excellent battle scene - the director clearly shines here. Wasn't so much of a fan of the story itself, but I give 5 stars to that battle scene. I'm a reencator and am making a short film with a tiny battle scene - the battle isn't the focus, but i'm definitely taking notes on how this was shot. very well done. Salute!
@inkey2 In one of the Civil War mags I used to get in New Orleans, there was a review of a novel that used that exact premise. I think it was Gettysburg and Lee had somehow received a few cases of modern sub-machine guns from the future! - this won the war, natch. No, I didn't read the book......love to see the movie, tho'.
@slideharp1 ....actually.....if they even had better guns that were available at that time things could have been drastically different......like a spencer or henry repeating rifle. I once read that who ever was in charge of what guns the union used had this to say, I am paraphrasing it......"I don't want them to have repeating rifles because they won't aim as carefully and make each shot count".....now is that insanity or what?.....has anyone else ever heard this?
@inkey2 Yes, it happens all the time. Tactics are always having to catch up with new weapons and the people who decide on those tactics are 'old soldiers' who fought in previous wars. Spencers, Sharps and basic breach loaders were held back prob'ly to keep the war from getting out of hand - that's the real 'insanity' of war. It's a business. And a paradox also....wars foster new ways of killing with technological leaps and bounds, then it screws things up with unknown factors (for some).
@slideharp1 Well yeah they didn't want them using up all their ammunition which is also the reason why many soldiers in the Spanish American war were equiped with breech loading springfields when the Spanish forces were armed with the bolt action Mauser model 1893. Although many new tactics did develop in the Civil War like more use of skirmishers and trenches. Soldiers would dig trenches where ever possible and lay down for cover if in formation.
@AUG351 Robt.E.Lee was a pioneer of trench/earthworks - and was initially given a good deal of mocking (behind his back of course), but he'd come from the Engineer Corps and knew what he was doing. His innovations were later well appreciated - tho' it ultimately led, fifty-some years later, to the hideous and endless WWI stalemate of two long lines of trenches facing each other for months on end whilst each killed several thousand of the other per week.
@slideharp1 Yeah, another change was building more dirt forts with dirt walls like Fort Donelson, Henry, or Fort Rosecrants. Most had walls about 20 or 30 ft high with abbatis and wooden stakes in front or in ditches filled with water infront of the walls, aswell as cannons with interlocking fire and firing canister. They were allot more effective than the stone forts because rifles guns could shoot right through the stone walls.
@inkey2 Another example is parachutes. During WWI, the Royal Flying Corps fighters were open topped machine gun turrets mounted on a bi-plane. The young pilots had asked for parachutes like the Germans already had. The reply was as expected; with the parachute option, a pilot was more likely to bail out than fight the enemy. The result being that a pilot would jump from a burning plane whilst afire himself - straight to his death. When you're on fire, that's what you do.
Probably the best kits ever in a civil war movie,,, the acting wasn't half bad,,, good special effects,,, the script was a dog.. the most half baked shit I ever heard of,,, who would believe 1. a guy carries around letters for years without having a friend read them to him and 2. they dont realize they are laid up with the enemy,
I'm reading Bruce Catton's Army of the Potomac trilogy. He said that the forest was so dense and the smoke so thick that neither side could see all of thier commands or even an entire company. It was completely out of control.
@cbohar84 Ass-backwards. It was a disaster for the North. Grant had 100,000+ men by this time (1864) so Lee's strategy was to draw him into the forests where his overwhelming numbers could be more realistically dealt with. You could say that Lee beat the Vietnamese to the punch. He made Grant's army pay dearly for this, handing him triple the casualties than he suffered himself. Grant didn't care any more than Lincoln. Both knew that their men could be easily replaced - unlike Lee's.
@slideharp1 That is the mathmatical reality of war, when we start worrying about losses and become too sensitive to spend lives we instantly lose and keep on losing. The Press, if they had existed, would have cost us the Civil War, WW1 and WW2 by throwing bloody images in our faces and making the cold sacrifices of war impossible. Thats why Vietnam and on has been a disaster, the people cannot stomach loss. People die in war...thats the POINT,,but people have forgotten that.
@krashly71 True, the Vietnam war was seen by everyone daily as part of their TV news, prompting protest and unrest - 'Hell no, we won't go', and ending in a clusterfuck "peace". Back in 1860s, Matthew Brady did his famous photographic exhibition, "The Dead at Antietam" and tho' people were shocked, it was more like a waxwork curiosity.
@krashly71 Governments and people in the West don't have the stomach for war. We worry that ''our soldiers might get killed, how do you explain that to their family?''...which is a legitimate question, BUT............
@krashly71 Matthew Brady's work, most of which was done by Alexander Gardner, did in fact have an effect on public opinion, it being the first time Americans, or anyone, had seen the remains of a bttlefield - tho' they look quite mild today, if any form of violent death can be described as 'mild'.
dat zyn stiekume gays toen kon het niet he lekker over elkaar rollebollen ja ik heb dat wel door doei pause eben lachen hoe boos hy is ik kerstpakket door elkaar plunderde zit spul in ideaal om kunst mee te maken crazy me bay hony tuurlyk kom ik weer mn number one,piept,ze,heeft,trek,
ik denk krygt er 1 het ultieme orgasme ik moet eerst weer sereneus worden ik kan me niet concentreren ik kyk zo ok alleen geknal geen vrouwen erin saai moeten ze niet van bil pause
@Vampirewolfking Now I laugh at you. If you knew anything About this war, you would know the Union had Many repeating weapons. Spencer repeating rifle,Henry rifle,Colt revolving rifle, Burnside Carbine...And breach loading weapons as well..Not to mention the Gatling gun... Don;t try an say the Maxim gun, that was Invented by and American. The American Civil war wasn't called the First Modern war for nothing.
@TheImperialistStates And i laugh because you dont know about history, Germany was fighting against entire world, in WWI they were already losing when amerians joined the war, US industry did much more than US troops. And in WWII they were terribly outnumbered, and led by that idiot austrian.
German army was better than its enemies in both wars.
@breakinthebend But its homefront was collapsing, and the spring offensive (or Kaiserschlacht) costed germans many men and they gained poorly defendable ground. So when american troops arrived, there were nothing but remains of what once was the Deutsches Heer.
(But this is a video about american civil war, and i dont want to talk about anything else in here.)
@Vampirewolfking And I laugh Because without U.S supplies, the allies would not have won WW2. Almost all of the Tanks Monty Used in his African Campaign were American made. America Supplied Most Ammunition for the Allies. Britain Didn't take the war effectively to the Nazis until the U.S arrived. Germany didn't fight against the entire world... And if Germany was so great, they would not have lost =). USA>Germany.
@TheImperialistStates I dont even start to write answer, there would not be enough space, i say it shortly and this is my final answer.
Yes, American economy and Soviet manpower won the war for the allies, Germany (that was raised from the ashes of WWI) fought against some twenty nations including three super powers, and lasted for six years.
Germany was great, it lost to a sheer numbers of enemy, and because idiotic leader.
@Vampirewolfking 20...please. Germany only real threat was Britain (still weak from ww2) The USSR (poorly equipped units) And the USA. Who also by the way, fought on more fronts then anyone else in the allied powers. Nazis should have quit while they were ahead. But they had to be the dumb blond idiots they are and attack Poland.
@Vampirewolfking You don't understand the meaning of my comment? Lmao my point proven. You thought it was humor also lmao fail on your part. "Idiotic american" lol, you have nothing to say.
@TheImperialistStates Yeah, people don't understand how Civil War battles were really fought, many think they just stood in formations in the open and fired volleys but actually battles were extremly chaotic and bloody. Many field fortifications and trenches were used. Battles like the Wilderness where back and forth one side would attack then be pushed back then counter attack again leaving thousands of casualties.
@jackasskidzify A part of Daniel's Brigade.South of Orange Courthouse Turnpike.In between two branches of Wilderness run.5/5/64-facing Stone & Rice.5/6/64-facing West/Northwest against Fisher's Brigade
The guy that invented the gatling machinegun, dr Gatling believed that the damage from this weapon would discourage people to wage war in the future, but instead it increased deaths and injuries. And people have stopped to make war today? Hell, no.
@BrotherOfBullets Over 600,000 deaths in the civil war ! Over 200,000 in WW2 ! More casualties in the civil war than all other coflicts involving americans( WW1, WW2, Vietnam...etc) added together!!!!
@TheNmg21 Yeah, the battles, espcially as the war went on got more and more chaotic and bloody. The high casualtes were mosty due to deseas but many of the battles would have high caualties with hundreds killed and thousands wounded and about half or a quarter of the wounded would die of wounds or deseas later on.
@jia2001 It was by far , it had over 600,000 casualties, which is more than all other conflicts involving americans added together, YES ALL!!! War of Independance, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.......add up the casualties and it's less than the civil war total!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there some swashlbuckling sword fighting in the civil war? Or were swords just a ceremonial part of the officers uniform?
@OldmanChester There was use of the sword in the American Civil War, but it was fairly rare and usually confined to cavalry engagements. Some cavalry regiments trained to use the sword in a style similar to European shock cavalry but not many. Most cavalry operations were confined to recon, providing piquets and screening the movements of the army and usually relied on their carbines and pistols. Officers took to using their pistols rather than their swords in a close quarters fight.
Anyone wonder how many times the liars that never have to risk their neck always say "We will be by" or "we will have by" have used those lines and ALWAYS lied?
@AUG351 Hate to kill ur spree but he doesn't, there's another guy's weapon behind him some men between, who's aiming right when he does, therefor his weapon is visableblocked by the guy you thought shot twice, right after the first shot went off, a weapon further back is getting a recoil, that's the one who shot the first one. :)
@AUG351 Actually I just noticed is said wrong. The musket misfired so he recocked the hammer to refire. While he missfired, another musket was right behind it & was firing actually the first shot.
Hi guys to see a video of the 150th anniversary of the battle of manassas reenactment go to srvztube channel or search battle of manassas 150th anniversary
this is awesome footage, best I have seen. Downside is the bad acting, and obviously most of these reenactors have never been in the real military in a real war zone. They just don't act the right way. But still best I have seen...
This is the most realistic battle seen I have ever seen. My GGGrandfather led the third georgia charge at Gettyburg and did not have get one scratch. He was captured by the Yankees. I can only image him going through something like this. A series of letters he wrote to his wife during the war and while a prisoner captured the mind set of those fighting for the South. They believed they were defending their country like their Grandfathers did against English Tyranny. The South was Right!
@TheCount289 The Union allowed slavery. The Union brought every single slave to the Union. CSA allowed slavery for 4 years, the Union did so for 80 years.
your quite wrong. the union freed the slaves it was the south that resented the freed blacks and carpetbaggers that came to take over the south after the war in the recontruction which was the southern politicans going underground in opposition. the 1876 election resulted in hayes as president and tilghmen the democrat loosing by on electoral vote that the comprimise was made not to contest the election and for the north to leave the south alone resulting in the jim crow south not the north
@bigblondman1 How am I wrong? The union DID allow slavery for 80 years in nort america.
Funny Fact: If the British won the Revolution, slavery would be banished from north America. So you could say that the "revolutionaries" fought just as much for the "preservation of slavery" as the CSA did.
@Stender84 heres' how. slavery firstly was a secondary issue in the civil war until lincoln made it a primary one with the emancipation proclamation. yet it did not free slave in the south but only those who mad it to the north. it was done to keep the british from forming a formal alliance with the confederacy. it was a political strategic move. in the revolution slavery was considered by most a necessary institution for the plantation aristocracy. after the civil war came reconstruction.
as ive explained the carpetbaggers and the freed blacks came into the south to impose there authority which was resented by the established authority in the south. the freed blacks in the north still had little or no oppurtunity then, so most remained in subserviancy for meager pay which was not really slavery in the original sense. the union didnt condone slavery but also did little to create more oppurtunities for freed blacks in the north. neither side in either war fought for slavery.
its difficult to explain a complex issue in these little boxes but im doing my best. the revolution was about freedom in the general sense from what was considered tyranny by a foreign power. slaves then also fought for there freedom some obtained it by there own efforts but most could not. in the civil war even in the south many were against slavery but both sides were essentially fighting for states rights and self determination. in a borader sense, slavery was merely one of those issues
youre making an already complex issue more so by pointing out the revolution. many in the northern colonies were against slavery but in the south, slavery was considered vital to the plantation practice. at the time the primary goal was to break away from tyranny overall. in the civil war the north had the abolitioinsts who were dedicated if not fanantical about abolishing slavery. ironically most of the south was not in favor of slavery but they were more against the north dictating to them.
to answer your question in simple terms, the freed slaves in the north were not slaves in the original sense. but most knew how to be little else so they were used as cheap labor in various ways. the freed blacks had the freedom of movement in the north unlike the south. but in the north that made them nothing more than ittinerrant cheap labor, not slaves. so yes the freed slaves were in the north but were not slaves in the derogatory sense of the word. so your perspective is misguided.
also, as far as you observation that if the britsh won the american revolution there would be no slavery in the south, is a very reckless assumption. the south needed slave labor and since they resented being dictated by the north they certainly were even more resentful of the british crown dictating to them as well. the south would have probably rebelled on there own regarding the same issue of states rights or in this sense colony rights of self determination. its not about slavery but rights
it appeared slaves in the south were freed by the words of proclamation. yet, they were not free unless federal troops controlled those areas. they did not control all just yet. it really freed very little. thats because this was a political move to show the british the south was pro slavery and the north was not. also that this war was about slavery between two factions of the same country which prevented the british from allying with the south who thought themselves an independent country.
the emancipation proclamations' words freed the slaves in the south but those same words did nothing for the slaves in the north. but those slaves that escaped to the north were indeed free by there actions.yet the slaves in the confederate held territories were not freed until the union troops occupied those territories. if this sounds confusing and contradictory thats because it is.it was a political ploy to keep the british from siding with the south.
@MaxVonStark From the letters My GGGrandfather owned Slaves and offered to give the family name to them and provide them with land. Check a union grave and you will see they fought to preserve the union...the troops were not fighting to end an American Institution......freeing the slaves was a result of the union victory.......proper education teaches the truth....stupidity propels a myth.....
How did all these comments make it onto a simple video about a the battle of the Wilderness? How about we all stop attacking each other for no reason. No need to debate what if history, because there is no way to prove it and just because one thing occurred, it doesn't follow another event would have. Also, anti-Euro/US/Anyone comments should stop. You don't like each other, fine. Keep it to yourselves. Act like adults. Especially since none of us are actually qualified to debate linguistics.
With all respect: Anyone who takes a film reference as a close example of what any war really was deserves to be labeled stupid and burried alive in salt. American civil war can't be depicted in movies and never will be. Europeans often criticize americans for not knowing of other countries but USA. After reading the comments i know many of them know nothing about USA, and they should because it is not just a country, it is a creation of the european rulling elite, concived to shape the world.
Seriously You guys? Civil wars are very serious things, im sure those whom fought and died in them didnt argue amongst themselves over who had it worst, or if their country could kick everyone else's ass. One thing, there is no need to say america is scum, we may be ignorant, but scum we are not. Gaswh... have a good day :)
@FieldMarshalNate Well said, I live in Ireland and we had civil war, it really was brother against brother, that is the worst thing, fighting your childhood friend and kinfolk!
@mrfirmmax Russia would kick your American asses to Mars Americans are scum you have no pure blood immigrants which live on stolen land stole it from the Indians
@ShovelHorse Right, because no other country on earth has had its own version of our Civil War. Your logic overwhelms me, but then again I am a "stupid" American.
Sorry that your civil war had genocide. Ours did not, but just because the horror level escalated in your war does not mean that ours was less significant. I also do not see how fighting over ideologies surrounding the preservation of the union, states' rights and slavery are "stupid" compared to a war of genocide.
@ShovelHorse Are you European? If you are, do you REALLY want to talk about who is stupid in terms of killing who? Shall we crack open a book on the 20th Century in Europe and randomly pick out any page? We may find The Somme, The Marne, Ypres, Passchendaele, Guernica, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kiev, Kursk, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bergin-Belsen, Dachau, Warsaw, Hamburg, Cologne, Rotterdam, The Blitz, Alamamein, Dieppe, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc etc etc. If you're not European, where from then?
@Shafeone Ok maybe we had civil wars but you Americans are scum of the world you mixed somehow in every war since WW1 you are idiots you have no pure blood live on stolen land what Osama did to your nation was not GOOD and was not bad
@ShovelHorse You mean somehow we ENDED your mass slaughters of one another? LOL. You have absolutely no clue about your own history do you? You inbred maniacs have been mass-murdering each other since Roman times. You haven't contributed anything to the world in many many generations other than welfare states. And fear not, if you love Mulsims so much your continent will soon be a Muslim caliphate...then you'll be begging to some here. Sorry, not euro-pussies allowed. Allahu Akhbar! LOL
@Shafeone Your nation killed all natives in America you know what the Indian Removal Act was which your President Andrew Jackson created you stole there lands and live on it today and what more did your nation do maybe the Atomic bombs on Japan maybe the mass bombardment of Dresden or Vietnam and don't forget Korea your nation is as bad as any other nation don't think you are better then us by the way you are immigrants your nation does not exist and you have no language pathetic idiots
@ShovelHorse Not claiming we're a bunch of doves here mate. I can give you a litany of bad behavior on the USA's part--what makes us great...we can honestly look at our own history and learnfrom it. Like you did WW1--oh, right. LOL. I just find it funny that someone coming from a continent that spent the last century figuring out how to mass-slaughter over 100,000,000 of its own comes before cowering under our military umbrella in the face of the Soviest off lecturing anyone anywhere.
@ShovelHorse im only saying this because it seams like many people here forget what war is ITS HELL you win a war by any means possible the romans knew that and they won the British knew that and they won the Spanish knew that and they won Napoleon knew that and he won The USA knew that and we won i think the moral of the story is if you want to fight a war then fight it and as for saying your country is better than ours
@ShovelHorse what ever that one is about the hole language thing all of today's languages are derived from maybe three different ones so before you say get your own language why don't you get your own and stop making worthless you tube comments you pathetic imbecile
@ShovelHorse now your just looking like a fool i never said we dont speak English maybe you should learn it so you don't make anymore stupid youtube comments
fighting in the wilderness after being in napolionic style battles would have been horrible. of course as a Souterner i will say that EVERY yank that got injured or killed while invading the South deserved what he got. 1 out of 10 Confederate s owned slaves. 2 yrs into the war lincoln freed slaves in the South but not the 5 border states. ?? . blue bellies invaded the south over the damn so called preservation union.then blue clad soldiers almost exterminated the Native Americans. real heros
@bluegrassreb11:10 Confederates owned slaves. 10:10 Confederates fought to maintain slavery by fighting for a government expressly committed to its preservation. So really it was the Rebs who were the oppressors. At least 4 million Americans would have agreed with me at the time, Massah Bluegrass. By the way it's f*****g 2011 not 1861. Get over it! Party like its at least 1999 and not 1799! Yeah. I'm sure the Southerners LOVED Indians. Ask the Cherokees in Georgia...oh, riiiight.
@Shafeone Lincoln raised the union tax in 1820 from 20% to 47% for southerners, and while over 69% of union citizens owned slaves, only 5% of southerners owned slaves. When the south seceded from the union in 1861 Jefferson Davis said in his inaugural speech that the confederacy would abandoned slavery by 1867 after they had recuperated from the tax. To prevent this the union invaded the south to force them back in at gunpoint. I would hardly call the Confederacy aggressors. Dominic, R.I
@DOMORCIDEA 69% of Union citizens owned slaves? Can you please cite that source? And where in his innagural does Davis say this? What is the actual passage? (I suggest you read VP Alexander Stephens 'Cornerstone Speech; in March 1861. "[The CSA government's] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
@Shafeone as the son of a historian in the university of providence Rhode Island, who has a copy of Jefferson's inaugural speech and the 1860 census. It clearly states in the census that Maryland, New York, and Massachusetts owned over 100,000 slaves for each state whereas the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Florida were responsible for the ownership of only 950 slaves between them. I also give proof of this as the great grandson of a Confederate Army Officer, CPT Walter Rowe
@DOMORCIDEA Jefferson's innaugural or Jefferson Davis'? I have a copy of Davis' innaugural and he never even mentions slavery (unless mine is abridged admittedly).
@DOMORCIDEA Read "A History of Negro Slavery in New York" by McManus. As slavery had been fully abolished in New York state 1817 statute that gave freedom to New York slaves who had been born before July 4, 1799--but not until July 4, 1827. Now, the new law allowed nonresidents to enter with slaves for up to 9 months, and part-time residents to bring slaves into NY temporarily. The "9-months law" remained on the books until 1841, I would like to see said 'census'.
@Shafeone I apologize. My Father's census is from 1810. But still the point remains. I have read the said "History of Negro Slavery" and it says nothing about the supposed "9 months law". I also showed you're comment to my Father. He said the whole idea of freedom to New York slaves born before July 4, 1799 is complete and utter balderdash. If you send me you're copy of Davis's speech i will send you mine and his 1862 speech, "Slavery, the future of the C.S.A.?" My Father is curios also.
@DOMORCIDEA That was a typo. The law gave freedom to slaves born AFTER Jul 4, 1799, not before. Apologize. And you find no difference in a position between an 1860 census (the year of Southern secession) and one from FIIFTY years earlier before slavery was even completely abolished in NY? Come on. That is just utter stubbornness. Davis' speech is readily available everywhere. I asked YOU to cite the passage since YOU made the claim. Jim Crow I think shows slavery would have survived in CSA.
@DOMORCIDEA How can you say "the point remains"? Your salient point was that the North owned more slaves than the South when war broke out--which if true would help belie the notion that the war was primarily about slavery. But that was false. There's an enormous difference in attitude/economics in the North between 1810 & 1860! Different worlds by then. That's like saying "in 1990 the record clearly shows that Germany was mostly Nazi." Oh wait, I mean 1940. The point collapses totally.
excellent battle scene - the director clearly shines here. Wasn't so much of a fan of the story itself, but I give 5 stars to that battle scene. I'm a reencator and am making a short film with a tiny battle scene - the battle isn't the focus, but i'm definitely taking notes on how this was shot. very well done. Salute!
lagoonguy 2 days ago
"Wicked Spring is available on DVD. Has been for 1-2 years.
slideharp1 2 weeks ago
too bad a time machine did not dump a pile of loaded AK-47s there......would have turned the tide of the battle in 10 minutes
inkey2 2 weeks ago
@inkey2 In one of the Civil War mags I used to get in New Orleans, there was a review of a novel that used that exact premise. I think it was Gettysburg and Lee had somehow received a few cases of modern sub-machine guns from the future! - this won the war, natch. No, I didn't read the book......love to see the movie, tho'.
slideharp1 2 weeks ago
@slideharp1 ....actually.....if they even had better guns that were available at that time things could have been drastically different......like a spencer or henry repeating rifle. I once read that who ever was in charge of what guns the union used had this to say, I am paraphrasing it......"I don't want them to have repeating rifles because they won't aim as carefully and make each shot count".....now is that insanity or what?.....has anyone else ever heard this?
inkey2 2 weeks ago
@inkey2 Yes, it happens all the time. Tactics are always having to catch up with new weapons and the people who decide on those tactics are 'old soldiers' who fought in previous wars. Spencers, Sharps and basic breach loaders were held back prob'ly to keep the war from getting out of hand - that's the real 'insanity' of war. It's a business. And a paradox also....wars foster new ways of killing with technological leaps and bounds, then it screws things up with unknown factors (for some).
slideharp1 2 weeks ago
@slideharp1 Well yeah they didn't want them using up all their ammunition which is also the reason why many soldiers in the Spanish American war were equiped with breech loading springfields when the Spanish forces were armed with the bolt action Mauser model 1893. Although many new tactics did develop in the Civil War like more use of skirmishers and trenches. Soldiers would dig trenches where ever possible and lay down for cover if in formation.
AUG351 1 week ago
@AUG351 Robt.E.Lee was a pioneer of trench/earthworks - and was initially given a good deal of mocking (behind his back of course), but he'd come from the Engineer Corps and knew what he was doing. His innovations were later well appreciated - tho' it ultimately led, fifty-some years later, to the hideous and endless WWI stalemate of two long lines of trenches facing each other for months on end whilst each killed several thousand of the other per week.
slideharp1 1 week ago
@slideharp1 Yeah, another change was building more dirt forts with dirt walls like Fort Donelson, Henry, or Fort Rosecrants. Most had walls about 20 or 30 ft high with abbatis and wooden stakes in front or in ditches filled with water infront of the walls, aswell as cannons with interlocking fire and firing canister. They were allot more effective than the stone forts because rifles guns could shoot right through the stone walls.
AUG351 1 week ago
@inkey2 Another example is parachutes. During WWI, the Royal Flying Corps fighters were open topped machine gun turrets mounted on a bi-plane. The young pilots had asked for parachutes like the Germans already had. The reply was as expected; with the parachute option, a pilot was more likely to bail out than fight the enemy. The result being that a pilot would jump from a burning plane whilst afire himself - straight to his death. When you're on fire, that's what you do.
slideharp1 2 weeks ago
@slideharp1 great book I loved it.
JamesADempsey 2 weeks ago
cool
DigginDeepSouthLA 3 weeks ago
A Yankee says "Oh my God, they got Spencers". Did Lee have a unit with Spencers during The Wilderness?
slideharp1 3 weeks ago
@slideharp1 I guese so
multyskipper12345678 3 weeks ago
@slideharp1 He says "Oh my God, Spencer!" He is referring to the guy who got shot.
AK107DX 2 weeks ago
@AK107DX Yeah, gottit. This movie doesn't seem to be released yet and the site is kind of blank. Any news on when etc..?
slideharp1 2 weeks ago
@slideharp1 Nope.
AK107DX 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At 5:33.....the guy is like....yeah...I need a smoke break....hahahahahahaha!!!!!
thomas44329 1 month ago
Comment removed
thomas44329 1 month ago
Probably the best kits ever in a civil war movie,,, the acting wasn't half bad,,, good special effects,,, the script was a dog.. the most half baked shit I ever heard of,,, who would believe 1. a guy carries around letters for years without having a friend read them to him and 2. they dont realize they are laid up with the enemy,
SuperGetitgotitgood 1 month ago
If the south woulda won we would have it made
xXZWCXx 1 month ago
I'm reading Bruce Catton's Army of the Potomac trilogy. He said that the forest was so dense and the smoke so thick that neither side could see all of thier commands or even an entire company. It was completely out of control.
777crusader 1 month ago
So y r rednecks still mad about?
clamkingX 1 month ago
Stupid Federal Government was wrong to push the states around. The fathers set up the states to keep big government at bay.
pigeonpsycho 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What movie is this
MrSomeidiot13 2 months ago
This was another disaster for the South
cbohar84 2 months ago
@cbohar84 Ass-backwards. It was a disaster for the North. Grant had 100,000+ men by this time (1864) so Lee's strategy was to draw him into the forests where his overwhelming numbers could be more realistically dealt with. You could say that Lee beat the Vietnamese to the punch. He made Grant's army pay dearly for this, handing him triple the casualties than he suffered himself. Grant didn't care any more than Lincoln. Both knew that their men could be easily replaced - unlike Lee's.
slideharp1 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@slideharp1 Except the Vietnamese never let US/RVN forces capture Hanoi...
rollotwomassey 4 weeks ago
@slideharp1 That is the mathmatical reality of war, when we start worrying about losses and become too sensitive to spend lives we instantly lose and keep on losing. The Press, if they had existed, would have cost us the Civil War, WW1 and WW2 by throwing bloody images in our faces and making the cold sacrifices of war impossible. Thats why Vietnam and on has been a disaster, the people cannot stomach loss. People die in war...thats the POINT,,but people have forgotten that.
krashly71 4 weeks ago
@krashly71 True, the Vietnam war was seen by everyone daily as part of their TV news, prompting protest and unrest - 'Hell no, we won't go', and ending in a clusterfuck "peace". Back in 1860s, Matthew Brady did his famous photographic exhibition, "The Dead at Antietam" and tho' people were shocked, it was more like a waxwork curiosity.
slideharp1 4 weeks ago
@krashly71 Governments and people in the West don't have the stomach for war. We worry that ''our soldiers might get killed, how do you explain that to their family?''...which is a legitimate question, BUT............
slideharp1 4 weeks ago
@krashly71 Matthew Brady's work, most of which was done by Alexander Gardner, did in fact have an effect on public opinion, it being the first time Americans, or anyone, had seen the remains of a bttlefield - tho' they look quite mild today, if any form of violent death can be described as 'mild'.
slideharp1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
OakIslandBandit 2 months ago
dat zyn stiekume gays toen kon het niet he lekker over elkaar rollebollen ja ik heb dat wel door doei pause eben lachen hoe boos hy is ik kerstpakket door elkaar plunderde zit spul in ideaal om kunst mee te maken crazy me bay hony tuurlyk kom ik weer mn number one,piept,ze,heeft,trek,
mollysangelique 2 months ago
ik denk krygt er 1 het ultieme orgasme ik moet eerst weer sereneus worden ik kan me niet concentreren ik kyk zo ok alleen geknal geen vrouwen erin saai moeten ze niet van bil pause
mollysangelique 2 months ago
like this if you are going to G-burg 2013
CSAmerican 2 months ago
they had funny looking hats!
bluegillmich 2 months ago
@bluegillmich yea, some people think they're funny, but I think they're unique, and some of them are still used today
CSAmerican 2 months ago
Comment removed
OakIslandBandit 3 months ago
this was the battle where my great great great grandpa died. R.I.P W.P. Riley,1838-1864,Confederate soldier
jackasskidzify 3 months ago
@Vampirewolfking Now I laugh at you. If you knew anything About this war, you would know the Union had Many repeating weapons. Spencer repeating rifle,Henry rifle,Colt revolving rifle, Burnside Carbine...And breach loading weapons as well..Not to mention the Gatling gun... Don;t try an say the Maxim gun, that was Invented by and American. The American Civil war wasn't called the First Modern war for nothing.
TheImperialistStates 3 months ago
@TheImperialistStates Prussians still laughed, because they had fancier uniforms, epic helmets and nice mustaches.
Vampirewolfking 3 months ago
@Vampirewolfking And then the U.S laughed blowing them up in WW1/WW2. U.S 2, Germany 0.
TheImperialistStates 3 months ago
@TheImperialistStates And i laugh because you dont know about history, Germany was fighting against entire world, in WWI they were already losing when amerians joined the war, US industry did much more than US troops. And in WWII they were terribly outnumbered, and led by that idiot austrian.
German army was better than its enemies in both wars.
Vampirewolfking 3 months ago
@Vampirewolfking Actually Germany was making breakthroughs in France in WWI as the United States was sending its war materials overseas.
breakinthebend 3 months ago
@breakinthebend But its homefront was collapsing, and the spring offensive (or Kaiserschlacht) costed germans many men and they gained poorly defendable ground. So when american troops arrived, there were nothing but remains of what once was the Deutsches Heer.
(But this is a video about american civil war, and i dont want to talk about anything else in here.)
Vampirewolfking 3 months ago
@Vampirewolfking And I laugh Because without U.S supplies, the allies would not have won WW2. Almost all of the Tanks Monty Used in his African Campaign were American made. America Supplied Most Ammunition for the Allies. Britain Didn't take the war effectively to the Nazis until the U.S arrived. Germany didn't fight against the entire world... And if Germany was so great, they would not have lost =). USA>Germany.
TheImperialistStates 3 months ago
@TheImperialistStates I dont even start to write answer, there would not be enough space, i say it shortly and this is my final answer.
Yes, American economy and Soviet manpower won the war for the allies, Germany (that was raised from the ashes of WWI) fought against some twenty nations including three super powers, and lasted for six years.
Germany was great, it lost to a sheer numbers of enemy, and because idiotic leader.
Vampirewolfking 3 months ago
@Vampirewolfking 20...please. Germany only real threat was Britain (still weak from ww2) The USSR (poorly equipped units) And the USA. Who also by the way, fought on more fronts then anyone else in the allied powers. Nazis should have quit while they were ahead. But they had to be the dumb blond idiots they are and attack Poland.
TheImperialistStates 3 months ago
@TheImperialistStates USSR had quite good units in 1943, after they got over the shock of Barbarossa.
Look it up from internet, or books, even the allies said that the german army was far superior to the allied armys,
they were just too few, and went with Quality over Quantity, while americans and soviets came in numbers.
Nazis lost the war, germans fought and died in it. The end
Vampirewolfking 3 months ago
@Vampirewolfking Nazi Germany lost the the war...Nazi GERMANY. Say it with me now. Superior or not, you still lost.
TheImperialistStates 3 months ago
@TheImperialistStates We? at least we stayed free and independent, and we kicked russkie ass. Finlands independence day is soon on sixth of December.
Lets get the party started!
Vampirewolfking 3 months ago
@Vampirewolfking Your from Finland? AHHAHAHAHA No further question your honor.
TheImperialistStates 3 months ago
@TheImperialistStates What do you mean?
Vampirewolfking 3 months ago
@Vampirewolfking Exactly XDXD
TheImperialistStates 2 months ago
@TheImperialistStates I dont understand your idiotic american humor.
Vampirewolfking 2 months ago
@Vampirewolfking I don't understand you useless finish Insult. Go be worthless some wee else please ;D.
TheImperialistStates 2 months ago
@TheImperialistStates I want an answer, what do you mean with "no further question your honor"?
Vampirewolfking 2 months ago
@Vampirewolfking You don't understand the meaning of my comment? Lmao my point proven. You thought it was humor also lmao fail on your part. "Idiotic american" lol, you have nothing to say.
TheImperialistStates 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheImperialistStates You dont make any sense at all.
Vampirewolfking 2 months ago
@TheImperialistStates Yeah, people don't understand how Civil War battles were really fought, many think they just stood in formations in the open and fired volleys but actually battles were extremly chaotic and bloody. Many field fortifications and trenches were used. Battles like the Wilderness where back and forth one side would attack then be pushed back then counter attack again leaving thousands of casualties.
AUG351 1 month ago
"....Let's drive these demons back to the Devil...."
Redcoat66 3 months ago
This looked more authentic than that ridiculous Gettysburg movie. The actors looked more like the real deal.
jfhudak 3 months ago
My great-great grandfather fought in that hell
OakIslandBandit 3 months ago 12
@OakIslandBandit mine too budy..........
Roflcopter108 3 months ago
Sorry to hear that
Thx1138d 2 months ago
Comment removed
OakIslandBandit 2 months ago
@OakIslandBandit on which becuase my ancestors left england to go to america and joined the union forces.
GCmediacourse 2 months ago
@GCmediacourse yankkee bastard
jackasskidzify 2 months ago
@jackasskidzify Lol. that must explain that you support the Confederates
GCmediacourse 2 months ago
@jackasskidzify confederate asshole
loco036 1 month ago
@loco036 yankkee bastard, LONG LIVE DIXIE!
jackasskidzify 1 month ago
@jackasskidzify fuck off, stupied ass mother fucker, LONG LIVE THE UNION!!!!
loco036 1 month ago
@loco036 fuck you ya bloody weak ass motherfucker, come down south and talk shit about dixie, i'd woop your ass like a damn slave
jackasskidzify 1 month ago
@jackasskidzify lololololololol how old are you 12 bitch ass, im so scared
loco036 1 month ago
@loco036 first of all big boy thats my little brother in the videos, second ya better be scared ya half wit yankkee bastard
jackasskidzify 1 month ago
@OakIslandBandit which side?
jackasskidzify 2 months ago
@jackasskidzify A part of Daniel's Brigade.South of Orange Courthouse Turnpike.In between two branches of Wilderness run.5/5/64-facing Stone & Rice.5/6/64-facing West/Northwest against Fisher's Brigade
OakIslandBandit 3 weeks ago
@OakIslandBandit cool man but I'm sorry about that your grandfather fought in that hell.
multyskipper12345678 3 weeks ago
guns of failier
leithkills 3 months ago
The guy that invented the gatling machinegun, dr Gatling believed that the damage from this weapon would discourage people to wage war in the future, but instead it increased deaths and injuries. And people have stopped to make war today? Hell, no.
Donemode1451 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Donemode1451
Yeah they all say that.
manfred898 3 months ago
Great shit!!!! First of the modern wars!
Redcoat66 3 months ago
Comment removed
bluegrassreb1 3 months ago in playlist bluegrassreb1's favorites
IF ........jonny comes marching home huray huray!!!
MrAdamcowgill 4 months ago
We should be glad we live in these times and not complain about the size of our penises. I am serious.
nounever 4 months ago 15
This war was probably the bloodiest war of American History
jia2001 4 months ago
@jia2001 WW2?
BrotherOfBullets 4 months ago
@BrotherOfBullets Over 600,000 deaths in the civil war ! Over 200,000 in WW2 ! More casualties in the civil war than all other coflicts involving americans( WW1, WW2, Vietnam...etc) added together!!!!
TheNmg21 4 months ago
@TheNmg21 Yeah, the battles, espcially as the war went on got more and more chaotic and bloody. The high casualtes were mosty due to deseas but many of the battles would have high caualties with hundreds killed and thousands wounded and about half or a quarter of the wounded would die of wounds or deseas later on.
AUG351 3 months ago
@BrotherOfBullets sorry, should have said american casualties.
TheNmg21 3 months ago
@jia2001 It was by far , it had over 600,000 casualties, which is more than all other conflicts involving americans added together, YES ALL!!! War of Independance, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.......add up the casualties and it's less than the civil war total!!!
TheNmg21 4 months ago
@jia2001 sorry, should have said american casualties.
TheNmg21 3 months ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there some swashlbuckling sword fighting in the civil war? Or were swords just a ceremonial part of the officers uniform?
OldmanChester 4 months ago
@OldmanChester There was use of the sword in the American Civil War, but it was fairly rare and usually confined to cavalry engagements. Some cavalry regiments trained to use the sword in a style similar to European shock cavalry but not many. Most cavalry operations were confined to recon, providing piquets and screening the movements of the army and usually relied on their carbines and pistols. Officers took to using their pistols rather than their swords in a close quarters fight.
mrbeast85 4 months ago
@mrbeast85 Good info. Thanks!
OldmanChester 4 months ago
@OldmanChester A revolver plus a sabre was a good combination in a bring your bayonet to work day.
CommissarBraxton 3 months ago
when johny comes marching home huray
nickgogleg 4 months ago
Anyone wonder how many times the liars that never have to risk their neck always say "We will be by" or "we will have by" have used those lines and ALWAYS lied?
Arelak 4 months ago
Notice one guy at 1:27 fires 2 shots?
AUG351 5 months ago
@AUG351 Double barreled with two strike hammers.
Madmachine73 3 months ago
@Madmachine73 How is it double barreled, it looks like a regular Springfield 1855? Never heard of a double barreled Springfield ever being made.
AUG351 3 months ago
@AUG351 You're right it's a single barreled. My bad. He just fired 1 shot.
Madmachine73 3 months ago
@AUG351 Hate to kill ur spree but he doesn't, there's another guy's weapon behind him some men between, who's aiming right when he does, therefor his weapon is visableblocked by the guy you thought shot twice, right after the first shot went off, a weapon further back is getting a recoil, that's the one who shot the first one. :)
wepper5 3 months ago
@AUG351 Actually I just noticed is said wrong. The musket misfired so he recocked the hammer to refire. While he missfired, another musket was right behind it & was firing actually the first shot.
Madmachine73 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi guys to see a video of the 150th anniversary of the battle of manassas reenactment go to srvztube channel or search battle of manassas 150th anniversary
sobelthree 5 months ago
Comment removed
jeicoby1337 5 months ago
i dig the officers accent in the beging, but i dont hear the first thing he says. what does he says?
mattegunnar 6 months ago
Comment removed
mattegunnar 6 months ago
im diggin this movie
wadens1 6 months ago
But Speedy's acting is top notch!
mpdoughboy153 6 months ago
this is awesome footage, best I have seen. Downside is the bad acting, and obviously most of these reenactors have never been in the real military in a real war zone. They just don't act the right way. But still best I have seen...
mpdoughboy153 6 months ago
This is the most realistic battle seen I have ever seen. My GGGrandfather led the third georgia charge at Gettyburg and did not have get one scratch. He was captured by the Yankees. I can only image him going through something like this. A series of letters he wrote to his wife during the war and while a prisoner captured the mind set of those fighting for the South. They believed they were defending their country like their Grandfathers did against English Tyranny. The South was Right!
MaxVonStark 6 months ago
@MaxVonStark The South was defending Slavery
TheCount289 6 months ago
@TheCount289 The Union allowed slavery. The Union brought every single slave to the Union. CSA allowed slavery for 4 years, the Union did so for 80 years.
Stender84 6 months ago
your quite wrong. the union freed the slaves it was the south that resented the freed blacks and carpetbaggers that came to take over the south after the war in the recontruction which was the southern politicans going underground in opposition. the 1876 election resulted in hayes as president and tilghmen the democrat loosing by on electoral vote that the comprimise was made not to contest the election and for the north to leave the south alone resulting in the jim crow south not the north
bigblondman1 4 months ago
@bigblondman1 How am I wrong? The union DID allow slavery for 80 years in nort america.
Funny Fact: If the British won the Revolution, slavery would be banished from north America. So you could say that the "revolutionaries" fought just as much for the "preservation of slavery" as the CSA did.
Stender84 4 months ago
@Stender84 heres' how. slavery firstly was a secondary issue in the civil war until lincoln made it a primary one with the emancipation proclamation. yet it did not free slave in the south but only those who mad it to the north. it was done to keep the british from forming a formal alliance with the confederacy. it was a political strategic move. in the revolution slavery was considered by most a necessary institution for the plantation aristocracy. after the civil war came reconstruction.
bigblondman1 4 months ago
as ive explained the carpetbaggers and the freed blacks came into the south to impose there authority which was resented by the established authority in the south. the freed blacks in the north still had little or no oppurtunity then, so most remained in subserviancy for meager pay which was not really slavery in the original sense. the union didnt condone slavery but also did little to create more oppurtunities for freed blacks in the north. neither side in either war fought for slavery.
bigblondman1 4 months ago
its difficult to explain a complex issue in these little boxes but im doing my best. the revolution was about freedom in the general sense from what was considered tyranny by a foreign power. slaves then also fought for there freedom some obtained it by there own efforts but most could not. in the civil war even in the south many were against slavery but both sides were essentially fighting for states rights and self determination. in a borader sense, slavery was merely one of those issues
bigblondman1 4 months ago
youre making an already complex issue more so by pointing out the revolution. many in the northern colonies were against slavery but in the south, slavery was considered vital to the plantation practice. at the time the primary goal was to break away from tyranny overall. in the civil war the north had the abolitioinsts who were dedicated if not fanantical about abolishing slavery. ironically most of the south was not in favor of slavery but they were more against the north dictating to them.
bigblondman1 4 months ago
to answer your question in simple terms, the freed slaves in the north were not slaves in the original sense. but most knew how to be little else so they were used as cheap labor in various ways. the freed blacks had the freedom of movement in the north unlike the south. but in the north that made them nothing more than ittinerrant cheap labor, not slaves. so yes the freed slaves were in the north but were not slaves in the derogatory sense of the word. so your perspective is misguided.
bigblondman1 4 months ago
also, as far as you observation that if the britsh won the american revolution there would be no slavery in the south, is a very reckless assumption. the south needed slave labor and since they resented being dictated by the north they certainly were even more resentful of the british crown dictating to them as well. the south would have probably rebelled on there own regarding the same issue of states rights or in this sense colony rights of self determination. its not about slavery but rights
bigblondman1 4 months ago
it appeared slaves in the south were freed by the words of proclamation. yet, they were not free unless federal troops controlled those areas. they did not control all just yet. it really freed very little. thats because this was a political move to show the british the south was pro slavery and the north was not. also that this war was about slavery between two factions of the same country which prevented the british from allying with the south who thought themselves an independent country.
bigblondman1 4 months ago
the emancipation proclamations' words freed the slaves in the south but those same words did nothing for the slaves in the north. but those slaves that escaped to the north were indeed free by there actions.yet the slaves in the confederate held territories were not freed until the union troops occupied those territories. if this sounds confusing and contradictory thats because it is.it was a political ploy to keep the british from siding with the south.
bigblondman1 4 months ago
@Stender84 Good points
mollymu1 3 months ago
@MaxVonStark From the letters My GGGrandfather owned Slaves and offered to give the family name to them and provide them with land. Check a union grave and you will see they fought to preserve the union...the troops were not fighting to end an American Institution......freeing the slaves was a result of the union victory.......proper education teaches the truth....stupidity propels a myth.....
MaxVonStark 6 months ago
@MaxVonStark
maybe your GGG was a conspirator lol :)
123456789whatsmyname 5 months ago
How did all these comments make it onto a simple video about a the battle of the Wilderness? How about we all stop attacking each other for no reason. No need to debate what if history, because there is no way to prove it and just because one thing occurred, it doesn't follow another event would have. Also, anti-Euro/US/Anyone comments should stop. You don't like each other, fine. Keep it to yourselves. Act like adults. Especially since none of us are actually qualified to debate linguistics.
alienet51 6 months ago
I just visited the wilderness battlefield 2 weeks ago on a trip to fredricksberg,
also went to the battle of fredricksberg battlefield, chancelloresville
battlefield, and sposylvania courthouse battlefield.
AUG351 7 months ago
awesome battle
meerkat642 7 months ago
With all respect: Anyone who takes a film reference as a close example of what any war really was deserves to be labeled stupid and burried alive in salt. American civil war can't be depicted in movies and never will be. Europeans often criticize americans for not knowing of other countries but USA. After reading the comments i know many of them know nothing about USA, and they should because it is not just a country, it is a creation of the european rulling elite, concived to shape the world.
AgenteMadreo 7 months ago
OMG Spencer! (Ignores the guy and picks up a rifle)
That's what should happen.
dunkelheit616 7 months ago
Oh you, silly Americans :)
MrFreddieBurgoyne 7 months ago
Seriously You guys? Civil wars are very serious things, im sure those whom fought and died in them didnt argue amongst themselves over who had it worst, or if their country could kick everyone else's ass. One thing, there is no need to say america is scum, we may be ignorant, but scum we are not. Gaswh... have a good day :)
FieldMarshalNate 7 months ago
@FieldMarshalNate Well said, I live in Ireland and we had civil war, it really was brother against brother, that is the worst thing, fighting your childhood friend and kinfolk!
TheNmg21 7 months ago
You Americans are so stupid killing each other i have no problem whit that Americans are the scum of this world but OK its none of my businesses
ShovelHorse 7 months ago
@ShovelHorse your kidding. Us Americans could kick anyones ass so hard its not even funny.
mrfirmmax 7 months ago
@mrfirmmax Russia would kick your American asses to Mars Americans are scum you have no pure blood immigrants which live on stolen land stole it from the Indians
ShovelHorse 7 months ago
@ShovelHorse Right, because no other country on earth has had its own version of our Civil War. Your logic overwhelms me, but then again I am a "stupid" American.
rahfields 7 months ago
@rahfields Civil war friend i was in one brother on brother genocide too it was fucked up this is nothing
ShovelHorse 7 months ago
@ShovelHorse
Sorry that your civil war had genocide. Ours did not, but just because the horror level escalated in your war does not mean that ours was less significant. I also do not see how fighting over ideologies surrounding the preservation of the union, states' rights and slavery are "stupid" compared to a war of genocide.
rahfields 7 months ago
@rahfields Well you are right but mine war was not about genocide the Yugoslavian war look at it for your self
ShovelHorse 7 months ago
@ShovelHorse Did your yugoslavian civil war have over 600,000 dead?
CM99501 7 months ago
@CM99501 Well the first one had over 800,000 the second one had 100,000
ShovelHorse 7 months ago
@ShovelHorse Are you European? If you are, do you REALLY want to talk about who is stupid in terms of killing who? Shall we crack open a book on the 20th Century in Europe and randomly pick out any page? We may find The Somme, The Marne, Ypres, Passchendaele, Guernica, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kiev, Kursk, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bergin-Belsen, Dachau, Warsaw, Hamburg, Cologne, Rotterdam, The Blitz, Alamamein, Dieppe, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc etc etc. If you're not European, where from then?
Shafeone 6 months ago
@Shafeone I am European but this here is different brother on a brother this is stupid.
ShovelHorse 6 months ago
@ShovelHorse Ummm...English CIVIL WAR. Spanish CIVIL WAR. Finnish CIVIL WAR, Russian CIVIL WAR, etc etc etc.
Shafeone 6 months ago
@Shafeone Ok maybe we had civil wars but you Americans are scum of the world you mixed somehow in every war since WW1 you are idiots you have no pure blood live on stolen land what Osama did to your nation was not GOOD and was not bad
ShovelHorse 6 months ago
@ShovelHorse You mean somehow we ENDED your mass slaughters of one another? LOL. You have absolutely no clue about your own history do you? You inbred maniacs have been mass-murdering each other since Roman times. You haven't contributed anything to the world in many many generations other than welfare states. And fear not, if you love Mulsims so much your continent will soon be a Muslim caliphate...then you'll be begging to some here. Sorry, not euro-pussies allowed. Allahu Akhbar! LOL
Shafeone 6 months ago
@Shafeone Your nation killed all natives in America you know what the Indian Removal Act was which your President Andrew Jackson created you stole there lands and live on it today and what more did your nation do maybe the Atomic bombs on Japan maybe the mass bombardment of Dresden or Vietnam and don't forget Korea your nation is as bad as any other nation don't think you are better then us by the way you are immigrants your nation does not exist and you have no language pathetic idiots
ShovelHorse 6 months ago
@ShovelHorse Not claiming we're a bunch of doves here mate. I can give you a litany of bad behavior on the USA's part--what makes us great...we can honestly look at our own history and learnfrom it. Like you did WW1--oh, right. LOL. I just find it funny that someone coming from a continent that spent the last century figuring out how to mass-slaughter over 100,000,000 of its own comes before cowering under our military umbrella in the face of the Soviest off lecturing anyone anywhere.
Shafeone 6 months ago
@ShovelHorse im only saying this because it seams like many people here forget what war is ITS HELL you win a war by any means possible the romans knew that and they won the British knew that and they won the Spanish knew that and they won Napoleon knew that and he won The USA knew that and we won i think the moral of the story is if you want to fight a war then fight it and as for saying your country is better than ours
LordAkronos 6 months ago
@ShovelHorse what ever that one is about the hole language thing all of today's languages are derived from maybe three different ones so before you say get your own language why don't you get your own and stop making worthless you tube comments you pathetic imbecile
LordAkronos 6 months ago
@LordAkronos You speak English not American you get me right you don't have your language
ShovelHorse 6 months ago
@ShovelHorse now your just looking like a fool i never said we dont speak English maybe you should learn it so you don't make anymore stupid youtube comments
LordAkronos 6 months ago
I'm sorry.
Souther people, maybe, fight for their land but were trickd by slaveowners
Filohippo2 7 months ago
fighting in the wilderness after being in napolionic style battles would have been horrible. of course as a Souterner i will say that EVERY yank that got injured or killed while invading the South deserved what he got. 1 out of 10 Confederate s owned slaves. 2 yrs into the war lincoln freed slaves in the South but not the 5 border states. ?? . blue bellies invaded the south over the damn so called preservation union.then blue clad soldiers almost exterminated the Native Americans. real heros
bluegrassreb1 8 months ago
@bluegrassreb1 1:10 Confederates owned slaves. 10:10 Confederates fought to maintain slavery by fighting for a government expressly committed to its preservation. So really it was the Rebs who were the oppressors. At least 4 million Americans would have agreed with me at the time, Massah Bluegrass. By the way it's f*****g 2011 not 1861. Get over it! Party like its at least 1999 and not 1799! Yeah. I'm sure the Southerners LOVED Indians. Ask the Cherokees in Georgia...oh, riiiight.
Shafeone 8 months ago
@Shafeone Lincoln raised the union tax in 1820 from 20% to 47% for southerners, and while over 69% of union citizens owned slaves, only 5% of southerners owned slaves. When the south seceded from the union in 1861 Jefferson Davis said in his inaugural speech that the confederacy would abandoned slavery by 1867 after they had recuperated from the tax. To prevent this the union invaded the south to force them back in at gunpoint. I would hardly call the Confederacy aggressors. Dominic, R.I
DOMORCIDEA 6 months ago
@DOMORCIDEA 69% of Union citizens owned slaves? Can you please cite that source? And where in his innagural does Davis say this? What is the actual passage? (I suggest you read VP Alexander Stephens 'Cornerstone Speech; in March 1861. "[The CSA government's] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
Shafeone 6 months ago
@Shafeone as the son of a historian in the university of providence Rhode Island, who has a copy of Jefferson's inaugural speech and the 1860 census. It clearly states in the census that Maryland, New York, and Massachusetts owned over 100,000 slaves for each state whereas the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Florida were responsible for the ownership of only 950 slaves between them. I also give proof of this as the great grandson of a Confederate Army Officer, CPT Walter Rowe
DOMORCIDEA 6 months ago
@DOMORCIDEA Jefferson's innaugural or Jefferson Davis'? I have a copy of Davis' innaugural and he never even mentions slavery (unless mine is abridged admittedly).
Shafeone 6 months ago
@DOMORCIDEA Read "A History of Negro Slavery in New York" by McManus. As slavery had been fully abolished in New York state 1817 statute that gave freedom to New York slaves who had been born before July 4, 1799--but not until July 4, 1827. Now, the new law allowed nonresidents to enter with slaves for up to 9 months, and part-time residents to bring slaves into NY temporarily. The "9-months law" remained on the books until 1841, I would like to see said 'census'.
Shafeone 6 months ago
@Shafeone I apologize. My Father's census is from 1810. But still the point remains. I have read the said "History of Negro Slavery" and it says nothing about the supposed "9 months law". I also showed you're comment to my Father. He said the whole idea of freedom to New York slaves born before July 4, 1799 is complete and utter balderdash. If you send me you're copy of Davis's speech i will send you mine and his 1862 speech, "Slavery, the future of the C.S.A.?" My Father is curios also.
DOMORCIDEA 6 months ago
@DOMORCIDEA That was a typo. The law gave freedom to slaves born AFTER Jul 4, 1799, not before. Apologize. And you find no difference in a position between an 1860 census (the year of Southern secession) and one from FIIFTY years earlier before slavery was even completely abolished in NY? Come on. That is just utter stubbornness. Davis' speech is readily available everywhere. I asked YOU to cite the passage since YOU made the claim. Jim Crow I think shows slavery would have survived in CSA.
Shafeone 6 months ago
@DOMORCIDEA How can you say "the point remains"? Your salient point was that the North owned more slaves than the South when war broke out--which if true would help belie the notion that the war was primarily about slavery. But that was false. There's an enormous difference in attitude/economics in the North between 1810 & 1860! Different worlds by then. That's like saying "in 1990 the record clearly shows that Germany was mostly Nazi." Oh wait, I mean 1940. The point collapses totally.
Shafeone 6 months ago