I always find this stuff mind boggling. Reluctant to use repeating rifles/revolvers over single shot? ARE YOU INSANE!? An 8 year old girl can tell you the better choice... The amazing thing is people who were this retarded kept getting the job: see fitting the Sherman with a low velocity 75mm or deciding to put no guns on an F4 Phantom that had 11% chance to hit with missiles.
@Cruor34 yeah, the problem with that was they were only trying to excel in one skill in their weaponry. Like Patton who preferred having the sherman with speed and the ability to flank rather than giving it a fighting chance and putting more armor and a bigger gun on it.
The .45 caliber bullet has been rated the most efficient threat-stopper of all time, two or four legged. In the 19th century alone, two revolvers which accounted for the greatest number of dead men on both sides of the law was the Beals models of 1861 and 1875, and of course, the Colt Model 1860 Army. I hit a silhouette target at 200 yards with a double-tap of .45 LC from my Beals revolver. Each of these wounds by themselves would have rendered a real enemy personnel very, very dead.
@cwood4ever that has nothing to do with what i am talking about and it's not strictly true either, but the point i am making is that the people, the actual people from the north that had to go fight in the war did not give two shits about slaves, if you want to disagree with me then go read about the draft riots in new york and see what they did to the freed slaves up there, see how "invalid" my point is then
Here's a little history for y'all p.s. I'm from Maryland.
During the civil war era, Lincoln suspended the writ of hapeas corpus in order to arrest maryland officials so they wouldn't join the confederacy, if so the south proboly would of won because Washington d.c. Would of Benny surrounded by confederate states.
@owls4life611 "During the civil war era, Lincoln suspended the writ of hapeas corpus in order to arrest maryland officials so they wouldn't join the confederacy, if so the south proboly would of won because Washington d.c. Would of Benny surrounded by confederate states."
There would have been a dual government in Maryland, like in Kentucky and Missouri, or they would have just moved the capital. Most of the Marylanders who fought in the war did so for the Union anyway.
@wowhobbster666 naa I'd go to lincon with an uzi when they were testing that springfield and say ''yeh that things ok.... i guess, but have you seen my weapon?!''
*lets off 30 rounds on full auto* and lincon orgasms in his pants!
Imagine if the Confederacy had the Winchester 1894 and Springfield 1903 while the Union had their old percussion caps. The war would have ended in no time and the world would be a much different place.
war IS actualy hell maybe kids think its fun i mean i em a
kid i reasel thats its cruel its hell so much pain and blood
and tears you but im sad to say it war is something that will last forever
its like kids if some kid doesnt want to share than the parents come and teach them thats not gona hapend in war its something that wont end until all the enemys are DEAD and that war(HELL)
its hard for me to watch civil war stuff, i would have fought on the union side but because i am from the south i find myself rooting for the confederates. wouldn't be such a guilty thing if jefferson davis would have listened to the advisers he had telling him to free the slaves as soon as the war had started to deny the union the ability to make it a moral war. i also hate the way docs on this war paint the union as saints when they were just as bad and cared nothing for black people's plight
I very much agree with what you're saying, and I'm happy to see that people today haven't entirely given in to historical propaganda. The way professors talk about the South, you'd think that it were some kind of boogeyman that threatens to pounce on them if they were to allow some degree of lateral thinking. Moralizing war is an art that has been perfected. No war is ever as simple as the moralistic standpoint that's been attributed to it.
I am also from the south mind you, and if I was born during that time, with my mind intact, I would have probably remain neutral. These days I think another civil war could come, and then what?
And indeed, put as saints is hardly the truth. But what do you expect from us yanks? Granted, I think we understand that better now but still.
I too am from the south but I would not have remained neutral. I would advocate slavery based on the historical perspective. Looking at the whole thing in historical perspective how can you say that slavery is bad when it is so prevelant today. Most of the Muslim world keeps women in slavery and look at Africa and the emerging nations? Slavery is alive and well.
@trasmus6 This, however, depends on the extent to which you advocate slavery. If you are saying that it is justifiable to force someone to work for you with no pay whatsoever, in my opinion that is wrong. In fact, regardless of opinion, it is not sustainable and cannot be maintained for any length of time. However, slavery in terms of making a living by working in place of someone who pays you for such work is perfectly acceptable. It does depend on which you're referring to.
@aliensexgangchildren I agree with you but think about this if the Russians had not been so brutal to the germans we might not have even won world war two
i'm glad the union won the civil war, it ended slavery
but take the slavery issue out of it, and the south should have won
i've moved around all my life, lived north, west, and south and consider myself much more like a northerner or westerner than a southerner, but the south should have won....10th amendment died 1865, hope it rises again soon
@TombaFanatic you bastard the civil war wasnt about slavery grants wife didnt free her slaves till the 13 th amendment lincon was satan lee freed his slaves in 1862 not 1865 like grants wife long live the south
@50oas I know it wasn't about ending slavery, it was about "saving the union." I'm saying that the good that came out of the Civil War was the end of slavery. However, were there no slaves, i'd probably be one of those rednecks waving a confederate flag around....or not, i don't know, didn't happen
@TombaFanatic the thing that really sucks is slavery would have ended even if the south won
the south was allready becoming industrialized during the war and as soon as they became modern they wouldnt have any use for slaves id say another decade or so at the least 3 decades at the most and slavery would have been gone in most southern states and by the 1900s slavery would be completely gone
@FreeTexas100 And that's the thing-the South didn't really WANT to become modern! They seceeded from the Union in order to protect their way of life, which was based on slavery. The rich slaveholders in the south were mad because their political presence was becoming less and less powerful-due to the fact that slavery was doomed to failure by the 1860s.
@aliensexgangchildren Well the union didn't exactly go in the war for slavery. It was a reason given to justify the war. Regardless this war was needed to bring the country under a single rule.
@aliensexgangchildren im from pennstlvania, and i would go for the confederacy, they made up 20 percent of the total population but were being forced to pay 80 percent of the taxes being collected, also general grant was a slave owner until 1865 whereas robert e lee didnt believe in slavery
absolutely true... they could have easily just bought all the slaves in the south and set them free without the cost in lives...... but freeing the slaves gave the war another moral dimension in which the north was good and the south was evil.
@cwood4ever "The Republican party was founded as an abolitionist party so your claim that the North didn't care about blacks is invalid."
Almost none of the white Union soldiers fought to get rid of slavery. If they had known the war would evolve into a war for slave liberation, very few Union soldiers would have willingly fought in it.
@aliensexgangchildren "wouldn't be such a guilty thing if jefferson davis would have listened to the advisers he had telling him to free the slaves as soon as the war had started to deny the union the ability to make it a moral war"
Davis couldn't have freed the slaves even if he wanted to. The Confederate central government had little power and that's how the southern states wanted it. But it wasn't a moral war anyway. Like you said, union soldiers didn't care about the plight of black people.
@4:45 - "but they never had the technical capability to spin a copper case" INTERESTING! So the early cartridge cases were made via metal spining instead of deep drawing!
@CrystalHunter1989 Well, problem is that some other dudes walked up the the WH to be commissioned as generals, got to see the President, and got the job !
Time's they're changing, and it's not always bad news ;-)
Because the union had horrible generals like Burnside, McClellan or hooker. they were early in the war which could have changed if Meade or better yet Grant took charge to war could have ended a lot sooner. Especially if the Spencer, Henry or the Sharps was the main weapon at the time
You're right, till' they got U. S. Grant, they were being outsmarted on a regular basis, I think they definately could've ended the War a lot sooner, if they would've just made the Spencer, Henry, or Sharpe the main weopon.
Because the North didn't produce all that many of them, compared to the muzzle-loaders. James Ripley, the Union Army's chief of ordnance, was a traditionalist, and felt that soldiers would waste ammo if they had so many shots. Plus, the manufacturers wouldn't have been able to completely re-tool to make repeating rifles during the time frame of the war. Spencer and Henry didn't have the capacity to produce enough to supply the whole Army.
I see, damn, they should've got rid Ripley, & got someone in there who would've made sure they got that damn gun, & ended the damn war, w/o killing so many people in the process.
They did actually get rid of Col. Ripley in 1863 for this reason. He was replaced by George D. Ramsey, who held the office until late 1864--he retired and Alexander Dyer took over from then until after the end of the war. But neither man managed to change the situation. I agree; if it would have been possible for the Union to entirely re-arm with repeaters, the war would have been shortened, as would the casualty lists! As it was, the units that had these weapons were very effective.
Yeah, you would've thought that the Generals, & Lincoln himself would've seen the performance of these guns in the heat of battle, & realize that they could end the War very quickly, despite the wasted ammo, & cut the years down on the war to about 2 years i'd say, it would've definately been one lopsided victory, if they'd equipped every Union soldier with a Spencer, as President, or General I would've demanded it, for the sake of saving lives & to put an end to the War quickly.
Yep, Lincoln and the Union field commanders knew the value of these weapons. And the fact is that the troops actually WEREN'T wasting ammo with the repeaters. In practice, soldiers with only one shot tended to use it more quickly, so they could reload faster--thus they missed a lot! Soldiers with more shots in reserve found themselves taking more time to aim carefully.
Well, that was the Soldiers fault then, they should've realized the importance & not fired all there shots aimlessly, that's not what I would do with a weopon of that status during a War where you were just asking to shot & killed, it would've been a major advantage for yourself.
They did realize that, but in the heat of battle those fellows were all pretty scared, even the veteran troops. With lead screaming and flying all around you, it was just human nature to load and fire as fast as you could! Plus, you were firing at the direction of your officers--they'd order "Fire at will" which means load and shoot as fast as you can, and "Fire by volley" in which the whole company/regiment fires at once, with the officer giving the commands "ready, aim, fire."
I hear ya, it would've been like being in the middle of Hell itself, you probably could barely think straight, let alone think about how many shots you were wasting, they were just aiming & shooting at anything that moved out of fear for their own life, I see your point, what do you call when they lined up 2 columns one in front & one in back, front column would load & fire, then go back to loading, while the back column stood & fired off there shot, so it was a continuos volley pretty much.
That's called fire by rank, I think, where the front rank fires, then the rear. Another command was "Fire by file" in which the front and rear rank man on the very right of the line fire at the same time, followed by the next pair to their left, continuing all down the line. The idea here was to avoid shooting the same enemy soldier more than once--and this likely made their fire more effective.
I liked when they'd revert to Napoleaonic tactics, like all out charges & the box column, where the whole division formed a square & where firing at all sides. that was neat. I love the Napoleaonic era, plust The Revolutionary War, & War of 1812.
Yep, in the movie Waterloo, you can see them forming squares against enemy cavalry. The square was still in the tactical manuals I think, but it was rarely if ever used in the Civil War. Mainly because it's a defense against mounted cavalry, and cavalry usually fought on foot during the Civil War. Napoleonic tactics, with the wheeling, charging, etc. are pretty cool to see on the screen, I agree!
If you remember Gen. Chamberlain lined his men up in the square formation during the Battle at Little Round Top, when their ranks bacame weaker & smaller. & yeah Pickett's charge was a suicide mission, that's for sure, but what an Epic sight to see. Awesome, just awesome.
I meant col., go to my channel & check out my Histories & Battles of War playlist to the left, I think you'll dig it, I put every war movie scene I could find on here in order they were fought in the Civil war, plus doc's & The Battle of Waterloo is in there! LOL
Actually, Chamberlain didn't use a square there--what he was doing was wheeling the left of his line toward the right, to flank & enfilade the Confederates--then he ordered a bayonet charge and advanced. Agree, the footage of Pickett's Charge was great!
OK, now that I think of it, he didn't form a full square, it was more of an angle shape line, I see, & it was Col, Chamberlain, not Gen., Yeah, that Bayonet charge was great, lol, BAYONETS!!!!!
In the movies I never see Jeb Stuart off his horse? & they talk about Custer winning the biggest calvalry battle in the War at Gettysburg? They fought mostly on the ground though huh? Why was that?
Keep in mind that Stuart, being a general, was usually mounted. Custer's action at Gettysburg was fought mounted; that was one of the exceptions for Civil War cavalry. They fought mostly on foot because mounted cavalry versus infantry was suicide, because of the rifled weapons and because mounted troopers presented a bigger target. Mounted troops versus artillery firing canister was suicidal, too--even Forrest didn't try it!
The main role of cavalry in the Civil War was reconnaissance, because of their mobility. Civil War armies didn't contain a whole lot of cavalry, so in a major battle they were used for delaying actions and to guard the army's flanks.
Ok, thanks for the much needed info. Cavalry are a part I haven't dived into completely yet, I need to learn more about the cavalry's role for sure. that's very interesting. Thanks again.
I could see that, but the cavalry was usually the ones on lookout right, before the actual firing began, I didn't think they got caught up in the actual battle much, after that, but I guess I was wrong. I can see your point, they're the perfect target on horseback in the heat of battle. & cannons would be impossible to avoid, you're absolutely correct.
They were pretty expensive to make--they cost about three times as much as the standard muzzle-loader--which is basically just a rifled tube with a vent at the base for the percussion cap. The repeaters were mechanically a lot more complex. The cost of all the additional ammo--which was also more expensive to make--was another concern.
But man, the battles would've ended very swiftly with a repeater in ever Union soldiers hand, & would've ended the War way sooner. Which if you figured it all up, they would've spent no more than they ended up over a 5 year span, by cutting it to 2 by using more expensive firearms & wasting the Rebels, Love the Civil War talk, been looking for a big enthusiast, & Historian on the war like me, What's your favorite Battle that took place in the War of the States?
Favorite battle--hmm, that's a tough one! The 1st Battle of Bull Run is interesting, because you had two uttlerly green armies pitted against each other--and they both actually did pretty well considering how poorly trained they were! The battle of Missionary Ridge at Chattanooga (1863) is an interesting one too--the Federals charging and taking the ridge, winning the battle, without orders! Which is your favorite?
I am alway drawn toward the Epic Battle of The Wilderness, it's ruthless terrain for battle, & the men being burned alive after being wounded because they couldn't move from the flames, also the Battle of The Crater was interesting, where the North blew a hole under confederate lines, charged in the pit & couldn't get out, so the South just sat around & massacred an entire Brigaide.
The Wilderness was a bad one! On top of everything else, the unburied skulls and bones of men killed at Chancellorsville the year before were lying around the eastern end of the battlefield.
The Crater--what a fiasco! General James Ledlie spent the battle in a bombproof shelter getting drunk, so his troops were in that fight with no direction! Ledlie was dismissed from the Army after that one, as you know!
Yeah, that guy was done right after that, it was a complete & utter failure, the North forgot to bring a Ladder! LOL My Dad said a year later after the battle they came back & found skulls & bones everywhere in the Wilderness where the battle was fought.
Have you checked out Ken Burns Civil War (1964) on here, great watch, would love to see the entire Documentary, you know anywhere to download it or anything?
Can I have that? LOL, just joking, yeah I searched & found it on several places for purchase, it costs a pretty penny though let me tell ya, it'll be a while before I have the money to buy that one. LOL, that sucks. I want to see that whole thing badly.
awesome
wildmandazza 6 months ago
I always find this stuff mind boggling. Reluctant to use repeating rifles/revolvers over single shot? ARE YOU INSANE!? An 8 year old girl can tell you the better choice... The amazing thing is people who were this retarded kept getting the job: see fitting the Sherman with a low velocity 75mm or deciding to put no guns on an F4 Phantom that had 11% chance to hit with missiles.
Cruor34 7 months ago
@Cruor34 yeah, the problem with that was they were only trying to excel in one skill in their weaponry. Like Patton who preferred having the sherman with speed and the ability to flank rather than giving it a fighting chance and putting more armor and a bigger gun on it.
Vlaxerman343 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why didn't the 7th Cavalry keep her Spencers when even General Custer had proven it as very usefull during the Civil War?
He and his men wouldn't have to die at the Little Bighorn!
LongknifeTrooper 11 months ago
Why didn't the 7th Cavalry keep their Spencers when even General Custer had proven it as very usefull during the Civil War?
He and his men wouldn't have to die at the Little Bighorn!
LongknifeTrooper 11 months ago
The Army made them use an inferior weapon, the Springfield Trapdoor.
Thx1138d 10 months ago
@LongknifeTrooper Glad they lost the Battle of Little Bighorn! Custer deserved to die.
ReZKaTT1 10 months ago
The .45 caliber bullet has been rated the most efficient threat-stopper of all time, two or four legged. In the 19th century alone, two revolvers which accounted for the greatest number of dead men on both sides of the law was the Beals models of 1861 and 1875, and of course, the Colt Model 1860 Army. I hit a silhouette target at 200 yards with a double-tap of .45 LC from my Beals revolver. Each of these wounds by themselves would have rendered a real enemy personnel very, very dead.
Rachen30 11 months ago
@cwood4ever that has nothing to do with what i am talking about and it's not strictly true either, but the point i am making is that the people, the actual people from the north that had to go fight in the war did not give two shits about slaves, if you want to disagree with me then go read about the draft riots in new york and see what they did to the freed slaves up there, see how "invalid" my point is then
aliensexgangchildren 1 year ago
Rip the audio from this clip at speedyconversion doht cohm.
MarylinDogon819 1 year ago
" ...I arrived at the White House with a rifle in hand, I was quickly ushered in..." My how times have changed
LearnToTurn7 1 year ago
Been, not Benny...stupid itouch...
owls4life611 1 year ago
Here's a little history for y'all p.s. I'm from Maryland.
During the civil war era, Lincoln suspended the writ of hapeas corpus in order to arrest maryland officials so they wouldn't join the confederacy, if so the south proboly would of won because Washington d.c. Would of Benny surrounded by confederate states.
owls4life611 1 year ago
@owls4life611 "During the civil war era, Lincoln suspended the writ of hapeas corpus in order to arrest maryland officials so they wouldn't join the confederacy, if so the south proboly would of won because Washington d.c. Would of Benny surrounded by confederate states."
There would have been a dual government in Maryland, like in Kentucky and Missouri, or they would have just moved the capital. Most of the Marylanders who fought in the war did so for the Union anyway.
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
i would of fought for my home state of IL no matter what even if we had broke off from the union i could not fight people from my home state
SuperBrady29 1 year ago
I would've fought for my state. Arkansas.
D33P7hr0a72 1 year ago
Spencer for the win!!
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
lol i'd just take an uzi back in time and then make alot of money LOL
thatkindofguy234 1 year ago
@thatkindofguy234 dude or a ak47 and rob people
wowhobbster666 1 year ago
@wowhobbster666 naa I'd go to lincon with an uzi when they were testing that springfield and say ''yeh that things ok.... i guess, but have you seen my weapon?!''
*lets off 30 rounds on full auto* and lincon orgasms in his pants!
thatkindofguy234 1 year ago
@thatkindofguy234 i would show ak47 to him and shoot semi and fully then lincoln crap his pants
wowhobbster666 1 year ago
@wowhobbster666 we'll go out to a range of 500 yards I'll take a henry you take a ak 47. I'll whip your ass.
Lumotaku 1 year ago
@Lumotaku Henry rifles used weaker ammunition, so I doubt they could match the range of an AK-47.
LordBifford 1 year ago
@Lumotaku or we will go out to 800 yards and u get a henry ill get a m110 and ill put a 308. in your head
wowhobbster666 1 year ago
war over states rights not slavery history is written by the winner
jt18023 1 year ago
Imagine if the Confederacy had the Winchester 1894 and Springfield 1903 while the Union had their old percussion caps. The war would have ended in no time and the world would be a much different place.
xenomann442 1 year ago
@xenomann442 i guess u like slavery and picking cotton
mrutubeisms 1 year ago
war IS actualy hell maybe kids think its fun i mean i em a
kid i reasel thats its cruel its hell so much pain and blood
and tears you but im sad to say it war is something that will last forever
its like kids if some kid doesnt want to share than the parents come and teach them thats not gona hapend in war its something that wont end until all the enemys are DEAD and that war(HELL)
le5094 1 year ago
War is a cruel thing. No point in trying to sanatise it. The more cruel the sooner it will be over.
mac6460 1 year ago
That is trust of Spencer. Make that rifle for the union army against the rebels army on 1861 -1865. That trustfully of C. M. Spencer story.
ROTFT2 1 year ago
huh?
trasmus6 1 year ago
its hard for me to watch civil war stuff, i would have fought on the union side but because i am from the south i find myself rooting for the confederates. wouldn't be such a guilty thing if jefferson davis would have listened to the advisers he had telling him to free the slaves as soon as the war had started to deny the union the ability to make it a moral war. i also hate the way docs on this war paint the union as saints when they were just as bad and cared nothing for black people's plight
aliensexgangchildren 2 years ago 41
@aliensexgangchildren
I very much agree with what you're saying, and I'm happy to see that people today haven't entirely given in to historical propaganda. The way professors talk about the South, you'd think that it were some kind of boogeyman that threatens to pounce on them if they were to allow some degree of lateral thinking. Moralizing war is an art that has been perfected. No war is ever as simple as the moralistic standpoint that's been attributed to it.
hyenalord 2 years ago
@aliensexgangchildren Too true.
I am also from the south mind you, and if I was born during that time, with my mind intact, I would have probably remain neutral. These days I think another civil war could come, and then what?
And indeed, put as saints is hardly the truth. But what do you expect from us yanks? Granted, I think we understand that better now but still.
SamPD2 1 year ago
@aliensexgangchildren History is written by the victors.
rewazi 1 year ago
I too am from the south but I would not have remained neutral. I would advocate slavery based on the historical perspective. Looking at the whole thing in historical perspective how can you say that slavery is bad when it is so prevelant today. Most of the Muslim world keeps women in slavery and look at Africa and the emerging nations? Slavery is alive and well.
trasmus6 1 year ago
@trasmus6 This, however, depends on the extent to which you advocate slavery. If you are saying that it is justifiable to force someone to work for you with no pay whatsoever, in my opinion that is wrong. In fact, regardless of opinion, it is not sustainable and cannot be maintained for any length of time. However, slavery in terms of making a living by working in place of someone who pays you for such work is perfectly acceptable. It does depend on which you're referring to.
MonkeyBoy9753 1 year ago
@aliensexgangchildren I agree with you but think about this if the Russians had not been so brutal to the germans we might not have even won world war two
TheActive123 1 year ago
@aliensexgangchildren
i'm glad the union won the civil war, it ended slavery
but take the slavery issue out of it, and the south should have won
i've moved around all my life, lived north, west, and south and consider myself much more like a northerner or westerner than a southerner, but the south should have won....10th amendment died 1865, hope it rises again soon
TombaFanatic 1 year ago
@TombaFanatic you bastard the civil war wasnt about slavery grants wife didnt free her slaves till the 13 th amendment lincon was satan lee freed his slaves in 1862 not 1865 like grants wife long live the south
50oas 1 year ago
@50oas I know it wasn't about ending slavery, it was about "saving the union." I'm saying that the good that came out of the Civil War was the end of slavery. However, were there no slaves, i'd probably be one of those rednecks waving a confederate flag around....or not, i don't know, didn't happen
TombaFanatic 1 year ago
@TombaFanatic the thing that really sucks is slavery would have ended even if the south won
the south was allready becoming industrialized during the war and as soon as they became modern they wouldnt have any use for slaves id say another decade or so at the least 3 decades at the most and slavery would have been gone in most southern states and by the 1900s slavery would be completely gone
FreeTexas100 1 year ago
@FreeTexas100 And that's the thing-the South didn't really WANT to become modern! They seceeded from the Union in order to protect their way of life, which was based on slavery. The rich slaveholders in the south were mad because their political presence was becoming less and less powerful-due to the fact that slavery was doomed to failure by the 1860s.
wilb6657 1 year ago
@aliensexgangchildren Well the union didn't exactly go in the war for slavery. It was a reason given to justify the war. Regardless this war was needed to bring the country under a single rule.
bf15thairborn 1 year ago
@aliensexgangchildren im from pennstlvania, and i would go for the confederacy, they made up 20 percent of the total population but were being forced to pay 80 percent of the taxes being collected, also general grant was a slave owner until 1865 whereas robert e lee didnt believe in slavery
corpralkirsch 1 year ago
@aliensexgangchildren Abraham Lincoln didn't go to war to free the blacks, he went to war to preserve the Union.
imakepwninlemonade 1 year ago
@imakepwninlemonade
absolutely true... they could have easily just bought all the slaves in the south and set them free without the cost in lives...... but freeing the slaves gave the war another moral dimension in which the north was good and the south was evil.
TheProjektcc 1 year ago
@aliensexgangchildren idk i would fight for my state of delaware and side north
wowhobbster666 1 year ago
@aliensexgangchildren The Republican party was founded as an abolitionist party so your claim that the North didn't care about blacks is invalid.
cwood4ever 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cwood4ever "The Republican party was founded as an abolitionist party so your claim that the North didn't care about blacks is invalid."
Almost none of the white Union soldiers fought to get rid of slavery. If they had known the war would evolve into a war for slave liberation, very few Union soldiers would have willingly fought in it.
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
@aliensexgangchildren "wouldn't be such a guilty thing if jefferson davis would have listened to the advisers he had telling him to free the slaves as soon as the war had started to deny the union the ability to make it a moral war"
Davis couldn't have freed the slaves even if he wanted to. The Confederate central government had little power and that's how the southern states wanted it. But it wasn't a moral war anyway. Like you said, union soldiers didn't care about the plight of black people.
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
Comment removed
Vlaxerman343 5 days ago
About three months' pay for a Union soldier (not including ammunition).
CountArtha 2 years ago
he is not any more at the white house
hugacho70 2 years ago
the union troops whore the bleu uniform right?
luuko656 2 years ago 6
yessssssss
hugacho70 2 years ago
yes
lakotadak 2 years ago
Not in the U.S. Army. They still used the single-shot trapdoor Springfield.
sbflash311 2 years ago
That's the problem when you have idiots who haven't been in combat making procurement decisions affecting front-line troops.
sbflash311 2 years ago 3
Who says you can't fire a lever-action in the prone position? He's doing it here.
sbflash311 2 years ago 5
@4:45 - "but they never had the technical capability to spin a copper case" INTERESTING! So the early cartridge cases were made via metal spining instead of deep drawing!
telesniper2 2 years ago
LOL the dude just WALKS up to the White House with a GUN in his hands and gets to see the President?! My how times have changed....
CrystalHunter1989 2 years ago 37
actually,a gun in a wallet
hugacho70 2 years ago
@CrystalHunter1989 Well, problem is that some other dudes walked up the the WH to be commissioned as generals, got to see the President, and got the job !
Time's they're changing, and it's not always bad news ;-)
061369317 11 months ago
Because the union had horrible generals like Burnside, McClellan or hooker. they were early in the war which could have changed if Meade or better yet Grant took charge to war could have ended a lot sooner. Especially if the Spencer, Henry or the Sharps was the main weapon at the time
BhamsterWA 2 years ago
You're right, till' they got U. S. Grant, they were being outsmarted on a regular basis, I think they definately could've ended the War a lot sooner, if they would've just made the Spencer, Henry, or Sharpe the main weopon.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
You would've thought the Union would've just walked over the Confederates with the Spencer & Winchester rifles. What the Hell happened there?
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
You wouldn't be able to go to the white house today with rifle in hand.
TriggerHappyLunatics 2 years ago 5
Hell No, they'd be shootin' your ass now, if you came waltzin' up with a firearm, LOL, that's no Shit.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
i personally prefer the henry rifle
GENERALandy313 2 years ago
Same you can hold more rounds+soilder has less actions to do
gjhkhhh 2 years ago 3
How come the North didn't whip the South's ass, if they had these guns, & the south didn't?
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
Because the North didn't produce all that many of them, compared to the muzzle-loaders. James Ripley, the Union Army's chief of ordnance, was a traditionalist, and felt that soldiers would waste ammo if they had so many shots. Plus, the manufacturers wouldn't have been able to completely re-tool to make repeating rifles during the time frame of the war. Spencer and Henry didn't have the capacity to produce enough to supply the whole Army.
galoon 2 years ago
I see, damn, they should've got rid Ripley, & got someone in there who would've made sure they got that damn gun, & ended the damn war, w/o killing so many people in the process.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
They did actually get rid of Col. Ripley in 1863 for this reason. He was replaced by George D. Ramsey, who held the office until late 1864--he retired and Alexander Dyer took over from then until after the end of the war. But neither man managed to change the situation. I agree; if it would have been possible for the Union to entirely re-arm with repeaters, the war would have been shortened, as would the casualty lists! As it was, the units that had these weapons were very effective.
galoon 2 years ago
Yeah, you would've thought that the Generals, & Lincoln himself would've seen the performance of these guns in the heat of battle, & realize that they could end the War very quickly, despite the wasted ammo, & cut the years down on the war to about 2 years i'd say, it would've definately been one lopsided victory, if they'd equipped every Union soldier with a Spencer, as President, or General I would've demanded it, for the sake of saving lives & to put an end to the War quickly.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
Yep, Lincoln and the Union field commanders knew the value of these weapons. And the fact is that the troops actually WEREN'T wasting ammo with the repeaters. In practice, soldiers with only one shot tended to use it more quickly, so they could reload faster--thus they missed a lot! Soldiers with more shots in reserve found themselves taking more time to aim carefully.
galoon 2 years ago
Well, that was the Soldiers fault then, they should've realized the importance & not fired all there shots aimlessly, that's not what I would do with a weopon of that status during a War where you were just asking to shot & killed, it would've been a major advantage for yourself.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
They did realize that, but in the heat of battle those fellows were all pretty scared, even the veteran troops. With lead screaming and flying all around you, it was just human nature to load and fire as fast as you could! Plus, you were firing at the direction of your officers--they'd order "Fire at will" which means load and shoot as fast as you can, and "Fire by volley" in which the whole company/regiment fires at once, with the officer giving the commands "ready, aim, fire."
galoon 2 years ago
I hear ya, it would've been like being in the middle of Hell itself, you probably could barely think straight, let alone think about how many shots you were wasting, they were just aiming & shooting at anything that moved out of fear for their own life, I see your point, what do you call when they lined up 2 columns one in front & one in back, front column would load & fire, then go back to loading, while the back column stood & fired off there shot, so it was a continuos volley pretty much.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
That's called fire by rank, I think, where the front rank fires, then the rear. Another command was "Fire by file" in which the front and rear rank man on the very right of the line fire at the same time, followed by the next pair to their left, continuing all down the line. The idea here was to avoid shooting the same enemy soldier more than once--and this likely made their fire more effective.
galoon 2 years ago
I liked when they'd revert to Napoleaonic tactics, like all out charges & the box column, where the whole division formed a square & where firing at all sides. that was neat. I love the Napoleaonic era, plust The Revolutionary War, & War of 1812.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
Yep, in the movie Waterloo, you can see them forming squares against enemy cavalry. The square was still in the tactical manuals I think, but it was rarely if ever used in the Civil War. Mainly because it's a defense against mounted cavalry, and cavalry usually fought on foot during the Civil War. Napoleonic tactics, with the wheeling, charging, etc. are pretty cool to see on the screen, I agree!
galoon 2 years ago
If you remember Gen. Chamberlain lined his men up in the square formation during the Battle at Little Round Top, when their ranks bacame weaker & smaller. & yeah Pickett's charge was a suicide mission, that's for sure, but what an Epic sight to see. Awesome, just awesome.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
I meant col., go to my channel & check out my Histories & Battles of War playlist to the left, I think you'll dig it, I put every war movie scene I could find on here in order they were fought in the Civil war, plus doc's & The Battle of Waterloo is in there! LOL
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
Actually, Chamberlain didn't use a square there--what he was doing was wheeling the left of his line toward the right, to flank & enfilade the Confederates--then he ordered a bayonet charge and advanced. Agree, the footage of Pickett's Charge was great!
galoon 2 years ago
OK, now that I think of it, he didn't form a full square, it was more of an angle shape line, I see, & it was Col, Chamberlain, not Gen., Yeah, that Bayonet charge was great, lol, BAYONETS!!!!!
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
In the movies I never see Jeb Stuart off his horse? & they talk about Custer winning the biggest calvalry battle in the War at Gettysburg? They fought mostly on the ground though huh? Why was that?
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
Keep in mind that Stuart, being a general, was usually mounted. Custer's action at Gettysburg was fought mounted; that was one of the exceptions for Civil War cavalry. They fought mostly on foot because mounted cavalry versus infantry was suicide, because of the rifled weapons and because mounted troopers presented a bigger target. Mounted troops versus artillery firing canister was suicidal, too--even Forrest didn't try it!
galoon 2 years ago
The main role of cavalry in the Civil War was reconnaissance, because of their mobility. Civil War armies didn't contain a whole lot of cavalry, so in a major battle they were used for delaying actions and to guard the army's flanks.
galoon 2 years ago
Ok, thanks for the much needed info. Cavalry are a part I haven't dived into completely yet, I need to learn more about the cavalry's role for sure. that's very interesting. Thanks again.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
I could see that, but the cavalry was usually the ones on lookout right, before the actual firing began, I didn't think they got caught up in the actual battle much, after that, but I guess I was wrong. I can see your point, they're the perfect target on horseback in the heat of battle. & cannons would be impossible to avoid, you're absolutely correct.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
Were they really all that expensive to produce? or were they just worried about wasted ammo?
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
They were pretty expensive to make--they cost about three times as much as the standard muzzle-loader--which is basically just a rifled tube with a vent at the base for the percussion cap. The repeaters were mechanically a lot more complex. The cost of all the additional ammo--which was also more expensive to make--was another concern.
galoon 2 years ago
But man, the battles would've ended very swiftly with a repeater in ever Union soldiers hand, & would've ended the War way sooner. Which if you figured it all up, they would've spent no more than they ended up over a 5 year span, by cutting it to 2 by using more expensive firearms & wasting the Rebels, Love the Civil War talk, been looking for a big enthusiast, & Historian on the war like me, What's your favorite Battle that took place in the War of the States?
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
Favorite battle--hmm, that's a tough one! The 1st Battle of Bull Run is interesting, because you had two uttlerly green armies pitted against each other--and they both actually did pretty well considering how poorly trained they were! The battle of Missionary Ridge at Chattanooga (1863) is an interesting one too--the Federals charging and taking the ridge, winning the battle, without orders! Which is your favorite?
galoon 2 years ago
I am alway drawn toward the Epic Battle of The Wilderness, it's ruthless terrain for battle, & the men being burned alive after being wounded because they couldn't move from the flames, also the Battle of The Crater was interesting, where the North blew a hole under confederate lines, charged in the pit & couldn't get out, so the South just sat around & massacred an entire Brigaide.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
The Wilderness was a bad one! On top of everything else, the unburied skulls and bones of men killed at Chancellorsville the year before were lying around the eastern end of the battlefield.
The Crater--what a fiasco! General James Ledlie spent the battle in a bombproof shelter getting drunk, so his troops were in that fight with no direction! Ledlie was dismissed from the Army after that one, as you know!
galoon 2 years ago
Yeah, that guy was done right after that, it was a complete & utter failure, the North forgot to bring a Ladder! LOL My Dad said a year later after the battle they came back & found skulls & bones everywhere in the Wilderness where the battle was fought.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
@JeffTheFutureJaros yea me to and like small gruop fighting aswell
wowhobbster666 1 year ago
Have you checked out Ken Burns Civil War (1964) on here, great watch, would love to see the entire Documentary, you know anywhere to download it or anything?
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
Ooops, I meant (1864) LOL.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
Yep, I have the whole set of them on VHS--I don't know where to download it, but I'm pretty sure you can buy it at places like Amazon.
galoon 2 years ago
Can I have that? LOL, just joking, yeah I searched & found it on several places for purchase, it costs a pretty penny though let me tell ya, it'll be a while before I have the money to buy that one. LOL, that sucks. I want to see that whole thing badly.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
the civil war.
black & white pictures of hardcore bearded guys.
DoctaBrero 2 years ago 6
Does anyone know what the music playing during the testimonials is?
bf1918 2 years ago
I think the only historical track in this vid is called "just before the battle mother".
I don't know the others, and i don't think they are historical.
SharpsShootist 2 years ago
American civil war;
Old black and white photographs of bad ass bearded guys.
helmuthoorn 3 years ago 38
Bad Ass is an understatement, these guys were absolutely fearless.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago
@helmuthoorn Now they want those that are naked as a jaybird for hair.
Arelak 1 year ago
@helmuthoorn dont forget the handlebar mustaches!!
triathlon4ever 1 year ago
A 2:06 Spencer repeating rifles
JACKTHESMILLER 3 years ago 9