i re-enact as Colonle Whalter H. Taylor. Hay if eny one has eny information on him please let me know, FYI if Your going to be rood please do not respond.
Robert E. Lee was a gentleman in the purest definition, he was also the ultimate soldier of his time. Unfortunately, the American Civil War was the end of his time and the beginning of modern warfare. As a Southerner, what Bill Sherman and other Union Generals did to the people of Georgia and South Carolina was nothing short of brutle and merciless. Remember though, we did the same during World War II against other tough and tenatious enemies to destroy their ability and will to wage war.
R.E. Lee was a gentlemen and a TRUE AMERICAN. It is way too soon in the history of western civilization to say who was trully right. In another 100 years we may have a better grasp.
Contrast Lee's attitude towards the civilian population of Pennsylvania in this scene with Sherman's later campaign of anti-Southern genocide across Georgia...that should tell you all you need know about who was right and who was wrong...
@Crymson1 in the classical sense of the word, yes. And proud of it. In the sense of the word "apology" meaning "to admit and regret wrongdoing", the only ones needing to apologize is the North, who invaded and conquered a sovereign nation and has justified it on false pretexts.
@Crymson1 apologist - noun 1.a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc. I am proud of being such a person regarding the Confederacy.
And I know my history very well, thank you. The Confederates only fired on Sumpter AFTER Lincoln attempted to reinforce the garrison despite being told explicitly NOT to by the South, a clear act of aggression against a sovereign power.
@Crymson1 apologist - noun 1.a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc. I am proud of being such a person regarding the Confederacy.
And I know my history very well, thank you. The Confederates only fired on Sumpter AFTER Lincoln attempted to reinforce the garrison despite being told explicitly NOT to by the South, a clear act of aggression against a sovereign power.
@Crymson1 I already knew the definition, I just included it for the edification of anyone who might not.
And the operative question is why *I* should discuss this with someone so petty and poor in debating that they would make a debate point out of a simple spelling error.
@Sisyphus27 Not sure what you're responding to, but if it's blacks being taken by the Confed Army, Coddington p. 161 cites an OR that Longstreet sent Pickett instructions to bring "captured contrabands" to him. If Longstreet knew, Lee knew. I've never found anything else in writing from the ANV, but there are also diary entries of at least one local white citizen describing the ANV taking black citizens, even those who had been born and raised in PA.
@rob9641 General Sherman did not care about the fate of blacks. He was following his own doctrine of how to wage war. Terrorize and subjugate the civilian populace to stop any assistance to the enemy. To him the civilians were the enemy as well as the military.
Nor did Grant care about the fate of blacks. "If I thought for one second that this war was being fought over slavery I would join the other side this minute." U.S. Grant.
Lee was of a different stripe. He fought for his home.
@Rikki0 Though Lincoln did not care for slavery, it was not a major concern of his. Jefferson Davis sent him a letter stating that he would free every slave in the South if Lincoln would allow a peaceful secession. Lincoln refused. His purpose was to preserve the Union only. Without the taxes from the South (78% of the government budget) the government would collapse. Real history is not all that pretty. It's just real.
@Rikki0 And for those who may not know, the North did not abolish slavery in the North before or during the war. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the South, a moot point until the war was won. Though states in the North had freed their slaves on a local basis the North in general did not. Slavery in the North was only abolished in the North with the passage of the 13th amendment to the Constituion in November 1865.
@Rikki0 "Jefferson Davis sent him a letter stating that he would free every slave in the South if Lincoln would allow a peaceful secession. " - I don't think so. Please name your source on this, sounds like revisionist history silliness to me. Why the would Davis free every slave since slavery was the backbone of his economy? Yes, Lincoln's main objective was to preserve the Union but his opposition to slavery grew over time, don't forget, he used his re-election to push the 13th ammendment.
@Fendercat2000 I was slightly mistaken. The offer was not made in a letter but in a meeting with two of Lincolns representatives who had been sent to meet with Davis. I have tried several times to copy the URL to this reply but keep getting an error message. I'll try it this way. Do a google search for "An interview with President Jefferson Davis". The top one to come up contains the context of the meeting. The context was not relayed by Davis. That's just the title.
@Rikki0 I googled it. First, that website is full with some of the darkest sides of human thought I have ever seen, terrifying. Second, its a "transcription" that can't be found anywhere else on google...hmmm, I wonder why. There are no transcribed conversations word for word from that time in history so when one pops up, be very suspcious. Lastly, if we pretend its real, Davis never says he would free the slaves, he only flippantly dismisses the notion of emancipation itself. Nice try.
@Fendercat2000 The meeting has been confirmed and I can give you that site as well if you wish it. Precise transcription of meetings has existed since medieval times and before. This is one of Davis' quotes that you read, "You have already emancipated nearly two millions of our slaves, and if you will take care of them you may emancipate the rest.", yet you still refuse to accept the facts. You sir do not care for the truth of history. You only care for your preconceptions.
@Rikki0 I've read it, too, and I'll accept it's as accurate a transcription as you could get in those days, but I don't think it says what you think it says. I see no offer to free every slave if there is peaceful secession - in fact, there's no offer from Davis of any kind. . I see Jacques saying, well what if the north said thus and such, and Davis saying "you can emancipate every slave and we'll still fight to secede." You can't pick a line out of context - context is everything.
@rob9641 I am replying to your statement that the Army of Northern Virginia rounded up all the blacks it got its hands on to drag them back to slavery, I'm not doubting that its possible that happened I'd just like to know where you heard it. Thanks.
Long before the policies of Sherman were put into place the Confederacy adopted the scorched earth policy when on northern soil. Bet you didn't know that Chambersburg Pa was burned to the ground more than once by the Confederates. It was not the only place. The Confederacy pillaged, burned and plundered towns and homesteads from from California to the New England states.
Funny thing though how only the south complains about it. You started a war not a marble shooting contest.
@Lexington73300 Sherman's campaign of what you inaccurately deem as "anti-Southern genocide" was completely justified in the fact that the people are the ones who supported the war...so take the fight to them so they know what it feels like. Don't get mad just because General William T. Sherman had the balls to do what must be done to further cripple the morale of the Confederate Army....plain 'n simple.
@Lexington73300 Do let's remember the rather different strategic situation Lee and Sherman were in; as Lee noted, his army had enough enemies. They could not afford to make more along their supply lines. Sherman dispensed with his.
@Lexington73300 Lee did have women complain to him about that exact thing and his reply was, "Now you know what terror has befallen our own people." Stuart assaulted Chambersburg and demanded ransom from it's citizens and Quartermaster Harmon of the 2nd Corps was known for tearing down houses to build bridges. Lee had the same goal as Sherman did: get the northern citizens war weary. The only difference is how far Lee and Sherman went to achieve their common goal.
The question remains whether there would have been a battle at Gettysburg if Stonewall Jackson had been alive. Even if Lee had reorganized his army from two larger corps to three smaller ones, his corps commanders would have been Longstreet, Jackson, and Ewell instead of Longstreet, Ewell, and A.P. Hill. Whoever Henry Heth's corps commander would have been, it would not have been Hill, and that commander might well have denied Heth permission to go into Gettysburg to get the shoes.
I agree. More than likely Heth's Corps Commander would have been Jackson and considering Stonewall's secretiveness he never would have allowed him to do this. Even if it had been Ewell, with his cautious nature he wouldn't have given the green light. In addition, Stuart would have been under Jackson's command and would have been under much tighter control. This would have meant much better intelligence for Lee and he would have made the decision not to fight at Gettysburg.
@battlestar9 We could go a step further and speculate on whether or not there would have even been a second invasion of the North if Jackson was alive. Longstreet's opposition to such an invasion wasn't enough in itself to dissuade Lee, but how do we know his and Jackson's opposition together wouldn't have been? Btw, may I ask how you came to the conclusion that Stuart would have ended up under Jackson's command? I thought he answered only to Lee.
Lincoln was a politician and had been a politician for years. He was as two faced as a man can be. He certainly knew what he was doing when he sent supplies down to Fort Sumter to start a war. He wanted war and was determined to get. Thus the calling of 75,000 to invade the South. If there had been no invasion of the South then there would have been no war. It was not the South who wanted this war it was the money grubbing politicians of the North.
Lincoln recognized that during the war the wrongness of slavery and his attitude changed. But before he wasn't ready to do a thing about it as the situation was very tricky.
There were plenty in favor of slavery, who even believed slaves were happy how they were. A job career was forming posses to round up runaway slaves and southern states were very insistent on the North returning runaways.
It's important to remember that the institution of slavery was very much ingrained into southern culture as southern plantations played a big roll. So it is also important to consider that some fought not because they had slaves but that they had to preserve this institution that was so much a part of their culture.
It is true, mind you, that a small minority owned slaves. It is also true, however, that this minority was extremely powerful financially, politically, and culturally. They convinced the majority to fight in their stead on the grounds of states rights but states rights to do what? Maintain the institution of slavery. Politics, economics, and morality all played a hand in the issue of slavery and whether future states would be free or slave.
This movie really was moving for me. We can be proud of the heroes that fought for both sides. War is Hell, for sure, but not everything that happens reflects the ugly side of man. General Lee and others tried to be good Christians while all the time fighting a war. My family was from the North, but we have always respected our brothers in the South. The whole war was a shame, but perhaps it had to happen. We had to end slavery somehow.
I respect people that deserve it. A man like Lee certainly deserves it. These boot lickers and ass kissers, these leeches that cling onto his legacy for the sake of bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance do not deserve respect. These "the south shall rise again" nimrods and "it's not a civil war but a war of northern aggression" ass wipes. These morons that refuse to see that slavery was in any way involved. They deserve little respect beyond acknowledging their commitment to stupid.
You know, whether these words were said or not, I believe this does reflect the beliefs and attitudes of General Lee, who was deeply religious and kind man. Check it out. When the war was over, he went way out of his way to get other Southerners to respect the surrender and to accept black people into public life. I think he is a true American hero, regardless of race. It was his policy not to molest the civilians, for which he is worthy of respect.
Lee is a good man, certainly, who re-integrated himself into the states. He did not fight for politics or slavery or any ridiculous reason; he fought out of loyalty to his home state. It must've been a tough decision and while I don't agree with it, I respect it.
This is a great story. Thank you Mr. Turner for having the courage to risk the money and make the effort to preserve this for us. I believe you did us a huge favor. My family fought in the war, for the Union. I lived almost fifteen of my 59 years in the South and I have much respect for them, as true Americans.
Macro-historical is the current (if it hasn't already gone out of style) term for events. Apparently the Mameluke victory over the Mongols is the most important battle in history. But if Gettysburg was the "high water mark" of the Confederacy, and considering the overall impact of the United States on world history shouldn't the Battle of Gettysburg be of "macro historical" importance? It was certainly bloody enough to qualify. And no, I'm not an American, just an observer.
@deriter64 You have a point. This is American history and how much that impacts the rest of the world is still unfolding and yet to be seen. Contrary to what the victors claim, the war was fought over the level of power the federal government should have over individual states. In short, the level of power government can command over individuals in the US. My ancestors fought for the Confederacy - not for slavery, only 4% of Southerners owned slaves. The fight continues to this day.
Contrary to the Lost Cause and Southerners who desperately wish to absolve their ancestors of sin or blame, the war was fought for more than just "federal power". Contrary to their own ignorance, slavery was very much a part of that reason. Not to be confused with "freeing the slaves", which was a result (though the abolitionist movement was VERY strong and it was part of the myriad of reasons).
@Mahbu My non-salve holding ancestor spoke for himself in writing (letters) as to his reasons for going to war - because his home had been invaded by an army from the federal government. If you know his mind and situation better than he did, then you are not very different from the invaders he went off to fight so very long ago and feel entitled to call HIM ignorant. If any group of people has learned nothing from this war - it is yankees like yourself, though many of them seem to get it.
@stellalouise1 You make a mistake if you take your ancestor's reasons and assume they were everybody else's reasons too. The men who fought the war were individuals with many reasons to fight - some to protect slavery, some to protect home, some because they wanted to "see the elephant," some because they couldn't stay out of a fight, and so on. But the bottom line is that if there had been no slavery, there would have been no secession and no war for them to fight in.
@rob9641 I am glad that you recognize the situation hundreds of thousands of southerners were in when the federal government ordered troops to invade the southern states. No sane person living is pro slavery and many on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line were against it in the 1800's. War makes strange bedfellows. There was great pressure building from within to stop slavery, like the rest of the civilized world had recently done, until Lincoln shoved everyone on the same side. Fact.
But Lincoln DIDN'T shove it down everyones throat until after southerners fired on Sumnter. The thing about this is the South merely FEARED he might. They based secession on a flimsy FEAR. A lot of Anti North idiots will talk about Lincoln didn't care about the Slaves and then go on to say how Lincoln shoved it down our throats. It's true that if Lincoln could've helped it, he would've kept the north free and South slave to preserve the union.
@Mahbu Now we have to get into the trade tariffs that benefitted the industrial north and were punishing to the agricultural southern states who traded with europe. The industrial north saw europe as competition, so they demand that the southern states trade with the north or else, when there was more money to be made in Liverpool. This issue goes straight to the pocketbook, as usual. Abe talked out of both sides of his mouth all the time, thus the conflicting arguments on his varying positions
Note that I did not say everyone. Maybe your great great grand pappy didn't fight for slavery but others certainly did. Others willingly fought for that cause.
If anyone's ignorant, it's probably you for taking the classic southern pity party approach. There was very little "internal pressure" to stop slavery. Don't kid yourself. Some may not have openly supported it but they certainly weren't against it. Things like Bleeding Kansas proved that there were a lot who wanted it.
@stellalouise1 Hi, I think if I wanted to study the tragedy of the Civil War I'd start with North Carolina which didn't want to fight with anybody but provided more cannon fodder for both sides than any other southern state. Their state motto should be "leave me the hell alone"! Anyway, my original point was that without a united United States there would not be the world super power that is the U.S. today.Whatever one's opinion it is a fact and Gettysburg is a stepping stone in that fact. Thx.
@deriter64 NC was one of the last states to sceced and provided more troops than any other state, which you refer to so disrespectully as "cannon fodder". The NC State Motto is "To Be Rather Than to Seem", which fits better than your suggestion. My point is that there didn't have to be a war at all. Slavery would have stopped soon, as in every other country. GREED and bullying from the nothern states went unchecked for too long. The war did not make the US more powerful, it set us back.
@stellalouise1 I'm sorry, I meant no disrespect for North Carolina which always seems to me to epitomize the tragedy of the civil war. "Cannon fodder" is a sympathetic term applied to working stiffs sent off to fight in wars that should never have happened and were slaughtered at Fredricksburg, Gettysburg, or the Somme. And if you read my earlier comments you'll see that we agree that the Civil War didn't have to happen.
no they had to cut this stuff out. it makes the South look like human beings. Not like the yankee SHIT that raped and pillaged from TN to the sea in SC! reply all u yankee's want... but look up some history 1st...please!
You would think a General of Lees stature would have his army under more control than he had. A lot of his Generals did what they wanted. This is mainly why the rebs lost at Gett. Anyone agree?
@deerhunter59ify No IMO he lost Gettysburg because he wanted to engage and end the war at all costs to the point where he couldn't see our dire this battle was until it was too late.
i love this scene cause it really shows major taylor for who he is ..... even though he says sir so many times its cause he has such a great respect for general lee ... and he really is the excitable character shown in the movie...i am a huge fan of major taylor and general lee so this is really awesome rob9641.... brilliant job with putting this video on youtube mate you made my day :)
no way you're a fan too.... i'm writing a book about the two called open field at sunrise.... its a working progress (four year process) and i think you would enjoy it
thanks rob9641 for putting this video up it really helps me figure out the character of Lee and Taylor. thanks :)
this is quoted for truth; General Lee NEVER attacked a civilian sector and severely reprimanded anyone who did so. reason why the Confederates and even the Union honored and respected him. he was Grade A combat leader and one of the best generals ever to grace the Army
The only one I know is on VHS and is the Commemorative Edition put out around 1994, the one with the bullet and the book. It comes up on ebay now and then.
And Major Taylor also tries to steal scenes when he spurs his horse and gallops off with grandiose "Heyah!"
He might as well wear a black mask and yell " Hi-Yo Silver Away!" Another officer on Sheen's (Lee's) staff curled his hat to look like a cowboy hat. It looked pretty stupid
I believe they cut this out because of the million times he said sir.
Actually, Major Taylor thought he'd go nuts if he had to work for RE Lee for very much longer - Lee was prone to anger outbursts. You never knew when they were coming.
@JohnCronin103 - "General Lee's Army" by Joseph T. Glatthaar -p. 339 - a good book, full of quotes from Confederates - Taylor called him "so unreasonable and provoking at times" - Taylor had a lot of complaints, but he had admiration, too - p. 163 "Our advance ...was one of the boldest moves of our so-called 'timid' General." Taylor was working for a human being under stress, not an icon, and he knew it.
I can see why they deleted this one. Major Taylor was one of the few bad actors in this movie. He says "Sir" why to many times. Also this scene doesn't add much to the movie.
I cannot thank you enough for posting these deleted scenes from Gettysburg. It is my favourite film and finding these clips made my week! Speaking of deleted scenes, if anyone can help me find the deleted Antietam scene from God's and Generals I would be eternally grateful. Thanks again!
@abrondarbit Did you all know that the actor portraying Maj. Taylor was married to "Laura Ingles" of "Little House on the P" fame? They are now Divorced.
i re-enact as Colonle Whalter H. Taylor. Hay if eny one has eny information on him please let me know, FYI if Your going to be rood please do not respond.
redconfederate 7 months ago in playlist army stuff
Robert E. Lee was a gentleman in the purest definition, he was also the ultimate soldier of his time. Unfortunately, the American Civil War was the end of his time and the beginning of modern warfare. As a Southerner, what Bill Sherman and other Union Generals did to the people of Georgia and South Carolina was nothing short of brutle and merciless. Remember though, we did the same during World War II against other tough and tenatious enemies to destroy their ability and will to wage war.
Nanjing03 7 months ago
R.E. Lee was a gentlemen and a TRUE AMERICAN. It is way too soon in the history of western civilization to say who was trully right. In another 100 years we may have a better grasp.
pigmanobvious 8 months ago
nice
Jemmer1000 10 months ago
I wonder why they deleted this scene from the movie.
MickeyMoore100 10 months ago
Contrast Lee's attitude towards the civilian population of Pennsylvania in this scene with Sherman's later campaign of anti-Southern genocide across Georgia...that should tell you all you need know about who was right and who was wrong...
Lexington73300 10 months ago
@Lexington73300 Except that the ANV was rounding up anyone black in PA and sending them South into slavery, even free blacks.
rob9641 10 months ago 6
@rob9641 Don't mind this Lexington fellow; he or she is a Confederate apologist of the highest order.
Crymson1 10 months ago
@Crymson1 in the classical sense of the word, yes. And proud of it. In the sense of the word "apology" meaning "to admit and regret wrongdoing", the only ones needing to apologize is the North, who invaded and conquered a sovereign nation and has justified it on false pretexts.
Lexington73300 9 months ago
@Lexington73300 I think you're unaware of the meaning of the word "apologist." Go read a dictionary.
Also, you might read up on your history to remember that the South started the war.
Crymson1 9 months ago
@Crymson1 apologist - noun 1.a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc. I am proud of being such a person regarding the Confederacy.
And I know my history very well, thank you. The Confederates only fired on Sumpter AFTER Lincoln attempted to reinforce the garrison despite being told explicitly NOT to by the South, a clear act of aggression against a sovereign power.
Lexington73300 9 months ago
@Crymson1 apologist - noun 1.a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc. I am proud of being such a person regarding the Confederacy.
And I know my history very well, thank you. The Confederates only fired on Sumpter AFTER Lincoln attempted to reinforce the garrison despite being told explicitly NOT to by the South, a clear act of aggression against a sovereign power.
Lexington73300 9 months ago
@Lexington73300 Congratulations on your use of a dictionary.
Also, why should I discuss the Civil War with someone so unversed on it that they can't even spell 'Sumter' correctly?
Crymson1 9 months ago
@Crymson1 I already knew the definition, I just included it for the edification of anyone who might not.
And the operative question is why *I* should discuss this with someone so petty and poor in debating that they would make a debate point out of a simple spelling error.
Lexington73300 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lexington73300 It would be just about the best you could come up with.
Crymson1 9 months ago
@rob9641 Did it do so under General Lee's orders?
Sisyphus27 9 months ago
@Sisyphus27 Not sure what you're responding to, but if it's blacks being taken by the Confed Army, Coddington p. 161 cites an OR that Longstreet sent Pickett instructions to bring "captured contrabands" to him. If Longstreet knew, Lee knew. I've never found anything else in writing from the ANV, but there are also diary entries of at least one local white citizen describing the ANV taking black citizens, even those who had been born and raised in PA.
rob9641 9 months ago
@rob9641 General Sherman did not care about the fate of blacks. He was following his own doctrine of how to wage war. Terrorize and subjugate the civilian populace to stop any assistance to the enemy. To him the civilians were the enemy as well as the military.
Nor did Grant care about the fate of blacks. "If I thought for one second that this war was being fought over slavery I would join the other side this minute." U.S. Grant.
Lee was of a different stripe. He fought for his home.
Rikki0 7 months ago
@Rikki0 Though Lincoln did not care for slavery, it was not a major concern of his. Jefferson Davis sent him a letter stating that he would free every slave in the South if Lincoln would allow a peaceful secession. Lincoln refused. His purpose was to preserve the Union only. Without the taxes from the South (78% of the government budget) the government would collapse. Real history is not all that pretty. It's just real.
Rikki0 7 months ago
@Rikki0 And for those who may not know, the North did not abolish slavery in the North before or during the war. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the South, a moot point until the war was won. Though states in the North had freed their slaves on a local basis the North in general did not. Slavery in the North was only abolished in the North with the passage of the 13th amendment to the Constituion in November 1865.
Rikki0 7 months ago
@Rikki0 Not quite accurate. Almost all of the northern states abolished slavery long before the war came along. That was the problem.
rob9641 7 months ago
@Rikki0 Interesting - got a cite for the Davis letter? I'd like to see it.
rob9641 7 months ago
@rob9641 Look at the reply I sent to Fendercat, rob. It's there.
Rikki0 5 months ago
@Rikki0 "Jefferson Davis sent him a letter stating that he would free every slave in the South if Lincoln would allow a peaceful secession. " - I don't think so. Please name your source on this, sounds like revisionist history silliness to me. Why the would Davis free every slave since slavery was the backbone of his economy? Yes, Lincoln's main objective was to preserve the Union but his opposition to slavery grew over time, don't forget, he used his re-election to push the 13th ammendment.
Fendercat2000 6 months ago 3
@Fendercat2000 I was slightly mistaken. The offer was not made in a letter but in a meeting with two of Lincolns representatives who had been sent to meet with Davis. I have tried several times to copy the URL to this reply but keep getting an error message. I'll try it this way. Do a google search for "An interview with President Jefferson Davis". The top one to come up contains the context of the meeting. The context was not relayed by Davis. That's just the title.
Rikki0 5 months ago
@Rikki0 I googled it. First, that website is full with some of the darkest sides of human thought I have ever seen, terrifying. Second, its a "transcription" that can't be found anywhere else on google...hmmm, I wonder why. There are no transcribed conversations word for word from that time in history so when one pops up, be very suspcious. Lastly, if we pretend its real, Davis never says he would free the slaves, he only flippantly dismisses the notion of emancipation itself. Nice try.
Fendercat2000 5 months ago
@Fendercat2000 The meeting has been confirmed and I can give you that site as well if you wish it. Precise transcription of meetings has existed since medieval times and before. This is one of Davis' quotes that you read, "You have already emancipated nearly two millions of our slaves, and if you will take care of them you may emancipate the rest.", yet you still refuse to accept the facts. You sir do not care for the truth of history. You only care for your preconceptions.
Rikki0 5 months ago
@Rikki0 I've read it, too, and I'll accept it's as accurate a transcription as you could get in those days, but I don't think it says what you think it says. I see no offer to free every slave if there is peaceful secession - in fact, there's no offer from Davis of any kind. . I see Jacques saying, well what if the north said thus and such, and Davis saying "you can emancipate every slave and we'll still fight to secede." You can't pick a line out of context - context is everything.
rob9641 5 months ago
@rob9641 I had not heard this but it is possible. Can you tell me what your source is for this?
ncfreeman86 4 months ago
@ncfreeman86 Sorry - I don't know which of my posts you're asking about. Can you be specific about what "this" is?
rob9641 4 months ago
@rob9641 I am replying to your statement that the Army of Northern Virginia rounded up all the blacks it got its hands on to drag them back to slavery, I'm not doubting that its possible that happened I'd just like to know where you heard it. Thanks.
ncfreeman86 4 months ago
@ncfreeman86 Lots of sources - Coddington "The Gettysburg Campaign" p. 161 is the one I can put my hands on most readily.
rob9641 4 months ago
@Lexington73300 remember this is a movie
101ridensolo 9 months ago
@Lexington73300
Long before the policies of Sherman were put into place the Confederacy adopted the scorched earth policy when on northern soil. Bet you didn't know that Chambersburg Pa was burned to the ground more than once by the Confederates. It was not the only place. The Confederacy pillaged, burned and plundered towns and homesteads from from California to the New England states.
Funny thing though how only the south complains about it. You started a war not a marble shooting contest.
kiowa473 8 months ago in playlist Gettysburg
@Lexington73300 Sherman's campaign of what you inaccurately deem as "anti-Southern genocide" was completely justified in the fact that the people are the ones who supported the war...so take the fight to them so they know what it feels like. Don't get mad just because General William T. Sherman had the balls to do what must be done to further cripple the morale of the Confederate Army....plain 'n simple.
bishope08 8 months ago
@bishope08
It's real easy for boys to talk about balls when they haven't seen the devastation for themselves.
What Sherman did to the South would be considered a war crime today worthy of Nuremberg.
Kang5030 8 months ago
@Lexington73300 Do let's remember the rather different strategic situation Lee and Sherman were in; as Lee noted, his army had enough enemies. They could not afford to make more along their supply lines. Sherman dispensed with his.
Oh, and genocide? Please.
weremensch 7 months ago
@Lexington73300 Lee did have women complain to him about that exact thing and his reply was, "Now you know what terror has befallen our own people." Stuart assaulted Chambersburg and demanded ransom from it's citizens and Quartermaster Harmon of the 2nd Corps was known for tearing down houses to build bridges. Lee had the same goal as Sherman did: get the northern citizens war weary. The only difference is how far Lee and Sherman went to achieve their common goal.
JoeHooker11 7 months ago
Comment removed
Arbeedubya 11 months ago
Comment removed
Arbeedubya 11 months ago
Most of this scene is new there is that one Part when Lee is asked if he wants something to eat that is in the final cut of the movie.
wodkins 11 months ago
hahahaha i love how when longstreet rides in the band begins to play LMAO
!!!!!!!!!
edyoung44 11 months ago
I like the part where he says "sir".
championofcathay 11 months ago
Of all the deleted scenes, this is my favorite ;)
Butternut731863 11 months ago
The question remains whether there would have been a battle at Gettysburg if Stonewall Jackson had been alive. Even if Lee had reorganized his army from two larger corps to three smaller ones, his corps commanders would have been Longstreet, Jackson, and Ewell instead of Longstreet, Ewell, and A.P. Hill. Whoever Henry Heth's corps commander would have been, it would not have been Hill, and that commander might well have denied Heth permission to go into Gettysburg to get the shoes.
Arbeedubya 11 months ago
@Arbeedubya
I agree. More than likely Heth's Corps Commander would have been Jackson and considering Stonewall's secretiveness he never would have allowed him to do this. Even if it had been Ewell, with his cautious nature he wouldn't have given the green light. In addition, Stuart would have been under Jackson's command and would have been under much tighter control. This would have meant much better intelligence for Lee and he would have made the decision not to fight at Gettysburg.
battlestar9 11 months ago
@battlestar9 We could go a step further and speculate on whether or not there would have even been a second invasion of the North if Jackson was alive. Longstreet's opposition to such an invasion wasn't enough in itself to dissuade Lee, but how do we know his and Jackson's opposition together wouldn't have been? Btw, may I ask how you came to the conclusion that Stuart would have ended up under Jackson's command? I thought he answered only to Lee.
Arbeedubya 11 months ago
@Arbeedubya
Or pressed the advantage after the tactical victory on Day One, denying the Union Army the use of Little Round top.
Lexington73300 10 months ago
Lincoln was a politician and had been a politician for years. He was as two faced as a man can be. He certainly knew what he was doing when he sent supplies down to Fort Sumter to start a war. He wanted war and was determined to get. Thus the calling of 75,000 to invade the South. If there had been no invasion of the South then there would have been no war. It was not the South who wanted this war it was the money grubbing politicians of the North.
TheCr1252 1 year ago
@stellalouise1
Lincoln recognized that during the war the wrongness of slavery and his attitude changed. But before he wasn't ready to do a thing about it as the situation was very tricky.
There were plenty in favor of slavery, who even believed slaves were happy how they were. A job career was forming posses to round up runaway slaves and southern states were very insistent on the North returning runaways.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@stellalouise1
It's important to remember that the institution of slavery was very much ingrained into southern culture as southern plantations played a big roll. So it is also important to consider that some fought not because they had slaves but that they had to preserve this institution that was so much a part of their culture.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@stellalouise1
It is true, mind you, that a small minority owned slaves. It is also true, however, that this minority was extremely powerful financially, politically, and culturally. They convinced the majority to fight in their stead on the grounds of states rights but states rights to do what? Maintain the institution of slavery. Politics, economics, and morality all played a hand in the issue of slavery and whether future states would be free or slave.
Mahbu 1 year ago
This movie really was moving for me. We can be proud of the heroes that fought for both sides. War is Hell, for sure, but not everything that happens reflects the ugly side of man. General Lee and others tried to be good Christians while all the time fighting a war. My family was from the North, but we have always respected our brothers in the South. The whole war was a shame, but perhaps it had to happen. We had to end slavery somehow.
Boelcke1916 1 year ago
@Boelcke1916
I respect people that deserve it. A man like Lee certainly deserves it. These boot lickers and ass kissers, these leeches that cling onto his legacy for the sake of bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance do not deserve respect. These "the south shall rise again" nimrods and "it's not a civil war but a war of northern aggression" ass wipes. These morons that refuse to see that slavery was in any way involved. They deserve little respect beyond acknowledging their commitment to stupid.
Mahbu 1 year ago
You know, whether these words were said or not, I believe this does reflect the beliefs and attitudes of General Lee, who was deeply religious and kind man. Check it out. When the war was over, he went way out of his way to get other Southerners to respect the surrender and to accept black people into public life. I think he is a true American hero, regardless of race. It was his policy not to molest the civilians, for which he is worthy of respect.
Boelcke1916 1 year ago
@Boelcke1916
Lee is a good man, certainly, who re-integrated himself into the states. He did not fight for politics or slavery or any ridiculous reason; he fought out of loyalty to his home state. It must've been a tough decision and while I don't agree with it, I respect it.
Mahbu 1 year ago
This is a great story. Thank you Mr. Turner for having the courage to risk the money and make the effort to preserve this for us. I believe you did us a huge favor. My family fought in the war, for the Union. I lived almost fifteen of my 59 years in the South and I have much respect for them, as true Americans.
Boelcke1916 1 year ago
what is that march near the end called?
15Billman 1 year ago
If I recall, the shoe comment was in the making of show that aired on TNT.
Willysmb44 1 year ago
Macro-historical is the current (if it hasn't already gone out of style) term for events. Apparently the Mameluke victory over the Mongols is the most important battle in history. But if Gettysburg was the "high water mark" of the Confederacy, and considering the overall impact of the United States on world history shouldn't the Battle of Gettysburg be of "macro historical" importance? It was certainly bloody enough to qualify. And no, I'm not an American, just an observer.
deriter64 1 year ago
@deriter64 You have a point. This is American history and how much that impacts the rest of the world is still unfolding and yet to be seen. Contrary to what the victors claim, the war was fought over the level of power the federal government should have over individual states. In short, the level of power government can command over individuals in the US. My ancestors fought for the Confederacy - not for slavery, only 4% of Southerners owned slaves. The fight continues to this day.
stellalouise1 1 year ago
@stellalouise1
Contrary to the Lost Cause and Southerners who desperately wish to absolve their ancestors of sin or blame, the war was fought for more than just "federal power". Contrary to their own ignorance, slavery was very much a part of that reason. Not to be confused with "freeing the slaves", which was a result (though the abolitionist movement was VERY strong and it was part of the myriad of reasons).
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu My non-salve holding ancestor spoke for himself in writing (letters) as to his reasons for going to war - because his home had been invaded by an army from the federal government. If you know his mind and situation better than he did, then you are not very different from the invaders he went off to fight so very long ago and feel entitled to call HIM ignorant. If any group of people has learned nothing from this war - it is yankees like yourself, though many of them seem to get it.
stellalouise1 1 year ago
@stellalouise1 You make a mistake if you take your ancestor's reasons and assume they were everybody else's reasons too. The men who fought the war were individuals with many reasons to fight - some to protect slavery, some to protect home, some because they wanted to "see the elephant," some because they couldn't stay out of a fight, and so on. But the bottom line is that if there had been no slavery, there would have been no secession and no war for them to fight in.
rob9641 1 year ago
@rob9641 I am glad that you recognize the situation hundreds of thousands of southerners were in when the federal government ordered troops to invade the southern states. No sane person living is pro slavery and many on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line were against it in the 1800's. War makes strange bedfellows. There was great pressure building from within to stop slavery, like the rest of the civilized world had recently done, until Lincoln shoved everyone on the same side. Fact.
stellalouise1 1 year ago
@stellalouise1
But Lincoln DIDN'T shove it down everyones throat until after southerners fired on Sumnter. The thing about this is the South merely FEARED he might. They based secession on a flimsy FEAR. A lot of Anti North idiots will talk about Lincoln didn't care about the Slaves and then go on to say how Lincoln shoved it down our throats. It's true that if Lincoln could've helped it, he would've kept the north free and South slave to preserve the union.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@Mahbu Now we have to get into the trade tariffs that benefitted the industrial north and were punishing to the agricultural southern states who traded with europe. The industrial north saw europe as competition, so they demand that the southern states trade with the north or else, when there was more money to be made in Liverpool. This issue goes straight to the pocketbook, as usual. Abe talked out of both sides of his mouth all the time, thus the conflicting arguments on his varying positions
stellalouise1 1 year ago
@stellalouise1 I assume you recognize that had there been no slavery, there would have been no secession, and no war.
rob9641 1 year ago
@stellalouise1
Note that I did not say everyone. Maybe your great great grand pappy didn't fight for slavery but others certainly did. Others willingly fought for that cause.
If anyone's ignorant, it's probably you for taking the classic southern pity party approach. There was very little "internal pressure" to stop slavery. Don't kid yourself. Some may not have openly supported it but they certainly weren't against it. Things like Bleeding Kansas proved that there were a lot who wanted it.
Mahbu 1 year ago
@stellalouise1 Hi, I think if I wanted to study the tragedy of the Civil War I'd start with North Carolina which didn't want to fight with anybody but provided more cannon fodder for both sides than any other southern state. Their state motto should be "leave me the hell alone"! Anyway, my original point was that without a united United States there would not be the world super power that is the U.S. today.Whatever one's opinion it is a fact and Gettysburg is a stepping stone in that fact. Thx.
deriter64 1 year ago
@deriter64 NC was one of the last states to sceced and provided more troops than any other state, which you refer to so disrespectully as "cannon fodder". The NC State Motto is "To Be Rather Than to Seem", which fits better than your suggestion. My point is that there didn't have to be a war at all. Slavery would have stopped soon, as in every other country. GREED and bullying from the nothern states went unchecked for too long. The war did not make the US more powerful, it set us back.
stellalouise1 1 year ago
@stellalouise1 I'm sorry, I meant no disrespect for North Carolina which always seems to me to epitomize the tragedy of the civil war. "Cannon fodder" is a sympathetic term applied to working stiffs sent off to fight in wars that should never have happened and were slaughtered at Fredricksburg, Gettysburg, or the Somme. And if you read my earlier comments you'll see that we agree that the Civil War didn't have to happen.
deriter64 1 year ago
This isn´t a deleted scene?? I have that on my DVD, in the movie
hherlevdk 1 year ago
@hherlevdk - this one is longer than the one on the DVD
rob9641 1 year ago
@hherlevdk they add some lines to it
theone2225 11 months ago
no they had to cut this stuff out. it makes the South look like human beings. Not like the yankee SHIT that raped and pillaged from TN to the sea in SC! reply all u yankee's want... but look up some history 1st...please!
bluegrassreb 1 year ago
the part about the shoes makes the movie make sense
55098 1 year ago
You would think a General of Lees stature would have his army under more control than he had. A lot of his Generals did what they wanted. This is mainly why the rebs lost at Gett. Anyone agree?
deerhunter59ify 1 year ago
@deerhunter59ify No IMO he lost Gettysburg because he wanted to engage and end the war at all costs to the point where he couldn't see our dire this battle was until it was too late.
Spartanz1170 1 year ago
13 sirs
assassinofdoom12345 1 year ago
i love this scene cause it really shows major taylor for who he is ..... even though he says sir so many times its cause he has such a great respect for general lee ... and he really is the excitable character shown in the movie...i am a huge fan of major taylor and general lee so this is really awesome rob9641.... brilliant job with putting this video on youtube mate you made my day :)
muscomicpowerrang 1 year ago
no way you're a fan too.... i'm writing a book about the two called open field at sunrise.... its a working progress (four year process) and i think you would enjoy it
thanks rob9641 for putting this video up it really helps me figure out the character of Lee and Taylor. thanks :)
civilwar1551 1 year ago
is this really happened??? and why did they cut this scene from the film? It would make "the rebels" far more humane....
eyederrick 1 year ago
@eyederrick - probably did not happen - the film is based on a novel that is fiction
rob9641 1 year ago
@rob9641 The film is based on a novel based on the author's interpretation of all the characters he portrayed.
dsboneplayer87 1 year ago
this is quoted for truth; General Lee NEVER attacked a civilian sector and severely reprimanded anyone who did so. reason why the Confederates and even the Union honored and respected him. he was Grade A combat leader and one of the best generals ever to grace the Army
legendarytoyou 1 year ago
@legendarytoyou And lost to Grant, and not just because Grant had the larger army. Grant was better than Lee on the strategic level.
Ares99999 1 year ago
Does anyone know where I can buy a full uncut version of this movie? What a shame to have deleted these scenes.
gabriel19551 2 years ago
The only one I know is on VHS and is the Commemorative Edition put out around 1994, the one with the bullet and the book. It comes up on ebay now and then.
rob9641 2 years ago
Rob, thanks for the info. I hope I can find one.
gabriel19551 2 years ago
@rob9641 Yea, my father has that one.
tpajason 1 year ago
@rob9641 sweet! I have that!
Vladimast 1 year ago
And Major Taylor also tries to steal scenes when he spurs his horse and gallops off with grandiose "Heyah!"
He might as well wear a black mask and yell " Hi-Yo Silver Away!" Another officer on Sheen's (Lee's) staff curled his hat to look like a cowboy hat. It looked pretty stupid
I believe they cut this out because of the million times he said sir.
Mr508films 2 years ago
every time taylor says sir, take a shot of tequila, you'll be gone by 1 minute in
MisterGage77 2 years ago
13 shots by my count....alcohol poisoning anyone? :-D
rocketman544 2 years ago
Actually, Major Taylor thought he'd go nuts if he had to work for RE Lee for very much longer - Lee was prone to anger outbursts. You never knew when they were coming.
rob9641 2 years ago
I've read a lot about this lately and i have not read that, just wondering what your source is?
JohnCronin103 1 year ago
@JohnCronin103 - "General Lee's Army" by Joseph T. Glatthaar -p. 339 - a good book, full of quotes from Confederates - Taylor called him "so unreasonable and provoking at times" - Taylor had a lot of complaints, but he had admiration, too - p. 163 "Our advance ...was one of the boldest moves of our so-called 'timid' General." Taylor was working for a human being under stress, not an icon, and he knew it.
rob9641 1 year ago
Major Taylor talks to much.
TheRapper10000 2 years ago
I can see why they deleted this one. Major Taylor was one of the few bad actors in this movie. He says "Sir" why to many times. Also this scene doesn't add much to the movie.
UNCfan102 2 years ago
Hopefully these deleted scenes will be included when the film is released on blu-ray.
bakowes 2 years ago
lee ever the gentleman..i was fortunate to purchase a collectors edition with all the scenes intact...
although taylor was very good..lee needed a larger staff..
pdogone1 2 years ago
Thanks for posting! Maxwell should have left this in and deleted the "We got ourselves a John Henry, sir," scene!
Jubilo1 2 years ago
My respect for General Lee just grew by leaps and bounds.
satinbarbi 2 years ago
thank you for posting this, sir
gw7709 2 years ago
I cannot thank you enough for posting these deleted scenes from Gettysburg. It is my favourite film and finding these clips made my week! Speaking of deleted scenes, if anyone can help me find the deleted Antietam scene from God's and Generals I would be eternally grateful. Thanks again!
DarthMercanto 2 years ago 12
Comment removed
18Gettysburg63 2 years ago
This was a very awkward scene. The guy playing Major Taylor sounded a little....off.
RebelYank 3 years ago
maybe because he says "sir" 100 times within 5 seconds lol
abrondarbit 2 years ago 13
Yeah, they could have cut some of his dialgue as long as they left Sheen's parts along. His General Lee was golden.
pandaphil 2 years ago
@abrondarbit Did you all know that the actor portraying Maj. Taylor was married to "Laura Ingles" of "Little House on the P" fame? They are now Divorced.
deerhunter59ify 1 year ago
A legend? Uh-oh.....
rob9641 3 years ago
just wanted to tell you that you are a legend for posting these scenes
GruesomeRacer 3 years ago 4
Ooo, that's an interesting scene. Cool.
adamjohnwest 3 years ago 3