If Stonewall Jackson was still alive during and before the Battle of Gettysburg, the South would have won the war. Jackson was very knowledgeable and would still fight till the last pitch of light left in the day. General Longstreet's predictions was correct as they should have disengaged and have the Union army chase them as the Rebels gained ground of their choosing to fight on. But Lee was too aggressive on his part. I think Jefferson Davis would have agreed with Longstreet.
yo got it wrong its not Brigadier general Richard B Garnett wrong he was on a horse its in part 3 not this one :) FACTS he was missing when he died :) thats why they dont show you his body in part 3 because his lietenant claimed his wrist watch and the unions buried him :) reconsider
I was thinking maybe if the Confederates were all armed with smoothbore muskets with double or tripple buck and ball and had been tought to use tap loading used in the Napoleonic wars where you would bite and pour the powder down the barrel, then place the buck and ball in the barrel without the paper so it would be loose, then tap the rifle instead of using a ramrod, then place a percussion cap and fire.
@AlfvonThaden To compare Confederates to Nazis would be both a gross overstatement and an insult to everyone (Union and Confederate) who fought in the Civil War.
im sorrry the confedarate are evil they lost THANK GOD abolish slavery THANK YOU GOD destroy evil becasue its in natural for evil to perish :) :P HORAY xD
@AlfvonThaden This is only my personal opinion but I think that soldiers of both sides fighted for freedom. Just like they understood that. And politicians of both sides were equally responsible for startening of war. They, in fact looked only for their political interest.
@Adam7510 And who owned the politicians? It was the wealthy. The southern wealthy were the ones with the slaves, convinced there fellow southern peon whites that the union was bad, just like the corporations endorse drag racing and sportsman activities like hunting and fishing etc. and they play these fools like puppets on a marionette. The southerners need to wake up. It's all repeating again with the teabag movement pushed by wealthy corps. But now even the northerners are.
@metalkrush77 Jacksons men didn't shoot him, the 18th North Carolina Infantry had mistaken him for a Union calvary regiment. Major John D. Barry ordered them to fire thinking it was a trick after Jacksons staff were yelling trying to identify them selfs and it was at night when they were returning to camp.
@metalkrush77 If Jackson had been around for this battle and had been in command this battle would have never made it to a second or third day.
He would have continued the attack on the first day where Ewell refused after Lee ordered him to do so "if practicable" and would have pushed the Yanks off the hills before they could have dug in.
Ewell is the reason the South did not prevail and end the battle on the first day.He was a weak commander and to indecisive.
@harvickfan029 On the other hand, Jackson - with his recklessness - would have been grounded to dust by grant. Jackson was a man of straight fights, and Grant's numbers would make a straight fight suicidal.
This war was so diffrent from all othes. The general respect the southern and the northern troops had for eachother. 4:10 proves my point. scenes like this happened all across the war. from privates to colonels. They were all Americans and knew it. This scene is not just hollywood there are books filled with these stories
There's all this hate towards the Union and Lincoln, and all this love for the "patriotic and liberty defending" Confederacy. This war was all about preservation of the Union (slavery was a major contributing factor). Everyone hates Benedict Arnold for betraying the United States, but everyone idolizes the Confederacy "For defending true liberty, etc." Everyone seems to forget, the Confederates were traitors and betrayed the Union, and the Constitution. Preserving the Union was a noble goal.
@1Historygenius lmao yeah but they got revenge for fredricksburg all those union soldiers who died at the batteries of Longstreet, i really do love this scene
Thats what you get for walking slowly in tight large groups over an open field in the middle of the day while someone is shooting a lot of cannons and minie balls at you!
Alright ppl listen up the war was not about slavery in fact in wasn't even thought about slavery into the 3rd year of the war, two lee waz a good general but he was more of a defensive tactical general than an offensive, tactics back in this time where outdated for the fast technology advances the tactics of the napleon era were only effective for smoothbore weapons and ppl of the time didn't live in the world like we do now they were tougher stronger and honor was very important to everyone
Why in the name of God would you send so many men across such a distance against such a force in broad daylight, was it hubris? There was only ever going to be one result. Lee should have deployed his forces in hit and run style attacks or battles where he had more of an advantage, he could not afford to fight major battles against such odds, his men and material unlike the Union could not be replaced.
@corcaighrebel the reason Lee did the attack was because he felt that by the 3ed day of the battle, the yankees would be tired and not have many troops right there cause they hadn't attacked there yet. also they had unleashed the largest artillary barage there in the western hemisphere 169 guns i belive. Lee figured they didn't have that streght even though his subordinates tried telling Lee that it was too risky. a mistake that would forever scar the confederacy
It may be in this batlle, but Longstreet was a "on the defensive man " he was right in many ways in this one. If the charge held up and the Union center buckled . It would be Longstreet hung to dry :) I rather praise Lee for his mind in trying to win. Although blindly at this point then Longstreet leading any part of the campaign.
From seeing this film it seems the Union troops set a trap, once their front line pulled back the Confederates instead of strengthening their positions, widening the gap and exploiting the break through, simply kept going, right into the musket and cannon fire of the second line, they were sitting ducks. No wonder the charge ended in a slaughter.
@LegoRepublicese um, excuse me? Who was it that left troops in a harbor belonging to territory that was not their own, and when refused the request to leave, expected not to get fired upon? The north...
@truthseeker370 Yeah, but look what happen to Articles of Confederation we were brink of a feudal era of States vs. States. So, confederation didn't work. Of course, State do have rights, but they don't have to go ballastic about it. Like Lincoln said, "House divided cannot stand." I respect your opinion, but history will always tell us of errors of mankind.
@LegoRepublicese Actually the articles of confederation were quite different from the southern states. Just like the republic of the US(at least it clams to be) is different than the republic of china(as it also claims to be).
History is written by the victors, and thus, will only tell us of the errors, some true some falsely so called, of their enemies, but will do its best to hid the errors of themselves.
@MegaRocks9 Actually, the South states left America and so the Unions wanted to get them back. SO it's not taking over, it's taking back. Big difference.
@StrawberryIchigo121 man i dont like the fact that the south suseeded just because they wanted to be self governed like they can call it the CSA but its all USA territory, and general Lee was a good commander but it really doesnt make sense that a bunch of southerners want independence from a nation that men fought and died for its rights to be a nation like the CSA basically spit on the stars and stripes and just desacrated the blood and sweat that won our country .
@Bigleedog7 whoa im not saying i wouldnt want to kick their seceeding asses just over taxes but just the union made prisoners feel like like they werent just cattle thye treated them with respect and gave them water and rations but what i want to know is would the rebs do the same/
@justiceholmes General Lee wasn't a traitor, he fought on the Confederate side because he didn't want to fight the state from where he came from called Virginia. Then the West part of Virginia joined the Union which is the reason why there is a state today called West Virginia. Lee was the reason why the Union lost more battles and more men than the south. Also, you can't hang a general for choosing sides considering this was US Civil War not the French Civil War.
@justiceholmes Lee was a respective general and was once the great hero of America. To have him hung was not the American way to do things, rather it was smart for the COnfederate to surrender after a defeat at Gettysburg.
he fought for his state what state are you from why should someone from anouthern state tell you how to live as it states in the constatushin that if we do not like the way are government is run we hav every right to patishin it as we patishined the british can u honestly say that yor beeing taxd by repersintayshin of some1 that cares more about u as a person than just a number i added that last litle bit to give u some ground on the debate becuse you seem to have a defrant thought thn my slf
@1Historygenius so all your going do is say i need spell check come on man i was intisapaten you to try to flank the debate insted u just retreetd by saying i cant spell
@CamelJaq in Lee's eyes he wasn't betraying the US. He considered Virginia to be his country. back then a lot more people considered the state they were from to be thier country almost. He would've been a traitor if he fought against Virginia
The war was about slavery you idiots. 100+ years after the year it was Jim Crow and segregation and white supremacy and Ku Fux Klan a'holes terrorizing black Americans in the South. Covenance restrictions on housing and education throughout the US. You people ever read a f'n book or actually have to live thru this? I lived in the south and this culture needs to stop. Obviously this poser posting this video is still proud of the stars and farse flag FU bro get a grip on reality
Slavery would have ended even in the South anyway one day. You know why? Cause on the bottom line a free worker is cheaper than a slave. He is more motivated, doesn't has to be guarded or feed and can be fired any day if he doesn't work properly. It wasn't ethics that ended slavery, but economics. The birth of socialism was the next logical step, as those free worker now had to fight for wages they could actually life of.
"Anyone who believes that the civil war was about slavery only is mistaken." Absolutely right. There were other issues as well (ex.: the tariff), but none of them would have justified a war. The big issue that defined American politics between the 1830's and the 1860's was whether slavery should be allowed to expand to the West. Northern elites were +- ok with the prospect of slavery being confined to the South only, but opposed its expansion, and through it, the strengthening of "Slave Power".
Little fun fact for everybody,the regiment with the emerald green flag is the 69th Pennsylvania originally the 2nd California,though they weren't actually from California,they were raised in Philadelphia from Irish militia units by Colonel E.D Baker ,they are also the sister regiment of the 71st Pennsylvania my reenacting regiment
"Early in the war, a union squad closed in on a single, ragged confederate. And he obviously didn't own any slaves, he couldn't have much interest in the constitution, and they asked him 'What are you fighting for anyhow?' and he said 'I'm fighting because you're down here.' which is a pretty satisfactory answer."-Shelby Foote, Ken Burns "The Civil War."
this was truly a war not fought on grounds of slavery, but on the grounds of tradition versus a new order, a way of life threatened to be dissolved and left in abandon.
I do not agree with slavery, but i give honor to the men that died fighting to protect themselves and their own on both sides.
God bless the United States of America and the ones who gave it all.
The US was brand new and vulnerable and founders like Washington had an obligation to establish a secure nation - England was just waiting for the states to argue and split so they could retake the colonies. By 1860 much had changed and the northern states & southern states were very much like different countries with the southern states having a smaller population and much less representation. For them it was the 2nd war of independence.
Zoomzip: as I understand it: Gen Lee did indeed think he was invincible and had come all the way to Pennsylvania and now on the 3rd day of battle at Gettysburg thought that this charge was his last best chance. I also believe he did not realize that most of his earlier cannon fire had missed it's mark.
You are right. He did only lose about half of his men. In addition, his command structure was decimated with Garnett dead, Kemper wounded and Armistead missing. He also lost most of his brigade colonels. I've always felt that in this situation Pickett should have been reforming and rallying his division instead of crying like a baby and telling Lee that he had no division. I guess what you really are comes out in the heat of the battle.
Can anyone explain to me in an unbiased explanation, why they would charge to a fortified position, in a wide open field with no cover? Was this near the end of the war and a last desperation attempt ?
Thanks for the post. its ashame people are completely retarded and don't realize the reasons for war or about the people who fought in it. This movie falsely depicts one of the Souths best men ever Robert E lee and all those Northerners and foreigners just assume he was a redneck and immoral.
personally as someone who has studied Gen.Lee and the civil war, i think you should do more research. He was one of the best generals in American history, and was offered control of the whole union army before the war. Lee turned it down and fought with the south because of his loyalty to his state and family. He was a strong christian who was against slavery and succession but would not fight against his family.
@coddsac65 That is a popular misconception, actually. A lot of people say Lee was against Slavery. The viewpoints he held were actually quite widespread for his time - that Slavery would die out on its own, eventually, but that the African Americans were inferior to the white men. Those viewpoints were held by the majority of the slaveholding south. Lee, as Executor of his father-in-law's estate, was supposed to free the 100-some slaves at Arlington with his father-in-law's death, but he did not
@HGM1138 Lee's father-in-law's will stated that his slaves were to be freed no later than 5 years after his death or until his granddaughter's inheritence was paid off, should that occur before 5 years. Lee administerd the estate EXACTLY the way Mr. Custis wrote it. Lee's opposition to slavery was well established long before the war and is not fiction. Lincoln and Grant considered blacks inferior to whites and it is in writing. General Lee's reputation was EARNED, not manufactured.
@stellalouise1 So we're supposed to believe that Lee was all for giving the slaves on the Arlington Estate freedom when the dowries for his daughters were filled up? Lee's viewpoints were fairly widespread among southern gentlemen of the time - Slavery's here; let's not mess with it, it will die on its own later.
@HGM1138 I am sorry but you are misinformed about this. Lee administered Mr. Custis' will exactly as it was written, as it was his duty to do so. Lee's views on slavery are well established, even before the war. I am afraid that you have bought into the completely false claim that the war was over slavery, which forces one to attempt to deminish Lee. This is unfair - based on untruth and gross distortion & revisionist history. If you study the facts, you will admire Lee greatly.
@stellalouise1 No, I am sorry, but if you study the war, no one attempted to claim it was not about slavery until after the war was over, and then Jubal Early and Jefferson Davis began rewriting history to make it into a struggle about states rights. You want proof the war was about slavery? Look at what they said - Davis, and the rest, before the war started. In a speech on the floor of the Senate in February of 1860, Davis said:
@HGM1138 I am afraid that I must disagree. Lincoln spent a great deal of time swearing the war was not about slavery until a couple of years into it. He said that if he could save the union and keep slavery, he would. This is true. I urge you read a little further. Do you honestly believe that hundreds of thousands of Confederate Soldiers fought such a horrible war so that a handfull of wealthy planters could own slaves? Do you think this was Lee's position? Please read more.
@stellalouise1 I know Lincoln spent quite a while saying the war was to 'Preserve the Union.' I also think that the Emancipation Proclamation was used as a diplomatic measure, to remind Europe that the CSA was fighting to remain a slave-holding Republic. I believe what Sam Watkins wrote in his diary after the war: "It seems to me, in hindsight, we fought a war to defend our soil from invasion, and at the same time, permit a wealthy few to keep their negroes." Furthermore (cont'd)
@stellalouise1 Furthermore, in the antebellum South, even the poorest of whites was above the slaves on the social scales of the South. They would want to keep slavery in place to ensure that they were not at the bottom of Southern society. This so-called 'Southern White Trash' are chiefly the ones who carried the fight - some of them to 'defend their homes,' and others to keep the old south alive and well so they could be kept off of the bottom rail.
@HGM1138 Interesting theory but no cigar, I'm afraid. I wish you knew some Southerners and studied facts. Your theories are based on misinformation. I am a direct decendant of many so called "Southern White Trash" who fought in the Confederate Army and I can assure you that their motive was in no way an effort to stave off the threat of being on the bottom ring of society. I am a bit amused by the fact that you can see no bigotry on your own part. Read the facts and reread your theories.
@stellalouise1 I do read the facts. Or are you attempting to tell me that people like Shelby Foote and James M. McPherson are 'revisionists.' Or, perhaps it's Longstreet who is the revisionist to you because he *GASP* dared to admit that Lee was a falliable human being when the cult of Lee was at its strongest (1870-1920).
@HGM1138 I am not dreamy or fanciful about Lee. The truth is stranger and more powerful than fiction. Foote and McPherson never deminished Lee and both knew the war was not over slavery. Lee's situation was almost impossible in nearly every way and he knew it, yet he did his duty and his best at tremendous cost to himself. His accomplishments speak for themselves & his private life unmarred by scandal. He rejected fortunes offered just to use his name. Trashing Lee is a loosing game.
@stellalouise1 I am not out to trash Lee - I respect and admire his ability as a field commander, and his stalwart refusal to endorse the use of guerilla tactics toward the end of the war. I do question, however, whether it was his duty to throw away a promising career in the United States Army in the name of defense of a bunch of traitors. There are plenty of southerners who stayed with the U.S. Armed Forces through a sense of duty - Montgomery C. Meigs, Admiral David G. Farragut, George Thomas
@HGM1138 To me, it is not difficult to understand why Lee cold not take an army and invade his own home. It is even easier to understand when you relaize that it was not over slavery. The issues were MANY, the punitive export tariffs enacted against the southern states just for starters. The decision was agonizing for Lee - a strong Union man, as were many of my ancestors, as letters written at the time state. The stand was against government tyranny and armed invasion.
@stellalouise1 The tariffs you refer to were passed in 1832, and repealed in 1833 during the Nullification Crisis.
The 'armed invasion' of which you speak was an effort to prevent rebellion, the same way the U.S. Army would crack down on a group of people deciding "Hey, we want to leave." Secession is illegal. Even if passed by popular refferendum, secession is illegal. How was the Government being tyrannical? In 1861-March of 1861, when Buchanan was in power, he did nothing to harm the south.
@HGM1138 The tariffs AND taxes were decreased but not by very much, enraging the northern states. The south was agricultural, with the vast majority of the population being family farmers with NO SLAVES. The population was nowhere near the northern numbers and the impact of this was the fact that Lincoln was elected president with no votes from the entire south. Taxation without representation? Secession illegal? "...it is the right of the people to change or abolish it" said the framers.
@stellalouise1 Lincoln was only elected without a single vote from the South because in nine states he was not even on the ballot, and the Republican Party was illegal.
The framers also said "The Union of these States cannot in truth be too highly valued or too watchfully cherished. It is our best barrier against danger from without, and the only one against those armies and taxes, those wars and usurpations, which so readily grow out of the jealousies and ambition of neighboring states."
@TigerRifle1 Well, that has been argued to death, hasn't it? When half the area of a country with a much smaller population has such little representation with much taxation, that area sees it differently and a war for independence tends to happen. The imorality of slavery was made the honorable argument to the northern population but taxes, tarrifs and representation were the issues elsewhere, not to mention the fact that the societies were so very different - still are.
@stellalouise1 Lincoln, in his inaugural address, told the south basically "come back to the Union, and you will not be avenged upon." This was just weeks before the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter, an instillation of the Federal Government, thus condemning themselves to war. Major Anderson in Fort Sumter made no hostile moves against the people of Charleston, it was simply that Beauregard did not want U.S. Troops anywhere near Charleston, and so, determined to get rid of them himself.
@stellalouise1 "It is just that kind of control which is extended in every northern State over its convicts, its lunatics, its minors, its apprentices. It is but a form of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern themselves. We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority."
@stellalouise1 As a history doctor, I am sorry to say, but dismissing that the war was about slavery is impossible. Lincoln was the first openly anti-Slavery president elected, and immediately upon his election, the South left the Union to protect the institution of slavery. This DOESN'T MEAN that Lee was not a great general, that the South was evil, that Southern soldiers deserved to die, or that the Union was justified in looting the South and terrorizing its civilian population.
@seukfuhi Linclon was elected without one vote from the south - the south did not feel fairly represented in Washington. This is no small point. Anyone who believes that the civil war was about slavery only is mistaken. Lincoln himself constantly insisted that the war was not about slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation which kept European countries from recognizing the CSA. Slavery was fine as long as the north made money from it. The hypocrisy was hard to stomach - surely.
@stellalouise1 Actually many people in North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Virginia voted for Lincoln. Most of them came from poor backgrounds like eastern Tennessee's Mountains.
@markmason1000 Wrong. I don't know where you got such a dreamy idea. The only seceding state that cast any ballots at all for Lincoln was Virginia, where he got 1.1% of the vote. He did not even make it to the ballot in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, N.C., Tennessee or Texas and got zero votes in the other states that later seceded. People must not be ignorant of this, it is no minor point and exemplifies the South's concern as far as representation in Washington.
Blacks did fight for the South. 6 Confederate states allowed blacks into their ranks and even for units from other states, officers in the field often simply ignored the wishes of their politicians and enlisted any who were willing to fight. Towards the end of the war the Confederate Congress finally allowed blacks to serve in the whole Confederate army upon the request of General Robert E. Lee. They were accorded the same equipment and pay as others-unlike the federal army.
@coddsac65 Not very many however, and black troops on the union side got the same equipment as well and eventually, the same pay. By the time the South finally did let entire black regiments serve, it was far too late to make a difference.
After the south lost someone said "in 100 years we will have to take care of the blacks". Boy was he right.
calimar28 2 days ago
@calimar28 Dear God, a racist justifying his rationale...
Ares99999 2 days ago
I for one am very thankful that I will never have to spend a day killing 15,000 of my own countrymen.
imjusthereish 2 weeks ago
at least the union had some chivalry and didnt mow down the survivors who were routing
Fishfingers232 2 weeks ago
war sucks :(
rancidfan39 3 weeks ago
it sad he lost all his mean so sad
sunney4252 4 weeks ago
God have mercy on both sides...both Americans.
atillathechun 1 month ago
If Stonewall Jackson was still alive during and before the Battle of Gettysburg, the South would have won the war. Jackson was very knowledgeable and would still fight till the last pitch of light left in the day. General Longstreet's predictions was correct as they should have disengaged and have the Union army chase them as the Rebels gained ground of their choosing to fight on. But Lee was too aggressive on his part. I think Jefferson Davis would have agreed with Longstreet.
larryhurst3 1 month ago
Sleigh Of Hand Pro, Assassin Pro, Dead Silence Pro
sukamugen 1 month ago
Comment removed
sukamugen 1 month ago
2:52 guy wishes "I want to die" lol
ottocb22 1 month ago
USA! USA! USA! USA!
PriestChristopher 1 month ago
General Lee was a clever general. He won meny battles but lost the war.
lenuttaja3 1 month ago
@ShmoofPHI You are welcome.
wow5883 2 months ago
Could someone tell me the name of the third brigadier general under Picket? I know Armistad amd Kemper, but not the other one on the horse
ShmoofPHI 2 months ago
@ShmoofPHI Brigadier General Richard B. Garnett.
wow5883 2 months ago
@wow5883 Aha, thank you
ShmoofPHI 2 months ago
@wow5883
yo got it wrong its not Brigadier general Richard B Garnett wrong he was on a horse its in part 3 not this one :) FACTS he was missing when he died :) thats why they dont show you his body in part 3 because his lietenant claimed his wrist watch and the unions buried him :) reconsider
finalfrontier001 2 months ago
I was thinking maybe if the Confederates were all armed with smoothbore muskets with double or tripple buck and ball and had been tought to use tap loading used in the Napoleonic wars where you would bite and pour the powder down the barrel, then place the buck and ball in the barrel without the paper so it would be loose, then tap the rifle instead of using a ramrod, then place a percussion cap and fire.
AUG351 2 months ago
Lee could Have won if He just folowed longstreet's plan not to attack tHe union troops directly...but to tHreaten wasHngton D.C.
aethelwond99 3 months ago
only 3 soldiers return from charge
jeffreybernabe 3 months ago
Nice that the Confederates aren't portrayed as some kind of Nazis.
AlfvonThaden 3 months ago 20
@AlfvonThaden of course not both sides were brothers north , south they had respect for one another
edyoung44 3 months ago
@AlfvonThaden To compare Confederates to Nazis would be both a gross overstatement and an insult to everyone (Union and Confederate) who fought in the Civil War.
360Nomad 3 months ago
@360Nomad
im sorrry the confedarate are evil they lost THANK GOD abolish slavery THANK YOU GOD destroy evil becasue its in natural for evil to perish :) :P HORAY xD
finalfrontier001 2 months ago
@finalfrontier001 And the 57% of all violent crime which is done by blacks who are just 13% of the population...thats not evil? Come on man
calimar28 2 days ago
@AlfvonThaden This is only my personal opinion but I think that soldiers of both sides fighted for freedom. Just like they understood that. And politicians of both sides were equally responsible for startening of war. They, in fact looked only for their political interest.
Adam7510 2 months ago
@Adam7510 And who owned the politicians? It was the wealthy. The southern wealthy were the ones with the slaves, convinced there fellow southern peon whites that the union was bad, just like the corporations endorse drag racing and sportsman activities like hunting and fishing etc. and they play these fools like puppets on a marionette. The southerners need to wake up. It's all repeating again with the teabag movement pushed by wealthy corps. But now even the northerners are.
jmitterii2 2 months ago
@AlfvonThaden Even most WWII Germans shouldn't be portrayed as Nazis... lol...
neominois 2 months ago
@AlfvonThaden In what movie have they ever been portrayed that way?
paintballKid545 2 months ago
@paintballKid545
I know none, but racism and nazism tend to go hand in hand since a while...
AlfvonThaden 2 months ago
@AlfvonThaden NO IT NOT KIND NAZIS. I dont understand why people said nazis same american no no that not true. nazis bad evil shape flag.
Robert265283 4 days ago
@metalkrush77 Jacksons men didn't shoot him, the 18th North Carolina Infantry had mistaken him for a Union calvary regiment. Major John D. Barry ordered them to fire thinking it was a trick after Jacksons staff were yelling trying to identify them selfs and it was at night when they were returning to camp.
AUG351 3 months ago
@metalkrush77 If Jackson had been around for this battle and had been in command this battle would have never made it to a second or third day.
He would have continued the attack on the first day where Ewell refused after Lee ordered him to do so "if practicable" and would have pushed the Yanks off the hills before they could have dug in.
Ewell is the reason the South did not prevail and end the battle on the first day.He was a weak commander and to indecisive.
harvickfan029 3 months ago
@harvickfan029 On the other hand, Jackson - with his recklessness - would have been grounded to dust by grant. Jackson was a man of straight fights, and Grant's numbers would make a straight fight suicidal.
Ares99999 1 month ago
@Ares99999 Grant? He was not in command of the Northren army (yet).
calimar28 2 days ago
This war was so diffrent from all othes. The general respect the southern and the northern troops had for eachother. 4:10 proves my point. scenes like this happened all across the war. from privates to colonels. They were all Americans and knew it. This scene is not just hollywood there are books filled with these stories
tinkandtory 3 months ago 2
"Fredricksburg!! Fredricksburg!! Fredricksburg!!"
tamaolemaa 3 months ago
I laughed out loud at the :) at the very end. It was a pretty emotional scene and an extremely out of place :)
YuenHsiaoTieng 4 months ago
you got to admit the confederates sure have one cool looking flag
Lubotsulat 4 months ago 24
@Lubotsulat It's the diagonals. They make everything badass.
hellspreetube 3 months ago
@Lubotsulat That's cause. "Getterdone"
gaijin140 2 months ago
@Lubotsulat It's just missing PacMan and some ghosts
planetrockford 1 month ago in playlist More videos from 9Morgul
Nothing like old fashion knight fighting lol at 1:20
Southpark124 4 months ago
This battle is so cool
riojeanne1 4 months ago
There's all this hate towards the Union and Lincoln, and all this love for the "patriotic and liberty defending" Confederacy. This war was all about preservation of the Union (slavery was a major contributing factor). Everyone hates Benedict Arnold for betraying the United States, but everyone idolizes the Confederacy "For defending true liberty, etc." Everyone seems to forget, the Confederates were traitors and betrayed the Union, and the Constitution. Preserving the Union was a noble goal.
TheFederalistVoice 4 months ago
FREDERICKSBURG FREDERICKSBURG!
ColonelGeorgeACuster 5 months ago
@ColonelGeorgeACuster GETTYSBURG! GETTYSBURG!
1Historygenius 4 months ago
@1Historygenius i think hes just quoting from when the union won or are you just mocking them wither way your comment is funny
edyoung44 4 months ago
@edyoung44 I actually just said that because we should primarily be discussing Gettysburg not Fredericksburg.
1Historygenius 4 months ago
@1Historygenius lmao yeah but they got revenge for fredricksburg all those union soldiers who died at the batteries of Longstreet, i really do love this scene
edyoung44 4 months ago
You have none? Not a single one? Damn i think i acctualy feal sorry for the guy.
TheIcelandicPatriot 5 months ago
epic thanks for posting
bluejacketbugler 5 months ago
Thats what you get for walking slowly in tight large groups over an open field in the middle of the day while someone is shooting a lot of cannons and minie balls at you!
Area51UFOGynaecology 5 months ago
8:20 the scene reminds me on the moment when general paulus realized that his men are sourrounded
Gruenkreuz100 6 months ago
would it have been more efficient goign across the field at night
edyoung44 6 months ago
@edyoung44 Night engagemens were rare in that war.
Montecruz 6 months ago
@edyoung44 Pretty difficult to see at night...
Char091Leclerc 5 months ago
@edyoung44 It would have been much more difficult to coordinate which was why night battles weren't common
snapdragon11 5 months ago
@edyoung44 sadly no NGV :(
ANZACS100 5 months ago
@edyoung44 They always had to do it the hard way didnt they
DJSbros 4 months ago
Comment removed
Jdobs94 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@edyoung44 sorry man but they didn't have night vision back then, after dark you didn't fight cause you couldn't see
Jdobs94 4 months ago
@edyoung44 War for the most part was not conducted during the night during this era.
cpgrad07 3 months ago
Alright ppl listen up the war was not about slavery in fact in wasn't even thought about slavery into the 3rd year of the war, two lee waz a good general but he was more of a defensive tactical general than an offensive, tactics back in this time where outdated for the fast technology advances the tactics of the napleon era were only effective for smoothbore weapons and ppl of the time didn't live in the world like we do now they were tougher stronger and honor was very important to everyone
armydevil101 6 months ago
2:45 dumbass yankees!
MrAwsom266 6 months ago
It wasn't lee it was Pickett the idiots troops and he was ordered to go around but no he had to go with the British Tactics.
2wertobanzaiboy 6 months ago
Why in the name of God would you send so many men across such a distance against such a force in broad daylight, was it hubris? There was only ever going to be one result. Lee should have deployed his forces in hit and run style attacks or battles where he had more of an advantage, he could not afford to fight major battles against such odds, his men and material unlike the Union could not be replaced.
corcaighrebel 6 months ago
@corcaighrebel the reason Lee did the attack was because he felt that by the 3ed day of the battle, the yankees would be tired and not have many troops right there cause they hadn't attacked there yet. also they had unleashed the largest artillary barage there in the western hemisphere 169 guns i belive. Lee figured they didn't have that streght even though his subordinates tried telling Lee that it was too risky. a mistake that would forever scar the confederacy
Hawkins1117 5 months ago
Love the epic faces after the cam zooms on them from 8:57 onwards :)
Nurgha 6 months ago
9:23 Big fuckin smile. Totally tone deaf.
campbpar 6 months ago
4:55 Not loiny enough, I'm not buying it.
campbpar 6 months ago
Can someone tell me the name of the song that starts at 2:28?
swavers 7 months ago
General webb is my ancestor.
Hes the most badass general of the war. He smokes a cigar and charged the rebels by himself. He has a statue in gettysburg of himself.
thearmyofgreatness 7 months ago
I bet they wished they had listened to Longstreet. Thats one of those "Oops! We're screwed!" moments in war
WIDEOUTKIRK13 7 months ago
@WIDEOUTKIRK13
It may be in this batlle, but Longstreet was a "on the defensive man " he was right in many ways in this one. If the charge held up and the Union center buckled . It would be Longstreet hung to dry :) I rather praise Lee for his mind in trying to win. Although blindly at this point then Longstreet leading any part of the campaign.
MrRizikoo 7 months ago
GENERAL LEE I HAVE NO BRIGADE ! HMM GENERAL LEE MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE RIGHT ! LIKE GENERAL LONGSTREET ASKED YOU TO !
2006nationalchamps 8 months ago
Longstreet .. a long gues,
MrRizikoo 7 months ago
Smiley face to you to 9Morgul :)
ThePimpycat 8 months ago
5:41 That, as they say, is that.
ephabouyed 8 months ago
mmmmmmmm i dunno
TheTEAMBUTLER 8 months ago
From seeing this film it seems the Union troops set a trap, once their front line pulled back the Confederates instead of strengthening their positions, widening the gap and exploiting the break through, simply kept going, right into the musket and cannon fire of the second line, they were sitting ducks. No wonder the charge ended in a slaughter.
ephabouyed 8 months ago
it was not over yet you just cute the scene in the end
vide0game11 9 months ago
"General Lee, I have not Division." There are some lines given in movies that simply transcend mere acting.
That actor, that scene deserves more respect. One day, I'm sure it will be seen as the bit of sheer, perfect genius that it is.
TiminPhoenix 9 months ago
I HATE THE UNION BECAUSE THEY TOOK OVER THE SOUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MegaRocks9 9 months ago
@MegaRocks9 and thanks to them we no longer have states rights!
Kelthuzad126 9 months ago
@MegaRocks9 Yeah, but the South started the war in the first place and the North didn't want to.
LegoRepublicese 9 months ago
@LegoRepublicese um, excuse me? Who was it that left troops in a harbor belonging to territory that was not their own, and when refused the request to leave, expected not to get fired upon? The north...
truthseeker370 8 months ago
@truthseeker370 Yeah, but look what happen to Articles of Confederation we were brink of a feudal era of States vs. States. So, confederation didn't work. Of course, State do have rights, but they don't have to go ballastic about it. Like Lincoln said, "House divided cannot stand." I respect your opinion, but history will always tell us of errors of mankind.
LegoRepublicese 8 months ago
@LegoRepublicese Actually the articles of confederation were quite different from the southern states. Just like the republic of the US(at least it clams to be) is different than the republic of china(as it also claims to be).
History is written by the victors, and thus, will only tell us of the errors, some true some falsely so called, of their enemies, but will do its best to hid the errors of themselves.
truthseeker370 8 months ago
@MegaRocks9 Actually, the South states left America and so the Unions wanted to get them back. SO it's not taking over, it's taking back. Big difference.
StrawberryIchigo121 6 months ago
@StrawberryIchigo121 EXACTLY!!!!!! dude finally someone who gets it
edyoung44 6 months ago
@edyoung44 Exactly about what? General Lee or the reason why the the Civil War happened?
StrawberryIchigo121 6 months ago
@StrawberryIchigo121 man i dont like the fact that the south suseeded just because they wanted to be self governed like they can call it the CSA but its all USA territory, and general Lee was a good commander but it really doesnt make sense that a bunch of southerners want independence from a nation that men fought and died for its rights to be a nation like the CSA basically spit on the stars and stripes and just desacrated the blood and sweat that won our country .
edyoung44 6 months ago
@edyoung44 Guess it doesn't make sense to you that a group of people would rebel against it's King over taxes either....
Bigleedog7 2 months ago
@Bigleedog7 whoa im not saying i wouldnt want to kick their seceeding asses just over taxes but just the union made prisoners feel like like they werent just cattle thye treated them with respect and gave them water and rations but what i want to know is would the rebs do the same/
edyoung44 2 months ago
God forgive us we had to kill so many of them, but, oh well
cowboyx1970 9 months ago
one of the sadest days in history,,,,, I t would have been a honour to fight with General Lee
1701patrick 9 months ago
@1701patrick yes i agree!
tarheelsTM 9 months ago
@1701patrick Lee the traitor lost that day. he should have hung for that
justiceholmes 6 months ago
@justiceholmes General Lee wasn't a traitor, he fought on the Confederate side because he didn't want to fight the state from where he came from called Virginia. Then the West part of Virginia joined the Union which is the reason why there is a state today called West Virginia. Lee was the reason why the Union lost more battles and more men than the south. Also, you can't hang a general for choosing sides considering this was US Civil War not the French Civil War.
StrawberryIchigo121 6 months ago
@justiceholmes Lee was a respective general and was once the great hero of America. To have him hung was not the American way to do things, rather it was smart for the COnfederate to surrender after a defeat at Gettysburg.
StrawberryIchigo121 6 months ago
@1701patrick Lee was a traitor to the country he was once a guardian of. I would shoot the bastard rather then fight for him.
CamelJaq 5 months ago
he fought for his state what state are you from why should someone from anouthern state tell you how to live as it states in the constatushin that if we do not like the way are government is run we hav every right to patishin it as we patishined the british can u honestly say that yor beeing taxd by repersintayshin of some1 that cares more about u as a person than just a number i added that last litle bit to give u some ground on the debate becuse you seem to have a defrant thought thn my slf
FreedomOfDixie 4 months ago
@FreedomOfDixie Someone needs a spell check.
1Historygenius 4 months ago
@1Historygenius so all your going do is say i need spell check come on man i was intisapaten you to try to flank the debate insted u just retreetd by saying i cant spell
FreedomOfDixie 4 months ago
@FreedomOfDixie That is odd because I somewhat agree with you.
1Historygenius 4 months ago
@CamelJaq in Lee's eyes he wasn't betraying the US. He considered Virginia to be his country. back then a lot more people considered the state they were from to be thier country almost. He would've been a traitor if he fought against Virginia
Hawkins1117 3 months ago
@Hawkins1117 Your position is much more intelligent then the last guy. In regaurds to what you say, makes sense.
CamelJaq 3 months ago
finaly in the end the one guy realized "wow why did I go along with this"
SharkKid42 9 months ago
The war was about slavery you idiots. 100+ years after the year it was Jim Crow and segregation and white supremacy and Ku Fux Klan a'holes terrorizing black Americans in the South. Covenance restrictions on housing and education throughout the US. You people ever read a f'n book or actually have to live thru this? I lived in the south and this culture needs to stop. Obviously this poser posting this video is still proud of the stars and farse flag FU bro get a grip on reality
popeiix 10 months ago
woah ponyboy is in this movie?
ActiveSkatr 10 months ago
@ActiveSkatr
johncashrocks221 9 months ago
Slavery would have ended even in the South anyway one day. You know why? Cause on the bottom line a free worker is cheaper than a slave. He is more motivated, doesn't has to be guarded or feed and can be fired any day if he doesn't work properly. It wasn't ethics that ended slavery, but economics. The birth of socialism was the next logical step, as those free worker now had to fight for wages they could actually life of.
HDreamer 10 months ago
@HDreamer and rise in population that need jobs
Hawkins1117 9 months ago
"Anyone who believes that the civil war was about slavery only is mistaken." Absolutely right. There were other issues as well (ex.: the tariff), but none of them would have justified a war. The big issue that defined American politics between the 1830's and the 1860's was whether slavery should be allowed to expand to the West. Northern elites were +- ok with the prospect of slavery being confined to the South only, but opposed its expansion, and through it, the strengthening of "Slave Power".
seukfuhi 10 months ago
@seukfuhi Number one reason for a civil war was for the Union to get the Confederate states back to the Union.
StrawberryIchigo121 6 months ago
Little fun fact for everybody,the regiment with the emerald green flag is the 69th Pennsylvania originally the 2nd California,though they weren't actually from California,they were raised in Philadelphia from Irish militia units by Colonel E.D Baker ,they are also the sister regiment of the 71st Pennsylvania my reenacting regiment
markmason1000 10 months ago
Union victory. Nice job yanks.
pijef 10 months ago
@pijef nice job! now no states rights! fuck yanks.
Kelthuzad126 9 months ago
"Early in the war, a union squad closed in on a single, ragged confederate. And he obviously didn't own any slaves, he couldn't have much interest in the constitution, and they asked him 'What are you fighting for anyhow?' and he said 'I'm fighting because you're down here.' which is a pretty satisfactory answer."-Shelby Foote, Ken Burns "The Civil War."
Butternut731863 11 months ago
this was truly a war not fought on grounds of slavery, but on the grounds of tradition versus a new order, a way of life threatened to be dissolved and left in abandon.
I do not agree with slavery, but i give honor to the men that died fighting to protect themselves and their own on both sides.
God bless the United States of America and the ones who gave it all.
lgliggy 11 months ago
@lgliggy Perfectly, perfectly stated.
MINN3APOLIS 11 months ago
The US was brand new and vulnerable and founders like Washington had an obligation to establish a secure nation - England was just waiting for the states to argue and split so they could retake the colonies. By 1860 much had changed and the northern states & southern states were very much like different countries with the southern states having a smaller population and much less representation. For them it was the 2nd war of independence.
stellalouise1 11 months ago 2
@CountVonLewenhaupt or a confederate cause confederats wore blue uniforms too with like gold lining on the sleeves
edyoung44 1 year ago
Zoomzip: as I understand it: Gen Lee did indeed think he was invincible and had come all the way to Pennsylvania and now on the 3rd day of battle at Gettysburg thought that this charge was his last best chance. I also believe he did not realize that most of his earlier cannon fire had missed it's mark.
Biggest mistake he ever made.
willypdyer 1 year ago
I think Pickett lost only about half of his division actually.
Dan8125 1 year ago
@Dan8125
You are right. He did only lose about half of his men. In addition, his command structure was decimated with Garnett dead, Kemper wounded and Armistead missing. He also lost most of his brigade colonels. I've always felt that in this situation Pickett should have been reforming and rallying his division instead of crying like a baby and telling Lee that he had no division. I guess what you really are comes out in the heat of the battle.
battlestar9 1 year ago
Can anyone explain to me in an unbiased explanation, why they would charge to a fortified position, in a wide open field with no cover? Was this near the end of the war and a last desperation attempt ?
ZoomZip 1 year ago
the ending scene was so just beautiful well done well acted well played they nailed it i almost cried it was so perfected
edyoung44 1 year ago 2
At 8.58 Do i see a guy in a blue Union walking there in the back of gen. Picket lol ?
worldtraveling 1 year ago
"General Lee...I have no division." -Pickett
Epic and tragic line there.
Shadowz41 1 year ago
Thanks for the post. its ashame people are completely retarded and don't realize the reasons for war or about the people who fought in it. This movie falsely depicts one of the Souths best men ever Robert E lee and all those Northerners and foreigners just assume he was a redneck and immoral.
coddsac65 1 year ago
Personally, as a non American, Lee should have been hung.
pepelepew2006 1 year ago
@pepelepew2006 maybe he was hung! dumbass!
tarheelsTM 1 year ago 9
@pepelepew2006
personally as someone who has studied Gen.Lee and the civil war, i think you should do more research. He was one of the best generals in American history, and was offered control of the whole union army before the war. Lee turned it down and fought with the south because of his loyalty to his state and family. He was a strong christian who was against slavery and succession but would not fight against his family.
coddsac65 1 year ago
@coddsac65
Yeah most beloved general in American History.
pepelepew2006 1 year ago
@coddsac65 That is a popular misconception, actually. A lot of people say Lee was against Slavery. The viewpoints he held were actually quite widespread for his time - that Slavery would die out on its own, eventually, but that the African Americans were inferior to the white men. Those viewpoints were held by the majority of the slaveholding south. Lee, as Executor of his father-in-law's estate, was supposed to free the 100-some slaves at Arlington with his father-in-law's death, but he did not
HGM1138 1 year ago
@HGM1138 Lee's father-in-law's will stated that his slaves were to be freed no later than 5 years after his death or until his granddaughter's inheritence was paid off, should that occur before 5 years. Lee administerd the estate EXACTLY the way Mr. Custis wrote it. Lee's opposition to slavery was well established long before the war and is not fiction. Lincoln and Grant considered blacks inferior to whites and it is in writing. General Lee's reputation was EARNED, not manufactured.
stellalouise1 1 year ago
@stellalouise1 So we're supposed to believe that Lee was all for giving the slaves on the Arlington Estate freedom when the dowries for his daughters were filled up? Lee's viewpoints were fairly widespread among southern gentlemen of the time - Slavery's here; let's not mess with it, it will die on its own later.
HGM1138 1 year ago
@HGM1138 I am sorry but you are misinformed about this. Lee administered Mr. Custis' will exactly as it was written, as it was his duty to do so. Lee's views on slavery are well established, even before the war. I am afraid that you have bought into the completely false claim that the war was over slavery, which forces one to attempt to deminish Lee. This is unfair - based on untruth and gross distortion & revisionist history. If you study the facts, you will admire Lee greatly.
stellalouise1 1 year ago
@stellalouise1 No, I am sorry, but if you study the war, no one attempted to claim it was not about slavery until after the war was over, and then Jubal Early and Jefferson Davis began rewriting history to make it into a struggle about states rights. You want proof the war was about slavery? Look at what they said - Davis, and the rest, before the war started. In a speech on the floor of the Senate in February of 1860, Davis said:
HGM1138 1 year ago
@HGM1138 I am afraid that I must disagree. Lincoln spent a great deal of time swearing the war was not about slavery until a couple of years into it. He said that if he could save the union and keep slavery, he would. This is true. I urge you read a little further. Do you honestly believe that hundreds of thousands of Confederate Soldiers fought such a horrible war so that a handfull of wealthy planters could own slaves? Do you think this was Lee's position? Please read more.
stellalouise1 1 year ago
@stellalouise1 I know Lincoln spent quite a while saying the war was to 'Preserve the Union.' I also think that the Emancipation Proclamation was used as a diplomatic measure, to remind Europe that the CSA was fighting to remain a slave-holding Republic. I believe what Sam Watkins wrote in his diary after the war: "It seems to me, in hindsight, we fought a war to defend our soil from invasion, and at the same time, permit a wealthy few to keep their negroes." Furthermore (cont'd)
HGM1138 1 year ago
@stellalouise1 Furthermore, in the antebellum South, even the poorest of whites was above the slaves on the social scales of the South. They would want to keep slavery in place to ensure that they were not at the bottom of Southern society. This so-called 'Southern White Trash' are chiefly the ones who carried the fight - some of them to 'defend their homes,' and others to keep the old south alive and well so they could be kept off of the bottom rail.
HGM1138 1 year ago
@HGM1138 Interesting theory but no cigar, I'm afraid. I wish you knew some Southerners and studied facts. Your theories are based on misinformation. I am a direct decendant of many so called "Southern White Trash" who fought in the Confederate Army and I can assure you that their motive was in no way an effort to stave off the threat of being on the bottom ring of society. I am a bit amused by the fact that you can see no bigotry on your own part. Read the facts and reread your theories.
stellalouise1 1 year ago
@stellalouise1 I do read the facts. Or are you attempting to tell me that people like Shelby Foote and James M. McPherson are 'revisionists.' Or, perhaps it's Longstreet who is the revisionist to you because he *GASP* dared to admit that Lee was a falliable human being when the cult of Lee was at its strongest (1870-1920).
HGM1138 11 months ago
@HGM1138 I am not dreamy or fanciful about Lee. The truth is stranger and more powerful than fiction. Foote and McPherson never deminished Lee and both knew the war was not over slavery. Lee's situation was almost impossible in nearly every way and he knew it, yet he did his duty and his best at tremendous cost to himself. His accomplishments speak for themselves & his private life unmarred by scandal. He rejected fortunes offered just to use his name. Trashing Lee is a loosing game.
stellalouise1 11 months ago
@stellalouise1 I am not out to trash Lee - I respect and admire his ability as a field commander, and his stalwart refusal to endorse the use of guerilla tactics toward the end of the war. I do question, however, whether it was his duty to throw away a promising career in the United States Army in the name of defense of a bunch of traitors. There are plenty of southerners who stayed with the U.S. Armed Forces through a sense of duty - Montgomery C. Meigs, Admiral David G. Farragut, George Thomas
HGM1138 11 months ago
@HGM1138 To me, it is not difficult to understand why Lee cold not take an army and invade his own home. It is even easier to understand when you relaize that it was not over slavery. The issues were MANY, the punitive export tariffs enacted against the southern states just for starters. The decision was agonizing for Lee - a strong Union man, as were many of my ancestors, as letters written at the time state. The stand was against government tyranny and armed invasion.
stellalouise1 11 months ago
@stellalouise1 The tariffs you refer to were passed in 1832, and repealed in 1833 during the Nullification Crisis.
The 'armed invasion' of which you speak was an effort to prevent rebellion, the same way the U.S. Army would crack down on a group of people deciding "Hey, we want to leave." Secession is illegal. Even if passed by popular refferendum, secession is illegal. How was the Government being tyrannical? In 1861-March of 1861, when Buchanan was in power, he did nothing to harm the south.
HGM1138 11 months ago
@HGM1138 The tariffs AND taxes were decreased but not by very much, enraging the northern states. The south was agricultural, with the vast majority of the population being family farmers with NO SLAVES. The population was nowhere near the northern numbers and the impact of this was the fact that Lincoln was elected president with no votes from the entire south. Taxation without representation? Secession illegal? "...it is the right of the people to change or abolish it" said the framers.
stellalouise1 11 months ago
@stellalouise1 Lincoln was only elected without a single vote from the South because in nine states he was not even on the ballot, and the Republican Party was illegal.
The framers also said "The Union of these States cannot in truth be too highly valued or too watchfully cherished. It is our best barrier against danger from without, and the only one against those armies and taxes, those wars and usurpations, which so readily grow out of the jealousies and ambition of neighboring states."
HGM1138 11 months ago
@stellalouise1 The right of the people as a whole, not one group or section to unilaterally decide to leave.
TigerRifle1 11 months ago
@TigerRifle1 Well, that has been argued to death, hasn't it? When half the area of a country with a much smaller population has such little representation with much taxation, that area sees it differently and a war for independence tends to happen. The imorality of slavery was made the honorable argument to the northern population but taxes, tarrifs and representation were the issues elsewhere, not to mention the fact that the societies were so very different - still are.
stellalouise1 11 months ago
@stellalouise1 Lincoln, in his inaugural address, told the south basically "come back to the Union, and you will not be avenged upon." This was just weeks before the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter, an instillation of the Federal Government, thus condemning themselves to war. Major Anderson in Fort Sumter made no hostile moves against the people of Charleston, it was simply that Beauregard did not want U.S. Troops anywhere near Charleston, and so, determined to get rid of them himself.
HGM1138 11 months ago
@stellalouise1 "It is just that kind of control which is extended in every northern State over its convicts, its lunatics, its minors, its apprentices. It is but a form of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern themselves. We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority."
HGM1138 1 year ago
@stellalouise1 As a history doctor, I am sorry to say, but dismissing that the war was about slavery is impossible. Lincoln was the first openly anti-Slavery president elected, and immediately upon his election, the South left the Union to protect the institution of slavery. This DOESN'T MEAN that Lee was not a great general, that the South was evil, that Southern soldiers deserved to die, or that the Union was justified in looting the South and terrorizing its civilian population.
seukfuhi 10 months ago
@seukfuhi Linclon was elected without one vote from the south - the south did not feel fairly represented in Washington. This is no small point. Anyone who believes that the civil war was about slavery only is mistaken. Lincoln himself constantly insisted that the war was not about slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation which kept European countries from recognizing the CSA. Slavery was fine as long as the north made money from it. The hypocrisy was hard to stomach - surely.
stellalouise1 10 months ago
@stellalouise1 Actually many people in North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Virginia voted for Lincoln. Most of them came from poor backgrounds like eastern Tennessee's Mountains.
markmason1000 10 months ago
@markmason1000 Wrong. I don't know where you got such a dreamy idea. The only seceding state that cast any ballots at all for Lincoln was Virginia, where he got 1.1% of the vote. He did not even make it to the ballot in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, N.C., Tennessee or Texas and got zero votes in the other states that later seceded. People must not be ignorant of this, it is no minor point and exemplifies the South's concern as far as representation in Washington.
stellalouise1 10 months ago
@stellalouise1 give me proof of this?
coddsac65 9 months ago
@coddsac65 Type "results of the 1860" election into your Google search engine.
stellalouise1 9 months ago
Blacks did fight for the South. 6 Confederate states allowed blacks into their ranks and even for units from other states, officers in the field often simply ignored the wishes of their politicians and enlisted any who were willing to fight. Towards the end of the war the Confederate Congress finally allowed blacks to serve in the whole Confederate army upon the request of General Robert E. Lee. They were accorded the same equipment and pay as others-unlike the federal army.
coddsac65 9 months ago
@coddsac65 Not very many however, and black troops on the union side got the same equipment as well and eventually, the same pay. By the time the South finally did let entire black regiments serve, it was far too late to make a difference.
Shadowz41 9 months ago
@Shadowz41 Alabama allowed it at the beginning of the war. Many served unregistered as well.
truthseeker370 8 months ago
Though, one must note that about 2/3 of the soldiers that died did so from disease.
gamegeek2 1 year ago