. if you just extened it so as to show the scene including when hancock shows up for prayer.

[MaryToddLincoln65]

It's not the last rites, it's general absolution. But it is a nice scene. :)

[MJ0428]

Funny, since swinging south was Longstreet's Idea.

[rob9641]

Yeah, he was pretty much a throwaway, somebody to bounce the Confederate point of view off of, but that's pretty much what he is in the book, too. I did enjoy his befuddlement when Pickett and his boys showed up, especially in the uncut version when right off he's got Pickett slapping him on the back like an old buddy, Kemper in his face about the blockade and Armistead beckoning him off for the hooch. He looked a bit dizzy there for a while. Not much for the plot but a pleasant diversion.

[BalboaParkJPN]

I hated that portrayal of Fremantle. Every American's idea of what a "bufoonish" British officer should be, right down to the cup of tea and red coat (which he never wore while campaigning with the Army of Northern Virginia).

[CULAVE]

BalboaParkJPN- I didn't really mind. Although it's maybe a bit exagerated (for instance Fremantle didn't wear his red tunic in case of a diplomatic incident) theres nothing to suggest that he didn't drink tea- he was after all a 'tourist' and apparently James Lancaster does bear a likeness to him. I find the American view of the British quite entertaining. It is a stereotype, but I can think of much worse than a polite officer of the Empire.