His description of smoke generated would be factual. However, to say that artillerymen cannot see 25' in front, and also that, fire was lobbed overhead by both sides is ridiculous and inconsistent with his supposition of Confederate accuracy. Ninety minutes of accurate cannon fire would have crushed the morale of even the brave Texas Brigade. Cushings bravery was brought on by his mortal wounds. Could it be that smoke obscured the destruction around him, Mr. Guide? Yanks again rewrite History.
For those of whom say Grant had slaves at new haven, I must correct them. White Haven was the name of the property owned by Julia Grants father Col. Dent. It is possible that Col. Dent had slaves, and when the Grants moved to White Haven, they may have aquired them. When Grant was building Hardscrabble, on a piece land, 80 acres, given him by Col Dent he had one slave helping him. He freed this slave upon moving to White Haven after the death of his Mother in Law
Remins me of Waterloo. The French there had a lot of guns and skilled crews. But their gunfire proved very ineffective. I think most of the Confederate shells sailed way over the heads of the union troops and landed in the rear areas.
Listened twice. Still don't get it. The Confederate bombardment should have made mincemeat of the union line, but obviously it didn't. Maybe the problem was that indirect fire was then unknown?
@breezeman199 Rebel artillery was no match for Yankee artillery. As the day wore on, the guns dug into their embrasures and elevated more and more, until they were firing over the Federals on Cemetary Ridge, not into them. Then, the Federal artillery commanders ceased firing to conserve ammunition for the infantry attack and to lull the Confederates into thinking that their barrage had succeeded.
@KNS1996DFS Yes I had heard that. Still I would have thought the confederate gunners would have realized this and either made a calculated adjustment or relocated their guns. Overall their bombardment was very ineffective, especially considering the number of pieces and the length of time. I know indirect fire did not exist at this time but the confederate officers should have sensed that something was wrong. In any case Pickett's charge was certainly ill-conceived. Reminds me of Culloden.
@breezeman199 It wasnt that it was ineffective it was that they did all the could up to a certain point but after that they couldnt really do any more damage to the Union positions, the whole attack was a tactical mistake from Lee, and the main reason it failed was that the Union troops were too well dug in
@breezeman199 It's cause most of the men were Irish. They don't run. The unit holding the line was the Philadelphia Brigade. The 69th Penn. was almost all Irish, hence the Irish flag. Irish made up a significant portion of the other regiments of the Brigade.
@GeneralKenobiSIYE Bless the N.Y.69th, my great grandfather was with it and still mad at the English . He still didn't quite understand the war but he'd been at Frederickburg and by this time was mad as the devil at these confederate's!
150 to 200 cannons, firing about an hour, each gun firing 2 balls a minute, so lets say that none of the reb guns got destroyed (which they did) they fired up to 18,000 shells ideally were fired. That against 5,000 or so men and a single battery of six guns and they were unable to take them out. Not only did they fail to take out the initial battery, but the Union heavily reeinforced the center with both men and ended up bringing somewhere like 200 guns into the action. FAIL
The problem with this guy is that he thinks being inacurate means 0% shots on target....not really ;)
Cushing was one of the primary targets for the whole southern artillery. The simple fact that he still has a single canon to support the infantry means "big fail" for the bombardment. Considering how many guns they got involved, how long they shot, and they could not even destroy one of their primary targets.......BIG TROUBLE!!! Cushing should have been trashed in the mentioned 20 minutes.
Had the Confederate artillery fire been as accurate against all guns and soldiers in the center as they were against the cannon he mentions, then, considering the concentration and amount of shells fired, it is reasonable to believe that it would have more or less cleared the area. As far as I have been taught, it didn't.
Grow up,whites are the minorities now.Black people are the most racist groups of people. You cant be proud to be white or your KKK but its kewl to be proud of being black, asian, mexican. Look at BET and Black Starz. all of it is crap if I had a network called WET you figure it out. I am not racist BUT whites need to be proud of their race, yes we may have destroyed our planet with help from all but look at what our race has done. Antibiotics, Space travel, evolution, flight, micro biology.
@akula5151 Antibiotic, space travel, flight, microbiology and MORE had black and mongol inventors and pinoneers, TOO, they are just..."strangley' never mentioned. Charles Drew, black scientist who came up with blood transfusions for one. Ironically, he died of loss of blood because the hospital he was at did not give a transfusion from it1s only available candidate..a white man. Dr. Daniel Hale Williams, another black man..heart transplants and heart surgery. Garrett Morgan, traffic lights .
@akula5151 Normal people aren't proud of their race, they're proud of their ethnic heritage. Asians aren't proud of being asian, they're proud of being from whichever country in Asia they're from. White people can be proud of being American, or British, or French, or German, or Irish, or whatever. Black people are proud of being black because (1) most of them don't even know where their ancestors are from and (2) black americans have had the farthest to climb. Their culture is rooted in slavery
The teabaggers are the successors to the confederate traitors. They think us progressives will flee it they attack enough. How do you stop the teabaggers? Show the courage that the Union soldiers had and refuse to flee. Then the teabaggers lose.
Grant owning or not owning slaves means literally nothing in the grand scheme of slavery. Southerners wanted to keep it because it made them feel more important. Northerners didn't care as long as the freed slaves stayed in the South and didn't come up to take factory jobs. Some people on BOTH SIDES were racist, and some people on BOTH SIDES weren't racist. Give it a rest.
I've got to give the credit for a Union victory to the Yankee Cavalry. Buford held the high ground on the first day, and Custer made his first in a series of moronic suicidal attacks on Stuarts Cavalry that prevented Stuart from joining in on Picketts charge from the rear.
Mark, do you ever post anything new? Here I was out of town over the weekend and come back and read the same crap. You have your source, read again and again till that pea size brain of yours finally works. Contact me when you can answer just one of my three questions. For once in your lifetime, you will finally be doing some "Real" research.
"General Lee ,I have been a soldier all my life. I have fought in squads; platoons, companies, regiments, brigades, divisions and corps. There has never been arrayed for battle a body of 15,000 men that can take that position." James Longstreet (rough paraphrase)
He didn't have 15,000 men as was proposed.Pickett always contended that the assault was defeated from the flanks. Lee was doomed when Hill committed Heth and brought on the "general engagement " that Lee needed time to concentrate for.
@mastertoker69 Nobody knows if Longstreet said that at Gettysburg to General Lee. Nobody recorded what was said. After the war, Lee never wrote about it, so it only comes from Longstreet. Longstreet wrote that in 1896 and used much "Hindsight". With, "I would have done this and I would have done that". Longstreet wrote his book "From Manassas to Appomattox in 1896. There were no Confederate generals left to challenge his words.
@rebel2276 Many Confederate Generals blamed General Longstreet for the loss at Gettysburg. General Lee in a letter to Senator Wigfall (Texas) in 1869, "I wish he had attacked sooner then later". Meaning July 2nd, when Longstreet waited till 4PM to attack. When Longstreet did not get his way, he would sulk and drag his feet and was borderline insubordinate with General Lee on many battlefields.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Mark, I have been reading and doing research on the Civil War for nearly thirty years. The late Brian Pohanka, who lived in Alexandria, Virginia, was a huge help by showing me were to find everything at the National Archives and Library of Congress in Washington DC. For almost eleven years now, my research team and I have been digging deep and we just seek the real truth. We have obtained it. I know Mark, the truth hurts.
And you're a FLAT OUT LIAR who repeatedly claimed that McFeely wrote on page 62 of Grant: A Biography that Ulysses S. Grant personally owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." That's a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIE. You are nothing but a FLAT OUT LIAR, Mark.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks The source is right there for you to read Mark. I know it is very difficult for you to accept the truth. Since women had no rights during the Civil War, any slaves that Julia owned, Grant would be in overall control of them. Julia owned four slaves, since she was married to Grant, he also owned them as well. Colonel Dent, Julia's father gave them slaves upon their marriage. The Dent family goes back to the 17th Century in Maryland, where they were tobacco farmers.
I have read it, retard. It's sitting right in front of me. Unlike you, I actually graduated with a degree in American history and I do the research BEFORE I post. McFeely NOWHERE wrote, on page 62 or any other, that Ulysses S. Grant personally owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." You're just a FLAT OUT LIAR.
And women were allowed to own property in the 1800s, dipshit. Mississippi authorized women to own slaves as early as 1822. Are you really this uneducated, stupid, and fucking lazy? What a LIAR!!
Why do anti-American hatemongers insist on FLAT OUT LYING about the contents of page 62 of McFeely's biography of Grant? The book is widely available online and in bookstores and libraries, and even 30 seconds of review informs that page 62 nowhere says that Ulysses S. Grant owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." It says that the Dent family owned 12 slaves at WHITE Haven, that Julia Dent owned 4 slaves, and that Ulysses S. Grant only ever owned one slave, for one year, who he voluntarily freed. LIAR.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@RonPaulHatesBlacks You have a degree in History? Well that is great Mark, you should be able to answer a few of my questions. 1) Major Wheat's Louisiana Battalion at 1st Bull Run captured a "National Flag" do you know what Union regiment lost that flag? 2) I need the missing Union and Confederate regimental strengths and losses at Chickamauga, also at Antietam as well. 3) Do you know what James Longstreet middle name was?
You should certainly figure that out with your "History Degree".
I certainly understand why you're desperate to change the subject to Longstreet's middle name, but it's not very persuasive, boy. The simple truth is that you repeatedly claimed that at page 62, McFeely showed that Ulysses S. Grant personally owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." The fact is that McFeely made no such claim, and that you FLAT OUT LIED to the contrary. You're uneducated, made a claim without doing the research, and then FLAT OUT LIED to try to save it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@RonPaulHatesBlacks You claim you have a history degree, you think you know more about history and the Civil War then I do. This is what we work on, the unknown, I have to edit, Civil War books, websites, magazines, etc. I am not changing subjects, you just refuse to acknowledge the truth, so I am not going to waste my time on the subject. Again, you think you know more then I do, then answer any of those three questions. If you can answer even one of those questions, I will delete my account.
The fact truth is that you repeatedly claimed that at page 62, McFeely showed that Ulysses S. Grant personally owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." The truth is that McFeely never made any such claim, on page 62 or any other. You are nothing but a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIAR who refuses to acknowledge the truth --- that you got caught FLAT OUT LYING.
You can try to change the subject for another 100 years, boy, but you can never change that you are a LIAR.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks The source is right there for you Mark. Again, Julia (Grant's Wife) owned Four slaves. Since women had no rights, Grant was in charge of all the slaves. Take your time reading this, go over it again and again. All you have to do (And anyone else reading this) go to "Google" type in "Grant's slaves. or "Did Grant own slaves". Grant is listed as a President that owned slaves, he was the last President to own slaves. A total of Twelve Presidents owned slaves.
The source is open in front of me, boy. Unlike you, I actually studied American history, got a degree in it, and do the research before I post. McFeely never wrote, on page 62 or any other, that Grant personally owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." You FLAT OUT LIED. You are a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIAR.
I don't know how you can live without integrity or honor --- seriously, I really don't. I would choose death before dishonor, and your degraded existence as a LIAR.
Again, why do hatemongers insist on FLAT OUT LYING about the page numbers and contents of books that are available online as well as in bookstores and libraries? Even 30 seconds of research would tell you that Ulysses S. Grant only ever owned one slave, for one year, who he voluntarily freed though he badly needed the money that would have come from a sale. How arrogant and ignorant would someone have to be to FLAT OUT LIE about page 62 of a book that anyone can read at any time?
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Yes please follow your own words at the end of your post. That took a real big man to insult that 14 year old kid last week. "Butternut" screen name. I came across that, and helped out the kid.
I guess your not going to answer my three questions, to hard to find? What can't do some "Real" research? I guess if it does not contain Lee having his two slaves being whipped or some tax crap, you don't want to pay attention to anything else.
Um, yeah. You're a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIAR who's chosen to live his life without honor or integrity. We knew that already, slappy. You can continue to try desperately to change the subject, coward, but you can never change the fact that you FLAT OUT LIED about McFeely and aren't man enough to admit it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@RonPaulHatesBlacks One more time idiot, you have the SOURCE. Read it. All you do is reply with the same shit. Since you think I am a liar and this and that, answer just one my questions and I will delete my account and you never have to deal with me every again. Those three questions stump all of us, so since you believe you know more about the Civil War then I do, you should easily figure that out.
I have the source open in front of me. McFeely doesn't claim on page 62 or any other that Ulysses S. Grant personally owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." You FLAT OUT LIED about that. McFeely instead explains what every historian already knows---Grant only ever owned one slave, for one year, who he voluntarily freed years before the war though he badly needed the money that would have come from a sale. You're a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIAR with no integrity or honor.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Can't help it if you can't read or every understand that Grant owned more then one slave. Since his wife own more slaves and since they were MARRIED they both owned the slaves. If anyone is a "Proven Liar" it's yourself. Care to type about a battle? Can't do that can you? That is how I know you use the same 50 sock accounts, because they are all stupid and none can type about a battle.
Respond to this video...To answer your question, the source is there Mark, how many times do I have to go over this with you. I understand you have mental health issues, as you typed to me about it. All you have to do Mark is go on Google and type in "Grant's slaves". This subject you should have known about a long time ago.
for over 100 years people were told that the south could never have won the war because the north had to many advantages with materials , factories, etc. and then we all learned in vietnam that the underdog can definitely win if determined. truth is that the south got tired of fighting before the north did. Just like the english got tired of fighting us in our revolutionery war. we didn't defeat the british, they simply had enough and left.
Something else that affected the Confederate cannon fire is that fuses for their shells were made in several factories. Fuses made in one factory burned at a different rate than fuses made in the other factories.
I gotta agree with Superguy. That's precisely the personal account I read. Also...even if the south had won at Gettysburg, there's no way they were winning the war. Remember, the war was never supposed to go on as long as it did. The south was making a statement and hoped by its early actions to either depose Lincoln or to make the north end the hostilities, thereby allowing them to have what they ultimately wanted. Each new day the war lingered was a surprise, at least for a while.
hooker didnt lose his nerve at chancey my friend,, he was knocked out by a shell that exploded over his head and he was struck in the head by the debris. his staff didnt say anything to anyone so no one took over command... mac was no coward but was too cautious..incredibly lee said he was the best he had fought..
@superguy8210 Aye. I don't agree with this guide. Presumably it's his personal opinion.
The Union artillery overshot just as the Confederate guns did. It was standard for artillery of the age. As they shot more and more, their wheels would dig deeper into the ground, and the barrel would become elevated. The smoke made it impossible to gauge accuracy.
Whereas the Confederate overshoots hit Union support troops, the Union overshoots hit Confederate soldiers massed for the attack.
Had the South had won at Gettysburg, it would still have lost the War military. New York alone had 10 times more factories than the entire South; the North could place 4 men in the field for every one Southerner. Had Lee won at Gettysburg, the North would have simply redoubled its efforts.
Consider that at the beginning of the War the North only called a few thousand volunteers for a 90-day enlistment. The War lasted four years only because of surprise Southern military successes.
@mnpd007 Maybe the North would have, maybe not. Lee realized at the beginning of the war that he couldn't destroy the northern armies. He aimed to win as many battles as he could to eliminate northern support of the war and either 1) create enough pressure on the government to end it or 2) elect a new president. Lincoln was rather unpopular in the months before the election, and Lincoln knew that he was probably going to lose. However, Shermans march through Georgia saved him.
@mnpd007 Don't forget though that the South could have ended the war early on, they had a chance to take D.C, but chose not to because they had no interest in conquering the North. They wanted to only defend their land from the North.
The charge failed because you can't manuever across a half-mile of open country against prepared defenses. The offense doesn't begin until you get there, and by the time you do there is nothing left to fight with.
For all his brilliance in using his shoestring force to shatter massive U.S. armies throughout the War, Pickett's Charge was Lee's single great error.
Longstreet said it best when he told Lee before the ill-fated charge that "no 15,000 men ever made" could take that hill.
i believe pickett's charge failed because the confederates stopped bombarding when the infantry began their march. this attack was similar to the attack on the somme. where british and canadian soldiers were massacred because rawlingson said we must walk across the field and because the attack was delayed. just as pickett's charge, the somme could have been an easy victory if we had charged instead.
The problem is that we're dealing with confederates who had to ration their ammunition. Unlike their U.S. foe, they were lucky to find a pair of shoes to wear, and fully 1/4th of Lee's men walked to Gettysburg barefoot. Their logistics were limited to what they could carry on their backs, and they simply didn't have the ammuntion to fire continously.
@mnpd007 well another problem for the confederates was that the southern half was more a plantation field industry in general while the north was more a weapon's making place. when the confederates started the war they basically only had the weapons they had before war was waged. i believe if lee and jackson had come from the north, they may have ended the war easily. but lee and jackson were both known to be the best fighters on either side. something even sherman commented on.
@ultradumbass They were made to look better than they were by the general incompetence of Union generals in the east. For example, McClellan could have taken Richmond on more than one occasion, but he was a coward. Hooker could have obliterated Lee's army at Chancellorsville, but he lost his nerve. Etc. etc.
The attack by the confederates failed because it was an attack that never should have been made, plain and simple. Some people blame it on JEB Stewart but the fact is that Stewart was now in enemy territory where he didn't have a network of spies or know the landscape like in Virginia. Jackson was no longer there, but Lee had many other capable commanders. The ultimate mistake that cost Lee the battle was that he allowed himself to be lured into it to begin with and didn't stick to the plan.
That attack failed when Stuart went prancing around MD and Pennsylvania trophy hunting instead being Lees eyes and ears. If Reb Calvary had done it's job There would have been NO battle of Gettysburg. He damn well didn't need Jackson to beat the Yanks. For once the yankee Calvary got there first and fought the way its supposed to and let the Union get the high ground. Once the yanks got the high ground..it was just a question of time.
I think it failed because Lee did not have Jackson. Lee only trusted to split his troops with Jackson until this point, and without him he had no faith that a wide flanking maneuver would be capable of working without proper leadership.
This was a cool video. So many people on here are arguing, it seems that people love to argue online because it makes them feel more powerful than if they were doing it face to face. Anyways, 83rdNYVolunteers, thanks for posting this video. I enjoyed it :-)
@Butternut731863 As much as I love the south I have to say what does it matter? we lost the war. But still long live the memories of General lee and Jackson and all who fought and died for the South.
"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristics. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only it's external or federate relations that are altered. To Term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."
he has right, Lee also loved (Who doesnt, hehe) Napoleon. And Napoleons tactics (as a former artilery officer like Lee) were, much arty and then attack
This young man is speaking with an air of authority he does not possess. Had the Confederate artillery been accurate, it would have cleared that ridge and broken the union line. An imaginative story, robustly told, but no reputable historian would agree.
you speculate about the outcome IF the Confederate artillery was accurate, an outcome you can't possibly predict. More woulda-coulda-shoulda.-but didn't.
@22cathytown No. He isnt that smart. A HIDDEN Union battery, was postioned at a ridge the rebels had to go down. At the bottom of the slope the union cannon unleashed Double Canister fire straight down the rebel line. The guide doesnt know it, my dad and i both know it because we do civil war reenactments. That union battery was the main reason it failed. If not for that union battery the line may have broken, lets not forget Hancock's tactical genius, he flanked them pretty quick.
Stuarts Calvary was suppose to attack the rear of the Union Lines at same time the Southern Army was attacking the front. Custer prevented Stuart form reaching the lines. If the Artillery and Custer had done their jobs the lines would have been crushed.
Generals continued to believe that massive artillery barrages could do the job and clear enemy positions, right up to WWI and probably beyond. They were proved wrong over and over again.
There were even times when the south ran out of ammo and threw rocks at the union, and the union ran away. And you're gonna talk about brave northern soldiers? Yeah, right lol.
Furthermore, if close to 15,000 Confederate soldiers had gotten up to the stonewall without being hit by cannons, do you honestly believe that 5,000 union soldiers would have stood a snowball's chance in hell? Bravery had nothing to do with it. I just like to tell the truth about things, and I dispise lies.
I used to be a civil war historian, and this is crap. If the Confederate bombardment had accurately hit those union lines, they would have broken all to pieces, and had the confederates gotten all their men up to the wall without suffering artillery attacks against them, the union would have broke apart. Bravery makes no difference when you have superior fire power (the north). The north did not win because they had better fighters, otherwise they wouldn't have lost so many battles prior to this
Guns could not be accurate firing at the back of the hill, and Union kept a reserve in artillery and in men behind the hill, pushing them forward as others were destroyed.
The rebels early had superior artillery because Buchanan's Sec War Floyd had shipped all US cannon to southern forts where they could be stolen. US had to rebuild all those cannon.
Hazard's artillery brigade consisted of 27 guns, with another 12 brought up to reinforce. 35 of these were knocked out.
The artillery that did the execution wasn't in the centre, but on the flanks of the attack; McGilvery's Brigade (39 guns) smashed Kemper's brigade, whilst Osborne's brigade (also 39 guns) smashed Brockenborough's brigade. The remaining brigades had very little artillery coming in on them.
Do you honestly believe that if the south had gotten all their troops up to that stonewall without suffering artillery fire that the North would have still stood there? Absoltuely not. The North may not have had several guns in the center, but they didn't need several. The South had to march over a mile across open ground, it was a turkey shoot. It's not whose brave, it's who has the most firepower.
cushing got shot up pretty bad. i own a bike tour company here in gettysburg and my main guide is a fan of cushing's bravery. he got shot in the groin and still remained until a bullet went into his mouth and ended his life. brave dudes back then.
I would say that rifled artillery of that time was fairly accurate under a mile as long as you could see the target. I think the idea was to knock out the 5 or so Federal batteries in that area, but by the time their infantry would get there fresh batteries would take their place.
Well, field artillery back then i think wasn´t really effective. Neither accurate nor enough "boom". No comparison with the artillery in First World War. In the first world war more than 50 percent of all casualties were because of artillery. Yet even that amount of artillery was really able to overcome the defendersI guess in the civil war that figure was more like 5 percent. Or even less. How could anyone believe the puny field artillery of civil war vintage could have done that?
The puny Civil War artillery was ranged against the concentrated infantry formations of that time. WWI formations were more dispersed, permitted because bolt action rifles and MGs gave higher rate of fire.
I think his point was centered around Cushing's battery, that if they could hit that they had accuracy. Although his point about the smoke then seems debunked. He was kinda all over the place. I can only guess his final point was it did not silence the federal guns since they were moved. But I don't know, that guy was passionate but could have used a xanax.
The reason it failed was because the Union artillery strategically cut back to save amunition and to give the appearance of being destroyed.
Also, a blind monkey can find a flee now and then. 4 direct hits hardly disproves innaccuracy. The fact is, confederate fuses were quite faulty and aiming did become a problem especially with the guns digging into the ground behind themselves.
This is my opinion but I still think one of the main reasons the charge failed was because of the artillery (I still keep in mind that the charge should not have been made at all and was a very foolish move) because as many as they had firing (they had close to or around 200 of them) at the Union they should have taken out a good portion of the cannons they were aiming at and thus causing less casualties when they were marching even though the gunfire still would have been a killing blow .
If you get there "firstus with the mostus" as Nathan Forrest said, that's how you win battles. Frontal attacks almost always failed. They failed at the stone wall at Fredricksburg, the sunken road at Antietam, and Gettysburg. The firepower was simply too great by this time to employ 18th century tactics unless you were willing and able to lose large numbers of men as the Union forces did at Cold Harbor. If the Confederates had 10,000 more men, they probably would have won.
yes, if you remember the 'sunken road' became the 'bloody lane' and the union finally pierced it. Once Armistead pierced the lines, yes, i think you're right, with another brigade behind him it may've been different. But i'm still baffled that Lee didn't learn from Fredericksburg --- as LONGSTREET did.. Longstreet knew the frontal assault would fail.
I don't think he was well-educated. He was a slave trader and real estate investor who entered the military as a general. That is not to say that he was not a good general because the concensus is that he was an excellent leader.
Right, for one year, then he became a general and that was for recruiting and training troops. He was a rich guy who brought nearly a thousand men with him into the war. When you did that, you got a high rank. I don't call that working your way up. Hope I didn't offend you, but it appears he was not well-educated. It is quite possible his english would not be that of the West Pointers.
"Retreat from Gettysburg" "Lee, Logistics,& the Pennsylvania Campaign.
By Kent Masterson Brown.
This will answer all of your questions. From after Pickett's charge to when Lee went back into Virginia had been unknown at what happened in between all of that.
On page 317, Lee made a stand and "well dug in" near Williamsport, MD.
Just a bit South of Hagerstown, MD.
Colonel Wainwright, 1st Corps artillery commander, wrote "strongest works I ever saw."
it makes sense but it would have been possible even with out the bombardment. the confedrate could have out flan the union. like what Alexander the Great did.
Alexander also had a tactic of breaking the line in the center and then surrounding the two halves, not unlike what Lee attempted. Because of General Stuart's late arrival, they had no up to date knowledge of all the reinforcements Meade had beyond that hill.
He failed to mention that the young guy in charge of the Confederate artillery was only 27 years old, very young for such responsibility, and a graduate of West Point named Edward Porter Alexander from Washington , Georgia. The union army stopped shooting their guns in order to mislead , and make the Confederates think they were out of ammunition, thus Longstreet ordered the charge of Pickett.
Only when they were halfway across that field and in close range enough for the Yankee soldiers bullitt's to hit their intended mark , did they open up and resume firing.
if you have ever been to gettysburg and saw the lay of the land at the origin of Pickett's charge as opposed to their desired destination artillery out of ammo or not those boys had balls of steel
To your first point: I didn't claim otherwise. I have no sentiment for the South (for a start Im British).
My point was that it unfair to attribute the folly of generals to the men obeying then. Courage is to be praised but also lament were it is wasted.
To your second point: logical a sizable number of people must indeed care about this piece of history, otherwise people wouldn't employ battlefield guilds, would they?
Anyway whats wrong with showing enthusiasm for your Job?
Oh boy. Well let it be said, I didn't seek this fight...
1. As a human being my opinion matters every bit as yours. The land you happen to be born does not change that fact, reguardless of whatever you might say.
2. I'm intereted in culture and history outside my own national borders. Indeed how can one understand one own nation if one does not look beyond ones owns borders and understand its relationship with other countries?
3. If the factory worker is not happy with work then the obvious solution is to train and seek employment in a more personally rewarding career. It's not easy and often one must compromise, but its the only way one can hope to improve ones lot.
4. Ah yes, pointing out national defeats, the xenophobes last refudge. Yes Britain was defeated in those particalur conflicts as well as several others. But Britain was also victorious in many others.
5. And for the record "my ass" was not kicked in either of those conflict. I personnally wasn't there.
6. I wouldn't bring up Afghanistan if I was you.
7. Actually I would decribe British weather as temperate, generally unpredicable but rarely extreme. It does rain a lot but not nearly as much as people think.
Take this from a man who has a lot experience on this matter.
8. Far from sucking I would say that Britain has had a disportionate influence in the world today, for good and ill.
Well said. As a military historian and an American, I praise you on your response. Unfortunately there are those in this country as in all who only see people through nationalities, and not as people. I my self have studied many wars and one of my favorite units in the Napoleonic age was the famous "Black Watch". My reasoner into warfare has led me to England a number of times. Where I must say the weather was nice and the people were most charming and friendly.
Sorry replied by my brothers Krylancelo95 account just then.
Thank you jwhite2000232.
I also glad you had a pleasent time when you visited my country (alsa not everyone does unfortuantly, since there some real jerks over here, as with every where else).
I must say every American I meet in person were also most charming and friendly as well, and have heard much of the hospitality of the states. I hope to visit your Great land one day soon.
3. ...Yeah our Government does suck. Unlike you i can concede a valid point.
HOWEVER our bicameral legislative system is the foundation to own.
Why didn't the American Revolution turn into a blood bath after the war? Well one of the reasons might be because the revoltionaries already ran the country before the war and knew what they were doing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you sound like a red neck!! rednecks dont like liberal i.e free thinking do they? Its time to reassess yourself - look in the mirror and say " im a dumb ass red neck "
what the hell has it got to do with you dumb ass? im not a bigot - i was arguing with a thick racist redneck! whereas you are probably just plain thick...
why am i racist - for calling you a redneck? you dont make any sense at all. I have no grief against any race only individuals like yourself. I can safely assume from your inarticulate ranting that you are just a spotty teenager who doesnt know shit from clay and gets a buzz from using racist and threatening abuse on the internet from the safety of your trailer park!
Close im a 21 year old Military man.And your not a racist but you stereotype an entire group of people and immediatley profile those you dont know. You insult those who dont think like you. Your a facist bitch and deserve death. I dont fight for you and neither do those around me.
who do you fight for - the good old usa? the bully of the world.
if anyone is a nazi its you - america is a police state run by thugs and boneheads. And please correct me if Im wrong redneck is a term to describe racist uneducated grunts from the southern states. I think that profile matches quite closely.
generalisations always contain a core of truth - its called grasping the bigger picture. Im sorry if you cant face it. America is racist and its military are bullies.
to conquer the world, suppress any culture that differs from the usa's and to claim all of the natural resources as their own. and yes you are spot on - rednecks are everywhere - they are a generic species. George bush is the most obvious example.
And by doing so we will alienate the rest of the world's population and go bankrupt in the process because American's don't build or manufacture anything. We aren't even trying to hide our agenda anymore. It's amazing how much I have seen America turn to shit in my lifetime.
These park rangers are usually so far off on details. About two years ago my family and I went to Sharpsburg, where this one park ranger tried to tell me that Lee had "75,000 " troops in the battle.
I said what??? So I took him over to the gift shop and picked up Micheal Priest's book on Antietam. I pointed to Mr. Priest's "30,000" "engaged."
I said if Lee had 75,000 men, where in the world were 45,000 Confederates "hiding." lol
Most of us are taught in school and raised to believe the Civil War was a race issue. We are led to believe Lincoln was provoked by the South.
We are never taught that Emancipation Proclamation only freed Southern slaves, We are never taught Lincoln was given ample time to remove troops from Fort Sumter and we are never taught the importance of the 10th Amendment.
As adults we can become informed and learn how much our individ. and state rights have been trampled by the federal government.
Today as we watch states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana and Ohio pushing for more state sovereignty, the under lying issues behind secession become more transparent and relevant.
Texas has the lowest taxes and regulations and they have created more jobs this year then all the other 49 states combined. The fed should be learning something here.
A lot of people are becoming more aware of the scam the fed gov. is running. It doesn't matter where you were born or what color you are.
Hancock, commanding Union 2nd Corps, ordered the 2nd Corps batteries to keep firing to bolster the morale of the Union Infantry hunkered down on the stone wall. Cushing's guns were firing, which made the a logical target.
All for naught, though. The Confederacy could have taken out every battery on the ridge and the North had guns to replace them. Union artillery owned that field.
This guy is full of bull shit PIcketts charge failed because a his calvary support was delayed by Custer. the troops postioned on the bluff didnt run because they had the high ground Picketts men were sitting ducks there was no way Pickett was going to break the line in the center and he and all the other professional commanders with him knew that full well it was a suicide mission from the start.
I've read that book as well, and it is a fascinating theory. Stuart himself states that his mission was to "gain the enemy's rear." However, Lee ordered Pickett's report redacted after the battle, and a number of other after action reports were redacted or just dissappeared. Stuart had his whole command (9,000 or so troopers) who seemed intent on breaking through to the Union Rear, and Custer met them and stopped them head on. "Come on, you Wolverines!"
His description of smoke generated would be factual. However, to say that artillerymen cannot see 25' in front, and also that, fire was lobbed overhead by both sides is ridiculous and inconsistent with his supposition of Confederate accuracy. Ninety minutes of accurate cannon fire would have crushed the morale of even the brave Texas Brigade. Cushings bravery was brought on by his mortal wounds. Could it be that smoke obscured the destruction around him, Mr. Guide? Yanks again rewrite History.
JLorraineRocks 2 weeks ago
For those of whom say Grant had slaves at new haven, I must correct them. White Haven was the name of the property owned by Julia Grants father Col. Dent. It is possible that Col. Dent had slaves, and when the Grants moved to White Haven, they may have aquired them. When Grant was building Hardscrabble, on a piece land, 80 acres, given him by Col Dent he had one slave helping him. He freed this slave upon moving to White Haven after the death of his Mother in Law
uhgrant 1 month ago
I thought there was going to be some new info in this video.
zipsrule 4 months ago
A very good and informative video. Thanks
atrahan100 5 months ago
Remins me of Waterloo. The French there had a lot of guns and skilled crews. But their gunfire proved very ineffective. I think most of the Confederate shells sailed way over the heads of the union troops and landed in the rear areas.
breezeman199 5 months ago
Listened twice. Still don't get it. The Confederate bombardment should have made mincemeat of the union line, but obviously it didn't. Maybe the problem was that indirect fire was then unknown?
breezeman199 5 months ago
@breezeman199 Rebel artillery was no match for Yankee artillery. As the day wore on, the guns dug into their embrasures and elevated more and more, until they were firing over the Federals on Cemetary Ridge, not into them. Then, the Federal artillery commanders ceased firing to conserve ammunition for the infantry attack and to lull the Confederates into thinking that their barrage had succeeded.
KNS1996DFS 5 months ago
@KNS1996DFS Yes I had heard that. Still I would have thought the confederate gunners would have realized this and either made a calculated adjustment or relocated their guns. Overall their bombardment was very ineffective, especially considering the number of pieces and the length of time. I know indirect fire did not exist at this time but the confederate officers should have sensed that something was wrong. In any case Pickett's charge was certainly ill-conceived. Reminds me of Culloden.
breezeman199 5 months ago
@breezeman199 It wasnt that it was ineffective it was that they did all the could up to a certain point but after that they couldnt really do any more damage to the Union positions, the whole attack was a tactical mistake from Lee, and the main reason it failed was that the Union troops were too well dug in
SArmagh681 4 months ago
@breezeman199 It's cause most of the men were Irish. They don't run. The unit holding the line was the Philadelphia Brigade. The 69th Penn. was almost all Irish, hence the Irish flag. Irish made up a significant portion of the other regiments of the Brigade.
GeneralKenobiSIYE 5 months ago 4
@GeneralKenobiSIYE Bless the N.Y.69th, my great grandfather was with it and still mad at the English . He still didn't quite understand the war but he'd been at Frederickburg and by this time was mad as the devil at these confederate's!
Ms2blackcats 4 months ago
150 to 200 cannons, firing about an hour, each gun firing 2 balls a minute, so lets say that none of the reb guns got destroyed (which they did) they fired up to 18,000 shells ideally were fired. That against 5,000 or so men and a single battery of six guns and they were unable to take them out. Not only did they fail to take out the initial battery, but the Union heavily reeinforced the center with both men and ended up bringing somewhere like 200 guns into the action. FAIL
JoeHooker11 5 months ago
The problem with this guy is that he thinks being inacurate means 0% shots on target....not really ;)
Cushing was one of the primary targets for the whole southern artillery. The simple fact that he still has a single canon to support the infantry means "big fail" for the bombardment. Considering how many guns they got involved, how long they shot, and they could not even destroy one of their primary targets.......BIG TROUBLE!!! Cushing should have been trashed in the mentioned 20 minutes.
Ruimas28 6 months ago
Had the Confederate artillery fire been as accurate against all guns and soldiers in the center as they were against the cannon he mentions, then, considering the concentration and amount of shells fired, it is reasonable to believe that it would have more or less cleared the area. As far as I have been taught, it didn't.
OliverLarson 7 months ago
passionate 22 year old who will not discuss a wound to the groin.
Hmm.
Jemmer1000 8 months ago
Grow up,whites are the minorities now.Black people are the most racist groups of people. You cant be proud to be white or your KKK but its kewl to be proud of being black, asian, mexican. Look at BET and Black Starz. all of it is crap if I had a network called WET you figure it out. I am not racist BUT whites need to be proud of their race, yes we may have destroyed our planet with help from all but look at what our race has done. Antibiotics, Space travel, evolution, flight, micro biology.
akula5151 8 months ago
@akula5151 Antibiotic, space travel, flight, microbiology and MORE had black and mongol inventors and pinoneers, TOO, they are just..."strangley' never mentioned. Charles Drew, black scientist who came up with blood transfusions for one. Ironically, he died of loss of blood because the hospital he was at did not give a transfusion from it1s only available candidate..a white man. Dr. Daniel Hale Williams, another black man..heart transplants and heart surgery. Garrett Morgan, traffic lights .
dingane19 7 months ago
@akula5151 Normal people aren't proud of their race, they're proud of their ethnic heritage. Asians aren't proud of being asian, they're proud of being from whichever country in Asia they're from. White people can be proud of being American, or British, or French, or German, or Irish, or whatever. Black people are proud of being black because (1) most of them don't even know where their ancestors are from and (2) black americans have had the farthest to climb. Their culture is rooted in slavery
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
The teabaggers are the successors to the confederate traitors. They think us progressives will flee it they attack enough. How do you stop the teabaggers? Show the courage that the Union soldiers had and refuse to flee. Then the teabaggers lose.
videoguy604 8 months ago
>_>
Grant owning or not owning slaves means literally nothing in the grand scheme of slavery. Southerners wanted to keep it because it made them feel more important. Northerners didn't care as long as the freed slaves stayed in the South and didn't come up to take factory jobs. Some people on BOTH SIDES were racist, and some people on BOTH SIDES weren't racist. Give it a rest.
njstuckey 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This dude talking to the tourists doesn't have the sense to pour the piss out of his own boots.
odanak100 9 months ago
Comment removed
odanak100 9 months ago
I've got to give the credit for a Union victory to the Yankee Cavalry. Buford held the high ground on the first day, and Custer made his first in a series of moronic suicidal attacks on Stuarts Cavalry that prevented Stuart from joining in on Picketts charge from the rear.
volsncards 9 months ago
Mark, do you ever post anything new? Here I was out of town over the weekend and come back and read the same crap. You have your source, read again and again till that pea size brain of yours finally works. Contact me when you can answer just one of my three questions. For once in your lifetime, you will finally be doing some "Real" research.
rebel2276 10 months ago
"General Lee ,I have been a soldier all my life. I have fought in squads; platoons, companies, regiments, brigades, divisions and corps. There has never been arrayed for battle a body of 15,000 men that can take that position." James Longstreet (rough paraphrase)
He didn't have 15,000 men as was proposed.Pickett always contended that the assault was defeated from the flanks. Lee was doomed when Hill committed Heth and brought on the "general engagement " that Lee needed time to concentrate for.
mastertoker69 11 months ago
@mastertoker69 Nobody knows if Longstreet said that at Gettysburg to General Lee. Nobody recorded what was said. After the war, Lee never wrote about it, so it only comes from Longstreet. Longstreet wrote that in 1896 and used much "Hindsight". With, "I would have done this and I would have done that". Longstreet wrote his book "From Manassas to Appomattox in 1896. There were no Confederate generals left to challenge his words.
rebel2276 10 months ago
@rebel2276 Many Confederate Generals blamed General Longstreet for the loss at Gettysburg. General Lee in a letter to Senator Wigfall (Texas) in 1869, "I wish he had attacked sooner then later". Meaning July 2nd, when Longstreet waited till 4PM to attack. When Longstreet did not get his way, he would sulk and drag his feet and was borderline insubordinate with General Lee on many battlefields.
rebel2276 10 months ago
How do you know that? Did McFeely write it on page 62 of Grant: A Biography, you pathetic liar?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago 2
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Mark, I have been reading and doing research on the Civil War for nearly thirty years. The late Brian Pohanka, who lived in Alexandria, Virginia, was a huge help by showing me were to find everything at the National Archives and Library of Congress in Washington DC. For almost eleven years now, my research team and I have been digging deep and we just seek the real truth. We have obtained it. I know Mark, the truth hurts.
rebel2276 10 months ago
And you're a FLAT OUT LIAR who repeatedly claimed that McFeely wrote on page 62 of Grant: A Biography that Ulysses S. Grant personally owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." That's a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIE. You are nothing but a FLAT OUT LIAR, Mark.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks The source is right there for you to read Mark. I know it is very difficult for you to accept the truth. Since women had no rights during the Civil War, any slaves that Julia owned, Grant would be in overall control of them. Julia owned four slaves, since she was married to Grant, he also owned them as well. Colonel Dent, Julia's father gave them slaves upon their marriage. The Dent family goes back to the 17th Century in Maryland, where they were tobacco farmers.
rebel2276 10 months ago
I have read it, retard. It's sitting right in front of me. Unlike you, I actually graduated with a degree in American history and I do the research BEFORE I post. McFeely NOWHERE wrote, on page 62 or any other, that Ulysses S. Grant personally owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." You're just a FLAT OUT LIAR.
And women were allowed to own property in the 1800s, dipshit. Mississippi authorized women to own slaves as early as 1822. Are you really this uneducated, stupid, and fucking lazy? What a LIAR!!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago
Why do anti-American hatemongers insist on FLAT OUT LYING about the contents of page 62 of McFeely's biography of Grant? The book is widely available online and in bookstores and libraries, and even 30 seconds of review informs that page 62 nowhere says that Ulysses S. Grant owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." It says that the Dent family owned 12 slaves at WHITE Haven, that Julia Dent owned 4 slaves, and that Ulysses S. Grant only ever owned one slave, for one year, who he voluntarily freed. LIAR.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks You have a degree in History? Well that is great Mark, you should be able to answer a few of my questions. 1) Major Wheat's Louisiana Battalion at 1st Bull Run captured a "National Flag" do you know what Union regiment lost that flag? 2) I need the missing Union and Confederate regimental strengths and losses at Chickamauga, also at Antietam as well. 3) Do you know what James Longstreet middle name was?
You should certainly figure that out with your "History Degree".
rebel2276 10 months ago
I certainly understand why you're desperate to change the subject to Longstreet's middle name, but it's not very persuasive, boy. The simple truth is that you repeatedly claimed that at page 62, McFeely showed that Ulysses S. Grant personally owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." The fact is that McFeely made no such claim, and that you FLAT OUT LIED to the contrary. You're uneducated, made a claim without doing the research, and then FLAT OUT LIED to try to save it.
You're a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIAR.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks You claim you have a history degree, you think you know more about history and the Civil War then I do. This is what we work on, the unknown, I have to edit, Civil War books, websites, magazines, etc. I am not changing subjects, you just refuse to acknowledge the truth, so I am not going to waste my time on the subject. Again, you think you know more then I do, then answer any of those three questions. If you can answer even one of those questions, I will delete my account.
rebel2276 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Still trying to change the subject. Sad.
The fact truth is that you repeatedly claimed that at page 62, McFeely showed that Ulysses S. Grant personally owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." The truth is that McFeely never made any such claim, on page 62 or any other. You are nothing but a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIAR who refuses to acknowledge the truth --- that you got caught FLAT OUT LYING.
You can try to change the subject for another 100 years, boy, but you can never change that you are a LIAR.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago 6
@RonPaulHatesBlacks The source is right there for you Mark. Again, Julia (Grant's Wife) owned Four slaves. Since women had no rights, Grant was in charge of all the slaves. Take your time reading this, go over it again and again. All you have to do (And anyone else reading this) go to "Google" type in "Grant's slaves. or "Did Grant own slaves". Grant is listed as a President that owned slaves, he was the last President to own slaves. A total of Twelve Presidents owned slaves.
Ok Boy?
rebel2276 10 months ago
The source is open in front of me, boy. Unlike you, I actually studied American history, got a degree in it, and do the research before I post. McFeely never wrote, on page 62 or any other, that Grant personally owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." You FLAT OUT LIED. You are a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIAR.
I don't know how you can live without integrity or honor --- seriously, I really don't. I would choose death before dishonor, and your degraded existence as a LIAR.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago 2
Again, why do hatemongers insist on FLAT OUT LYING about the page numbers and contents of books that are available online as well as in bookstores and libraries? Even 30 seconds of research would tell you that Ulysses S. Grant only ever owned one slave, for one year, who he voluntarily freed though he badly needed the money that would have come from a sale. How arrogant and ignorant would someone have to be to FLAT OUT LIE about page 62 of a book that anyone can read at any time?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Yes please follow your own words at the end of your post. That took a real big man to insult that 14 year old kid last week. "Butternut" screen name. I came across that, and helped out the kid.
I guess your not going to answer my three questions, to hard to find? What can't do some "Real" research? I guess if it does not contain Lee having his two slaves being whipped or some tax crap, you don't want to pay attention to anything else.
Come on boy, answer my questions.
rebel2276 10 months ago
Um, yeah. You're a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIAR who's chosen to live his life without honor or integrity. We knew that already, slappy. You can continue to try desperately to change the subject, coward, but you can never change the fact that you FLAT OUT LIED about McFeely and aren't man enough to admit it.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks One more time idiot, you have the SOURCE. Read it. All you do is reply with the same shit. Since you think I am a liar and this and that, answer just one my questions and I will delete my account and you never have to deal with me every again. Those three questions stump all of us, so since you believe you know more about the Civil War then I do, you should easily figure that out.
Try to reply back with something new, lol
rebel2276 10 months ago
I have the source open in front of me. McFeely doesn't claim on page 62 or any other that Ulysses S. Grant personally owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." You FLAT OUT LIED about that. McFeely instead explains what every historian already knows---Grant only ever owned one slave, for one year, who he voluntarily freed years before the war though he badly needed the money that would have come from a sale. You're a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIAR with no integrity or honor.
You're a liar and a coward.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Can't help it if you can't read or every understand that Grant owned more then one slave. Since his wife own more slaves and since they were MARRIED they both owned the slaves. If anyone is a "Proven Liar" it's yourself. Care to type about a battle? Can't do that can you? That is how I know you use the same 50 sock accounts, because they are all stupid and none can type about a battle.
Keep trolling!
rebel2276 9 months ago
Husbands and wives are allowed separate property in this country. Obviously.
William McFeely NEVER wrote that Ulysses S. Grant owned 12 slaves at "New Haven." That's a FLAT OUT LIE.
Rebel2276's grandfather was NEVER Director of the CIA. That's another FLAT OUT LIE.
Don't the uneducated hatemongers EVER stop lying? Why would anyone believe ANYTHING they say?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 9 months ago 4
@RonPaulHatesBlacks there is no way that grant could have owned slaves Lincoln would not have allowed it who said that?
lonnie727 3 months ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Don't the uneducated hatemongers EVER stop lying? Why would anyone believe ANYTHING they say?
I agree. I, too, wonder why people would believe ANYTHING you say.
RonPaulLovesBlacks3 3 months ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Stop lying stop lying hahhaha, how many websites have you went around saying this on now? Dumbass
solaceinstrife 5 months ago
Respond to this video...To answer your question, the source is there Mark, how many times do I have to go over this with you. I understand you have mental health issues, as you typed to me about it. All you have to do Mark is go on Google and type in "Grant's slaves". This subject you should have known about a long time ago.
Anymore questions, Mark?
rebel2276 10 months ago
Read Noah Trudeau's book about the battle. It won the National Book Award.
LEOPARDTWO 11 months ago
for over 100 years people were told that the south could never have won the war because the north had to many advantages with materials , factories, etc. and then we all learned in vietnam that the underdog can definitely win if determined. truth is that the south got tired of fighting before the north did. Just like the english got tired of fighting us in our revolutionery war. we didn't defeat the british, they simply had enough and left.
turkeytonite 11 months ago
Something else that affected the Confederate cannon fire is that fuses for their shells were made in several factories. Fuses made in one factory burned at a different rate than fuses made in the other factories.
Steve17010 1 year ago
I gotta agree with Superguy. That's precisely the personal account I read. Also...even if the south had won at Gettysburg, there's no way they were winning the war. Remember, the war was never supposed to go on as long as it did. The south was making a statement and hoped by its early actions to either depose Lincoln or to make the north end the hostilities, thereby allowing them to have what they ultimately wanted. Each new day the war lingered was a surprise, at least for a while.
rickcee 1 year ago
@rickcee thats true that they couldnt win the war but lincoln was at that time saying if we cant stop them in this invasion we must negotiate peace
libertarian93 11 months ago
I like this kid! As a history major I can say he really brought this to life.
AngryGundamGamer 1 year ago
hooker didnt lose his nerve at chancey my friend,, he was knocked out by a shell that exploded over his head and he was struck in the head by the debris. his staff didnt say anything to anyone so no one took over command... mac was no coward but was too cautious..incredibly lee said he was the best he had fought..
pdogone1 1 year ago
@superguy8210 Aye. I don't agree with this guide. Presumably it's his personal opinion.
The Union artillery overshot just as the Confederate guns did. It was standard for artillery of the age. As they shot more and more, their wheels would dig deeper into the ground, and the barrel would become elevated. The smoke made it impossible to gauge accuracy.
Whereas the Confederate overshoots hit Union support troops, the Union overshoots hit Confederate soldiers massed for the attack.
Crymson1 1 year ago
Had the South had won at Gettysburg, it would still have lost the War military. New York alone had 10 times more factories than the entire South; the North could place 4 men in the field for every one Southerner. Had Lee won at Gettysburg, the North would have simply redoubled its efforts.
Consider that at the beginning of the War the North only called a few thousand volunteers for a 90-day enlistment. The War lasted four years only because of surprise Southern military successes.
mnpd007 1 year ago
@mnpd007 Maybe the North would have, maybe not. Lee realized at the beginning of the war that he couldn't destroy the northern armies. He aimed to win as many battles as he could to eliminate northern support of the war and either 1) create enough pressure on the government to end it or 2) elect a new president. Lincoln was rather unpopular in the months before the election, and Lincoln knew that he was probably going to lose. However, Shermans march through Georgia saved him.
johndeeredrummerboy 1 year ago
@mnpd007 Don't forget though that the South could have ended the war early on, they had a chance to take D.C, but chose not to because they had no interest in conquering the North. They wanted to only defend their land from the North.
tostedcheeseman 1 year ago
The charge failed because you can't manuever across a half-mile of open country against prepared defenses. The offense doesn't begin until you get there, and by the time you do there is nothing left to fight with.
For all his brilliance in using his shoestring force to shatter massive U.S. armies throughout the War, Pickett's Charge was Lee's single great error.
Longstreet said it best when he told Lee before the ill-fated charge that "no 15,000 men ever made" could take that hill.
mnpd007 1 year ago
if lee had let ap hill command the attack and ap hill had followed up with his corp it would have been successful
ShumaanShashavar 1 year ago
i believe pickett's charge failed because the confederates stopped bombarding when the infantry began their march. this attack was similar to the attack on the somme. where british and canadian soldiers were massacred because rawlingson said we must walk across the field and because the attack was delayed. just as pickett's charge, the somme could have been an easy victory if we had charged instead.
ultradumbass 1 year ago
@ultradumbass
The problem is that we're dealing with confederates who had to ration their ammunition. Unlike their U.S. foe, they were lucky to find a pair of shoes to wear, and fully 1/4th of Lee's men walked to Gettysburg barefoot. Their logistics were limited to what they could carry on their backs, and they simply didn't have the ammuntion to fire continously.
mnpd007 1 year ago
@mnpd007 well another problem for the confederates was that the southern half was more a plantation field industry in general while the north was more a weapon's making place. when the confederates started the war they basically only had the weapons they had before war was waged. i believe if lee and jackson had come from the north, they may have ended the war easily. but lee and jackson were both known to be the best fighters on either side. something even sherman commented on.
ultradumbass 1 year ago
@ultradumbass They were made to look better than they were by the general incompetence of Union generals in the east. For example, McClellan could have taken Richmond on more than one occasion, but he was a coward. Hooker could have obliterated Lee's army at Chancellorsville, but he lost his nerve. Etc. etc.
Crymson1 1 year ago
Dude, you should be on TV selling SOMETHING. Billy Mays aint got nothing on you.
okeagle25 1 year ago
@okeagle25
You following me, camera guy?
Bitemis 1 year ago
The attack by the confederates failed because it was an attack that never should have been made, plain and simple. Some people blame it on JEB Stewart but the fact is that Stewart was now in enemy territory where he didn't have a network of spies or know the landscape like in Virginia. Jackson was no longer there, but Lee had many other capable commanders. The ultimate mistake that cost Lee the battle was that he allowed himself to be lured into it to begin with and didn't stick to the plan.
mgoerndt 1 year ago
That attack failed when Stuart went prancing around MD and Pennsylvania trophy hunting instead being Lees eyes and ears. If Reb Calvary had done it's job There would have been NO battle of Gettysburg. He damn well didn't need Jackson to beat the Yanks. For once the yankee Calvary got there first and fought the way its supposed to and let the Union get the high ground. Once the yanks got the high ground..it was just a question of time.
chapdog82 1 year ago
I think it failed because Lee did not have Jackson. Lee only trusted to split his troops with Jackson until this point, and without him he had no faith that a wide flanking maneuver would be capable of working without proper leadership.
Frankcastle522 1 year ago
This was a cool video. So many people on here are arguing, it seems that people love to argue online because it makes them feel more powerful than if they were doing it face to face. Anyways, 83rdNYVolunteers, thanks for posting this video. I enjoyed it :-)
Butternut731863 1 year ago
@Butternut731863 As much as I love the south I have to say what does it matter? we lost the war. But still long live the memories of General lee and Jackson and all who fought and died for the South.
lonnie727 1 year ago
He is very entertaining to listen too, even if he isn't TOTALLY correct (reading your guyses comments)
When I grow up I wanna be a tour guide :D
Maybe I'll find myself up on youtube
mappoprimo 1 year ago
"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristics. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only it's external or federate relations that are altered. To Term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."
brainerdrebel 1 year ago
he has right, Lee also loved (Who doesnt, hehe) Napoleon. And Napoleons tactics (as a former artilery officer like Lee) were, much arty and then attack
eyederrick 1 year ago
@eyederrick Sorry Dude. Lee was a former Engineer. Jackson was the former Artillery officer.
TheKahliff 1 year ago
@TheKahliff ah ok, my mistake, sorry.
eyederrick 1 year ago
This young man is speaking with an air of authority he does not possess. Had the Confederate artillery been accurate, it would have cleared that ridge and broken the union line. An imaginative story, robustly told, but no reputable historian would agree.
22cathytown 1 year ago
you speculate about the outcome IF the Confederate artillery was accurate, an outcome you can't possibly predict. More woulda-coulda-shoulda.-but didn't.
dougalmac54 1 year ago
@22cathytown No. He isnt that smart. A HIDDEN Union battery, was postioned at a ridge the rebels had to go down. At the bottom of the slope the union cannon unleashed Double Canister fire straight down the rebel line. The guide doesnt know it, my dad and i both know it because we do civil war reenactments. That union battery was the main reason it failed. If not for that union battery the line may have broken, lets not forget Hancock's tactical genius, he flanked them pretty quick.
screwme55 1 year ago
The length Pickett's men had to march was the main reason the Union line held.
olivemike81 1 year ago
Stuarts Calvary was suppose to attack the rear of the Union Lines at same time the Southern Army was attacking the front. Custer prevented Stuart form reaching the lines. If the Artillery and Custer had done their jobs the lines would have been crushed.
brainerdrebel 2 years ago
woulda-coulda-shoulda-but didn't. case closed.
dougalmac54 1 year ago
The case is not closed, the federal government is overstepping the Constitution and refuses to stay within the confines of its own law.
brainerdrebel 1 year ago
Generals continued to believe that massive artillery barrages could do the job and clear enemy positions, right up to WWI and probably beyond. They were proved wrong over and over again.
deino117 2 years ago
There were even times when the south ran out of ammo and threw rocks at the union, and the union ran away. And you're gonna talk about brave northern soldiers? Yeah, right lol.
PrinceLordChris 2 years ago
you're full of it, sonny.
dougalmac54 1 year ago
LOL.. Tell me why, sonny. And I'll debunk it.
PrinceLordChris 1 year ago
Furthermore, if close to 15,000 Confederate soldiers had gotten up to the stonewall without being hit by cannons, do you honestly believe that 5,000 union soldiers would have stood a snowball's chance in hell? Bravery had nothing to do with it. I just like to tell the truth about things, and I dispise lies.
PrinceLordChris 2 years ago 2
I used to be a civil war historian, and this is crap. If the Confederate bombardment had accurately hit those union lines, they would have broken all to pieces, and had the confederates gotten all their men up to the wall without suffering artillery attacks against them, the union would have broke apart. Bravery makes no difference when you have superior fire power (the north). The north did not win because they had better fighters, otherwise they wouldn't have lost so many battles prior to this
PrinceLordChris 2 years ago
Guns could not be accurate firing at the back of the hill, and Union kept a reserve in artillery and in men behind the hill, pushing them forward as others were destroyed.
The rebels early had superior artillery because Buchanan's Sec War Floyd had shipped all US cannon to southern forts where they could be stolen. US had to rebuild all those cannon.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
It isn't crap.
Hazard's artillery brigade consisted of 27 guns, with another 12 brought up to reinforce. 35 of these were knocked out.
The artillery that did the execution wasn't in the centre, but on the flanks of the attack; McGilvery's Brigade (39 guns) smashed Kemper's brigade, whilst Osborne's brigade (also 39 guns) smashed Brockenborough's brigade. The remaining brigades had very little artillery coming in on them.
liverpoolirish208 2 years ago
Do you honestly believe that if the south had gotten all their troops up to that stonewall without suffering artillery fire that the North would have still stood there? Absoltuely not. The North may not have had several guns in the center, but they didn't need several. The South had to march over a mile across open ground, it was a turkey shoot. It's not whose brave, it's who has the most firepower.
PrinceLordChris 2 years ago
The 2 brigades on the flanks of the attack; Kemper's and Brockenborough's were absolutely smashed. The rest reached musket range intact.
liverpoolirish208 2 years ago
cushing got shot up pretty bad. i own a bike tour company here in gettysburg and my main guide is a fan of cushing's bravery. he got shot in the groin and still remained until a bullet went into his mouth and ended his life. brave dudes back then.
MattCockburn 2 years ago
I would say that rifled artillery of that time was fairly accurate under a mile as long as you could see the target. I think the idea was to knock out the 5 or so Federal batteries in that area, but by the time their infantry would get there fresh batteries would take their place.
Benajah1759 2 years ago
Well, field artillery back then i think wasn´t really effective. Neither accurate nor enough "boom". No comparison with the artillery in First World War. In the first world war more than 50 percent of all casualties were because of artillery. Yet even that amount of artillery was really able to overcome the defendersI guess in the civil war that figure was more like 5 percent. Or even less. How could anyone believe the puny field artillery of civil war vintage could have done that?
lucius1976 2 years ago
The puny Civil War artillery was ranged against the concentrated infantry formations of that time. WWI formations were more dispersed, permitted because bolt action rifles and MGs gave higher rate of fire.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
42nd New York Infantary the Tammany Regiment
amazindan 2 years ago
Cushing's bravery is a given. The casualties of one battery, however, do not disprove the overall inaccuracy of the Rebel bombardment.
Gdkohlman 2 years ago
Thanks for sharing your civil war stuff! The videos & ur commentary r interesting & entertaining.
Hope you post more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(btw I'm not even American...I'm Canadian, but this is a totally fascinating era.)
ggmorvaj 2 years ago
this dude is just a little too INTENSE... And I'm not sure if he really "proved" ANYTHING...
billykid84 2 years ago
I think his point was centered around Cushing's battery, that if they could hit that they had accuracy. Although his point about the smoke then seems debunked. He was kinda all over the place. I can only guess his final point was it did not silence the federal guns since they were moved. But I don't know, that guy was passionate but could have used a xanax.
Turnback 2 years ago
And this guy is a tour guide?
The reason it failed was because the Union artillery strategically cut back to save amunition and to give the appearance of being destroyed.
Also, a blind monkey can find a flee now and then. 4 direct hits hardly disproves innaccuracy. The fact is, confederate fuses were quite faulty and aiming did become a problem especially with the guns digging into the ground behind themselves.
LordTharrion 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
oberltMBowden23 2 years ago
This is my opinion but I still think one of the main reasons the charge failed was because of the artillery (I still keep in mind that the charge should not have been made at all and was a very foolish move) because as many as they had firing (they had close to or around 200 of them) at the Union they should have taken out a good portion of the cannons they were aiming at and thus causing less casualties when they were marching even though the gunfire still would have been a killing blow .
rohirrim90 2 years ago
If you get there "firstus with the mostus" as Nathan Forrest said, that's how you win battles. Frontal attacks almost always failed. They failed at the stone wall at Fredricksburg, the sunken road at Antietam, and Gettysburg. The firepower was simply too great by this time to employ 18th century tactics unless you were willing and able to lose large numbers of men as the Union forces did at Cold Harbor. If the Confederates had 10,000 more men, they probably would have won.
dkw12002 2 years ago
yes, if you remember the 'sunken road' became the 'bloody lane' and the union finally pierced it. Once Armistead pierced the lines, yes, i think you're right, with another brigade behind him it may've been different. But i'm still baffled that Lee didn't learn from Fredericksburg --- as LONGSTREET did.. Longstreet knew the frontal assault would fail.
lagoonguy 2 years ago 2
Not Learning from Fredricksburg is one thing...
BUT LEE DID THIS FOR HIMSELF AT MALVERN HILL!!!
He shoul really have learned from THAT!
LordTharrion 2 years ago
Nathan Forrest was well educated and NEVER said get there "firstus with the mostus". He said get there first W/ the most men.
brucestringbean 2 years ago
I don't think he was well-educated. He was a slave trader and real estate investor who entered the military as a general. That is not to say that he was not a good general because the concensus is that he was an excellent leader.
dkw12002 2 years ago
Actually he entered the army as a private and worked his way up to general your google fu is weak.
brucestringbean 2 years ago
Right, for one year, then he became a general and that was for recruiting and training troops. He was a rich guy who brought nearly a thousand men with him into the war. When you did that, you got a high rank. I don't call that working your way up. Hope I didn't offend you, but it appears he was not well-educated. It is quite possible his english would not be that of the West Pointers.
dkw12002 2 years ago
Actually his FORMAL English was as good if not better than your's or mine. And no, I'm not offended I enjoy a good FREINDLY historical debate,
brucestringbean 2 years ago
Forrest did not begin the wa as a general...
Gdkohlman 2 years ago
Yianni pick up the book:
"Retreat from Gettysburg" "Lee, Logistics,& the Pennsylvania Campaign.
By Kent Masterson Brown.
This will answer all of your questions. From after Pickett's charge to when Lee went back into Virginia had been unknown at what happened in between all of that.
On page 317, Lee made a stand and "well dug in" near Williamsport, MD.
Just a bit South of Hagerstown, MD.
Colonel Wainwright, 1st Corps artillery commander, wrote "strongest works I ever saw."
rebel2276 2 years ago
I did not believe it at first, because we have read and been told just the opposite.
But figure this...
Kemper's Brigade: 1,781 men, total loss "678". That left 1,103 men.
Garnett's Brigade: 1,851 men, total loss "905". That left 946 men.
Armistead's Brigade: 2,188 men, total loss "1,057". That left 1,131 men.
So how did these "1,131, 946 and 1,103" men escape? Because many never went far.
Priest, on page 52, wrote that all 3 divisions lost "4,802" men.
rebel2276 2 years ago
With "801 Killed, 1,237 wounded, 1,234 wounded and captured and 1,530 captured (unwounded) (which the Union admitted while counting pow's)
So if "15,000" went into the charge that was a loss of one-third. Priest wrote that only "11, 500" went into the charge.
At least 500 CSA troops (infantry) were killed/wounded from Union counter-battery fire. Another 500 from sunstroke.
Have a good morning, Sir
rebel2276 2 years ago
it makes sense but it would have been possible even with out the bombardment. the confedrate could have out flan the union. like what Alexander the Great did.
Jusgrowinup 2 years ago
Alexander also had a tactic of breaking the line in the center and then surrounding the two halves, not unlike what Lee attempted. Because of General Stuart's late arrival, they had no up to date knowledge of all the reinforcements Meade had beyond that hill.
michaelburlison 2 years ago
standing there for 4 minutes listening to that guy would have someone bored and angry that they went to an old battlefield instead of disneyworld.
MrTheBeast 2 years ago
not me :D
Vladimast 2 years ago
He failed to mention that the young guy in charge of the Confederate artillery was only 27 years old, very young for such responsibility, and a graduate of West Point named Edward Porter Alexander from Washington , Georgia. The union army stopped shooting their guns in order to mislead , and make the Confederates think they were out of ammunition, thus Longstreet ordered the charge of Pickett.
SoBelleofTN 2 years ago
Only when they were halfway across that field and in close range enough for the Yankee soldiers bullitt's to hit their intended mark , did they open up and resume firing.
SoBelleofTN 2 years ago
if you have ever been to gettysburg and saw the lay of the land at the origin of Pickett's charge as opposed to their desired destination artillery out of ammo or not those boys had balls of steel
booth805 2 years ago
or no brains
MrTheBeast 2 years ago
Or more accurately, a choice in the matter* since it was a direct order all the way up from General Lee.
(*ie one that wouldn't result in a court martial).
OlaftheFlashy 2 years ago
just admit it the south got its ass kicked all the way to mexico
im sorry rush limbaugh follower kiss my ass
(btw this guide is a noob he is so excited but no one cares)
MrTheBeast 2 years ago
To your first point: I didn't claim otherwise. I have no sentiment for the South (for a start Im British).
My point was that it unfair to attribute the folly of generals to the men obeying then. Courage is to be praised but also lament were it is wasted.
To your second point: logical a sizable number of people must indeed care about this piece of history, otherwise people wouldn't employ battlefield guilds, would they?
Anyway whats wrong with showing enthusiasm for your Job?
OlaftheFlashy 2 years ago
o youre british
fuck you bitch why the fuck do you care about the civil shit war?
enthusiasm with your job? i can see a factory worker exicited
probably you fucker industrialized british piece of shit
1. American REvolution(kicked your british ass)
2. Afghanistan(kicked your ass)
3. Piece of shit island with bad weather
just face it you piece of shit ENLGAND SUCKS ASS!!!!!!!!!!
MrTheBeast 2 years ago
Oh boy. Well let it be said, I didn't seek this fight...
1. As a human being my opinion matters every bit as yours. The land you happen to be born does not change that fact, reguardless of whatever you might say.
2. I'm intereted in culture and history outside my own national borders. Indeed how can one understand one own nation if one does not look beyond ones owns borders and understand its relationship with other countries?
OlaftheFlashy 2 years ago
3. If the factory worker is not happy with work then the obvious solution is to train and seek employment in a more personally rewarding career. It's not easy and often one must compromise, but its the only way one can hope to improve ones lot.
4. Ah yes, pointing out national defeats, the xenophobes last refudge. Yes Britain was defeated in those particalur conflicts as well as several others. But Britain was also victorious in many others.
And not just against milltary weaker foes either.
OlaftheFlashy 2 years ago
5. And for the record "my ass" was not kicked in either of those conflict. I personnally wasn't there.
6. I wouldn't bring up Afghanistan if I was you.
7. Actually I would decribe British weather as temperate, generally unpredicable but rarely extreme. It does rain a lot but not nearly as much as people think.
Take this from a man who has a lot experience on this matter.
8. Far from sucking I would say that Britain has had a disportionate influence in the world today, for good and ill.
OlaftheFlashy 2 years ago
Well said. As a military historian and an American, I praise you on your response. Unfortunately there are those in this country as in all who only see people through nationalities, and not as people. I my self have studied many wars and one of my favorite units in the Napoleonic age was the famous "Black Watch". My reasoner into warfare has led me to England a number of times. Where I must say the weather was nice and the people were most charming and friendly.
jwhite2000232 2 years ago
Comment removed
Krylancelo95 2 years ago
Sorry replied by my brothers Krylancelo95 account just then.
Thank you jwhite2000232.
I also glad you had a pleasent time when you visited my country (alsa not everyone does unfortuantly, since there some real jerks over here, as with every where else).
I must say every American I meet in person were also most charming and friendly as well, and have heard much of the hospitality of the states. I hope to visit your Great land one day soon.
OlaftheFlashy 2 years ago
britains sucks ass all the food sucks
the people are cold bitch motherfukers there not friendly and the government sucks too
america will woop their ass anyday bitch!
MrTheBeast 2 years ago
...And there's Mr TheBeast's great retort that took him 1 day shy of a week to come up with.
Bravo, sir, bravo.
OlaftheFlashy 2 years ago
o i have a live you piece of shit
i dont spend all day on youtube like you do
obviously theres nothing to do in britain so you get fat on youtube u piece of shit
youre stuck on your little island which sucks
MrTheBeast 2 years ago
...Or it could be that I take 2 minutes to just check my emails everyday and then go live my life.
And I actually consider what I'm writing before post a comment.
I'll give you an opportunity however, although you don't deserve it -
If your want any claim to the moral high ground then I suggest you cease your inane trash talking, retire from our debate and leave in peace.
Consider this mercy.
OlaftheFlashy 2 years ago
youre just gave up on your ideas so fuck off stupid idiot
go swim in your thames river while i enjoy the sunny america bitch
MrTheBeast 2 years ago
So be it. Mittens off, brass knuckles on.
No sir, it's the opposite. I gave up because its YOU who is the idiot.
-because won't see reason.
-because you won't recognise when your arguements already defeated ,
but you attack in the same defeated manner.
-because resort to baseless insults rather than provide any substable arguement.
-because you aren't just ignorant but you also revel in your stupidity, like a pig in it own filth.
-because you trolling for conflict (you got it)
OlaftheFlashy 2 years ago
Now let go through your arguements:
1. Really now. You harp on about british food in a age of globalised diets. Please. Besides traditional british food isn't bad at all.
2. Again you show yourself incable of understanding the concept of individuality, or the fact that it's not related to nationality.
Well done for missing the point of one of the founding principles of your own nation.
OlaftheFlashy 2 years ago
3. ...Yeah our Government does suck. Unlike you i can concede a valid point.
HOWEVER our bicameral legislative system is the foundation to own.
Why didn't the American Revolution turn into a blood bath after the war? Well one of the reasons might be because the revoltionaries already ran the country before the war and knew what they were doing.
Also see point 2.
OlaftheFlashy 2 years ago
4. I'm no fool. I know Britain can't match the US milltary might.
BUT why would the US ever attack us? we're allies. What would it gain?
After all wage war is expensive and increases in being so.
Also might is not equal right.
5. Because the Thames is a working river and I don't live in London.
6. Also It been really sunny and hot here in Britain this weekend. So there.
Also your spelling is atrocious
In conclusion your idiot and what you types only furthur proves this. So stop typing.
OlaftheFlashy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
go back into your trailer redneck and carry on watching american gladiator
bunterx 2 years ago
im not a redneck bitch
youre a liberal piece of shit
MrTheBeast 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you sound like a red neck!! rednecks dont like liberal i.e free thinking do they? Its time to reassess yourself - look in the mirror and say " im a dumb ass red neck "
bunterx 2 years ago
Your very free thinking and tolerant you bigot. Curse you and your family.
Navyma18 2 years ago
what the hell has it got to do with you dumb ass? im not a bigot - i was arguing with a thick racist redneck! whereas you are probably just plain thick...
bunterx 2 years ago
No your a racist obnoxious pretentious fuck. So why dont you go back to your ghetto you failed abortion attempted prom dumpster baby.
Navyma18 2 years ago
why am i racist - for calling you a redneck? you dont make any sense at all. I have no grief against any race only individuals like yourself. I can safely assume from your inarticulate ranting that you are just a spotty teenager who doesnt know shit from clay and gets a buzz from using racist and threatening abuse on the internet from the safety of your trailer park!
bunterx 2 years ago
Close im a 21 year old Military man.And your not a racist but you stereotype an entire group of people and immediatley profile those you dont know. You insult those who dont think like you. Your a facist bitch and deserve death. I dont fight for you and neither do those around me.
Navyma18 2 years ago
who do you fight for - the good old usa? the bully of the world.
if anyone is a nazi its you - america is a police state run by thugs and boneheads. And please correct me if Im wrong redneck is a term to describe racist uneducated grunts from the southern states. I think that profile matches quite closely.
bunterx 2 years ago
You should look in the mirror and say, "I generalize about people... which isn't very open-minded or progressive."
fivestarmichael 2 years ago
generalisations always contain a core of truth - its called grasping the bigger picture. Im sorry if you cant face it. America is racist and its military are bullies.
bunterx 2 years ago
Your right, except rednecks are not just in the South... they are everywhere.
I really haven't figured out what the purpose of the U.S. military. What and the hell is the long term goal?
fivestarmichael 2 years ago
to conquer the world, suppress any culture that differs from the usa's and to claim all of the natural resources as their own. and yes you are spot on - rednecks are everywhere - they are a generic species. George bush is the most obvious example.
bunterx 2 years ago
And by doing so we will alienate the rest of the world's population and go bankrupt in the process because American's don't build or manufacture anything. We aren't even trying to hide our agenda anymore. It's amazing how much I have seen America turn to shit in my lifetime.
fivestarmichael 2 years ago
These park rangers are usually so far off on details. About two years ago my family and I went to Sharpsburg, where this one park ranger tried to tell me that Lee had "75,000 " troops in the battle.
I said what??? So I took him over to the gift shop and picked up Micheal Priest's book on Antietam. I pointed to Mr. Priest's "30,000" "engaged."
I said if Lee had 75,000 men, where in the world were 45,000 Confederates "hiding." lol
rebel2276 2 years ago
Right on, my screen name is "Rebel" but I don't even live in the South nor born in the South.
I am a "Rebel" to this government that F's us all over every single day. North, South, East, west, white/black/pink/purple.
That is the real enemy.
rebel2276 2 years ago
Most of us are taught in school and raised to believe the Civil War was a race issue. We are led to believe Lincoln was provoked by the South.
We are never taught that Emancipation Proclamation only freed Southern slaves, We are never taught Lincoln was given ample time to remove troops from Fort Sumter and we are never taught the importance of the 10th Amendment.
As adults we can become informed and learn how much our individ. and state rights have been trampled by the federal government.
fivestarmichael 2 years ago
I agree and people like you and I and others on here, try to tell people the truth but their whole lives they have been told the Union version.
So, when I get done with the captured Union flags and captured Union artillery, I will have the last laugh.
rebel2276 2 years ago
Today as we watch states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana and Ohio pushing for more state sovereignty, the under lying issues behind secession become more transparent and relevant.
Texas has the lowest taxes and regulations and they have created more jobs this year then all the other 49 states combined. The fed should be learning something here.
A lot of people are becoming more aware of the scam the fed gov. is running. It doesn't matter where you were born or what color you are.
fivestarmichael 2 years ago
Hancock, commanding Union 2nd Corps, ordered the 2nd Corps batteries to keep firing to bolster the morale of the Union Infantry hunkered down on the stone wall. Cushing's guns were firing, which made the a logical target.
All for naught, though. The Confederacy could have taken out every battery on the ridge and the North had guns to replace them. Union artillery owned that field.
BullRun1861 2 years ago
This guy is full of bull shit PIcketts charge failed because a his calvary support was delayed by Custer. the troops postioned on the bluff didnt run because they had the high ground Picketts men were sitting ducks there was no way Pickett was going to break the line in the center and he and all the other professional commanders with him knew that full well it was a suicide mission from the start.
mastermonarch 2 years ago
I've read that book as well, and it is a fascinating theory. Stuart himself states that his mission was to "gain the enemy's rear." However, Lee ordered Pickett's report redacted after the battle, and a number of other after action reports were redacted or just dissappeared. Stuart had his whole command (9,000 or so troopers) who seemed intent on breaking through to the Union Rear, and Custer met them and stopped them head on. "Come on, you Wolverines!"
BullRun1861 2 years ago
shrapnel in the groan when your 22, a good reason to reconsider joining the ar