Gettysburg

[OBIO]

Deb is away until tomorrow evening....a four day stay at her mother's house, lots of girl time, hen sessions and what not. So, I have had the house all to my self...well, as far as people go at any rate....still have 2 dogs, a cat and three tanks of fish. Even the other side of the duplex is empty....so I have total control of the TV and the volume on the surround sound....and can be as loud and proud as I want without driving anyone crazy.

Today, I watched Gettysburg...the superb TNT mega-production. First time I have been able to really enjoy it on a large wide screen TV with the surround sound turned up nice and loud. I gave the subwoofer some extra volume to really bring the bass and vibration of the canon shots and explosions into the living room.

Wow! Still totally blown away by the movie and the scale on which it was done. Superb acting, superb camera work, superb effects. To see thousands of men, dressed in period correct attire, marching across the actual site of Picket's Charge....simply mind blowing...and very emotional. At many points in the movie, I found myself crying.

One downside to watching the movie on a large TV (42 inch Plasma)....I saw a lot of things that simply stood out as "wrong". On many of the Civil War re-enactors, I saw the white band around their wrists where they would normally be wearing watches and I saw one guy popping a piece of Wrigley's Juicy Fruit into his mouth...that green gum was unmistakable.

Gettysburg was released in 1993....17 years ago...and I still had the same gut level reactions to the movie as I did the first time I watched it. The degree to which the actors were made to resemble the real life people they portrayed, the scope of the production, watching 40 field pieces being fired one after another in a long line. It took 15 years, from the beginning of the scripting, through all the research, finding a production company willing to finance such a risky period piece (thank you Ted Turner....who had a small appearance in the film....he portrayed a Confederate officer during Picket's Charge...he died), to bring the movie into reality. 15 years that were well worth the effort.

OBIO

Since Thursday afternoon, I have watched Spiderman 1, 2 and 3, Flyboys, We Were Soldiers, Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, The Lost Battalion (the best work Ricky Schroder did), To Hell and Back, and Gettysburg. Tomorrow....Gods and Generals is on the list to watch.

[tigisfat]

I haven't seen Gettysburg. Based on your review, I will. That 'Flyboys' is quite a piece of trash, eh?

[OBIO]

Definitely grab Gettysburg...actually, look for the double pack...Gettysburg and Gods and Generals in one thing. Gettysburg is on both sides of Disc 1 (very long movie)...haven't watched Gods and Generals yet.

Flyboys...I like it. Sure it probably isn't highly accurate, but I like it. Better than Pearl Harbor...the chick flick with Ben Affleck and whats his name.

[Z-claudius24]

Hi,

Put "The Patriot" on the list :)

[tigisfat]

Hi,

Put "The Patriot" on the list :)

What's it about?

[Cazzie]

Hi,

Put "The Patriot" on the list :)


Yep, along with "Braveheart", one of Mel's better movies.

Caz

Going to a Civil War Battlefield today OBIO, the Stanton River Bridge Battlefield below Clover, VA, will post some pix in the Photography sub-forum later.

For more information: http://www.stauntonriverbattlefield.org/

For what it's worth, my maternal great-great grandfather, Dodson Henry Conner (a 15 year-old lad at the time), was a member of the militia of nearly 500 Confederate Reservists under the command of Captain Benjamin Farinholt. For his service, after the war he was granted 100 acres of land in NW Halifax County near the community of Volens. The Conner family now occupies all of that part of the county and that is where our family reunions are held.

This is a scan of a tin-type photograph of my great-great grandfather taken in 1878 on his farm. I don't know the name of the hoss, but he looks to be a good year model. :icon_lol:

[Clarke123]

If you can find it watch 9th Company. It's a russian film based on a true story of 39 ruskies holding a hill against 400 afghans. A good honest film with none of the glamour or bull**** you get from hollywood.

[cheezyflier]

Yep, along with "Braveheart", one of Mel's better movies.


nothing he ever did is better than this

http://cinematropolis.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/roadwarrior_l.jpg

[Snuffy]

I've got both of the TNT episodes of Gods and Generals and Gettysburg ... both very well done, lots of reinactments groups had a ton of fun with these movies.

Oh and pay attention for turner's cameo shot in Gettysburg.

As long as we're making a list of movies ...

You have to add, "We were soldiers" ... :applause:

[Snuffy]

What's it about?

Patriot is early Americana history ... the Revolutionary War.

[Jagdflieger]

Obio,

Both great movies to be sure.

Gettysburg, as I recall, was based on Shaara's book, "The Killer Angels." It's a great read about Colonel Chamberlein and his regiment, the 20th Maine Infantry. It has the whole cast of characters involved during that period of th Civil War, both Yankee an Reb, and is written so well that it's hard to put down. While it is considered fiction, it's underlying story is factual.

The two follow on books to the "Killer Angels," "Gods and Generals" and "The Last Full Measure" were written by Shaara's son, Jeff Shaara, and are of equal quality and readability.

My son and I went to see "Gods and Generals" at the base theater at Fort Lewis. It was a free showing with free popcorn and drinks and reenactors lined the walls with their Enfield and Springfield rifled muskets as everyone was seated. It was a most enjoyable few hours.

[Navy Chief]

I watched Gettysburg years ago, but not since I got a big screen. I will watch it again. THANKS!

NC

[TeaSea]

Okay, historically....

Gettysburg is the second most historically accurate of the movies mentioned (besides We were Soldiers ...).

However, it does take poetic license at times to keep the movie going. There are several fictional characters created to provide a foil for the historical characters, and significant bits of the battle are either overlooked or discarded. Gettysburg is actually 4 separate battles on one battlefield (1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day, Culp's Hill), and difficult to get all together. One of my favorite scenes is the dressing down J.E.B. Stewart receives from Lee....almost totally fictional, but an excellent example of a superior providing counseling to a subordinate (Sahaara use's Lee's aide-de-camp, Charles Marshall as his source...although Marshall was not in the room, and neither Lee nor Stewart ever wrote about or mentioned the incident again -- Marshall should not be viewed as a particularly reliable source in all matters Lee). Gettysburg is a good depiction of the battle, but not a particularly good movie in my opinion....very good book, poor movie (too long, something the Longest Day, and A Bridge Too Far also share).

Gods and Generals is so preachy it's not worth watching (in my humble opinion). It sort of portrays the Battle of Fredricksburg accurately and is probably the ONLY movie that will ever treat that subject, so you probably should watch it for that only.

The Patriot is totally fiction, although the characters Martin and Tavington are based loosely on Francis Marion and Lt. Col William Tarleton, both combatants in the South during the Revolutionary War. Many of the battles are loosely based on real battles resulting from Cornwallis failed campaign in the South. here are not many good revolutionary war movies because the U.S. becomes consumed about the Civil War, so I liked this one...even though it is also too long. There are some great quotes.

I don't even know how to address Braveheart....it's one of those awful movies that is so good you hate to realize its fiction. The Battle of Stirling Bridge is so fictionalized there isn't even a bridge. About the only accuracy is that yes, the Scots revolted, yes Edward moved to put them down, and finally, yes William Wallace did exist, and the manner of his death is accurately rendered. Oh, Robert the Bruce also emerges as the leader of the Scots rebellion and defeats the English coalition at Bannockburn in 1314 (Edward had died in 1307). Queen Isabella never met or slept with Wallace, and she later, in league with Roger Mortimer has Edward II (her husband) killed, allegedly by inserting hot iron rods into his anus....you can't make this stuff up. Braveheart is a good movie though...so ignore the lack of real history and enjoy!

The Thin Red Line is a weird movie based loosely on James Jones book, which is based loosely on his own experiences as an infantryman on Guadalcanal ( I will risk offending the Marines here by pointing out that there were more U.S. Army members involved in that battle than Marines, as was the case in most of the Pacific island hopping campaign). I actually kind of enjoyed the movie...however, the book is far superior and the screenplay would have greatly benefited by not trying to leave Jones defining story. My advice, read the book.

We Were Soldiers Once is pretty accurate, however it also takes liberties, compresses events, creates a character or combines some, leaves out others, and can leave the wrong impressions about what happened. Understand, I know some of the men involved in the battle (my father trained with them at Ft. Benning prior to their deployment and served with them following the battle). The fundamental flaw in Airmobile assault tactics is accurately depicted (once you're in, you're committed), and the basics of the battle are true. This is the most accurate movie of the one's mentioned.

Weird thing is...I happen to own all these movies...so I guess I sort of like them all.

[miamieagle]

Gettysburg was the most important Battle of the Civil war in America secound most important war. That distinction goes to the war of Independance.

I"am very glad they did a grand movie about that Battle since so many men died there defending their cause. The movie itself was very entertaining and at the same time a good instrument for teaching our younger generation what those who love this Nation had to sacrifyce to keep it together.

I"am just glad the North won the war.

A must see to those of us who love History.

[Eoraptor1]

I saw Gettysburg on the big screen with my uncle when it came out. I have friends who find this movie a crashing bore, but I loved it. I have it on DVD and an even longer version on VHS. I recommend the Michael Shaara book as well. I like seeing the reinactments, but I find there's generally more background info in books. My family is split between the readers and the non-readers. Non-readers, in my experience, don't perceive reading as actually doing anything... BTW: Buster Kilrain is a composite character. You won't find his monument on Little Round Top.

Gods and Generals gave me a headache so acute I wasn't sure I could make it through the whole thing, but I did. If I say any more, this thread will get locked so quickly it'll make everyone's teeth click, so I'll let it rest there. Jeff Shaara's book of the same name, I loved. There's a great little exchange in Texas between Robert E. Lee and Sam Houston at the height of seccessionist fever, where Lee has nearly been attacked by a mob for wearing a blue uniform, but is preserved from harm by being in General Sam's company. Houston asks Lee, "Do you see a great deal of stupidity in all this?" This is at the time where both sides think the war will be over in 90 days, be relatively bloodless, and their side will win. We all know how that turned out...

I'm a little surprised to see so much love for Braveheart and The Patriot. This site seems ever on the alert for historical discrepancies, and especially "Hollywood" revisionism, both of which these movies have in abundance. TeaSea and I park our cars in the same garage on this one. I enjoyed them as adventure stories.

I did see We Were Soldiers but have no idea how accurate it was. My cousin, who was an Air Commando in Vietnam, says the book, We Were Soldiers Once, and Young, is in his opinion the most realistic book on that war. Again, I personally have no idea, but I pass his opinion along; he was there, and I was a baby.

JAMES

[TeaSea]

I think OBIO has nailed something though....

These are only movies you watch when the wife is away! :jump:

Oh, BTW, Friday Harbor is a popular destination both in the real world and in FS9 and FSX.

What's it's connection with the Battle of Gettysburg?

[eddie]

Obio,

Both great movies to be sure.

Gettysburg, as I recall, was based on Shaara's book, "The Killer Angels." It's a great read about Colonel Chamberlein and his regiment, the 20th Maine Infantry. It has the whole cast of characters involved during that period of th Civil War, both Yankee an Reb, and is written so well that it's hard to put down. While it is considered fiction, it's underlying story is factual.

The two follow on books to the "Killer Angels," "Gods and Generals" and "The Last Full Measure" were written by Shaara's son, Jeff Shaara, and are of equal quality and readability.

My son and I went to see "Gods and Generals" at the base theater at Fort Lewis. It was a free showing with free popcorn and drinks and reenactors lined the walls with their Enfield and Springfield rifled muskets as everyone was seated. It was a most enjoyable few hours.

Jag, Jeff has written another book, called "The Rising Sun", its a novel about WWII. Starts out in North Africa, and he writes just as good in this book of WWII, as he did for the Civil War!

[Jagdflieger]

Eddie,

Thanks for the tip. I'll see if I can get a hold of it.

I have his "To the Last Man" at home. It's about WWI.

[Ken Stallings]

The DVD Gettysburg is truly excellent! In my view, it is one of the best Civil War movies ever made. I also personally liked Gods & Generals a lot. The critics dismissed that one nearly universally, but I think it was a fair portrayal of the mindset at work at the opening of the war. People criticize it for the stilted language, but the truth is that the movie focuses mostly on educated people (with the exception of the two nameless Confederate soldiers). And the reality is that people spoke in that manner.

In fact, the producers toned down the language from reality simply because they didn't want to face even more criticism. The critics disappointed me because they nearly all used 20th century criteria to evaluate a movie made about 19th century Americans.

Ted Turner lost so much money, he backed away from doing the third of the Shaara series, "Last Full Measure," which I personally think would hav been the best simply because of the subject matter. All that stilted language was dead and buried by this phase of the war, along with about 10% of the American male adult population!

BTW: You simply must make an effort to visit the actual Gettysburg battlefield. It is simply impossible to fully appreciate the suicidal nature of the charge up Little Round Top and Pickett's Charge until you see the ground first hand. My dad and I are rather knowledgable on Civil War history, but we were both awestruck by the enormity of how the terrain made Lee's goals impossible. I immediately turned to my dad upon standing at the summit of Little Round Top and said, "Longstreet was completely right -- Lee lost his mind!"

Ken

[Eoraptor1]

Eddie,

Thanks for the tip. I'll see if I can get a hold of it.

I have his "To the Last Man" at home. It's about WWI.

Jagd,

The name of the book you're looking for is "The Rising Tide," (2006) which is about the US entry into the ETO via North Africa and Sicily. The second book of the Trilogy is "The Steel Wave," (2008) which covers the Normandy Invasion and breakout. I just last week finished "No Less Than Victory," (2009) which covers the Ardennes Offensive to VE Day. By coincidence, while I was reading it, I met a fellow who was in the Ardennes during the time which the action in this book takes place at the VFW post where we have our block club meetings. Jeff Shaara is currently working on a novel about the PTO. Last month a historian wanted to interview my uncle (who just turned 91) about his experiences, but he was dismissive; "They [historians] write what they want to write," he said.

JAMES




ATTN: OBIO,

Glad to hear Deb is doing so well.

[PRB]

Gettysberg is a great movie. This is my favorite scene:

WtX7veX5Lko

[TeaSea]

BTW: You simply must make an effort to visit the actual Gettysburg battlefield. It is simply impossible to fully appreciate the suicidal nature of the charge up Little Round Top and Pickett's Charge until you see the ground first hand. My dad and I are rather knowledgable on Civil War history, but we were both awestruck by the enormity of how the terrain made Lee's goals impossible. I immediately turned to my dad upon standing at the summit of Little Round Top and said, "Longstreet was completely right -- Lee lost his mind!"

Ken

Ken, you're absolutely right, everyone who has the chance should see the battlefield at Gettysburg. For one, it's one of the few battlefields that you can actually see everything as it actually was...well, except for the monuments. It's also one you can tour in a day to get the highpoints. And frankly, it's a pretty part of the country.

However, your comment on Little Round Top is almost exactly what one of my fellow officers said when we were touring the battlefield as part of an Armed Forces Staff College staff ride. Understand, this man was a senior Army officer, and his remark was "Lee was insane to send men up this hill, you can see just by standing here how stupid that was" (or words to that effect). Of course, as our guide and instructor simply pointed out....."Lee, nor anyone in the Confederate force....ever stood on that hill, their view was somewhat different.".

And no one's answered my challenge about Friday Harbor...

[Navy Chief]

I added Gettysburg to my Netflix list, earlier today...........................

NC

[Ken Stallings]

Ken, you're absolutely right, everyone who has the chance should see the battlefield at Gettysburg. For one, it's one of the few battlefields that you can actually see everything as it actually was...well, except for the monuments. It's also one you can tour in a day to get the highpoints. And frankly, it's a pretty part of the country.

However, your comment on Little Round Top is almost exactly what one of my fellow officers said when we were touring the battlefield as part of an Armed Forces Staff College staff ride. Understand, this man was a senior Army officer, and his remark was "Lee was insane to send men up this hill, you can see just by standing here how stupid that was" (or words to that effect). Of course, as our guide and instructor simply pointed out....."Lee, nor anyone in the Confederate force....ever stood on that hill, their view was somewhat different.".

And no one's answered my challenge about Friday Harbor...

Lee might have had that excuse for Little Round Top. But for Pickett's Charge, Longstreet gave him as sobering and accurate advice as a subordinate can provide.

Cheers,

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

Gettysberg is a great movie. This is my favorite scene:

WtX7veX5Lko

Various sources point to various counseling sessions between Lee and Stewart. However, I liked that scene a lot for a few reasons. First, Lee had a temper and it could boil up into a pure rage. Lee worked very hard to tamp it down tight.

One historical period source said the session was in broad daylight upon Stewart's typical return with pomp and circumstance, announcing to Lee, "General Lee, I offer you XX wagons!" Normally, captured Union supply wagons were invaluable. Lee's terse reply was, "General, they are more of a burden to me now!"

It is said that simple cold retort froze Stewart stiff with shock and humiliation!

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

I think OBIO has nailed something though....

These are only movies you watch when the wife is away! :jump:

Oh, BTW, Friday Harbor is a popular destination both in the real world and in FS9 and FSX.

What's it's connection with the Battle of Gettysburg?

In June of 1859, a young Army officer by the name of George Pickett led a small group of detached US Army soldiers to the region to protect Americans living there. There was a serious despute between the British owned Hudson Bay Company and the group of American settlers living there.

Cheers,

Ken

[Eoraptor1]

Col. Chamberlain's speech:

Aw8Tm550SJ0

JAMES

[Snuffy]

Longstreet's "problem" at the time of Gettysburg, was that he had become taken with the idea that on a defensive situation his corps was unbeatable and he had developed that strategy that he wanted to fight Gettysburg as a defensive battle. Where the Confederates occupied Seminary Ridge and let the Yanks come to them.

Unfortunately, Lee wasn't in the mood to agree with Longstreet in July.

[TeaSea]

In June of 1859, a young Army officer by the name of George Pickett led a small group of detached US Army soldiers to the region to protect Americans living there. There was a serious despute between the British owned Hudson Bay Company and the group of American settlers living there.

Cheers,

Ken

Bingo!

[Ken Stallings]

Longstreet's "problem" at the time of Gettysburg, was that he had become taken with the idea that on a defensive situation his corps was unbeatable and he had developed that strategy that he wanted to fight Gettysburg as a defensive battle. Where the Confederates occupied Seminary Ridge and let the Yanks come to them.

Unfortunately, Lee wasn't in the mood to agree with Longstreet in July.

But most ironically of all, Lee never again ordered a Napoleanic charge. After he killed a part of his army truly irreplacable, he then fought the precise style of battle Longstreet wanted him to. Now, imagine the full corps worth of troops Lee destroyed at Gettysburg being available in the defense of Richmond!

Worse, little reported fact is that after Gettysburg the Army of Northern Virginia saw the onset of continuous dessertions, and the flow continued until it reached crises during the Petersburg seige.

In short, at Gettysburg, Lee enjoyed total support and confidence from his men. After Gettysburg, most of the soldiers believed the war was lost and had serious concerns. Longstreet's desire wasn't pure static defensive warfare. He believed in mobile defense, using your outnumbered forces to maneuver in such a manner as to force the enemy to attack on a prepared position you held.

Frederecksburg and Chacellorsville were the two best examples that Lee allowed. Longstreet fought another one in his very successful campaigns in the Shenandoa and also in the Tennessee Campaign. Further, before he was severely wounded (ironically as Jackson by his own men!) Longstreet lead one of the most original and innovative applications of tactics at Second Wliderness. Longstreet had an entire corps fight in extended skirmish lines, which rolled up the opposing forces of General Winfield Scott Hancock, in his own words, "like a wet blanket!"

In my read of Civil War generals, therre are only two corps level commanders who I think had war-winning strategies -- Sherman and Longstreet. Of the two, Sherman received total support from his superiors. Longstreet at best received spotty support and at the most critical point of the war, was essentially rebuked and forced to lead his men to anticipated disaster.

Further, Gettysburg wasn't the first disaster for Lee's generalship. Read about Malvern Hill early in the war. Lee sent wave after wave of Napoleonic assaults on prepared Union positions and suffered gut wrenching casualties for the effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Malvern_Hill

Lee should have learned then that Napoleonic tactics against the weapons of the day was disaster incarnate. For him to apply the same failed forumula at Gettysburg was pure insanity. If Lee faced any general other than the woeful George McClellan that day, the war would have ended in Union victory in Virginia right then! Little Mac literally conceded defeat to a defeated foe!

When a general goes into a war knowing the mathematics that his enemy outnumbers him in forces at least four to one, and likely worse depending upon level of mobilization, he simply must adopt a strategic vision that conserves his forces through application of defensive maneuver warfare.

To sum up, only two corps commanders of that war are today considered modern thinkers, and again they are Sherman and Longstreet.

Ken

[Cazzie]

Ken,

I have visited the battlegrounds of Malvern Hill and Cold Harbor. Walk all about what is left of Fort Harisson. Been all over Richmond and Petersburg ACW battlefields.

But Malvern Hill was the Confederate's Batte of the Coral Sea, Gettysburg was their Midway. Malvern Hill was the first truly crushing defeat for the Confederacy.

Agree about Longstreet and Sherman, but I still spit on the ground the latter walked on.

Caz

[Snuffy]

Ken, With regard to your comments concerning Malvern Hill. (Having lived in Richmond/Mechanicsville and traipsed all over that area more times than I can count, and being a huge ACW buff ... )

Please note that, the battle of Malvern Hill was only the 6th or 7th battle the "Army of Northern Virginia" fought as a cognitive group. Prior to the Defense of Richmond in 1862, the South did not "own" an "Army" per rights of a definition of an Army, and at that time the Corps was not in use by the Confederate forces. The Division was the largest of Military organizations permitted by Confederate law at the time.

Lee was just given overall command of all the division commanders, just prior to the defense of Richmond in 1862, so in essence the "Army" that fought at Malvern Hill was not the same "army" that fought at Gettysburg.

And the point of the "Napoleonic Style" of charges used at Malvern Hill is not what was prescribed by the Commanding General. No, but he wanted a united front of all the divisions to attack at the same time. Unfortunately due to the Divisions not having had enough time to work with each other, nor no one having a familiarity with the terrain of the area, a breakdown in communications (not enough trained staff,) not to mention the denseness of the underbrush and swampiness of the area that prohibited proper movement of troops, the divisions could not and did not work in conjunction with each other in making the assault on Malvern Hill.

But in their behalf, the troops that did make the charges have to be given credit for facing ridiculous odds and yet trying to carrying out their commanding general's wishes.

Also recall, though not as desperate as times got in 1864, but in 1862, there was a desperation by the Southern forces to push the Yankee invaders from before their beloved capital city. And at this juncture, after McClellan had managed to get within 5 - 8 miles of the city proper, any assault against the foe was necessary to repel him and drive him away from before the city.

Of course in McClellan's case, it was never that difficult as McClellan always believed that his forces were underdogs in this campaign, choosing to believe Pinkerton's reports that the Confederates had twice as many troops as McClellan had.

In retrospect, we can safely sit in our armchairs and debate the attack at Malvern Hill and wag our heads at the seeming waste of life in that battle, but in the day and time of that fight, attacking and trying to drive the enemy from before their capital city was of prime motive of the Confederate forces. They did what had to be done.

With the conflict at Gettysburg, the Army of Northern Virgina was a different critter. It had come into its own, it had a proper organization, unfortunately the one general that could have made a difference in that battle had died a couple months before this battle took place, Unfortunately, Early wasn't the man that should have been put in charge of Jackson's Corps. Early vacillated when he should have been more aggressive.

Jackson was always the more aggressive of the corps commanders, and it wasn't until after Jackson's death that the ANV was organized into 3 corps. Until then, it was just Longstreet and Jackson. (Lee's Left and Right hands respectively, said so by Lee himself.)

There were many mistakes made at Gettysburg, (that's easy enough to see in hindsight today,) however at the time, Stuart was out doing his thing behind the Army of the Potomac when he should have been closer to the ANV and providing eyes and ears for Lee. IF Stuart would have been where he should have been, Lee would have known that there was a minimal force before him at Gettysburg, and Gettysburg could have become another name synonymous with just a skirmish instead of the waterloo of the Confederacy.

Again, on the first day at Gettysburg as at Malvern Hill, the Confederate forces were spread out, Lee didn't know where they all were, and most importantly, and unlike Malvern Hill, he had no idea what forces were before him at Gettysburg.

I'm sure if Lee knew it was only a division of Cavalry in front of him, then he probably would have unleashed all of A.P. Hills Corps on Buford's horse men. Once they were routed, Gettysburg could have easily been taken by the ANV and the ending could have been different.

So in armchair generalizing, the blame could be placed on at least 3 of Lee's subordinates for the failure of Gettysburg. Stuart (primarily), Early and then Longstreet.

Believe it or not, Lee always had the total support of his men. I suggest you read about the reaction of the men who remained of the ANV at Appomattox, after Lee met with Grant. At one point these men, though few, ragged, and worn out, vowed to Lee, that if he would just say the word, they would rise up and assail the union forces surrounding them. They retained that fighting spirit.

Those that did dessert, I will not call cowards. Those that deserted were men who were stressed by such things as what siege warfare will do to an individual, letters from home with the wifes telling of how bad things were so their duty to family superseded duty to country. Be assured that once these folks had the situation at home taken care of, they would have returned to the numbers of the ANV, unfortunately, the end was quick in coming before they could get back to their duty.

It always amazes me to read about certain battles where numbers are listed. For example, with the battle of Sharpsburg, (Antietam,) Lee had 55,000 men ... after the battle the ANV had 31 percent losses knocking the force to around 44,500 men, yet, at Gettysburg the ANV claimed up wards of 65,000 - 70,000 men. Where did they all come from? Returning convalescents, new recruits, stragglers, and AWOLs.

IF Grant would have left Lee alone long enough, the Ranks of the ANV would have refilled. Perhaps not to the numbers they use to be, but I assure you, it would have been far more than the 28,000 or so that surrended that day.

Here's a bit of trivia ...

The ACW is known as the war that started in some guy's front yard and ended in his back yard. Why is that?

[Snuffy]

There were a mess of other factors at Gettysburg too that accounted for the loss. Among them was the fact that Lee wasn't as healthy as he could have been, its been recorded that he was suffering from a cold or something that detracted from his otherwise clear headed thinking.

Physical factors played against the Confederacy too. Unlike most other battles that the South had won, this time the situation was reversed. The Union had the shorter interior lines of defense to its benefit and the Rebs had the longer exterior lines. The Yankees were better able to send unused forces to areas of concern quicker because of that.

That fact for the Yankees, and Longstreet's, vacillating on the second day prevented the Confederates from taking Little and Big Round Tops. Lee initially ordered Longstreet at 8:00 A.M. to take the hills, but he waffled around until after 12 or so ... giving plenty of time for Meade to react to strengthening his left on the hills.

And what ultimately led to Lee's greatest blunder in strategy, Pickett's Charge, was due to the foggy head he had from his cold medicines. His reasoning being, on day one he attacked an unknown force and didn't press the issue, when he had clear superiority of men. Buford only had 20,000 Cavalry, Lee had 2/3rds of Hill's Corps at his disposal, More than twice what Buford had, plus several batteries of artillery.

On day two, Lee attacked first one flank (their left, the union right at Culp's Hill ...) and due to the halfhearted effort by Early, it was more a blood bath than anything successful. Also during that attack, Longstreet was supposed to have attacked the Round Tops, but because he didn't want to have an offensive battle dillydallied until it was too late and his forces were repulsed as well, the union being able to take advantage of their shorter interior lines of communications.

On day three, Lee's foggy mind told him that since he had already attacked both flanks and lost, then the center of the union line had to be the weakest and that's what precipitated Pickett's Charge. Again an Effort entrusted to Longstreet who wanted a defensive battle and not an offensive one and so left all the matters of detailing that charge to Pickett as opposed to handling it himself.

As it was, the whole days actions were off as well. It was a battle that never should have been fought.

[TeaSea]

Perhaps it was not of either sides choosing, but looking at the terrain, the roads, and Lee's objective of assaulting or even taking Harrisburg, it was inevitable that the battle occur either at Gettysburg, Carlisle, York, or some other location in the South Mountain Area where the road junctions came together.

Lee's aggressive move into Pennsylvania (still controversial to Southerners who did not believe in invading the North) meant the the AOP had to move North, and necessarily place themselves between Lee and the Potomac (and Wash D.C.).

This, of course, is exactly what Lee wanted. He wanted to lure the AOP north...he wanted his Cannae. And after the first day of Gettysburg, it was completely reasonable for him to think he had it in his grasp.

Longstreet gets a lot of abuse at the outcome of this battle, but I suspect most of that came due to politics after the war, rather than the actual battle. Longstreet, who Lee never lost faith in, quickly reconciled with the North after the war, and was accused of being a traitor by many of his former peers. Their post war writing is quite vicious....and coincides with Longstreet's joining the Republican Party. It's from this time period that the blame gets to be pushed at Longstreet rather than at Lee. But let's be clear....this was Lee's battle, his campaign, and he lost it. He himself never seemed to play the "what if" game, never denied his responsibility, and accepted the defeat as God's will. His retreat from Gettysburg is an exceptional maneuver, however it's often overlooked being overshadowed by the battle itself.

Incidentally, Longstreet shares that political vitriol with John Mosby, who also came under similar abuse. Mosby (of Mosby's raiders) owns the distinction of being the last Confederate officer to formally surrender, and one of the first to join the Republicans. He later became Ambassador to China (appointed by U.S. Grant, who he became fast friends with), and was a key player in over-hauling the Civil Service system in the U.S. after the scandals of the Grant administration, throwing out the previous "spoils" system.

I've also walked the battlefield at Cold Harbor...which due to it's size (what the Parks Department owns anyway) you can do in about 20 minutes. I'm not totally sure, but I believe Cold Harbor holds the record for the most American blood spilled in the shortest amount of time...allegedly over 6000 men cut down in 15 minutes (the majority of them would die). This time, it was Meade (as ordered by Grant) who assaulted Lee's prepared defenses.

Grant himself said that assault is one of the few he ever regrets ordering.

[Ken Stallings]

Longstreet attacked later than ideally planned because of the poor reconnasaince of the planned route of march. It was supposed to be done without the Union troops observing it, else with their interior lines Meade's forces could have massed more troops than any number the Confederates massed for the attack.

So, halfway into the march, Longstreet clearly observed Union troops, which of course meant the Union troops observed his march. Longstreet made the only rational move, a reverse march once an alternate route that was hidden was found.

Some have postulated that Longstreet could have simply moved a bit further down the hill and off the road to hid his forces. They point out that a small group had before done this. What they ignored is that Longstreet had to also move his artillery and that field below the hill was very muddy from recent rains.

The best chance the Confederates had to win that grand victory they desires was if Ewell had siezed Culps Hill as Lee wanted him to do. As opposed to the irascible Jubal Early, Ewell at least admitted that his critical mistake was the pivot point. Early concocted the post-war fiction that Longstreet was supposed to attack at a set time in the early morning. This was not true. Lee gave general orders without a hard timetable. The key was to coordinate the attack on day two on both flanks.

What upset that plan, wasn't Longstreet's reverse march to avoid detection. Rather, Ewell's forces suffered a Union attack as they readied for their own assault.

Ken

[Eoraptor1]

The ACW is known as the war that started in some guy's front yard and ended in his back yard. Why is that?

Because the First Battle of Bull Run (or First Manassas) was fought near Wilmer McClain's (check spelling) property, after which he relocated to be out of the way of the fighting, only to have the Army of Northern Virginia surrender ceremony signed at his house. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

JAMES

[Eoraptor1]

Longstreet attacked later than ideally planned because of the poor reconnasaince of the planned route of march. It was supposed to be done without the Union troops observing it, else with their interior lines Meade's forces could have massed more troops than any number the Confederates massed for the attack.

So, halfway into the march, Longstreet clearly observed Union troops, which of course meant the Union troops observed his march. Longstreet made the only rational move, a reverse march once an alternate route that was hidden was found.

Some have postulated that Longstreet could have simply moved a bit further down the hill and off the road to hid his forces. They point out that a small group had before done this. What they ignored is that Longstreet had to also move his artillery and that field below the hill was very muddy from recent rains.

The best chance the Confederates had to win that grand victory they desires was if Ewell had siezed Culps Hill as Lee wanted him to do. As opposed to the irascible Jubal Early, Ewell at least admitted that his critical mistake was the pivot point. Early concocted the post-war fiction that Longstreet was supposed to attack at a set time in the early morning. This was not true. Lee gave general orders without a hard timetable. The key was to coordinate the attack on day two on both flanks.

What upset that plan, wasn't Longstreet's reverse march to avoid detection. Rather, Ewell's forces suffered a Union attack as they readied for their own assault.

Ken

Ken,

Have you read Robert Leckie's (yes, the same Robert Leckie we've all been watching in The Pacific) book, None Died in Vain? I ask because the two of you have a similar analysis of the war's prosecution. He's very hard on the Southern slave-owning aristocracy. He uses the term "Slavocracy". I read his book before I knew who he was, so I was actually surprised when I found out he wasn't a black man.

JAMES

[Snuffy]

Because the First Battle of Bull Run (or First Manassas) was fought near Wilmer McClain's (check spelling) property, after which he relocated to be out of the way of the fighting, only to have the Army of Northern Virginia surrender ceremony signed at his house. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

JAMES

You're absolutely correct ... Beauregard and Johnston both Headquartered in the McLean House in First Manassas, and the house was hit by artillery fire during the battle.

The surrender papers were signed in McLean's parlor in Appomattox

[Rami]

Hey guys,

Being a history teacher, I'd like to add my two cents here. Regarding J.E.B. Stuart, let's clarify a couple of points...

1) Lee's speech in Gettysburg abashing Stuart is complete fiction. By every historical account I've ever read, the most that was ever said by Lee to Stuart was "General Stuart, you have arrived at last." It's not to say that it doesn't provide good drama...but it's completely false.

2) Stuart and Ewell are frequently the favorite "whipping boys" of the Gettysburg Campaign. With regards to Stuart, this is due to his being out of contact with the Confederate Army.

But to be fair...if you look at Stuart's conduct in previous campaigns, particularly his "Ride around McCellan" (whose conduct I consider to border on treason, but that's a discussion for another time) during the Peninsula Campaign and his successful commanding of infantry and artillery at Chancellorsville after Jackson was wounded, you will see that his conduct was outstanding, and he helped to reshape the role of cavalry.

In some of his other rides around various Union armies, Stuart did ride at a breathless pace, but these were short-duration events, such as riding 100 miles in three days, seventy miles in two days, or one hundred twenty-six miles in three days. However, during the weeks leading up to the Gettysburg Campaign, he was very busy, involved in screening operations in the Blue Ridge Mountains, and then was surprised at Brandy Station, Virginia.

Shortly thereafter, he was ordered to begin following Lee's Army north. The result of this was a long, sustained campaign without sufficient rest. After running into Hancock's Army moving north, Stuart didn't cross the Potomac until June 28th, entering Rockville, Maryland where he came across more than 125 wagon trains which he captured and now had to escort these wagons, along with try and ride around the Union Army. After bumping into Federal cavalry near Hanover, Stuart was forced to perform an all-night march, and it was only on July 1st that Stuart send out scouts to locate Lee's army. Staurt and his cavalry were now on the ragged edge of endurance, having ridden more than two hundred miles in eight days by the time he even got to Gettysburg!

Stuart may have also been suffering not only from a lack of rest, but also from what would later become known as "shell shock," especially after sustained combat operations in the months leading up to Gettysburg. General "Stonewall" Jackson may have suffered this same phenomenon after his sustained efforts in the exemplary Shenandoah Valley campaign in 1862, explaining his rather lackluster performance in the Seven days' campaign outside of Richmond.

I'm not saying that Stuart should be cleaned of any blame for his performance at Gettysburg, but one must also provide a fair picture.

BTW...A movie to watch with a great sound setup is "Midway," especially with a sub-woofer. :d

[Rami]

Longstreet attacked later than ideally planned because of the poor reconnasaince of the planned route of march. It was supposed to be done without the Union troops observing it, else with their interior lines Meade's forces could have massed more troops than any number the Confederates massed for the attack.

So, halfway into the march, Longstreet clearly observed Union troops, which of course meant the Union troops observed his march. Longstreet made the only rational move, a reverse march once an alternate route that was hidden was found.

Some have postulated that Longstreet could have simply moved a bit further down the hill and off the road to hid his forces. They point out that a small group had before done this. What they ignored is that Longstreet had to also move his artillery and that field below the hill was very muddy from recent rains.

The best chance the Confederates had to win that grand victory they desires was if Ewell had siezed Culps Hill as Lee wanted him to do. As opposed to the irascible Jubal Early, Ewell at least admitted that his critical mistake was the pivot point. Early concocted the post-war fiction that Longstreet was supposed to attack at a set time in the early morning. This was not true. Lee gave general orders without a hard timetable. The key was to coordinate the attack on day two on both flanks.

What upset that plan, wasn't Longstreet's reverse march to avoid detection. Rather, Ewell's forces suffered a Union attack as they readied for their own assault.

Ken

Ken,

Don't forget about Daniel Sickles, the efforts of Hancock, and the heroics of the 1st Minnesota when you get on the discussion of Day II. It was his unauthorized movement into the Peach Orchard, causing an ungainly bow in the Union lines that may have thrown off the timing of the Confederate attack and worn out the assault before reaching Cemetery Ridge. Because Sickles had come down from the high ground, two Confederate brigades saw virtually nothing between themselves and Cemetery Ridge...and they went for it, thus it was only the heroic sacrifice of the 1st Minnesota and Hancock's quick reactions that prevented a breakthrough.

[redriver6]

Hey guys,

Being a history teacher, I'd like to add my two cents here. Regarding J.E.B. Stuart, let's clarify a couple of points...

1) Lee's speech in Gettysburg abashing Stuart is complete fiction. By every historical account I've ever read, the most that was ever said by Lee to Stuart was "General Stuart, you have arrived at last." It's not to say that it doesn't provide good drama...but it's completely false.

2) Stuart and Ewell are frequently the favorite "whipping boys" of the Gettysburg Campaign. With regards to Stuart, this is due to his being out of contact with the Confederate Army.

But to be fair...if you look at Stuart's conduct in previous campaigns, particularly his "Ride around McCellan" (whose conduct I consider to border on treason, but that's a discussion for another time) during the Peninsula Campaign and his successful commanding of infantry and artillery at Chancellorsville after Jackson was wounded, you will see that his conduct was outstanding, and he helped to reshape the role of cavalry.

In some of his other rides around various Union armies, Stuart did ride at a breathless pace, but these were short-duration events, such as riding 100 miles in three days, seventy miles in two days, or one hundred twenty-six miles in three days. However, during the weeks leading up to the Gettysburg Campaign, he was very busy, involved in screening operations in the Blue Ridge Mountains, and then was surprised at Brandy Station, Virginia.

Shortly thereafter, he was ordered to begin following Lee's Army north. The result of this was a long, sustained campaign without sufficient rest. After running into Hancock's Army moving north, Stuart didn't cross the Potomac until June 28th, entering Rockville, Maryland where he came across more than 125 wagon trains which he captured and now had to escort these wagons, along with try and ride around the Union Army. After bumping into Federal cavalry near Hanover, Stuart was forced to perform an all-night march, and it was only on July 1st that Stuart send out scouts to locate Lee's army. Staurt and his cavalry were now on the ragged edge of endurance, having ridden more than two hundred miles in eight days by the time he even got to Gettysburg!

Stuart may have also been suffering not only from a lack of rest, but also from what would later become known as "shell shock," especially after sustained combat operations in the months leading up to Gettysburg. General "Stonewall" Jackson may have suffered this same phenomenon after his sustained efforts in the exemplary Shenandoah Valley campaign in 1862, explaining his rather lackluster performance in the Seven days' campaign outside of Richmond.

I'm not saying that Stuart should be cleaned of any blame for his performance at Gettysburg, but one must also provide a fair picture.

BTW...A movie to watch with a great sound setup is "Midway," especially with a sub-woofer. :d

you sir are 100 percent correct in my opinion:ernae:

[Snuffy]

First: I acknowledge that I have a problem with Early and Ewell, I always get these two guys mixed up. LOL! Its true that Ewell was in charge of the Second Corps after Jackson, and at the time of Gettysburg, however, the charge of the day at Culp's Hill was in the hands of Early, who was on the field, and he wavered. (To those who caught this error of mine ... thanks.)

Secondly: I may have been less than precise in my statement "in placing blame" ... as we all know, there were a multitude of factors that went into the making of this disaster that's come to be known as Gettysburg. (Disaster, depending on which side you view it from ...) There is no doubt that the overall command of the Confederate forces failed in those days around Gettysburg, from Lee all the way down, and to actually try to place blame on any one in particular is being poor historians on our part.

That said, Rami, I will not disagree with you on some of the actions provided by Stuart during this campaign, but Stuart was given to the overtly caviler notion known as sensationalism. While he did his job in the part of screening the ANV on its move north, Lee's orders to him, were to remain between the ANV and the AOP. He failed in that. Had he been where he was supposed to be, I feel the outcome of Gettysburg would have been a different story.

Stuart's leaning to want to perform a part deux of his ride around the AOP at this time was a bad choice, despite any of the rewards he garnered in way of spoils. First, the object of his mission was to shield, protect, and guide the ANV, not out and cavorting over the country side. His decision to read more into Lee's commands was his failure and not that of Lee, though Lee was always one to allow subordinate discretion, Lee's orders were very loosely worded in most cases, to all his subordinates, and they were never cut and dried direct commands. That just wasn't Lee's style. (So partly to blame Lee for this, he could have been more emphatic in his orders.)

For Stuart to leave his post of importance and cavort around the backside of the Union Army did nothing for the cause, and certainly didn't aide the campaign. At best, he distracted only one Corps of the AOP and maybe their Cavalry Corps, but obviously not enough forces to cripple the AOP.

I have the utmost respect for Stuart, in most cases, truly a man who changed the face and course of military actions. To his credit also, we fail to mention that during this second ride round the Union army, Stuart only took 3 brigades of Cav with him, leaving the other two divisions of the Cavalry Corps in Beverly Robertson's hands. (A less than inspiring individual.)

I have to disagree with you about the 1862 ride though. Stuart did exactly what was needed done at that time. The ANV was in a disorganized state, yet it was safe and behind earthworks and in friendly territory and it was making plans ... part of those plans were that all the information gathered about the disposition of the AOP was needed. In fact, Gen'l Lee in his instructions to Stuart at that time, hinted strongly, if not modestly suggested the ride that is now famous.

In the case of the operations of Gettysburg, the ANV though more competently organized, was afoot, was operating in hostile territory, and needed the eyes and the ears of the army to be close. While I won't go so far as to judge any action as treasonous, I will state that Stuart's indiscretion during the Gettysburg campaign was definitely disastrous and almost cost the ANV its life. (There was no such threat in 1862.)

As to the "suffering shell shock" .... I'm more suspect to believe that he was suffering humiliation from the last two encounters with the improving Yankee Cavalry, and he wanted to "restore" his position as the better of the forces.

One last point. I am, as I said, descendant from A.P. Hill, I am by rights and choice, a southern boy. I "enlisted" in a re-enactment group as a confederate soldier ... so I'm not out to prove the North right and the South wrong in this. This was just a bad case of bungled command.

"Save yer Dixie cups, the South'll rise again!"

(For some good reading ... "LEE'S LIEUTENANTS" by Douglass Southall Freeman is an excellent picture of the Confederate command through the course of the war.

[Rami]

First: I acknowledge that I have a problem with Early and Ewell, I always get these two guys mixed up. LOL! Its true that Ewell was in charge of the Second Corps after Jackson, and at the time of Gettysburg, however, the charge of the day at Culp's Hill was in the hands of Early, who was on the field, and he wavered. (To those who caught this error of mine ... thanks.)

Secondly: I may have been less than precise in my statement "in placing blame" ... as we all know, there were a multitude of factors that went into the making of this disaster that's come to be known as Gettysburg. (Disaster, depending on which side you view it from ...) There is no doubt that the overall command of the Confederate forces failed in those days around Gettysburg, from Lee all the way down, and to actually try to place blame on any one in particular is being poor historians on our part.

That said, Rami, I will not disagree with you on some of the actions provided by Stuart during this campaign, but Stuart was given to the overtly caviler notion known as sensationalism. While he did his job in the part of screening the ANV on its move north, Lee's orders to him, were to remain between the ANV and the AOP. He failed in that. Had he been where he was supposed to be, I feel the outcome of Gettysburg would have been a different story.

Stuart's leaning to want to perform a part deux of his ride around the AOP at this time was a bad choice, despite any of the rewards he garnered in way of spoils. First, the object of his mission was to shield, protect, and guide the ANV, not out and cavorting over the country side. His decision to read more into Lee's commands was his failure and not that of Lee, though Lee was always one to allow subordinate discretion, Lee's orders were very loosely worded in most cases, to all his subordinates, and they were never cut and dried direct commands. That just wasn't Lee's style. (So partly to blame Lee for this, he could have been more emphatic in his orders.)

For Stuart to leave his post of importance and cavort around the backside of the Union Army did nothing for the cause, and certainly didn't aide the campaign. At best, he distracted only one Corps of the AOP and maybe their Cavalry Corps, but obviously not enough forces to cripple the AOP.

I have the utmost respect for Stuart, in most cases, truly a man who changed the face and course of military actions. To his credit also, we fail to mention that during this second ride round the Union army, Stuart only took 3 brigades of Cav with him, leaving the other two divisions of the Cavalry Corps in Beverly Robertson's hands. (A less than inspiring individual.)

I have to disagree with you about the 1862 ride though. Stuart did exactly what was needed done at that time. The ANV was in a disorganized state, yet it was safe and behind earthworks and in friendly territory and it was making plans ... part of those plans were that all the information gathered about the disposition of the AOP was needed. In fact, Gen'l Lee in his instructions to Stuart at that time, hinted strongly, if not modestly suggested the ride that is now famous.

In the case of the operations of Gettysburg, the ANV though more competently organized, was afoot, was operating in hostile territory, and needed the eyes and the ears of the army to be close. While I won't go so far as to judge any action as treasonous, I will state that Stuart's indiscretion during the Gettysburg campaign was definitely disastrous and almost cost the ANV its life. (There was no such threat in 1862.)

As to the "suffering shell shock" .... I'm more suspect to believe that he was suffering humiliation from the last two encounters with the improving Yankee Cavalry, and he wanted to "restore" his position as the better of the forces.

One last point. I am, as I said, descendant from A.P. Hill, I am by rights and choice, a southern boy. I "enlisted" in a re-enactment group as a confederate soldier ... so I'm not out to prove the North right and the South wrong in this. This was just a bad case of bungled command.

"Save yer Dixie cups, the South'll rise again!"

(For some good reading ... "LEE'S LIEUTENANTS" by Douglass Southall Freeman is an excellent picture of the Confederate command through the course of the war.

Snuffy,

We're on the same page here. I'm not absolving Stuart of any blame, I do think that he did not stick to his orders as he should of, and yes, Southern honor was very important to many soldiers, and Stuart is certainly no exception. I just provided some background and am arguing that there were reasons why events transpired as they did.

Also...where did I give the impression that Stuart's ride around McCellan was a bad thing? I was actually stating that McCellan's conduct in the Peninsula Campaign borders on treason. (In retrospect, the way I structured that sentence was rather ambiguous, sorry!)

[Snuffy]

... Also...where did I give the impression that Stuart's ride around McCellan was a bad thing? I was actually stating that McCellan's conduct in the Peninsula Campaign borders on treason. (In retrospect, the way I structured that sentence was rather ambiguous, sorry!)


... But to be fair...if you look at Stuart's conduct in previous campaigns, particularly his "Ride around McCellan" (whose conduct I consider to border on treason, but that's a discussion for another time) during the Peninsula Campaign and his successful commanding of infantry and artillery at Chancellorsville after Jackson was wounded, you will see that his conduct was outstanding, and he helped to reshape the role of cavalry.

That would do it right there. The subject of the second quote was Stuart and not McClellan, so I took the (comment) to mean you were inferring it to Stuart. My Bad ...

McClellan's actions during the Peninsular campaign again, while I don't think they were intentionally treasonous, they were certainly the actions of a man that was not capable of the position he was in. There is no doubt that McClellan was an amazing organizer and there is no doubt he loved the machine he created (the AOP) but he failed in his use and wielding of that machine. I don't think it was done with intentional deliberation to hurt the North and its objectives.

[Eoraptor1]

I'm VERY impressed with you, Sim-Outhouse members. I half expected this thread to go bad by now, but you've been acting as adults. I salute you.

Part of the problem with these issues, I believe, is that eye-witness accounts of the battle do not agree. I know I posted a link to a Carol Reardon lecture in another thread, but I don't remember which at the top of my head. One of the things she points out is that the soldiers' diaries vary wildly as to when the prep artillery bombardment for Pickett's charge, began, and how long it lasted. Also, the revisionism on both sides began immediately. One thing that also needs to said IMO is how very deep in the doghouse Longstreet was in much of the South after the war. He criticized Lee's conduct at Gettysburg, took a job in the Grant administration, and was further guilty of not having been born a Virginian. Jubal Early was a prime mover in this, and also in the campaign to recreate Robert E. Lee as a demigod. (If you haven't already guess as much, I'm very suspicious of Leader fetish, and think this is something our species needs to outgrow if we don't want to go the way of the Passenger Pigeon.) People wanted to know how Gettysburg was "lost" and what had gone wrong. (If you're George Meade, nothing went wrong; if you're Abe Lincoln, what went wrong is that an immediate counterattack wasn't launched.) Early, and others in his camp, pointed the finger squarely at Longstreet, and his "inability" to carry out Lee's directives. I've never met George Pickett, but if I have him right, he never forgave Lee for the destruction of his division. I also think he gave the best answer as to why the ANV lost at Gettysburg: "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." Defending one's own dunghill is a very strong human impulse.

JAMES

[Rami]

I'm VERY impressed with you, Sim-Outhouse members. I half expected this thread to go bad by now, but you've been acting as adults. I salute you.

Part of the problem with these issues, I believe, is that eye-witness accounts of the battle do not agree. I know I posted a link to a Carol Reardon lecture in another thread, but I don't remember which at the top of my head. One of the things she points out is that the soldiers' diaries vary wildly as to when the prep artillery bombardment for Pickett's charge, began, and how long it lasted. Also, the revisionism on both sides began immediately. One thing that also needs to said IMO is how very deep in the doghouse Longstreet was in much of the South after the war. He criticized Lee's conduct at Gettysburg, took a job in the Grant administration, and was further guilty of not having been born a Virginian. Jubal Early was a prime mover in this, and also in the campaign to recreate Robert E. Lee as a demigod. (If you haven't already guess as much, I'm very suspicious of Leader fetish, and think this is something our species needs to outgrow if we don't want to go the way of the Passenger Pigeon.) People wanted to know how Gettysburg was "lost" and what had gone wrong. (If you're George Meade, nothing went wrong; if you're Abe Lincoln, what went wrong is that an immediate counterattack wasn't launched.) Early, and others in his camp, pointed the finger squarely at Longstreet, and his "inability" to carry out Lee's directives. I've never met George Pickett, but if I have him right, he never forgave Lee for the destruction of his division. I also think he gave the best answer as to why the ANV lost at Gettysburg: "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." Defending one's own dunghill is a very strong human impulse.

JAMES

James,

Your comments are well taken. It's interesting you mention Longstreet, he was one of the few who dared criticize Lee, despite Lee admitting to his men after Pickett's charge that "it was all my fault." After the war, Longstreet became a Republican, thus becoming a "scalawag."

Mentioning Pickett, it's my understanding that not only did he admit Yankee success, he also blamed Lee for the rest of his life for his losses at Gettysburg. And yes, Lee had been anointed to a demigod status. Part of that is due to a lack of tarnish: he never wrote a memoir, and unlike Longstreet, he died within a decade of the war's end.

Also, I find that many of my students make the mistake as seeing the Confederate loss at Gettysburg as the death knell of the Confederacy. In my opinion, the loss of Vicksburg and thus any control of the Mississippi proved the more decisive blow, occurring a day later. However, this is not to say the Confederacy was dead at this point, one must remember that the Confederacy came close once again to victory in the fall, the Chattanooga campaign was a decisive Confederate success until the arrival of Grant, they certainly kept Rosecrans in check, yet another Union commander who made decisions in quicksand when they counted most.

And finally, don't forget one important fact when you discuss Gettysburg: The significance of the fire at the Tredegar Iron works in Richmond during the Spring of 1863. This was the nexus of Confederate high-quality military manufacture, and the temporary loss of this facility at this crucial moment played a significant role during the battle, specifically fuses.

Colonel Alexander, first in his class at West Point before Virginia seceded, was the Confederate artillery commander who decimated the Union troops at Fredricksburg. This was due in part to the quality of fuses from Tredegar which allowed him a steady rate of fire and the ability to aim his guns reliably. At Gettysburg, the fuses were from different facilities all over the South, many of these were "cottage industries," and as a result, there was little uniformity in manufacture. During the battle, Alexander couldn't understand why he was consistently overshooting, it was almost as if the gods were conspiring against him, or so he thought. What was actually occurring was these these fuses were burning "long." If Confederate artillery fire had been as reliable at Gettysburg as it had been at other sites, such as Chancellorsville and Fredricksburg, then it might very well had led to another victory for Lee.

Oh yeah...Buford's dismounted defense notwithstanding, he did have one other advantage in his pocket which the Confederates lacked that I believe helped him buy time holding them off: breech-loaded rifles which could fire at a rate several times faster than the traditional musket.

[TARPSBird]

I'm VERY impressed with you, Sim-Outhouse members. I half expected this thread to go bad by now, but you've been acting as adults. I salute you.
Raptor, I was thinking the same thing. It's exceptional to see a "history geek" thread go to multiple pages without getting locked in the end. ;) This is a great discussion - do you guys really know this much Civil War stuff or do you keep reference books handy? :d

[Rami]

Raptor, I was thinking the same thing. It's exceptional to see a "history geek" thread go to multiple pages without getting locked in the end. ;) This is a great discussion - do you guys really know this much Civil War stuff or do you keep reference books handy? :d

Tarpsbird,

Every historian / teacher's answer to that is the former, but in truth it's likely a bit of both. :engel016:

[Snuffy]

I'm a proud owner of a $9,000.00 US dollar library on the ACW ... (those were 1985 dollars too ... I have no idea what it costs in today's dollars.)

I've read every one of the books I have at least once, many twice. :)

[Rami]

I'm a proud owner of a $9,000.00 US dollar library on the ACW ... (those were 1985 dollars too ... I have no idea what it costs in today's dollars.)

I've read every one of the books I have at least once, many twice. :)

Please tell me Battle Cry of Freedom is on that list.

[Snuffy]

Its been a long while since I've looked ... Most of my library sits in moving boxes that never got unpacked from a move made several years ago. (procrastination is a terrible thing ...) However, I'd safely bet that it is among the books I have. I can't even tell you what box has what books. :(

[Rami]

Snuffy,

No problem, just thought I'd ask. It's about 865 pages, I've read it three times. Come to think of it, I have a ninth-grader who's been causing problems in my class since the beginning of the year. Perhaps if he does it again I'll assign it to him for weekend reading and then ask him to write a ten-page summary. That will put a kink in his colon...

[redriver6]

Also, I find that many of my students make the mistake as seeing the Confederate loss at Gettysburg as the death knell of the Confederacy. In my opinion, the loss of Vicksburg and thus any control of the Mississippi proved the more decisive blow, occurring a day later.

Vicksburg tends to be overshadowed by Gettysburg but it was a far greater strategic loss than Gettysburg. Lee's army was hurt but not destroyed...Vicksburg could never be recovered.

Lincoln said Vicksburg is the key and he was right.

also...this is the 'High Water Mark of the Confederacy'...not Pickett's Charge..

6PM on the 2nd day..


Most people consider the heights reached by Pickett's charge were the high water mark of the Confederacy. However, on the second day Brigadier General Ambrose Wright's brigade not only reached the rock wall but crossed over it and penetrated far enough into the Union defenses to see the other side of the ridge. Wright's brigade was next to last involved in the fight that day. The brigades to his right had been forced to retreat, BG Carnot Posey was to his left and was unable to offer the support Wright needed. BG William Mahone was to Posey's left and never entered the fight.

If there had been any support for this penetration, the battle would probably have ended then and there..notice how close they were to Meade's HQ..

http://www.jmarlinmurphy.com/CW%20HTM%20Folder/Posey2ndDay.html

and just as a 'btw' i had two ancestors present..one in the 21st MS Barksdale's brigade and one in the 10th Alabama Wilcox's brigade.

[Snuffy]

... and just as a 'btw' i had two ancestors present..one in the 21st MS Barksdale's brigade and one in the 10th Alabama Wilcox's brigade.

Me too ... well not the same two you had ... but A.P. Hill and Henry J Hunt, and oddly enough both from my mother's side.

[Ken Stallings]

I'm VERY impressed with you, Sim-Outhouse members. I half expected this thread to go bad by now, but you've been acting as adults. I salute you.

Part of the problem with these issues, I believe, is that eye-witness accounts of the battle do not agree. I know I posted a link to a Carol Reardon lecture in another thread, but I don't remember which at the top of my head. One of the things she points out is that the soldiers' diaries vary wildly as to when the prep artillery bombardment for Pickett's charge, began, and how long it lasted. Also, the revisionism on both sides began immediately. One thing that also needs to said IMO is how very deep in the doghouse Longstreet was in much of the South after the war. He criticized Lee's conduct at Gettysburg, took a job in the Grant administration, and was further guilty of not having been born a Virginian. Jubal Early was a prime mover in this, and also in the campaign to recreate Robert E. Lee as a demigod. (If you haven't already guess as much, I'm very suspicious of Leader fetish, and think this is something our species needs to outgrow if we don't want to go the way of the Passenger Pigeon.) People wanted to know how Gettysburg was "lost" and what had gone wrong. (If you're George Meade, nothing went wrong; if you're Abe Lincoln, what went wrong is that an immediate counterattack wasn't launched.) Early, and others in his camp, pointed the finger squarely at Longstreet, and his "inability" to carry out Lee's directives. I've never met George Pickett, but if I have him right, he never forgave Lee for the destruction of his division. I also think he gave the best answer as to why the ANV lost at Gettysburg: "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." Defending one's own dunghill is a very strong human impulse.

JAMES

James,

This is a very insightful and accurate post.

Early is considered a prime ringleader in the post-war creation of a cult of personality, celebrity worship of Lee. It is not merely ironic, nor an accident, that his efforts began after Lee died. Lee would never had allowed it while he was alive, especially the associated effort to discredit and sully Longstreet.

Regarding Pickett, the man stayed very close friends with Longstreet after the war. In terms of Lee, Pickett met Lee at his home just once after the war ended, and according to a witness Lee was icy cold. Pickett left the house with this witness and reported that Pickett said, "That old man destroyed my division!"

So, clearly, for Lee, the meeting was singularly awkward. For Pickett, it would appear it was an opportunity for Lee to apologize. Given Lee did not, the meeting ended awkwardly and with Pickett as bitter as ever.

My view of Douglas Southall Freeman is that he was a perpetuator of the myth of Lee as a demigod upon the earth. He did not create it, but he certainly sought to perpetuate it and ignored a lot of additional information and first-hand accounts that would have balanced his efforts. At best, I consider his work historically inaccurate. More likely, it was an act of political prosecution masked as historical research! His biography was singular in its point of view that Lee was nearly flawless and if not for ineptness among subordinate generals, the Army of Northern Virginia would have had an uninterrupted string of victories. This is pure bunk!

I have read extensively a myriad of books regarding Lee and Longstreet. This includes Freehall's seminal biography on Lee. In comparing notes, I am convinced the Freehall was deliberately misleading in his comments on Longstreet's conduct at Gettysburg. Longstreet's own biography is far more balanced even as it often gives short shrift to his own subordinates.

In reading the cumulative books, the thing I'm most struck with is how horribly disfunctional the entire CSA leadership was in the war and am forced to conclude the major miracle of the war is how the south could have stayed whole for as long as it did! Between such clearly inept commanders as Braxton Bragg, such blind loyalty to him as Jefferson Davis showed to him, and the refusal to husband forces as Lee sometimes did, I am amazed the CSA did as well as it did!

I mainly chalk that up in the Virginia theater to a string of mostly lackluster Union corps commanders, especially McClellan, for whom I am convinced handed the CSA victory in the first year of the war. Ending that war during the Penninsula Campaign (entirely likely given solid generalship) would have drastically altered national history and rendered the CSA as more a footnote of forlorn ambition, vice tearing the nation to shreds and put the south into 50 years of economic depravity and continued racial strife.

While Longstreet had genuine affinity and respect for Lee, it must be noted that his view of Joseph Johnston was significantly better. Personally, I wish Davis has sacked Bragg and replaced him with Longstreet. I believe Atlanta would never had been sacked and Sherman's March would never had happened.

Lee was an excellent general, one of the abliest of the war. However, he simply was too late in recognizing the essential need for the CSA to husband their resources in the fight, and to realize that time was on their side with an effective maneuver defensive warfare strategy. All the ANV really needed was a few more Frederecksburg's and the whole complexion of the war could have changed due to domestic antagonism against Lincoln. If Lee had better understood this prior to Gettysburg, when he truly did accept the painful lesson, and had Longstreet commanded the Tennessee Campaign, I think things would have turned out considerably differently.

Of course, for the benefit of the nation, I'm thankful the mistakes the CSA made were made, and only wished they had been made worse and the Union commanders in the first year in Virginia had seized the initiative better. Grant knew the "mathematics" as Lincoln said, and knew if the "thing were pressed" the CSA and ANV had no chance. Grant's casualties were horrible, but he pressed the continuous offensive by repeated flanking maneuvers. He did what Longstreet knew was the great danger.

The war wasn't a "Lost Cause" the post-war Confederate "history" tried to sum it up as. It was, however, a very unbalanced contest and the south had to perform substantially better than the Union forces, and do so in a way that bled the Union and husbanded Confederate manpower. In the West, Grant destroyed all hope of that outcome as he was the better general with the superior assets. In the Virginia campaign, once the Union put Grant in charge, the same brutal mathematics came to fruition and the ANV bled too many resources in prior battles.

I give Lee universal admiration for helping ensure the war ended on sustainable terms without guerilla warfare, which many CSA commanders advocated. I give Grant complete credit for seeking humane terms of surrender to help ensure that tragedy was avoided.

Cheers,

Ken

[djscoo]

This is a timely thread! We are discussing the American Civil War in my history class currently. We watched an excerpt from Ken Burn's documentary, and the part that I found most fascinating was the footage of Civil War veterans during the 1930's. I know this makes me sound terribly ignorant, but seeing the actual men who fought moving around and was like a moment of enlightenment. I had never even entertained the idea that these were actual people who fought, and there were survivors. It was odd, and as soon as I got home today I looked for more film footage of Civil War Veterans.

MIJaxu3w4-U

[Snuffy]

Mr. Burn's stuff is good ... you should be able to buy the whole documentary from PBS ... I highly recommend it.

[TeaSea]

Damn! I come home and the Thread's gone two pages beyond me!!

1) I think Ken is right about Longstreet's march to the Union left. He came under observation and had to change his plan. He came under observation because of Little Round Top. By sheer accident, LRT was clear cut on the one side of the hill that had complete observations of Longstreet's movement, and the rest of the battlefield up towards the fishhook around Culp's Hill. It's the ONLY place on the battlefield that offers that view (Seminary Ridge was hidden by forest). I've often wondered about that. What if the two years previous the owner had cut on the other side of the hill?

2) Stuart's dressing down from Lee is fictional...but it's a great scene nonetheless. I'm one of those who thinks Stuart is unfairly castigated for his role in the battle, along with Longstreet. Stuarts orders were somewhat ambiguous, (he received directions from Lee, Early, and Longstreet) and commander's, especially cavalry commanders, were expected to use their initiative and broadly interpret their commander's intent. In any case, Lee's main body was left with over 3 brigades of cavalry, which he elected not to use.

3) The Southern cause was lost with Vicksburg, not Gettysburg. Agree with that contention wholeheartedly.

4) Napoleonic tactics are often criticized, but people who make those broad comments do not consider the alternatives of attempting to control troops who probably can't hear after the first two volleys. Weaponry had progressed well enough to do extensive damage (an 1859 rifled musket has roughly the same point target range as an M-16A2) but to achieve effects you still had to mass fire, which meant tight formations. And they were LOUD and SMOKEY. You had to keep people together to keep control.

5) Pickett's response to the question on Gettysburg is the right response.

There, I'm spent...have to work my daughter's taxes.....

[Eoraptor1]

Please tell me Battle Cry of Freedom is on that list.

+1 for Jim McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. This is the one Civil War book to have if you're going to have only one IMO. If you give that assignment, Rami, make sure your Problem Child hasn't cut and pasted the synopsis from Wikipedia.

Carol Reardon Booknotes interview HERE: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/96629-1


JAMES

[Ken Stallings]

Yes, communications were vastly restricted then, however, Longstreet destroyed that myth that large battles had to be fought with centralized control. He did this with the extended skirmish line attacks at the Battle of the Wilderness. It worked spectacularly. He had the entire Union front before his troops retreated in confusion and disarray.

Then Longstreet was shot by his own men (accidentally, of course) and just like Jackson a year earlier, it deflated the Confederate initiative.

That was the real problem. Even when the Confederates had the master stroke going for them, they didn't have the ability to press the advantage to actual conclusion. Never once did the CSA leave the battleground of a major battle with more aggregate forces than the Union had!

If the Union had the tactical advantage and Lee blundered like Burnsides did at Fredericksburg, then the CSA would have lost the war in Virginia that very day.

For the Union, they could launch another massive offensive within a few weeks!

Back to the original point ... Longstreet took an entire corps worth of Confederate troops and quickly launched them into the Union in countless small units, essentially company and platoon cohesive units. It worked because of the nature of the thick forest. It wasn't an accident. It was a concept of battle that had been percolating inside Longstreet's mind for a long time. It was revolutionary because it adopted the modern concept of small units acting with independence as a combined strategic effort. This was something that even generals in World War I considered impossible.

However, later in the great war, such looser arrangement of troops was adopted.

While most of his peers were fighting a war of Napoleonic tactics, Longstreet was representing an idea that morphed during World War I! And yet, none of his tactical and strategic vision was captured in even period American military training doctrine. It wasn't until after World War I that what Longstreet wrote and thought was seriously studied at West Point.

Organizing ground units along flexible options, maneuvering your enemy into a position of tactical disadvantage and then coercing that enemy to attack you at a fortified position, and avoiding engagement when the positions are reversed, are all concepts of modern maneuver warfare.

It is the classic concept that in the PTO of World War II was termed, "island hopping." Longstreet, in my view, would have never attacked the fortified positions at Malvern Hill, Little Round Top, or Seminary Ridge. He would have maneuvered his forces to a position of fortified strength between Meade's forces and Washington, and dared Meade to attack.

He understood that the south merely had to survive. The Union had to win.

The problem for the CSA is that even if Longstreet had gotten his way, the war was still a disaster on every other theater. Only in Virginia did the Confederates actually win a significant share of battles. And in Tennessee, it was really only Longstreet's efforts against Rosecrans that yeilded any significant Confederate victories there.

Everywhere else, it was mostly a Union rout.

Ken

[redriver6]

The problem for the CSA is that even if Longstreet had gotten his way, the war was still a disaster on every other theater. Only in Virginia did the Confederates actually win a significant share of battles. And in Tennessee, it was really only Longstreet's efforts against Rosecrans that yeilded any significant Confederate victories there.

Everywhere else, it was mostly a Union rout.

Ken

not entirely....at least not in Louisiana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Campaign

[redriver6]

i think we need a ACW forum:d

[Snuffy]

i think we need a ACW forum:d

That would be cool :)

[redriver6]

back to the ACW movie theme...'Glory' is a really good one IMHO.

[Ken Stallings]

back to the ACW movie theme...'Glory' is a really good one IMHO.

Yeah, that was another excellent movie!

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

not entirely....at least not in Louisiana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Campaign

The key was "significant," implying it changed the path of the war. Ultimately, despite the tactical success, strategically it altered nothing because Mobile and Vicksburg still fell. Consequently, from the standpoint of Union strategic objectives to split the Confederacy in half and prevent resupply from Europe, those battles did not alter the Union's goal.

When the CSA had a chance to destroy a Union fleet, the opportunity was abdicated by generals disagreeing at vital moments -- another lost opportunity.

Nathan Bedford Forrest enjoyed many successes in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. However, as brilliant as his campaigns were run, they did not alter Union success.

Cheers,

Ken

[TeaSea]

Yes, most excellent. "Glory" deserves to be listed as one of the best war movies period. The opening scene of Antietam is exceptionally well done. As an Army officer though, my favorite scene is where COL Shaw counsels the young private on how to shoot....how to shoot under fire. Unfortunately I've not been able to locate a clip of that.

As for Civil War movies in general, I must include "Red Badge of Courage" with Audie Murphy (also Bill Mauldin) and directed by John Huston. It was released in 1951 and was probably the first real good depiction of the Civil War. Although historical cinematography, I doubt "Birth of a Nation" is considered a good ACW movie.

Murphy was not a particularly talented actor (never claimed to be), but he did have a good "boy" quality which was excellent for that part. Interesting noting this particular boy killed over 500 men in a little over an hour. I often wondered what others on the set thought about playing opposite him.

[Snuffy]

I agree with Glory as a must have ... it certainly covered one aspect of the ACW that lots of folks don't want to acknowledge.

[redriver6]

When the CSA had a chance to destroy a Union fleet, the opportunity was abdicated by generals disagreeing at vital moments -- another lost opportunity.

Nathan Bedford Forrest enjoyed many successes in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. However, as brilliant as his campaigns were run, they did not alter Union success.


very true...

[Ken Stallings]

very true...

My larger point -- perhaps not clearly stated -- is that only in Virginia did it appear the CSA had a real chance to alter the Union's strategic goal, capture of Richmond and the bread basket of the Shenandoah.

Furthermore, this was the only theater where it appeared the South had a strategic goal at all! Washington DC was there and so it seemed the goal was to use Washington as bait to trap the AoP.

In terms of Union goals, Shenandoah was a perpetual back-and-forth affair. The Union did suceed in capturing the vital Hampton Roads area and securing one more potential Confederate port of call. In terms of the Anaconda Strategy, the Union had total mastery. Whether Savannah, Wilmington, Hampton Roads, New Orleans, Mobile, or Charleston the South lost nearly all access to the outside world.

If that war was truly about "state's rights" vice a smokescreen excuse allowing "polite society discussions," then the CSA would have freed all slaves, gave the Union one week to pull out of their garrison at Fort Sumpter, and then opened the war. England would have allied with the CSA and Lincoln denied the all-important moral argument of slavery would have been unable to muster years of sacrificial effort among the north necessary to win the war.

Alas, the CSA didn't do that. So, that pretty much seals the truth! And having surrendered all that, the Union had a strategic advantage making Confederate victory a very daunting prospect.

Hence, I'm very happy it turned out as it did.

Cheers,

Ken

[Snuffy]

Another good file on the ACW and a different aspect.

Ironclads (http://www.amazon.com/Ironclads-VHS-Virginia-Madsen/dp/B00008YP0W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=video&qid=1271381703&sr=1-1). Another Turner film, this time the sound stage was in Richmond VA and I got a chance after the filming to enter the building and take pictures of the sets.

Another note of interest, Richmond had a local news anchor who auditioned for a part and got the part as the capt of the Monitor ... that was the end of his news career in Richmond that I know of.

[Ken Stallings]

Another good file on the ACW and a different aspect.

Ironclads (http://www.amazon.com/Ironclads-VHS-Virginia-Madsen/dp/B00008YP0W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=video&qid=1271381703&sr=1-1). Another Turner film, this time the sound stage was in Richmond VA and I got a chance after the filming to enter the building and take pictures of the sets.

Another note of interest, Richmond had a local news anchor who auditioned for a part and got the part as the capt of the Monitor ... that was the end of his news career in Richmond that I know of.

Yeah, old times die hard around there! :icon_lol:

[Snuffy]

I should have said ... He quit his anchor job thinking he had made the big time in film ... as far as I know, he hasn't had another gig since ... I've moved from Richmond, so I don't even know if anyone hired him back as an anchor there either.

Sorry for the confusion.

[redriver6]

there is also a movie about the Hunley..can't remember the name right now but it was fairly accurate..

i have two 'must see' ACW sites that i haven't seen yet and those are the Gettysburg Battlefield and the CSS Hunley in Charleston......well maybe three...third being the turret of the USS Monitor.

[Ken Stallings]

I should have said ... He quit his anchor job thinking he had made the big time in film ... as far as I know, he hasn't had another gig since ... I've moved from Richmond, so I don't even know if anyone hired him back as an anchor there either.

Sorry for the confusion.

Oh, but that didn't make for nearly as good a story as if the town ran him out on a rail because he captained the mean ole' Yankee ironclad! :icon_lol:

Ken

[Snuffy]

Oh, but that didn't make for nearly as good a story as if the town ran him out on a rail because he captained the mean ole' Yankee ironclad! :icon_lol:

Ken

No, prolly not. LOL!