@RebelSoldat1 All I do is just challenge them to the battles and they will either paste and copy from websites or do what Shafone does and just type "Off-Topic" crap. Any twelve year old kid could come on this site and rant and rave about slavery, wow. Reading on the battles even the small tiny one take several decades.
@rebel2276 Reb, if you would like to get into an indepth discussion about the politics, the economiics and the Constitutional issues behind slavery and the first 75 years of the Republic I wil happily oblige. You will find however that steering the conversation back to the number of stiches in the Louisiana Tigers battle flag and then offering that you are the only American to have set foot in our country's largets library will not help you much. So, shall we discuss slavery?
@rebel2276 Challenge me to a battle. I accept. Although as there are roughly 6,000 recorded engagements in the Civil War surely you'll come up with minutia in many. What you'll fail to recognize is that regurgitating factoids isn't the same as comprehension of the events and their consequences still being felt to this day. Is the true significance of Antietam the charge of Irwin's Brigade or the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation that resulted when the guns quieted? I argue the latter.
@RebelSoldat1 Let me give you some advice on Union-Biased amateurs. 1) They don't know about the battles in any detail. 2) They never had any family in the war. 3) At one time or another they lived in the South. 4) They are currently living in the South. 5) They retired down in the South.
On all Civil War websites, you will have 1) The mentally insane John Brown Jr. 2) The "I'm not going to pay attention to nobody and I know everything" IE: Shafone. 3) The classic hypocrite.
@rebel2276 Is your definition of "Union biased" one who believes that the North won the Civil War? When it comes to bias, I would think a man whose handle is "Rebel" would be quite expert at that subject no doubt. By the way, Grant won, Lee lost. Get over it.
@RebelSoldat1 Don't waste you're time with the troll. Just challenge him on the battles and he will shit a brick. All he does as you well know is types "Off-Topic" crap. I have been in this business for Thirty years, he is not going to challenge me on anything. Thus, all of his "Off-Topic" posts. It's like working with a Seventh grader....
@rebel2276 LOL. You mean such brick shitting as "ok what would you like to discuss"? And as for off-topic, hmm let's see somehow you felt it necessary to bring up Toombs' 400 Georgians in a discussion of Lee at Antietam. You offer up pathetic and pedantic factoids as if they are even remotely relevant to the main story of these battles and campaigns. As I said, if you want to know how many bullet holes are in a regiment's flag you're the guy. As to who won the Civil War? well...
@RebelSoldat1 LOL "The fact that you assume I am white." Well for God's sake how many Blacks will you find who wish the South had won? Are you serious??? WOW. Of course you are white. And I bet pretty heavily racist as well. I think that's what your attechment to the old South really is all about.
@RebelSoldat1 Ok. Apartheid in South Africa (a highly industrialized nation) existed well into the 1980s. The South's own Jim Crow laws extended into the 1960s. Both of these did not die out but were rather ended by external pressures brought to bear and economic boycotts. Why? Because slavery for the South was not just economic. It was social, cultural, and completely enmeshed in their entire societal fabric. Hence it never would have ended peacefully. And how do we know this? (Cont)
@Shafeone We know this because in 1862 Lincoln offered to buy the freedom of all the slaves in the still-loyal border states. He figured the price tag was the same as a mere eight months of financing the war. He told them point blank slavery was going so they may as well take the deal. They all passed. Just couldn't give up their peculiar institution even when they knew it was over, could have been paid, and had very few slaves relative to Miss. let's say where there were more slaves than free.
@RebelSoldat1 Ok. I have heard that tired out argument before. On what do you base this assumption...that even if correct glibly condemns 2-3 more generations of fellow Americans to slavery and abuse. Easier to make the call when you're white huh?
@RebelSoldat1 That's not history. That is "alternative history." Also called fiction. And rests on assumptions that simply cannot be predicted...like time/space butterfly effects. Doesn't matter. The South never could have won the war so long as Lincoln remained resolute.
@RebelSoldat1 Wow. You are basically just inventing the last 150 years as you type aren't you. LOL. You act as if a Balkanized American continent, with slavery still intact would have been better.
@RebelSoldat1 And of course 4 million of them "darkies" would've been kept in their place right? And isn't that what you're REALLY driving at? Be honest.
@RebelSoldat1 "Now we are engaged in a great CIVIL WAR..." Lincoln 1863. And southern states take more from the federal govt than they pay in taxes. Yankee states pay more in for you. Sorry.
@RebelSoldat1 Americans fought Americans. The North was putting down an insurrection aimed at toppling that government (wresting control over it) for 1/3 of the populace. It was a CIVIL WAR. Only clinging Southern apologists unable to come to grips with a verdict 150 years old would call it anything but. Any Southerner who harbors any bitterness at all today is messed up. Five generations have passed. Get over it.
Shafeone, did I not send you a PM with "Send me all you're off-topic dumb posts, and let these people enjoy the video? So why are you back on here with the same crap? Can you read, or is you're A.D.D that severe?
@rebel2276 I prefer to call out guys who pretend to be in the military and thus dishonor the real military men in public thanks. I have no interest in having a private conversation with a racist and a fraud. Go count your flags Reb.
@Shafeone Yep, glad someone else has connected the dots and noticed that this guy is a fraud. Whenever he gets owned he starts blathering about how "you know nothing about the CW, and then resorts to "calling you out". I highly doubt anyone who is as important to the military as this poser claims, would behave in such a manner, even if he could find the time.
@Shafeone A couple of years ago, I was dumb enough to accept his friends request. Things were okay for awhile, then he started discussing the plans he and his (oft mentioned) "associates" had for overthrowing the government, by a military coup. I still have the messages on my feed, if Y-tube hasn't deleted them, when they went to the new format. At some point, I need to dig them up, and post his nutty ravings where everyone can see what a Tard this guy really is.
@Shafeone I noticed he's stopped yapping about the letters from Civil War survivors in Columbia SC, which are supposedly filled with lurid tales of rape and depradations against the area's women. I kept pushing for specifics, WHEN, were they compiled, by WHOM, and for what REASON. Never could get an answer.
@rebel2276 Translation: "Please stop calling bravo sierra on my bravo sierra in front of people I am trying to impress with my useless knowledge, bias read on history, and false claims of both being research team head as well as, worst of all by far, being a soldier in Afghanistan? You're exposing me for the charlatan I am."
@Shafeone What the heck are you talking about? Lee's army didn't send any free blacks into slavery. Btw, what "defenseless towns" did they enter and steal goods from? Did you make that up? If some of Lee's companies DID do that, he most likely had no idea they did. Remember, his army was fanned out across more than forty miles.
@Sistarovat You didn't really learn history at all did you? Just southern propoganda. Please read my list of eyewitness accounts from both north and south below.
@rebel2276 Still telling people they "know nothing" about the Civil War, as your last means of defense. I'm laughing my ass off, as I'm typing this. It's time to put up or shut up. If you're the big military hero you claim to be, lets see the goods.
I'm still trying to figure out how someone who is as important to the war effort as you claim to be, is able to spend so much time in the Library of Congress digging up Civil War dirt, and calling people out, over the internet.
@rebel2276 You're right Reb. Such an obscure topic like the Civil War is only the domain of the small schrivners like yourself. First of all I know who won which already puts me head and shoulders above a cataloguer of minutia. Actually why am I doing this? I am in discussion with a man who believes that Lee WON the PA campaign. LOL. Enough said.
@Sistarovat Here are just two for you: "Most of the soldiers seem to harbor a terrific spirit of revenge and steal and pillage." Of Lee's General Order #72 prohibitions: "The soldiers paid no more attention to them than they would to the cries of a screech owl...the brigadiers and colonels made no attempt to enforce Lee's general orders. And LEE HIMSELF seemed to disregard entirely the soldiers' open acts of disobedience." Cpl. Taliaferro Simpson, 3rd South Carolina
@Sistarovat "We took a lot of negroes yesterday. I was offered my choice but as I could not get them back home I would not take them." Col. William S. Christian, 55th Virgina, Heth's Division, III Corps. "The captured contraband [negroes] better be brought along with you for further disposition." Note to Gen. Pickett from Longstreets adjutant.
@Sistarovat Oh stop. What part of the Union Army were they attacking when they sent hundreds of free balcks into slavery? Lee's men entered defenseless towns, stole goods and levied tribute in the thousands of dollars. I don't blame them mind you...especially after what their own towns like Fredericksburg were subjected to by marauding yankees. But don't think they were saints. The did plent of damage for the short time they were there. As I would have I bet.
Now, make sure to respond back with more Non-Civil War topics, sorry everyone, but this is the best we will read from Shafeone. This is a typical 2-3 year amateur that pretends to know something in reality knows nothing.
@rebel2276 If you want to know how many battle flags the 8th Illinois had on July 1, Rebel's your man. If you want to know who won the war, I recommend looking elsewhere.
@rebel2276 Finally found you, I'm out of the hospital finally. Went through all the chemotherapy and that is a tiring experience. My family and Laura visited me and Laura told me you were in Israel. I was watching the news, is Israel going to attack Iran?? They are claiming it could be World War Three. On another note, I read a book on "Brandy Station". The Twelfth Virginia Cavalry lost their HQ flag and the First Maine Cavalry captured a "Virginia" flag? Be safe!
@BGThomasHillhouse Great to read you are doing better, is all that hospital stuff all done? My father went through that for Nine years, back and forth and back and forth, "The Cancer is gone", just 10 Months later, "It's back". Tom, don't believe the US Media crap. No WW3 is going down. It's all fake acting as usual. I left my laptop back in my tent so Major Williams could type the piles of paperwork on Excel sheets. Thus, I could not get online this past month.
@rebel2276 That book author is wrong, the 1st Maine Cavalry did not captured the 12th Virginia's "Head-Quarters" flag, it was the "Stars and Bars". That is on the "US. Department's Register of Flags Captured or Recaptured by Union troops, 1861-1865."
Around 528 Confederate flags were captured and turned in to the War Department and around 200-250 Union flags recaptured in Richmond were turned into the War Department.
@rebel2276 Out of over 700ish flags on the microfilm, flag number ONE has..."Stars and Bars captured from the 12th Virginia Cavalry on 9 June, 1863 by General Kilpatrick's Cavalry Brigade at Beverly Ford." The 1st Maine Cavalry was in Colonel (His rank at the battle) Kilpatrick's Cavalry Brigade, alone with the 2nd and 10th NY Cavalry regiments. This is not very difficult research, why those top historians act like that is so difficult. I tell them, you don't want to do what I do.
@rebel2276 98% of Union Regimental commanders in the Infantry and Cavalry never admitted to losing a flag. I don't have "Confederate War Department List" to work with nor did Confederate soldiers receive any "Medal of Honor" for turning in a captured Union flag. I just don't get it, why they act as if they have it harder. But they all don't want to touch the captured Union flags, "Good Luck Rebel!" I enjoy the challenge, the hardest in the business. :D
@rebel2276 "Eric J. Wittenburg" wrote the book. It is rather confusing, but I know your research is sound. I will send you on a email on other books I read in the hospital and flags mention, etc. Be safe out there!
@rebel2276 For my records, do you know of any New York Cavalry Regiments that captured Confederate Flags? Also, if you have any information on New York Cavalry Regiments that lost Flags? "Anything New York" at the Battle of Brandy Station, thank you for any help!
@rebel2276 I highly doubt this will be over, I remember very well what your father went through and it scares me that I will be going through it. In the event, that I can not work on the flags, I will turn it all over to you. See that justice is done.
@Shafeone I was thinking of responding to your statement on Ron Paul being wrong for taking up for the South, but after reading you ignorant comment about Lee's men ravaging PA, I decided it wouldn't be worth it.
@Shafeone General Lee wrote General Order #72, to respect private property and commit no harsh crimes. Anything confiscated, that Pennsylvania farmer would receive a receipt. Name me one single Union commander that did that in the South? General Lee knew if he did not write General order #72, his men would have torn up Pennsylvania a new ass. General Lee was not going to stoop down to the level of Union commanders.
@rebel2276 Oh stop it. We went through this., Diaries from Reb soldiers universally indicate that they paid little attention to Lee's orders and looted, raided, and destroyed property at will. Stop with thie Rebel genetlemen crap. They were cut from the same cloth as their relatives just across the Mason-Dixon line. I don't blame them for taking PA to task. But I'm not naive enough to think all was good because Lee said so. Wow.
@rebel2276 "We took a lot of negroes yesterday. I was offered my choice but as I could not get them back home I would not take them." Col. William S. Christian, 55th Virgina, Heth's Division, III Corps. "The captured contraband [negroes] better be brought along with you for further disposition." Note to Gen. Pickett from Longstreets adjutant. Sanctioned or not, slave-catching was a common activity among the Lee's men. Nice. Unless, of course, you don't think slavery such a big deal huh?
@rebel2276 "The cavalry are raiding our corn cribs tonight...an exciting Sabbath. Johnny Reb left this morning with almost 300 cattle." Newville, PA diarist. "Have inflicted serious injury upon the corpulent Ducth farmers of that loyal stat in the destruction of bee gums, fowls, eggs, butter, cherries, green apples, cider and apple buttr. It will take at least three seasons to replenish the stock, besides playing sad havoc with their horses and cattle." Georgian Joseph Hilton, McLaws' div.
@rebel2276 "Public and private houses were ransacked, horses, cows, sheep and provisions stolen day by day without mercy, negroes captured and carried back into slavery (even such as I know to have been born and raised on free soil) and many other outrages committed. Diary of Professor Philip Schaff of Mercersburg, PA.
@rebel2276 "Most of the soldiers seem to harbor a terrific spirit of revenge and steal and pillage." Of Lee's General Order #72 prohibitions: "The soldiers paid no more attention to them than they would to the cries of a screech owl...the brigadiers and colonels made no attempt to enforce Lee's general orders. And Lee himself seemed to disregard entirely the soldiers' open acts of disobedience." Cpl. Taliaferro Simpson, 3rd South Carolina
whos the most determined Anti-Muslim in the entire Southlands? yer the one this is for!>>>Next time y'all goes to the Sunday meetin, to worship the good lord=Allah!, and Mary = Maryam!, and Jesus = Isa! just remember that them "ragheads" you hate so much would die for Mary and Jesus! .....they also believe in the Ascension and return of Jesus on Judgement Day!...be good now! or the lord will get ya!
I really like this scene. Stuart has been carving his name in union territory and denied Lee important information about enemy movement. Lee is angry and frustrated but manages to put be somewhat cool. I would have basically screamed at Stuart all night for his neglect. Lee had a good character I must say.
All those people you argue with over and over on this site, left because they were sick and tired of arguing with a idiot that will not pay attention to what they have to type. You may live in some type of fantasy world where you think you won the debate, but you have failed in all of them. I have begun to send them a PM, with "Don't feed the troll". "Just ignore him, he knows nothing and is Union-Biased. I will deal with him."
@Shafeone@Shafeone I guess I will have to type this up again for you, you're ADD if off the chart. Yes I am a Rebel, until the US. Government admits spraying Agent Orange (Deforestation) in Vietnam cause a rare cancer in our veterans and disabled veterans. Yes I am Rebel, until the US. Government admits that depleted uranium particles during Desert Storm, cause birth defects and thousands of Desert Storms soldiers came down with sickness. Ok, so are we crystal clear, again, on this?
@rebel2276 Oh stop it. Only an utter Southern apologist Lee worshipping fool would have the blind stupidity tio offer that Lee's invasion of PA was a "strategic victory." I called you out and now you're making up b.s. Yeah I'm sure you believe all those things (for a man in the service of course....Afghnaistan was it? Or your basement?) But when a CW buff calls himself 'Rebel', well, two points make a line. Nice try though.
@Shafeone Yes you are Union-Biased, don't try to play it off. The only battles I have ever seen you type is either Gettysburg or Malvern Hill. Strange, not one single battle the AOP lost..lol
@rebel2276 If your definition of 'Union biased' means that I believe that the North won the Civil War then guilty as charged. "Rebel" Nah, no bias there. How deluded are you? You wish to discuss Antietam? How about the Wilderness? I'm sorry as this youtube was about Gettysburg I had this silly notion that I should focus on that battle. You know, the one in your messed up mind Lee 'won'? I hope if I ever fight a battle I 'lose' the way Meade did!
@rebel2276 Gee...maybe they got shipped off to "Afghanistan" like you? Riiiight. Or maybe it sucks to be on the losing side of an argument so easily won by those who have the historical record and common sense on their side.
Keep up all the Non-Battle posts, that's all you type. I have called you out several times to challenge me on any battle, any campaign and any aspect on the Civil War. This is exactly why I typed to you about a year ago that you need to take 10-15-20 years and read on the battles. You don't jump into the Civil War with you're one Gettysburg book that Sears wrote. Turn around and think you know something, you don't, get over it.
@rebel2276 Dude. As I said: what conceit has crept into your brain that makes you think you are the only one who's read up on the single most read up on topic in US history by literally tens of thousands of scholars, historians, aficionados, etc.? And when you offer (STILL without providing any names) that "many historians consider the PA campaign a strategic victory for Lee" how can anyone take you seriously?
@Shafeone One, I have been in this business for Thirty Years. Two, I live normally in Washington DC where I am very close to the Library of Congress and National Archives. 99.9% of scholars, historians, authors do not live in Washington DC and thus, they have little time to do research. Just google book "General Lee's strategic victory in Pennsylvania".
@rebel2276 Ok. So you are holding fast to your contention that Lee's invasion of PA was a strategic victory. Got it. And I am the idiot? I did google it. What am I supposed to find? As I have said now many times, name one historian who believes that Lee's invasion of PA was a 'strategic victory.' Seriously. For a man who's 'been in the business for 30 years' (join the very very large club moron) you seem to be pretty bad in your analysis. Bias perhaps "Rebel"? Naah. You are amusing.
@Shafeone Yes or no, did General Lee re-supply his entire army? That will be YES. That was his main goal. You don't know about that, because you concentrate on the three day battle of Gettysburg. General Lee had a tactical loss at Gettysburg. Again, google book, Kent Masterson Brown's book, "Lee, Logistics, & the Pennsylvania Campaign. "Retreat from Gettysburg." The book was published in 2005 and not many people knew what the ANV had done. Mr. Brown was a pioneer.
@rebel2276 The main goal was to win a decisive victory on Union soil. For a spell Lee's men got resupplied yes. Was it one of the ancillary reasons for moving north? Of course. VA was tapped out. But Lee left PA within a month and had suffered 17000 permanent losses as well as over 20,000 total casualties. This in an army where manpower was critical before the invasion. Again, this is where historians and not schrivners must take over. Gettysburg was a disaster for Lee. Sorry.
@Shafeone It was on;y after the battle when Lee was compiling hie report that he started to advance to a higher level of priority his 'supply raid' goal. He did this because he was human and as such wanted to minimize the impact of Gettysburg as much as he could. He has a reputation to uphold. But his letters to Davis before the campaign as well as his own statements and actions during show that he was looking to defeat the AoP in battle. It's why he fought on July2, Keep trying though.
@rebel2276 You could "research" from now until judgment day and you will still come to the same conclusion even after the last letter has been read, diary perused, and photo magnified: THE SOUTH LOST THE CIVIL WAR ... AND LEE LOST AT GETTYSBURG. Your touting of your resume only serves to solidify the impression I have that you have the obtusness of the small minded. If you were a general in the CW, you'd have been Otis Howard! (And just as effective)
@Shafeone 'Virginia libraries: Volumes 52-53" "Mr. Brown contends that although Gettysburg was a tactical defeat, Lee's Pennsylvania Campaign, including his successful retreat with supplies and forage, was a Strategic Victory." (Google book it). As I am not in Washington DC at my house to list hundreds of books that will back my claim, I have to use Google Books as a source. What you just never will get, that the PA Campaign was longer then the three day battle of Gettysburg.
@rebel2276 LOL. LOL. Mr. Brown is an idiot. Ask Mr. Brown this: "Would you have recommended Lee do it again knowing the results?" I guess you can find someone out there who will say that Lee was beaten by little green aliens if you dig deep enough and are so devoted to your twisted point of view. Gee you mean that the PA campaign actually started right after Chancellorsville when Lee visited Davis in Richmond to discuss his plans for the invasion? Ya don't say. Wow are you arrogant.
@rebel2276 So let's talk Antietam. What are you trying to prove? That you can pour through a stack of books and come up with some obscure factoid that Genl. Mansfield ate pancakes that morning before entering the East Woods? Seriously, what is your point? I argue Antietam was the most important battle for the North strategically and politically, but also THE great missed opportunity. That McClellan was an awful field commander and Lee was foolish to make a stand where and when he did. Thoughts?
@Shafeone By the way...a rather well-known tech firm is working on a prototype interactive phone "app" for those who find themselves on Civil War battlefields and asked me to do Gettysburg. I have walked that field more times in the past year than you have pretended to hump a pack in "Afghanistan" (read: your basement) so please spare me your pseudo-condescension. Tell you what. If I need to know how many stitches are in the 13th AL flag, I'll be sure to ring you. That's all you're good for.
@Shafeone And YET I would never ever have the arrogance to presume that I know more than someone I am talking with about any CW subject. There's always a bigger fish mate.
@Shafeone You don't know anything, as I have called you out several times, you keep avoiding discussing BATTLES. You have already become the newest troll on this site and there are plenty of people that will agree with me on that. Go to you're bigger fish, to me you're just another pathetic amateur Union-Biased idiot. I've come across hundreds and hundreds of you're type and you just type the same crap every time. This is why it is so easy to counter you're off-topic posts.
@Shafeone I don't hump a pack in Afghanistan, for the past two months all operations are closed down due to the extreme cold weather. We will have to wait till the spring and open up the old Russian supply route down in Khost. I refused to have my men in 14 degree weather, I will not be responsible for cold weather casualties. You could move to Gettysburg and live there for the rest of you're life and I would still know more about the battle. Contact Greg Biggs on the 13th AL Flag, lol
@rebel2276 "I don't hump a pack in Afghanistan." That's the first honest thing you've ever posted. Blah blah blah. You're just spewing out shit you've read. I know guys who are REALLY there and you obviously aren't one of them. You should be ashamed of yourself. I can deal with your Lost Cause revisionist b.s. but pretending to be a soldier it is disgrace.
@Shafeone McClellan helps support a theory I have. There are peacetime officers, and there are wartime officers, the men you keep encased in a glass box that read "Break Glass in Case of War." McClellan fell in the former group, and I think he liked the pomp and ceremony of the job more than he cared for waging war. I don't want to say he was cowardly, but he sure liked to make a lot of presumptions about the enemy's strength.
@MaxxTheMerciless McClellan was in his element behind a desk. He was cut more from the cloth of a Haupt than Sherman or Grant no doubt. But McClellan's problem wasn't just timidity, he was a rather petulant, extremely arrogant man - in layman's terms he was a royal asshole. He never took responsibility for his own failings in battle, always set himself up as the martyr by portray vast hosts against him (if he loses it's Lincoln/Halleck's faults for making him fight...if he wins he's a genius).
@Shafeone That's true too. But I notice that a lot about some peacetime officers because during peacetime you become a lot more political than practical, especially when you get to Colonel and above, when your promotions are all Congressionally approved.
I notice something of the same behavior out of one George McClernand, who was gunning for Grant's job. He personally knew Lincoln, and kept trying to take credit for the plans and victories leading up to Vickburg's fall.
@MaxxTheMerciless That McClellan was unable (or unwilling) to crush Lee at Antietam was a national tragedy. His awful general ship that day witholding vast reserves commiting his men in "driblets" putting them in tight spots and letting them fight their way out...was almost criminal in my opinion. Grant would have ended that battle, and effectively the war, before lunchtime. (Of course Lee's stand was an act of defiance against McClellan himself. He probably wouldn't have opted to face Grant.)
@Shafeone Maybe you don't get it, I don't have stacks of books, in my tent out here. I am not a King or President that has my own planes reserved so I can bring on my books, magazines, maps, everything out here. I could only wish. If MG. McClellan was not handed Special Order 191, I highly doubt he would have moved so fast and engaged General Lee. General Lee already knew from the Seven Days Campaign, MG. McClellan was a slow cautious general.
@rebel2276 McClellen didn't do much with Special Order 191. He sat on it for a full day and when he moved he moved at his usual slow pace. Lee was surprised that he'd moved from the defenses of DC so fast-that had as much to with pressure from Lincoln than any intelligence coups. Lee was under the impression (his constant mistake in the war) that the Union Army was demoralized unable to move for weeks. People put too much stock in 191. Mac still thought he was outnumbered and moved as such.
@rebel2276 I fnd it funny that a man who talks about Priest as if Jesus Christ himself wrote the history is condemning me for gravitating towards a like minded and fair historian like Sears. But whatever. Don't you have better things to do in the field in "Afghanistan" than argue ludicrous notions that the PA campaingn was a "strategic victory" with someone about whose knowledge and insight you know very little? Must be tough over there eh? Where are you stationed again?
@rebel2276 If your definition of 'non-battle' posts means I feel in unnecessary to mention that A.R. Lawton probably took a shit in the Miller Cornfield, then I will continue to post as I have. Your lack of understanding of the scope of the war, the consequences, the meaning of it all show that you are just an 'archivist' is that. By the way the LOC is the biggest library in the US. Believe it or not, you are not the only person with interest in the CW to visit it. You are no less the fool.
@rebel2276 I know who won the battle. Pretty basic point from which to begin the journey no? Pah-lease. Go count your battle flags and pretend your a soldier-man. "On- line I'm in Hollywood/I'm six-foot-five and look damned good/I drive a Mazarati/I'm a black-belt in karate/And I love a good glass of wine/It turns girls on I'm mysterious/I tell em I don't want nothin serious/Cause even on slow day I can have a three-way/Chattin with two women at one time/Cause I'm so much cooler on-line."
@rebel2276 Let's talk specifics. How about Antietam? Oh, I dunno, how specific should we get? Say how about we talk the Roulette Farm? We could prattle on about such minor minutia such as how a Rebel solid shot (or was it a spent round, we will never know) knocked over William Roulette's bee-hives and sent the 132nd Pennsylvania volunteers into a frenzy. Gee, isn't that interesting stuff?? (Actually it is, but is of little consequence in understanding the scope and impact of the battle).
3) You claim that MG. Meade only had "Three days to prepare for Gettysburg". When General Joe Johnston was wounded on May 31st, 1862, the very next day, General Lee took command on June 1st. General Lee never served in that army, none of his generals at that point fought in a major battle. Lee was six miles east of his capital, up against the AOP that outnumbered him by 15-20 thousand men. MG. Meade certainly did not go through all that when he took command.
3) You claim that MG. Meade only had "Three days to prepare for Gettysburg". When General Joe Johnston was wounded on May 31st, 1862, the very next day, General Lee took command on June 1st. General Lee never served in that army, none of his generals at that point fought in a major battle. Lee was six miles east of his capital, up against the AOP that outnumbered him by 15-20 thousand men. MG. Meade certainly did not go through all that when he took command.
3) You claim that MG. Meade only had "Three days to prepare for Gettysburg". When General Joe Johnston was wounded on May 31st, 1862, the very next day, General Lee took command on June 1st. General Lee never served in that army, none of his generals at that point fought in a major battle. Lee was six miles east of his capital, up against the AOP that outnumbered him by 15-20 thousand men. MG. Meade certainly did not go through all that when he took command.
@rebel2276 Lee was not a corps commander but rather was in Richmond advising Davis and was well-briefed before taking command of an army in a fixed defensive position against a creeping Union army commanded by a timid and poor field commander. Hooker's army by contrast was in the middle of a very fluid campaign against a SKILLED opponent. Not sure what your point is. Usually you don't have one other than to regurgitated knowledge that most Civil War aficionados are familiar with.
2) At the battle of Chancellorsville, I highly doubt LT. General Jackson attacked a "Small portion" as you claimed in a argument with a person in another video. On May 2nd, 1863, Jackson routed the entire 11th Corps. May 3rd, he routed the 3rd Corps and 12th Corps. Half of MG. Hooker's Corps he brought around Lee's left flank.
@rebel2276 Actually, to be all Rebel-like, since he was off the field he didn't "rout" anyone on May 3. See...I can be pedantic like you too. Doesn't change the fact that Chancellorsville, though a tactically brilliant move by Lee/JAckson was an inconclusive fight that merely set the armies back to their starting points. Yes, Lee brilliantly extricated himself from a tight spot and for that he deserves all the praise he receives. But less than two months later he was beaten decisively.
@rebel2276 Jackson attack was a success because he attacked one corps on the flank (which by very definition is a "small portion") and overwhelmed it. And Lee's army suffered a horrific casualty rate for the numbers engaged...mostly infantry. The Union army (save XI Corps) was far from "routed". Many Union troops felt (correctly) that they inflicted serious damage in fact. Once again, Lee defeated a Union commander, not the Union army. And in this case a concussion took Hooker out of the game
@Shafeone I highly doubt a Corps is a "Small Portion" a brigade/regiment would be considered that. After Jackson routed the 11th Corps, the following morning he routed the 12th Corps and 3rd Corps. The 2nd Corps retreated back to the main defenses around the Chancellorsville mansion. MG. Hooker had his men dig exclusive trenches and thus he was not thinking about going on the offense, but wanted General Lee to attack him. MG. Hooker was very wise in having his men well dug in.
I read you're arguments with several people. 1) General Lee went on the offense on October 13th, 1863 during the "Bristoe Campaign." When General Lee found out the 11th and 12th Corps left the AOP, he went around MG. Meade's right flank. MG. Meade ended up retreating all the way to Centerville, Virginia and Lee and the ANV were standing on the 1st Bull Run battlefield. Whatever book you read that claimed General Lee never went on the offense after Gettysburg is false.
@rebel2276 Talking strategically. Ugh. He attacked againt at the Wilderness. Moving chess pieces back on forth across the same VA landscape is hardly comparable to invading the North. I swear I have never seen a man so caught up in minutia and pro-Souther bias that he is so blinded by the larger picture. All you do is toss out factoids that anyone with command of the English language and time on their hands can uncover. But your analysis is utterly inane.
@rebel2276 And Bristoe was a minor campaign to say the least. Plus how did Heth's division do against the II Corps? There were wins/losses on both sides in that little campaign and it was utterly inconclusive--if you look at it through non-biased lenses of course, which we know "Rebel" cannot do. And Lee, after suffering roughly a parity in losses with a Union army that could afford them much more, withdrew back to winter positions below the Rappahanock line. How are things in "Afghanistan"?
@Shafeone Minor or not, General Lee did go on the offensive and ended up all the way North on the old First Bull Run battlefield. LT. General A.P.Hill did what he normally did, he did not wait for any help, rashly attacked and the 2nd Corps under MG. Warren hid behind the railroad cut on the east side. LT. General A.P. Hill first did that at Beaver Damn Creek during the Seven Days Campaign and it showed he was too aggressive and lacked planning. He was more fit as a division commander.
@rebel2276 By your definition, he went on the offensive in the Wilderness as well. After Gettysburg none of that mattered. You really are caught up on technicalities and the minutia of language aren't you? Makes for a good archivist I guess, but a piss-poor historian.
@rebel2276 Once again you steer the discussion into minutia in a transparent attempt to show how 'learned' you are. You are not telling me anything that most historians with even a rudimentary understanding of Bristoe don't already know. You spin off into a tangent about A.P. Hill (Better division that corps commander? Shocking revelation. Real cutting edge analysis.You come up with that all on your own?) Yeah, we ALL know that. All hundreds of thousands of us who also are "in the business"
I think Sheen in this movie makes Lee look like a diminuative and somewhat unbalanced man. Lee was in the summer of 1863 still a strapping and by all acounts extremely handsome and imposing figure. A PA woman watching him ride by exclaimed "Oh how I wish he were ours!" I don't see that magnetic persona in Sheen's odd performance. He was only 56 at this time (although the stress of command was greying him quickly and hard army living in the field was physically starting to take its toll).
This was the perfect way to handle this situation. Made Stuart realise the seriousness of his mistake while making sure he didn't completely destroy his spirit. One of the great military leaders in history
"Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he [Abraham Lincoln] shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the — that iron, iron fist. " - Ron Paul
When Stuart arriived at Lee's headquarters he is reported to have said "General Lee I hvae brought x number of wagons and Y number of this and that to which Lee respoonded icily "They are an impediment to me sir". At this rebuke Stuart is said to have broken down in tears.
i have read that General Lee was actually quite ill during the battle of Gettysburg , having what was later found to be heart trouble, and being worn down from the march to PA . ( as were all of Lee's men)Lee's own personal slave William Lee had said later that the General was ill , and not quite himself . I don't know if it had alot to do with the decisions made , I believe Lee had no real idea what lay in front of him anyway topographically .
@Cincinnatus1869 Lee was probably sufffering from the heart ailment you mention yes...and living an outdoor life in the saddle as he did was tough on any man in their 50s (19th century 50 was a lot older than today's!) But his men were actually quite well fed and in great spirits. They were probably never so formidable and army as they were in June 1963. Ewell even offered that is they stayed in PA too long they would all get fat. An army travels on its stomach and Lee's men never ate better.
In the age of the Civil War, this is the worst ass chewing ever, what a stunning scene, Stuart was a stud but made a huge mistake, R.E. Lee was a classic commander and this movie is perfect.
@bd19622265 In reality, this "Hollywood scene" never did occur. There is no written account of what was said between General Lee and General Stuart. In 1889, one of General Stuart's aides wrote that General Stuart had told him, that General Lee was actually happy to see him. So I highly doubt, that General Lee yelled at General Stuart as this horrible inaccurate Hollywood movie suggests. Since there was no written account, they wrote this into the script for the movie.
@rebel2276 Since Lee approved of the raid, it is hard to believe that Lee would take anything more than a tone like: "What's done is done. We made a bad call. You're here now so let's see what we can do together to win this thing. I AM glad you're safe. We'll deal with Robertson and others and find out what happened later." And Stuart DID cut communications between the AoP and DC for a spell.
@Stuart4791 General Lee mismanaged the four cavalry brigades he had with him. General Stuart took three cavalry brigades with him. General Lee had Jenkins, Imboden, Robertson and Jones cavalry brigades. BG. Jenkins went with General Ewell's 2nd Corps in Pennsylvania. Lee ordered BG. Imboden to collect supplies and break up parts of the B&O. Robertson and Jones were detailed to guard the mountain passes and the rear of the ANV, south of the Potomac River. It was not Stuart's fault.
@rebel2276 Agree. Lee never would have let Stuart go and leave his army blind while on an offensive in enemy territory without believing he had adequate cavalry with him to do the scouting. Robertson and Jones failed by not moving north but staying in the blue ridge gaps staring at nothing. Jenkins and Imboden's men were off raiding and slave-catching. Where Stuart DID fail was in stubbornly trying to break through a much less porous AoP line than anticipated. He should have turned back.
@Shafeone True, but both men exhibited characteristics that made them beloved among their men that was rarely displayed before or since. They were both outstanding leaders, and both leaders had victories against overwhelming odds. You can say that Washington won and that makes him better, but really? How did he win? Didn't the timely intervention by the French help America achieve victory? Do you think Washington could've done much better during the Civil War?
@MaxxTheMerciless Ah just pricking a barb at ya. I know what you mean and agree. It's no coincidence that Lee modeled his life after Washington. Lee was a sublime in defeat as Washington was in victory. And the difference between their winning and losing really boils down to France's aid and troops versus going it alone, and breaking Britain's political will to fight a war 3,000 miles of ocean away versus the determination of Lincoln to win at all costs. I love them both.
@HaggenPagan26: You can spin this any way you want. That's something the South has been doing for the past 146 years. The fact that the "Southern man" didn't understand that he was fighting a futile and impossible fight as a direct result of Southern intransigence is ironic. It was the mechanisms of "states rights" that lost the war for the South. And any discussion or allusion to anything other than slavery as the reason for the war is romantic antebellum.
@philly1121 Yes, and although it may not have been fought entirely over slavery, the sates rights issues and others were very minor issues and a pretext for protecting the Southern wealthy through slavery.
@oneputtsteven As far as I can tell Lee's own words were I cannot draw my sword against Virginia, I think a lot of Southern folks felt that way. Slavery as less of an issue for the common soldier as protecting their families from the likes of Sheridan and Sherman. Considering 3/4 of the South owned slaves.
It may have shortened the war, but my point is simply the reason for fighting the war for many Southern men was to prevent an army from coming into their homes and tyrannizing their people. Sherman and Sheridan did that. They stole property, assaulted local women, and burned cities and homes to the ground. Southern men were afraid of that for their families so they fought to keep the North out of their home states. Its not hard to rationalize, anyone would fight to protect their homes.
@Frankcastle522 At this here moment, Lee was invading Pennsylvania. Then, by your own logic, General Meade was the one in the right at that moment, by protecting Northern soil and repulsing a Southern invasion.
@Ares99999 Lee was invading Pennsylvania yes but he did not demonstrate the same destruction that Sherman did. Lee did not intentionally destroy house, cities, and crops to leave the people to die. He did not put prisoners of war in the front of his line to protect his soldiers from enemy bullets. Lee did not give permission for his soldiers to rape or pillage, anything that was taken, was paid for. Sheridan starved the civilians under him. There is a difference to be observed.
@Frankcastle522 Ah, so what you're saying is that its the harshness of the invasion thats the problem, not the fact that it actually happened. Lee is noble for INVADING cleanly?
Are you kidding? An invasion brings death and devastation by default.
And you're saying the South was nobler than the North? Please, don't make me laugh.
@Frankcastle522 On June 22nd, 1863, Saturday, around 8:30-8:45AM, General Lee wrote "General Order # 72". Basically, all soldiers in the ANV and attached would "Respect private property", "Only an officer present, would either pay or leave a receipt for anything confiscated." General order #73, just reinforced General order #72. General order #74, Lee congratulated his men for obeying his order in Pennsylvania.
@Frankcastle522 I have dealt with Ares99999 and he knows nothing on the Civil War. He is Union-Biased and lives in Canada. As I will always say and type, 98% of Civil War people are biased to either side. Then they just read all the good stuff about their side and the bad stuff on the other side. Since Union soldiers were 99% of the time somewhere in the South, they thus committed 99% of the war crimes. General Lee was very strict with his army, General Lee could have made PA "Howl".
@rebel2276 Lee wasn't being kind or restraining himself out any moral code of decency. Lee understood the Penn campaign was a strategic one meant to convince the North that future struggle was futile but more importantly to convince England to provide aid to the CSA. Making Penn howl would only turn Nothern opinion against the south more firmly which was the opposite of Lee's goal.
@vgcsbano On June 22nd, 1863 (Saturday) between 8:30AM-8:45AM, General Lee wrote "General Order #72". "All soldiers in the Army of Northern Virginia and soldiers recently attached to the Army of Northern Virginia will respect private property, not commit harsh crimes, any property confiscated would be present in front of a officer, who would leave a receipt". If General Lee wanted his men to "Make Pennsylvania Howl" he could have given the order. Many PA citizens thought Rebels would do it.
@rebel2276 Lee's men plundered just fine: 6700 bbls flour, 7900 bushels wheat, 5200 cattle, 1000 hogs, 2400 sheep, 51000 lbs cured meat and uncounted thousands of horses. Southern soldiers demanded booty from the towns they entered. Sometimes paid with worthless script. Other times not. They also burned property owned by suspected abolitionists and, most shameful, captured and sent blacks south into slavery. They weren't there long enough to do more damage. Lee planned to stay several mos.
@Shafeone Your list is WAY off. Read, "Lee, Logistics, & the Pennsylvania Campaign" "Retreat from Gettysburg" by Kent Masterson Brown (2005). That is the most researched book you will ever find, I would guess around 18-22 years Mr. Brown spent on his research judging from his sources. Pages 31, 32 and 33 are on African-Americans. Page 50 "Private Pettijohn, 1st Minn, captured, wrote, long lines of negro cooks baking corn pone for rebel soldiers, 2 miles in rear" Other Union pows were amazed.
@rebel2276 Not sure what your point is. No one doubts that the Rebel army didn't bring slaves with them. It doesn't negate the fact that slave-catching was also part of their invasion. Slavery is a complicated issue and there are a myriad of reasons why those slaves in the army didn't try to escape. Escape to where? To do what? And what of their families left behind? Stockholm syndrome too seemed common in the slave/master relationship...especially those treated relatively well.
@rebel2276 By way off you mean the count? These are official Army of NVA tallies. (I didn't just make them up). Unofficially who knows what the real take was. The point being, regardless of the minutia of detail is that the Rebel army was far from a benign invader but rather stole literally tons of product from northern merchants and farmers. Now, were they justified? Hey, all's fair in war. But just don't whitewash the Rebs, Reb. They were homo sapiens just like them "Blue Scumbellies".
@Shafeone Way off on the count, Kent Masterson Brown, dug very deep at the National Archives and that was all he found, I am sure there are tons of missing reports. Since Richmond burned, many reports are gone. It was the large raid in the Western Hemisphere's history. Sheridan and Sherman paled in comparison of what they confiscated and wrote. By August 1864, the Shenandoah Vally was practically gutted out from both armies. Sherman did better in Georgia, 3,000 hogs, 4,500 horses, long list.
@rebel2276 I am stil unlcear as to what count I am "way off" on are you referring to? My count of the loot the Rebs took from PA? It was substantial. If I am off then you must have a count. What do your records show?
@Shafeone Yes, you're count on the "loot" on the Confederate confiscated in Pennsylvania. Again, google book, "Lee, Logistics,& the Pennsylvania Campaign. "Retreat from Gettysburg" Written by Kent Masterson Brown (2005). Mr. Brown spent around twenty years of research at the National Archives and found tons of things no human ever found. Just "Google Book" it and you will see how off you were.
@rebel2276 My sources come from the LOC, University of Florida, University of Texas archives among others including diaries, letters, etc. It is a very comprehensive list of booty/plunder and quite documented. What figures then do YOU have? That the plundering belies your image of the Southern gentleman invader being chivalrous and behaving in enemy territory is something you must deal with. All men are brutes...Yank and Reb alike.Some just have more time for mischief. Others lose and leave.
@RebelSoldat1 All I do is just challenge them to the battles and they will either paste and copy from websites or do what Shafone does and just type "Off-Topic" crap. Any twelve year old kid could come on this site and rant and rave about slavery, wow. Reading on the battles even the small tiny one take several decades.
rebel2276 6 days ago
@rebel2276 "Off topic" such as??? LOL. Give me an example of what you consider "off-topic."
Shafeone 5 days ago
@rebel2276 Reb, if you would like to get into an indepth discussion about the politics, the economiics and the Constitutional issues behind slavery and the first 75 years of the Republic I wil happily oblige. You will find however that steering the conversation back to the number of stiches in the Louisiana Tigers battle flag and then offering that you are the only American to have set foot in our country's largets library will not help you much. So, shall we discuss slavery?
Shafeone 5 days ago
Comment removed
Shafeone 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rebel2276 Challenge me to a battle. I accept. Although as there are roughly 6,000 recorded engagements in the Civil War surely you'll come up with minutia in many. What you'll fail to recognize is that regurgitating factoids isn't the same as comprehension of the events and their consequences still being felt to this day. Is the true significance of Antietam the charge of Irwin's Brigade or the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation that resulted when the guns quieted? I argue the latter.
Shafeone 2 days ago
@RebelSoldat1 Let me give you some advice on Union-Biased amateurs. 1) They don't know about the battles in any detail. 2) They never had any family in the war. 3) At one time or another they lived in the South. 4) They are currently living in the South. 5) They retired down in the South.
On all Civil War websites, you will have 1) The mentally insane John Brown Jr. 2) The "I'm not going to pay attention to nobody and I know everything" IE: Shafone. 3) The classic hypocrite.
rebel2276 6 days ago
@rebel2276 Do you even know what "hypocrite" means? How am I a "hypocrite"? (And how do you have so much time to blog from "Afghanistan" anyway?)
Shafeone 5 days ago
@rebel2276 Is your definition of "Union biased" one who believes that the North won the Civil War? When it comes to bias, I would think a man whose handle is "Rebel" would be quite expert at that subject no doubt. By the way, Grant won, Lee lost. Get over it.
Shafeone 5 days ago
@RebelSoldat1 Don't waste you're time with the troll. Just challenge him on the battles and he will shit a brick. All he does as you well know is types "Off-Topic" crap. I have been in this business for Thirty years, he is not going to challenge me on anything. Thus, all of his "Off-Topic" posts. It's like working with a Seventh grader....
rebel2276 6 days ago
@rebel2276 LOL. You mean such brick shitting as "ok what would you like to discuss"? And as for off-topic, hmm let's see somehow you felt it necessary to bring up Toombs' 400 Georgians in a discussion of Lee at Antietam. You offer up pathetic and pedantic factoids as if they are even remotely relevant to the main story of these battles and campaigns. As I said, if you want to know how many bullet holes are in a regiment's flag you're the guy. As to who won the Civil War? well...
Shafeone 5 days ago
@RebelSoldat1 LOL "The fact that you assume I am white." Well for God's sake how many Blacks will you find who wish the South had won? Are you serious??? WOW. Of course you are white. And I bet pretty heavily racist as well. I think that's what your attechment to the old South really is all about.
Shafeone 2 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1 Ok. Apartheid in South Africa (a highly industrialized nation) existed well into the 1980s. The South's own Jim Crow laws extended into the 1960s. Both of these did not die out but were rather ended by external pressures brought to bear and economic boycotts. Why? Because slavery for the South was not just economic. It was social, cultural, and completely enmeshed in their entire societal fabric. Hence it never would have ended peacefully. And how do we know this? (Cont)
Shafeone 2 weeks ago
@Shafeone We know this because in 1862 Lincoln offered to buy the freedom of all the slaves in the still-loyal border states. He figured the price tag was the same as a mere eight months of financing the war. He told them point blank slavery was going so they may as well take the deal. They all passed. Just couldn't give up their peculiar institution even when they knew it was over, could have been paid, and had very few slaves relative to Miss. let's say where there were more slaves than free.
Shafeone 1 week ago
@RebelSoldat1 Ok. I have heard that tired out argument before. On what do you base this assumption...that even if correct glibly condemns 2-3 more generations of fellow Americans to slavery and abuse. Easier to make the call when you're white huh?
Shafeone 2 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1 That's not history. That is "alternative history." Also called fiction. And rests on assumptions that simply cannot be predicted...like time/space butterfly effects. Doesn't matter. The South never could have won the war so long as Lincoln remained resolute.
Shafeone 2 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1 Wow. You are basically just inventing the last 150 years as you type aren't you. LOL. You act as if a Balkanized American continent, with slavery still intact would have been better.
Shafeone 2 weeks ago
Worst fake beard in a movie filled with fake beards.
Shafeone 2 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1 And of course 4 million of them "darkies" would've been kept in their place right? And isn't that what you're REALLY driving at? Be honest.
Shafeone 2 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1 By the way. It's Fort SUMTER. No p. And you wish to discuss the war do you?
Shafeone 2 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1 Do you wish the South had won?
Shafeone 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RebelSoldat1 "Now we are engaged in a great CIVIL WAR..." Lincoln 1863. And southern states take more from the federal govt than they pay in taxes. Yankee states pay more in for you. Sorry.
Shafeone 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Shafeone 2 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1 Americans fought Americans. The North was putting down an insurrection aimed at toppling that government (wresting control over it) for 1/3 of the populace. It was a CIVIL WAR. Only clinging Southern apologists unable to come to grips with a verdict 150 years old would call it anything but. Any Southerner who harbors any bitterness at all today is messed up. Five generations have passed. Get over it.
Shafeone 2 weeks ago
Shafeone, did I not send you a PM with "Send me all you're off-topic dumb posts, and let these people enjoy the video? So why are you back on here with the same crap? Can you read, or is you're A.D.D that severe?
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 I prefer to call out guys who pretend to be in the military and thus dishonor the real military men in public thanks. I have no interest in having a private conversation with a racist and a fraud. Go count your flags Reb.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone Yep, glad someone else has connected the dots and noticed that this guy is a fraud. Whenever he gets owned he starts blathering about how "you know nothing about the CW, and then resorts to "calling you out". I highly doubt anyone who is as important to the military as this poser claims, would behave in such a manner, even if he could find the time.
UnionStatesHeritage 2 weeks ago
@Shafeone A couple of years ago, I was dumb enough to accept his friends request. Things were okay for awhile, then he started discussing the plans he and his (oft mentioned) "associates" had for overthrowing the government, by a military coup. I still have the messages on my feed, if Y-tube hasn't deleted them, when they went to the new format. At some point, I need to dig them up, and post his nutty ravings where everyone can see what a Tard this guy really is.
UnionStatesHeritage 2 weeks ago
@Shafeone I noticed he's stopped yapping about the letters from Civil War survivors in Columbia SC, which are supposedly filled with lurid tales of rape and depradations against the area's women. I kept pushing for specifics, WHEN, were they compiled, by WHOM, and for what REASON. Never could get an answer.
UnionStatesHeritage 2 weeks ago
Shafeone, PM me from now on with you're meaning-less posts and allow these people to enjoy the video.
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 Translation: "Please stop calling bravo sierra on my bravo sierra in front of people I am trying to impress with my useless knowledge, bias read on history, and false claims of both being research team head as well as, worst of all by far, being a soldier in Afghanistan? You're exposing me for the charlatan I am."
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone What the heck are you talking about? Lee's army didn't send any free blacks into slavery. Btw, what "defenseless towns" did they enter and steal goods from? Did you make that up? If some of Lee's companies DID do that, he most likely had no idea they did. Remember, his army was fanned out across more than forty miles.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
@Sistarovat You didn't really learn history at all did you? Just southern propoganda. Please read my list of eyewitness accounts from both north and south below.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone Paint the kettle black, you think you know anything on history of the Civil War? lol Keep on pretending you know something.
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 I keep saying: "So what do you want to talk about?" So...what do you want to talk about?
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 Still telling people they "know nothing" about the Civil War, as your last means of defense. I'm laughing my ass off, as I'm typing this. It's time to put up or shut up. If you're the big military hero you claim to be, lets see the goods.
I'm still trying to figure out how someone who is as important to the war effort as you claim to be, is able to spend so much time in the Library of Congress digging up Civil War dirt, and calling people out, over the internet.
UnionStatesHeritage 2 weeks ago
@rebel2276 You're right Reb. Such an obscure topic like the Civil War is only the domain of the small schrivners like yourself. First of all I know who won which already puts me head and shoulders above a cataloguer of minutia. Actually why am I doing this? I am in discussion with a man who believes that Lee WON the PA campaign. LOL. Enough said.
Shafeone 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sistarovat Here are just two for you: "Most of the soldiers seem to harbor a terrific spirit of revenge and steal and pillage." Of Lee's General Order #72 prohibitions: "The soldiers paid no more attention to them than they would to the cries of a screech owl...the brigadiers and colonels made no attempt to enforce Lee's general orders. And LEE HIMSELF seemed to disregard entirely the soldiers' open acts of disobedience." Cpl. Taliaferro Simpson, 3rd South Carolina
Shafeone 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sistarovat "We took a lot of negroes yesterday. I was offered my choice but as I could not get them back home I would not take them." Col. William S. Christian, 55th Virgina, Heth's Division, III Corps. "The captured contraband [negroes] better be brought along with you for further disposition." Note to Gen. Pickett from Longstreets adjutant.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone They were attacking the Union army. The major difference is that his army didn't wage war on innocent civilians like Butcher Grant did.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
@Sistarovat Oh stop. What part of the Union Army were they attacking when they sent hundreds of free balcks into slavery? Lee's men entered defenseless towns, stole goods and levied tribute in the thousands of dollars. I don't blame them mind you...especially after what their own towns like Fredericksburg were subjected to by marauding yankees. But don't think they were saints. The did plent of damage for the short time they were there. As I would have I bet.
Shafeone 1 month ago
Now, make sure to respond back with more Non-Civil War topics, sorry everyone, but this is the best we will read from Shafeone. This is a typical 2-3 year amateur that pretends to know something in reality knows nothing.
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 Rebel...your defense tax dollars at work....so he says. What service are you in again?
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 If you want to know how many battle flags the 8th Illinois had on July 1, Rebel's your man. If you want to know who won the war, I recommend looking elsewhere.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 Finally found you, I'm out of the hospital finally. Went through all the chemotherapy and that is a tiring experience. My family and Laura visited me and Laura told me you were in Israel. I was watching the news, is Israel going to attack Iran?? They are claiming it could be World War Three. On another note, I read a book on "Brandy Station". The Twelfth Virginia Cavalry lost their HQ flag and the First Maine Cavalry captured a "Virginia" flag? Be safe!
BGThomasHillhouse 2 weeks ago
@BGThomasHillhouse Great to read you are doing better, is all that hospital stuff all done? My father went through that for Nine years, back and forth and back and forth, "The Cancer is gone", just 10 Months later, "It's back". Tom, don't believe the US Media crap. No WW3 is going down. It's all fake acting as usual. I left my laptop back in my tent so Major Williams could type the piles of paperwork on Excel sheets. Thus, I could not get online this past month.
rebel2276 6 days ago
@rebel2276 That book author is wrong, the 1st Maine Cavalry did not captured the 12th Virginia's "Head-Quarters" flag, it was the "Stars and Bars". That is on the "US. Department's Register of Flags Captured or Recaptured by Union troops, 1861-1865."
Around 528 Confederate flags were captured and turned in to the War Department and around 200-250 Union flags recaptured in Richmond were turned into the War Department.
rebel2276 6 days ago
@rebel2276 Out of over 700ish flags on the microfilm, flag number ONE has..."Stars and Bars captured from the 12th Virginia Cavalry on 9 June, 1863 by General Kilpatrick's Cavalry Brigade at Beverly Ford." The 1st Maine Cavalry was in Colonel (His rank at the battle) Kilpatrick's Cavalry Brigade, alone with the 2nd and 10th NY Cavalry regiments. This is not very difficult research, why those top historians act like that is so difficult. I tell them, you don't want to do what I do.
rebel2276 6 days ago
@rebel2276 98% of Union Regimental commanders in the Infantry and Cavalry never admitted to losing a flag. I don't have "Confederate War Department List" to work with nor did Confederate soldiers receive any "Medal of Honor" for turning in a captured Union flag. I just don't get it, why they act as if they have it harder. But they all don't want to touch the captured Union flags, "Good Luck Rebel!" I enjoy the challenge, the hardest in the business. :D
rebel2276 6 days ago
@rebel2276 "Eric J. Wittenburg" wrote the book. It is rather confusing, but I know your research is sound. I will send you on a email on other books I read in the hospital and flags mention, etc. Be safe out there!
BGThomasHillhouse 3 days ago
@rebel2276 For my records, do you know of any New York Cavalry Regiments that captured Confederate Flags? Also, if you have any information on New York Cavalry Regiments that lost Flags? "Anything New York" at the Battle of Brandy Station, thank you for any help!
BGThomasHillhouse 3 days ago
@rebel2276 I highly doubt this will be over, I remember very well what your father went through and it scares me that I will be going through it. In the event, that I can not work on the flags, I will turn it all over to you. See that justice is done.
BGThomasHillhouse 3 days ago
@Shafeone I was thinking of responding to your statement on Ron Paul being wrong for taking up for the South, but after reading you ignorant comment about Lee's men ravaging PA, I decided it wouldn't be worth it.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
@Sistarovat Oh? What do you think Lee's men were doing in PA? Just out of curiosity.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone General Lee wrote General Order #72, to respect private property and commit no harsh crimes. Anything confiscated, that Pennsylvania farmer would receive a receipt. Name me one single Union commander that did that in the South? General Lee knew if he did not write General order #72, his men would have torn up Pennsylvania a new ass. General Lee was not going to stoop down to the level of Union commanders.
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 Oh stop it. We went through this., Diaries from Reb soldiers universally indicate that they paid little attention to Lee's orders and looted, raided, and destroyed property at will. Stop with thie Rebel genetlemen crap. They were cut from the same cloth as their relatives just across the Mason-Dixon line. I don't blame them for taking PA to task. But I'm not naive enough to think all was good because Lee said so. Wow.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 "We took a lot of negroes yesterday. I was offered my choice but as I could not get them back home I would not take them." Col. William S. Christian, 55th Virgina, Heth's Division, III Corps. "The captured contraband [negroes] better be brought along with you for further disposition." Note to Gen. Pickett from Longstreets adjutant. Sanctioned or not, slave-catching was a common activity among the Lee's men. Nice. Unless, of course, you don't think slavery such a big deal huh?
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 "The cavalry are raiding our corn cribs tonight...an exciting Sabbath. Johnny Reb left this morning with almost 300 cattle." Newville, PA diarist. "Have inflicted serious injury upon the corpulent Ducth farmers of that loyal stat in the destruction of bee gums, fowls, eggs, butter, cherries, green apples, cider and apple buttr. It will take at least three seasons to replenish the stock, besides playing sad havoc with their horses and cattle." Georgian Joseph Hilton, McLaws' div.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 "Public and private houses were ransacked, horses, cows, sheep and provisions stolen day by day without mercy, negroes captured and carried back into slavery (even such as I know to have been born and raised on free soil) and many other outrages committed. Diary of Professor Philip Schaff of Mercersburg, PA.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 "Most of the soldiers seem to harbor a terrific spirit of revenge and steal and pillage." Of Lee's General Order #72 prohibitions: "The soldiers paid no more attention to them than they would to the cries of a screech owl...the brigadiers and colonels made no attempt to enforce Lee's general orders. And Lee himself seemed to disregard entirely the soldiers' open acts of disobedience." Cpl. Taliaferro Simpson, 3rd South Carolina
Shafeone 1 month ago
whos the most determined Anti-Muslim in the entire Southlands? yer the one this is for!>>>Next time y'all goes to the Sunday meetin, to worship the good lord=Allah!, and Mary = Maryam!, and Jesus = Isa! just remember that them "ragheads" you hate so much would die for Mary and Jesus! .....they also believe in the Ascension and return of Jesus on Judgement Day!...be good now! or the lord will get ya!
acerb45666555 2 months ago
I really like this scene. Stuart has been carving his name in union territory and denied Lee important information about enemy movement. Lee is angry and frustrated but manages to put be somewhat cool. I would have basically screamed at Stuart all night for his neglect. Lee had a good character I must say.
UriFirebringer 2 months ago
All those people you argue with over and over on this site, left because they were sick and tired of arguing with a idiot that will not pay attention to what they have to type. You may live in some type of fantasy world where you think you won the debate, but you have failed in all of them. I have begun to send them a PM, with "Don't feed the troll". "Just ignore him, he knows nothing and is Union-Biased. I will deal with him."
rebel2276 3 months ago
@rebel2276 "Rebel" calling someone "union biased" because I have this crazy notion that the South lost the Civil War. LOL.
Shafeone 3 months ago
@Shafeone @Shafeone I guess I will have to type this up again for you, you're ADD if off the chart. Yes I am a Rebel, until the US. Government admits spraying Agent Orange (Deforestation) in Vietnam cause a rare cancer in our veterans and disabled veterans. Yes I am Rebel, until the US. Government admits that depleted uranium particles during Desert Storm, cause birth defects and thousands of Desert Storms soldiers came down with sickness. Ok, so are we crystal clear, again, on this?
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 Oh stop it. Only an utter Southern apologist Lee worshipping fool would have the blind stupidity tio offer that Lee's invasion of PA was a "strategic victory." I called you out and now you're making up b.s. Yeah I'm sure you believe all those things (for a man in the service of course....Afghnaistan was it? Or your basement?) But when a CW buff calls himself 'Rebel', well, two points make a line. Nice try though.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone Yes you are Union-Biased, don't try to play it off. The only battles I have ever seen you type is either Gettysburg or Malvern Hill. Strange, not one single battle the AOP lost..lol
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 If your definition of 'Union biased' means that I believe that the North won the Civil War then guilty as charged. "Rebel" Nah, no bias there. How deluded are you? You wish to discuss Antietam? How about the Wilderness? I'm sorry as this youtube was about Gettysburg I had this silly notion that I should focus on that battle. You know, the one in your messed up mind Lee 'won'? I hope if I ever fight a battle I 'lose' the way Meade did!
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 Gee...maybe they got shipped off to "Afghanistan" like you? Riiiight. Or maybe it sucks to be on the losing side of an argument so easily won by those who have the historical record and common sense on their side.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 Maybe they were shipped off to "Afghanistan" with you?
Shafeone 1 month ago
Keep up all the Non-Battle posts, that's all you type. I have called you out several times to challenge me on any battle, any campaign and any aspect on the Civil War. This is exactly why I typed to you about a year ago that you need to take 10-15-20 years and read on the battles. You don't jump into the Civil War with you're one Gettysburg book that Sears wrote. Turn around and think you know something, you don't, get over it.
rebel2276 3 months ago
@rebel2276 Dude. As I said: what conceit has crept into your brain that makes you think you are the only one who's read up on the single most read up on topic in US history by literally tens of thousands of scholars, historians, aficionados, etc.? And when you offer (STILL without providing any names) that "many historians consider the PA campaign a strategic victory for Lee" how can anyone take you seriously?
Shafeone 3 months ago
@Shafeone One, I have been in this business for Thirty Years. Two, I live normally in Washington DC where I am very close to the Library of Congress and National Archives. 99.9% of scholars, historians, authors do not live in Washington DC and thus, they have little time to do research. Just google book "General Lee's strategic victory in Pennsylvania".
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 Ok. So you are holding fast to your contention that Lee's invasion of PA was a strategic victory. Got it. And I am the idiot? I did google it. What am I supposed to find? As I have said now many times, name one historian who believes that Lee's invasion of PA was a 'strategic victory.' Seriously. For a man who's 'been in the business for 30 years' (join the very very large club moron) you seem to be pretty bad in your analysis. Bias perhaps "Rebel"? Naah. You are amusing.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone Yes or no, did General Lee re-supply his entire army? That will be YES. That was his main goal. You don't know about that, because you concentrate on the three day battle of Gettysburg. General Lee had a tactical loss at Gettysburg. Again, google book, Kent Masterson Brown's book, "Lee, Logistics, & the Pennsylvania Campaign. "Retreat from Gettysburg." The book was published in 2005 and not many people knew what the ANV had done. Mr. Brown was a pioneer.
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 The main goal was to win a decisive victory on Union soil. For a spell Lee's men got resupplied yes. Was it one of the ancillary reasons for moving north? Of course. VA was tapped out. But Lee left PA within a month and had suffered 17000 permanent losses as well as over 20,000 total casualties. This in an army where manpower was critical before the invasion. Again, this is where historians and not schrivners must take over. Gettysburg was a disaster for Lee. Sorry.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone It was on;y after the battle when Lee was compiling hie report that he started to advance to a higher level of priority his 'supply raid' goal. He did this because he was human and as such wanted to minimize the impact of Gettysburg as much as he could. He has a reputation to uphold. But his letters to Davis before the campaign as well as his own statements and actions during show that he was looking to defeat the AoP in battle. It's why he fought on July2, Keep trying though.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 You could "research" from now until judgment day and you will still come to the same conclusion even after the last letter has been read, diary perused, and photo magnified: THE SOUTH LOST THE CIVIL WAR ... AND LEE LOST AT GETTYSBURG. Your touting of your resume only serves to solidify the impression I have that you have the obtusness of the small minded. If you were a general in the CW, you'd have been Otis Howard! (And just as effective)
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone 'Virginia libraries: Volumes 52-53" "Mr. Brown contends that although Gettysburg was a tactical defeat, Lee's Pennsylvania Campaign, including his successful retreat with supplies and forage, was a Strategic Victory." (Google book it). As I am not in Washington DC at my house to list hundreds of books that will back my claim, I have to use Google Books as a source. What you just never will get, that the PA Campaign was longer then the three day battle of Gettysburg.
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 LOL. LOL. Mr. Brown is an idiot. Ask Mr. Brown this: "Would you have recommended Lee do it again knowing the results?" I guess you can find someone out there who will say that Lee was beaten by little green aliens if you dig deep enough and are so devoted to your twisted point of view. Gee you mean that the PA campaign actually started right after Chancellorsville when Lee visited Davis in Richmond to discuss his plans for the invasion? Ya don't say. Wow are you arrogant.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 So let's talk Antietam. What are you trying to prove? That you can pour through a stack of books and come up with some obscure factoid that Genl. Mansfield ate pancakes that morning before entering the East Woods? Seriously, what is your point? I argue Antietam was the most important battle for the North strategically and politically, but also THE great missed opportunity. That McClellan was an awful field commander and Lee was foolish to make a stand where and when he did. Thoughts?
Shafeone 3 months ago
Comment removed
Shafeone 3 months ago
@Shafeone By the way...a rather well-known tech firm is working on a prototype interactive phone "app" for those who find themselves on Civil War battlefields and asked me to do Gettysburg. I have walked that field more times in the past year than you have pretended to hump a pack in "Afghanistan" (read: your basement) so please spare me your pseudo-condescension. Tell you what. If I need to know how many stitches are in the 13th AL flag, I'll be sure to ring you. That's all you're good for.
Shafeone 3 months ago
@Shafeone And YET I would never ever have the arrogance to presume that I know more than someone I am talking with about any CW subject. There's always a bigger fish mate.
Shafeone 3 months ago
@Shafeone You don't know anything, as I have called you out several times, you keep avoiding discussing BATTLES. You have already become the newest troll on this site and there are plenty of people that will agree with me on that. Go to you're bigger fish, to me you're just another pathetic amateur Union-Biased idiot. I've come across hundreds and hundreds of you're type and you just type the same crap every time. This is why it is so easy to counter you're off-topic posts.
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 What would you like to discuss? Let's talk battles (quickly now...go get your stack of books!).
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone I don't hump a pack in Afghanistan, for the past two months all operations are closed down due to the extreme cold weather. We will have to wait till the spring and open up the old Russian supply route down in Khost. I refused to have my men in 14 degree weather, I will not be responsible for cold weather casualties. You could move to Gettysburg and live there for the rest of you're life and I would still know more about the battle. Contact Greg Biggs on the 13th AL Flag, lol
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 "I don't hump a pack in Afghanistan." That's the first honest thing you've ever posted. Blah blah blah. You're just spewing out shit you've read. I know guys who are REALLY there and you obviously aren't one of them. You should be ashamed of yourself. I can deal with your Lost Cause revisionist b.s. but pretending to be a soldier it is disgrace.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone McClellan helps support a theory I have. There are peacetime officers, and there are wartime officers, the men you keep encased in a glass box that read "Break Glass in Case of War." McClellan fell in the former group, and I think he liked the pomp and ceremony of the job more than he cared for waging war. I don't want to say he was cowardly, but he sure liked to make a lot of presumptions about the enemy's strength.
MaxxTheMerciless 1 month ago
@MaxxTheMerciless McClellan was in his element behind a desk. He was cut more from the cloth of a Haupt than Sherman or Grant no doubt. But McClellan's problem wasn't just timidity, he was a rather petulant, extremely arrogant man - in layman's terms he was a royal asshole. He never took responsibility for his own failings in battle, always set himself up as the martyr by portray vast hosts against him (if he loses it's Lincoln/Halleck's faults for making him fight...if he wins he's a genius).
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone That's true too. But I notice that a lot about some peacetime officers because during peacetime you become a lot more political than practical, especially when you get to Colonel and above, when your promotions are all Congressionally approved.
I notice something of the same behavior out of one George McClernand, who was gunning for Grant's job. He personally knew Lincoln, and kept trying to take credit for the plans and victories leading up to Vickburg's fall.
MaxxTheMerciless 1 month ago
@MaxxTheMerciless That McClellan was unable (or unwilling) to crush Lee at Antietam was a national tragedy. His awful general ship that day witholding vast reserves commiting his men in "driblets" putting them in tight spots and letting them fight their way out...was almost criminal in my opinion. Grant would have ended that battle, and effectively the war, before lunchtime. (Of course Lee's stand was an act of defiance against McClellan himself. He probably wouldn't have opted to face Grant.)
Shafeone 1 month ago
@Shafeone Maybe you don't get it, I don't have stacks of books, in my tent out here. I am not a King or President that has my own planes reserved so I can bring on my books, magazines, maps, everything out here. I could only wish. If MG. McClellan was not handed Special Order 191, I highly doubt he would have moved so fast and engaged General Lee. General Lee already knew from the Seven Days Campaign, MG. McClellan was a slow cautious general.
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 McClellen didn't do much with Special Order 191. He sat on it for a full day and when he moved he moved at his usual slow pace. Lee was surprised that he'd moved from the defenses of DC so fast-that had as much to with pressure from Lincoln than any intelligence coups. Lee was under the impression (his constant mistake in the war) that the Union Army was demoralized unable to move for weeks. People put too much stock in 191. Mac still thought he was outnumbered and moved as such.
Shafeone 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rebel2276 I fnd it funny that a man who talks about Priest as if Jesus Christ himself wrote the history is condemning me for gravitating towards a like minded and fair historian like Sears. But whatever. Don't you have better things to do in the field in "Afghanistan" than argue ludicrous notions that the PA campaingn was a "strategic victory" with someone about whose knowledge and insight you know very little? Must be tough over there eh? Where are you stationed again?
Shafeone 3 months ago
@rebel2276 If your definition of 'non-battle' posts means I feel in unnecessary to mention that A.R. Lawton probably took a shit in the Miller Cornfield, then I will continue to post as I have. Your lack of understanding of the scope of the war, the consequences, the meaning of it all show that you are just an 'archivist' is that. By the way the LOC is the biggest library in the US. Believe it or not, you are not the only person with interest in the CW to visit it. You are no less the fool.
Shafeone 1 month ago
Comment removed
Shafeone 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rebel2276 I know who won the battle. Pretty basic point from which to begin the journey no? Pah-lease. Go count your battle flags and pretend your a soldier-man. "On- line I'm in Hollywood/I'm six-foot-five and look damned good/I drive a Mazarati/I'm a black-belt in karate/And I love a good glass of wine/It turns girls on I'm mysterious/I tell em I don't want nothin serious/Cause even on slow day I can have a three-way/Chattin with two women at one time/Cause I'm so much cooler on-line."
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 Let's talk specifics. How about Antietam? Oh, I dunno, how specific should we get? Say how about we talk the Roulette Farm? We could prattle on about such minor minutia such as how a Rebel solid shot (or was it a spent round, we will never know) knocked over William Roulette's bee-hives and sent the 132nd Pennsylvania volunteers into a frenzy. Gee, isn't that interesting stuff?? (Actually it is, but is of little consequence in understanding the scope and impact of the battle).
Shafeone 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3) You claim that MG. Meade only had "Three days to prepare for Gettysburg". When General Joe Johnston was wounded on May 31st, 1862, the very next day, General Lee took command on June 1st. General Lee never served in that army, none of his generals at that point fought in a major battle. Lee was six miles east of his capital, up against the AOP that outnumbered him by 15-20 thousand men. MG. Meade certainly did not go through all that when he took command.
rebel2276 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3) You claim that MG. Meade only had "Three days to prepare for Gettysburg". When General Joe Johnston was wounded on May 31st, 1862, the very next day, General Lee took command on June 1st. General Lee never served in that army, none of his generals at that point fought in a major battle. Lee was six miles east of his capital, up against the AOP that outnumbered him by 15-20 thousand men. MG. Meade certainly did not go through all that when he took command.
rebel2276 3 months ago
3) You claim that MG. Meade only had "Three days to prepare for Gettysburg". When General Joe Johnston was wounded on May 31st, 1862, the very next day, General Lee took command on June 1st. General Lee never served in that army, none of his generals at that point fought in a major battle. Lee was six miles east of his capital, up against the AOP that outnumbered him by 15-20 thousand men. MG. Meade certainly did not go through all that when he took command.
rebel2276 3 months ago
@rebel2276 Lee was not a corps commander but rather was in Richmond advising Davis and was well-briefed before taking command of an army in a fixed defensive position against a creeping Union army commanded by a timid and poor field commander. Hooker's army by contrast was in the middle of a very fluid campaign against a SKILLED opponent. Not sure what your point is. Usually you don't have one other than to regurgitated knowledge that most Civil War aficionados are familiar with.
Shafeone 3 months ago
2) At the battle of Chancellorsville, I highly doubt LT. General Jackson attacked a "Small portion" as you claimed in a argument with a person in another video. On May 2nd, 1863, Jackson routed the entire 11th Corps. May 3rd, he routed the 3rd Corps and 12th Corps. Half of MG. Hooker's Corps he brought around Lee's left flank.
rebel2276 3 months ago
@rebel2276 Actually, to be all Rebel-like, since he was off the field he didn't "rout" anyone on May 3. See...I can be pedantic like you too. Doesn't change the fact that Chancellorsville, though a tactically brilliant move by Lee/JAckson was an inconclusive fight that merely set the armies back to their starting points. Yes, Lee brilliantly extricated himself from a tight spot and for that he deserves all the praise he receives. But less than two months later he was beaten decisively.
Shafeone 3 months ago
@rebel2276 Jackson attack was a success because he attacked one corps on the flank (which by very definition is a "small portion") and overwhelmed it. And Lee's army suffered a horrific casualty rate for the numbers engaged...mostly infantry. The Union army (save XI Corps) was far from "routed". Many Union troops felt (correctly) that they inflicted serious damage in fact. Once again, Lee defeated a Union commander, not the Union army. And in this case a concussion took Hooker out of the game
Shafeone 3 months ago
@Shafeone I highly doubt a Corps is a "Small Portion" a brigade/regiment would be considered that. After Jackson routed the 11th Corps, the following morning he routed the 12th Corps and 3rd Corps. The 2nd Corps retreated back to the main defenses around the Chancellorsville mansion. MG. Hooker had his men dig exclusive trenches and thus he was not thinking about going on the offense, but wanted General Lee to attack him. MG. Hooker was very wise in having his men well dug in.
rebel2276 1 month ago
I read you're arguments with several people. 1) General Lee went on the offense on October 13th, 1863 during the "Bristoe Campaign." When General Lee found out the 11th and 12th Corps left the AOP, he went around MG. Meade's right flank. MG. Meade ended up retreating all the way to Centerville, Virginia and Lee and the ANV were standing on the 1st Bull Run battlefield. Whatever book you read that claimed General Lee never went on the offense after Gettysburg is false.
rebel2276 3 months ago
@rebel2276 Talking strategically. Ugh. He attacked againt at the Wilderness. Moving chess pieces back on forth across the same VA landscape is hardly comparable to invading the North. I swear I have never seen a man so caught up in minutia and pro-Souther bias that he is so blinded by the larger picture. All you do is toss out factoids that anyone with command of the English language and time on their hands can uncover. But your analysis is utterly inane.
Shafeone 3 months ago
@rebel2276 And Bristoe was a minor campaign to say the least. Plus how did Heth's division do against the II Corps? There were wins/losses on both sides in that little campaign and it was utterly inconclusive--if you look at it through non-biased lenses of course, which we know "Rebel" cannot do. And Lee, after suffering roughly a parity in losses with a Union army that could afford them much more, withdrew back to winter positions below the Rappahanock line. How are things in "Afghanistan"?
Shafeone 3 months ago
@Shafeone Minor or not, General Lee did go on the offensive and ended up all the way North on the old First Bull Run battlefield. LT. General A.P.Hill did what he normally did, he did not wait for any help, rashly attacked and the 2nd Corps under MG. Warren hid behind the railroad cut on the east side. LT. General A.P. Hill first did that at Beaver Damn Creek during the Seven Days Campaign and it showed he was too aggressive and lacked planning. He was more fit as a division commander.
rebel2276 1 month ago
@rebel2276 By your definition, he went on the offensive in the Wilderness as well. After Gettysburg none of that mattered. You really are caught up on technicalities and the minutia of language aren't you? Makes for a good archivist I guess, but a piss-poor historian.
Shafeone 1 month ago
@rebel2276 Once again you steer the discussion into minutia in a transparent attempt to show how 'learned' you are. You are not telling me anything that most historians with even a rudimentary understanding of Bristoe don't already know. You spin off into a tangent about A.P. Hill (Better division that corps commander? Shocking revelation. Real cutting edge analysis.You come up with that all on your own?) Yeah, we ALL know that. All hundreds of thousands of us who also are "in the business"
Shafeone 1 month ago
I think Sheen in this movie makes Lee look like a diminuative and somewhat unbalanced man. Lee was in the summer of 1863 still a strapping and by all acounts extremely handsome and imposing figure. A PA woman watching him ride by exclaimed "Oh how I wish he were ours!" I don't see that magnetic persona in Sheen's odd performance. He was only 56 at this time (although the stress of command was greying him quickly and hard army living in the field was physically starting to take its toll).
Shafeone 4 months ago
This was the perfect way to handle this situation. Made Stuart realise the seriousness of his mistake while making sure he didn't completely destroy his spirit. One of the great military leaders in history
craigwirollsuxdix 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he [Abraham Lincoln] shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the — that iron, iron fist. " - Ron Paul
Sistarovat 4 months ago
@Sistarovat Ron Paul is an historical nitwit who makes up the past as he goes along. Hardly one to be quoting with any sense of expertise.
Shafeone 1 month ago
When Stuart arriived at Lee's headquarters he is reported to have said "General Lee I hvae brought x number of wagons and Y number of this and that to which Lee respoonded icily "They are an impediment to me sir". At this rebuke Stuart is said to have broken down in tears.
vgcsbano 5 months ago
i have read that General Lee was actually quite ill during the battle of Gettysburg , having what was later found to be heart trouble, and being worn down from the march to PA . ( as were all of Lee's men)Lee's own personal slave William Lee had said later that the General was ill , and not quite himself . I don't know if it had alot to do with the decisions made , I believe Lee had no real idea what lay in front of him anyway topographically .
Cincinnatus1869 5 months ago
@Cincinnatus1869 Lee was probably sufffering from the heart ailment you mention yes...and living an outdoor life in the saddle as he did was tough on any man in their 50s (19th century 50 was a lot older than today's!) But his men were actually quite well fed and in great spirits. They were probably never so formidable and army as they were in June 1963. Ewell even offered that is they stayed in PA too long they would all get fat. An army travels on its stomach and Lee's men never ate better.
Shafeone 1 month ago
martin sheen as robert e lee+ fail
Cincinnatus1869 6 months ago
@Cincinnatus1869 how so
edyoung44 5 months ago
In the age of the Civil War, this is the worst ass chewing ever, what a stunning scene, Stuart was a stud but made a huge mistake, R.E. Lee was a classic commander and this movie is perfect.
bd19622265 7 months ago
@bd19622265 In reality, this "Hollywood scene" never did occur. There is no written account of what was said between General Lee and General Stuart. In 1889, one of General Stuart's aides wrote that General Stuart had told him, that General Lee was actually happy to see him. So I highly doubt, that General Lee yelled at General Stuart as this horrible inaccurate Hollywood movie suggests. Since there was no written account, they wrote this into the script for the movie.
rebel2276 7 months ago
@rebel2276 Since Lee approved of the raid, it is hard to believe that Lee would take anything more than a tone like: "What's done is done. We made a bad call. You're here now so let's see what we can do together to win this thing. I AM glad you're safe. We'll deal with Robertson and others and find out what happened later." And Stuart DID cut communications between the AoP and DC for a spell.
Shafeone 4 months ago
it wasent stuarts fult everybody makes mistakes now and then stuart is my great great grand father.
Stuart4791 7 months ago
@Stuart4791 General Lee mismanaged the four cavalry brigades he had with him. General Stuart took three cavalry brigades with him. General Lee had Jenkins, Imboden, Robertson and Jones cavalry brigades. BG. Jenkins went with General Ewell's 2nd Corps in Pennsylvania. Lee ordered BG. Imboden to collect supplies and break up parts of the B&O. Robertson and Jones were detailed to guard the mountain passes and the rear of the ANV, south of the Potomac River. It was not Stuart's fault.
rebel2276 7 months ago
@rebel2276 Agree. Lee never would have let Stuart go and leave his army blind while on an offensive in enemy territory without believing he had adequate cavalry with him to do the scouting. Robertson and Jones failed by not moving north but staying in the blue ridge gaps staring at nothing. Jenkins and Imboden's men were off raiding and slave-catching. Where Stuart DID fail was in stubbornly trying to break through a much less porous AoP line than anticipated. He should have turned back.
Shafeone 4 months ago
great fucking movie! Proud southerner here, but I had family on both sides of the war.
RidirichdFlann 7 months ago
nice fake beard
S2Cents 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@S2Cents I have told you there is no time for that! There is no time!
Eddyisrich403 7 months ago
The South lost Gettysburg becuz of Stuart and no one else.
XxxWinterWarsxxX 8 months ago
@XxxWinterWarsxx They lost for the reason that Pickett himself said: "I think the Union Army had something to do with it."
Shafeone 4 months ago
Comment removed
Shafeone 1 month ago
He was George Washington reincarnated.
MaxxTheMerciless 8 months ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Washington won.
Shafeone 3 months ago
@Shafeone True, but both men exhibited characteristics that made them beloved among their men that was rarely displayed before or since. They were both outstanding leaders, and both leaders had victories against overwhelming odds. You can say that Washington won and that makes him better, but really? How did he win? Didn't the timely intervention by the French help America achieve victory? Do you think Washington could've done much better during the Civil War?
MaxxTheMerciless 3 months ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Ah just pricking a barb at ya. I know what you mean and agree. It's no coincidence that Lee modeled his life after Washington. Lee was a sublime in defeat as Washington was in victory. And the difference between their winning and losing really boils down to France's aid and troops versus going it alone, and breaking Britain's political will to fight a war 3,000 miles of ocean away versus the determination of Lincoln to win at all costs. I love them both.
Shafeone 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let us speak no more of this, the matter has been concluded.
Jemmer1000 9 months ago
@HaggenPagan26: You can spin this any way you want. That's something the South has been doing for the past 146 years. The fact that the "Southern man" didn't understand that he was fighting a futile and impossible fight as a direct result of Southern intransigence is ironic. It was the mechanisms of "states rights" that lost the war for the South. And any discussion or allusion to anything other than slavery as the reason for the war is romantic antebellum.
philly1121 9 months ago
@philly1121 Yes, and although it may not have been fought entirely over slavery, the sates rights issues and others were very minor issues and a pretext for protecting the Southern wealthy through slavery.
oneputtsteven 8 months ago
@oneputtsteven As far as I can tell Lee's own words were I cannot draw my sword against Virginia, I think a lot of Southern folks felt that way. Slavery as less of an issue for the common soldier as protecting their families from the likes of Sheridan and Sherman. Considering 3/4 of the South owned slaves.
Frankcastle522 7 months ago
@Frankcastle522 What did Sheridan and Sherman do wrong? It was a good strategic thing to do that they did. SHORTENED the war. Good men, both.
Ares99999 7 months ago
It may have shortened the war, but my point is simply the reason for fighting the war for many Southern men was to prevent an army from coming into their homes and tyrannizing their people. Sherman and Sheridan did that. They stole property, assaulted local women, and burned cities and homes to the ground. Southern men were afraid of that for their families so they fought to keep the North out of their home states. Its not hard to rationalize, anyone would fight to protect their homes.
Frankcastle522 7 months ago
@Frankcastle522 At this here moment, Lee was invading Pennsylvania. Then, by your own logic, General Meade was the one in the right at that moment, by protecting Northern soil and repulsing a Southern invasion.
Ares99999 7 months ago
@Ares99999 Lee was invading Pennsylvania yes but he did not demonstrate the same destruction that Sherman did. Lee did not intentionally destroy house, cities, and crops to leave the people to die. He did not put prisoners of war in the front of his line to protect his soldiers from enemy bullets. Lee did not give permission for his soldiers to rape or pillage, anything that was taken, was paid for. Sheridan starved the civilians under him. There is a difference to be observed.
Frankcastle522 7 months ago
@Frankcastle522 Ah, so what you're saying is that its the harshness of the invasion thats the problem, not the fact that it actually happened. Lee is noble for INVADING cleanly?
Are you kidding? An invasion brings death and devastation by default.
And you're saying the South was nobler than the North? Please, don't make me laugh.
Ares99999 7 months ago
@Frankcastle522 On June 22nd, 1863, Saturday, around 8:30-8:45AM, General Lee wrote "General Order # 72". Basically, all soldiers in the ANV and attached would "Respect private property", "Only an officer present, would either pay or leave a receipt for anything confiscated." General order #73, just reinforced General order #72. General order #74, Lee congratulated his men for obeying his order in Pennsylvania.
rebel2276 7 months ago
@rebel2276 Thank you for validating my point.
Frankcastle522 6 months ago
@Frankcastle522 I have dealt with Ares99999 and he knows nothing on the Civil War. He is Union-Biased and lives in Canada. As I will always say and type, 98% of Civil War people are biased to either side. Then they just read all the good stuff about their side and the bad stuff on the other side. Since Union soldiers were 99% of the time somewhere in the South, they thus committed 99% of the war crimes. General Lee was very strict with his army, General Lee could have made PA "Howl".
rebel2276 6 months ago
@rebel2276 Lee wasn't being kind or restraining himself out any moral code of decency. Lee understood the Penn campaign was a strategic one meant to convince the North that future struggle was futile but more importantly to convince England to provide aid to the CSA. Making Penn howl would only turn Nothern opinion against the south more firmly which was the opposite of Lee's goal.
vgcsbano 5 months ago
@vgcsbano On June 22nd, 1863 (Saturday) between 8:30AM-8:45AM, General Lee wrote "General Order #72". "All soldiers in the Army of Northern Virginia and soldiers recently attached to the Army of Northern Virginia will respect private property, not commit harsh crimes, any property confiscated would be present in front of a officer, who would leave a receipt". If General Lee wanted his men to "Make Pennsylvania Howl" he could have given the order. Many PA citizens thought Rebels would do it.
rebel2276 5 months ago
@rebel2276 Lee's men plundered just fine: 6700 bbls flour, 7900 bushels wheat, 5200 cattle, 1000 hogs, 2400 sheep, 51000 lbs cured meat and uncounted thousands of horses. Southern soldiers demanded booty from the towns they entered. Sometimes paid with worthless script. Other times not. They also burned property owned by suspected abolitionists and, most shameful, captured and sent blacks south into slavery. They weren't there long enough to do more damage. Lee planned to stay several mos.
Shafeone 4 months ago
@Shafeone Your list is WAY off. Read, "Lee, Logistics, & the Pennsylvania Campaign" "Retreat from Gettysburg" by Kent Masterson Brown (2005). That is the most researched book you will ever find, I would guess around 18-22 years Mr. Brown spent on his research judging from his sources. Pages 31, 32 and 33 are on African-Americans. Page 50 "Private Pettijohn, 1st Minn, captured, wrote, long lines of negro cooks baking corn pone for rebel soldiers, 2 miles in rear" Other Union pows were amazed.
rebel2276 4 months ago
@rebel2276 Not sure what your point is. No one doubts that the Rebel army didn't bring slaves with them. It doesn't negate the fact that slave-catching was also part of their invasion. Slavery is a complicated issue and there are a myriad of reasons why those slaves in the army didn't try to escape. Escape to where? To do what? And what of their families left behind? Stockholm syndrome too seemed common in the slave/master relationship...especially those treated relatively well.
Shafeone 4 months ago
@rebel2276 By way off you mean the count? These are official Army of NVA tallies. (I didn't just make them up). Unofficially who knows what the real take was. The point being, regardless of the minutia of detail is that the Rebel army was far from a benign invader but rather stole literally tons of product from northern merchants and farmers. Now, were they justified? Hey, all's fair in war. But just don't whitewash the Rebs, Reb. They were homo sapiens just like them "Blue Scumbellies".
Shafeone 4 months ago
@Shafeone Way off on the count, Kent Masterson Brown, dug very deep at the National Archives and that was all he found, I am sure there are tons of missing reports. Since Richmond burned, many reports are gone. It was the large raid in the Western Hemisphere's history. Sheridan and Sherman paled in comparison of what they confiscated and wrote. By August 1864, the Shenandoah Vally was practically gutted out from both armies. Sherman did better in Georgia, 3,000 hogs, 4,500 horses, long list.
rebel2276 4 months ago
@rebel2276 I am stil unlcear as to what count I am "way off" on are you referring to? My count of the loot the Rebs took from PA? It was substantial. If I am off then you must have a count. What do your records show?
Shafeone 4 months ago
@Shafeone Yes, you're count on the "loot" on the Confederate confiscated in Pennsylvania. Again, google book, "Lee, Logistics,& the Pennsylvania Campaign. "Retreat from Gettysburg" Written by Kent Masterson Brown (2005). Mr. Brown spent around twenty years of research at the National Archives and found tons of things no human ever found. Just "Google Book" it and you will see how off you were.
rebel2276 3 months ago
@rebel2276 My sources come from the LOC, University of Florida, University of Texas archives among others including diaries, letters, etc. It is a very comprehensive list of booty/plunder and quite documented. What figures then do YOU have? That the plundering belies your image of the Southern gentleman invader being chivalrous and behaving in enemy territory is something you must deal with. All men are brutes...Yank and Reb alike.Some just have more time for mischief. Others lose and leave.
Shafeone 4 months ago