Why the Confederates were defeated at Gettysburg: It was all my fault - General Lee; It took many mistakes to lose that battle, and I made most of them - General Ewell; It was Lee's fault - General Longstreet; I have never known General Lee to bollocks a battle so badly - Colonel Alexander; It was Longstreet's fault - General Early and last but certainly not least - I always thought that the Union Army had something to do with it - General Pickett
I've visited Gettysburg twice. Stood on Little Round Top and looked down where the Confederates would be charging from. What a sight that must have been for Chamberlain and his men. I'm not a reclusive person, but when I visit a battlefield I prefer to be alone so I can absorb the surroundings. I've visited a lot of battlefields and Little Round Top speaks the loudest.
While I'm not sure if this is an Official 'USArmyWarCollege' If it is I would just like to send a quick thank you! I am a game developer, currently working on the design of a strategic war game for PC. I am not an army 'brat' myself, and trying to find videos, presentations and documents on strategic and tactical considerations that I might find useful, professionally is (that are easy enough to understand) challenging to say the least. Regardless, this is my thanks. It might seem odd that a game designer is taking interest in the video. But I thought you [USAWC] might like to know, or otherwise find it interesting. You have my respect and warmest thanks for making said videos public. Regards Nick.
There was no discussion of the battle to cut out. The students would discuss the battle the next day during the staff ride around the battlefield. This purpose of this lecture was to put the battle in context.
The Federals occupying the battlefield after the conflict picked up more than thirty-five thousand long guns and checked out their condition. Many of them had been loaded before the owner either abandoned the weapon or it fell with him and had not been fired. In fact a bunch of the muskets held six or seven loads, some of them in backwards so that if the owner had fired the gun it likely would have exploded. One musket had 23 loads in it, the soldier likely running out of barrel to fill. The conclusion was that many of the soldiers were scared frozen stiff, such that they had no idea about firing their weapon, only loading it. So about 20% of the troops were ineffective in battle. This was not only the case in this war. It has been the case in every war. In WW I only about one in five of the fighter pilots competing in European skies sought to shoot down an enemy. In WW II about 5% shot down the great majority (89%) of the enemy. And of course by that time half the pilots were wingmen not expected to shoot down the enemy, instead having the responsibility of guarding the shooter in front of them. The byword was "fly five to stay alive," meaning that until a fighter pilot had been in combat five times they were behind the power curve and unable to understand what was going on. Currently, fighter pilots need only one or two flights in combat to get up to speed due to the system - help from AWACS, ground control, etc.
Sabra S This is very interesting information about un-fired weapons; could you share your sources? I do not doubt that this situation could have occurred, and likely did occur. I have been in a combat zone myself, though only under indirect fire (it was fairly "quiet" at the time), and I can imagine remaining brave enough to keep moving forward, "doing my duty," yet being quite literally scared out of my wits. Every soldier hopes that won't happen to him or her, but doesn't know that it won't until they are in that situation themselves. Therefore I do not judge these soldiers: what a grim and bloody sacrifice to preserve an economic system that depended on the complete exploitation of one race of men by another, in the name of 'independence.' But who among us would choose to fight against our own home towns, our own home states? It must have been a terrible time.
Tina, I can not account for the numbers of weapons, or the "claims" of multiple rounds in weapons. Like you, I believe it could have happened, but I doubt that it did in those numbers.(Propaganda?) As far as the weapons being loaded?? That one is easier to explain. It's a mile long walk across that field. Do you want to load your weapon before you start the walk? And fix Bayonets. Or, are you going to stop once you get within range, to load your weapon? Waiting until your within 100yds or closer to the enemy to fire, increase your odds to score a hit. And it's really no more dangerous to "wait" for the shot, than it is to fire, reload, advance, fire, reload, all the while being inside the killing zone. Hope this helps a little, Thank You for you service.
Aye, people in a society that teaches the sanctity of human life and the taboo of killing another person it is incredibly hard to get them to fire at the enemy with the intent to hit and kill and incapacitate and that is why after the Second World War the military began to use operant conditioning to condition a muscle response in their soldiers - getting them to pull the trigger without thinking, without rationalizing, without that apprehension coming to mind - not until later, perhaps this has some part to play in the prevalence of mental issues facing returning veterans - perhaps not.
Beyond the scope of the talk. More about strategic and operational maneuvers leading up to Gettysburg - the audience was going to travel to the actual Gettysburg battlefield on the day after this lecture to hear about the battle itself..
29:55 on his comments on Martin Sheen in "Gettysburg", the production crew wanted Robert Duvall to play the part but he was unavailable. BTW Duvall's actually related to Robert E. Lee on his mother's side.
in 1860 France & UK imported cotton from the South, by 1864 UK was importing cotton from Egypt & India and had greatly increased their imports of grain/corn from the North. the economic value of the South diminished as the value of the North increased. Slavery was outlawed in both France & UK and neither wanted to ally themselves with the South which from day 1 had stated that slavery was paramount to the economic well being of the South.
Getttysburg war was fought without proper planning or stratagic failure at some point. not to blame anybody for that matter. intentions were good & fought hard - lost lives for no result & furthered cvil for few.more years. most importantly it was not btw kingdoms but a civil war, wll be remembered for longtime. Respect Bravehearts
I think your wrong. There was proper planning, however things happen and plans change. Also plans have to be executed and if not again plans fall apart. Your statement is broad. Meade had a plan, he wanted strong interior lines where he could reinforce his lines with little effort and his plan in the end although not perfect worked.
I`m german and i want to know if the defeat of the south still bothers the americans in the south. How would the USA look today if the south had won the war?
Ike Wasweissich Most Americans are over it, but there are some that have that whole "The South Will Rise Again" mentality. They won't even call it the Civil war, but "The War of Northern Aggression" instead. I think if the south had won the right to secede that the US would certainly not be a superpower and certainly not as advanced.
baconfatlabs By definition, it was not a Civil War. A civil war is a fight between 2 or more factions for control of the government. The South wanted their own government because the Union interests were against theirs.
CheckmateKing2 By definition, and name, it was in fact. A territory does not have to be vacant of a governing body for it to be considered a civil war, which is merely a war between the citizens of that territory and nothing more. The Confederate "faction" was fighting against the Union "faction" for control over the governance of the southern states. You can put lipstick on a pig all ya want man, but it's still a pig. ;-) But since we're on the subject of misnomers, I take issue with purists calling it the "War of Northern Aggression". The only aggression that took place on behalf of the north was to respond to the forces of the Confederate army, which, might I remind you, were the first to commence hostilities by firing on Fort Sumter. Cheers.
Ike Wasweissich I'm in Georgia, born and raised though my father was in the military so we moved around a bit. Anyway, there is still a strong dislike for those people up north, the yankees. To this day many northerners look down upon southerners as in-bred hicks/hillbillies/racists, which just isn't true. Northerners who move down to the South often behaive very rudely for awhile until they see it's not like they thought. The South is not going to "rise again" (unless Hillary or bernie sanders gets elected, lol), but we still have no love of them "Damn Yankess". PS, don't ever call a southerner a "Yank". Hope this helps. Also, as regards to racism, I believe the people of the South get along together more than up north.
In reality it started when the ships loaded to leave England. The bulk of the men were Gentry. At that time members of the Gentry Class were the Knights and Squires and most often landed. This land that they had in most cases were from grants going back to 1066. At that time the eldest son would inherit every thing unless the mother also held title then the second son got her titles. The younger sons had limited choices, become a priest, join the army or navy, live off big brother or go adventuring. So when they go to Virginia they wanted the same privilege they had in England. They were building a society like they had in England with the classes now they would be on top. When the slaves arrived they were brought in they were put on the bottom and what good is it to be on top if no one is below you?The brownest or Pilgrims were persecuted for not going to the Anglian church, holding Bible studies in their homes and getting locked up for it by the fathers of the former bunch. When the landed at Plymouth they set a more democratic government different from what they had in England.
I would add Forts Henry and Donelson to the list of Turning Points. Rise of Grant. Opened the Confederate heartland to invasion vis the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers.
It seems that failure is often due to over-confidence. Hitler chose to unleash Operation Barbarossa after the swift fall of France. Lee decided to make his northern move after his string of victories. I believe his initial thinking was to attack only if he had the edge and was able to choose the place and time. Perhaps Heth mucked up his plans.
+bg147 nope it was Ewell . Lee's plans were sound Ewell was not Jackson. The sceen in the movie when Gen Tremmel requsts another assignment happened. Gen Rhodes was forced to with draw from the high ground due to Ewell's lack of anything. Day three should have been a replay of day 1&2.As old Fritz would say a lazy thinker is the worst thing in an army.
osipruessen ritter I was referring more to the catalyst. Wasn't it Heth who engaged despite Lee's orders not to? I would agree about Ewell but perhaps Lee should have been more aware of Ewell's need for very specific instructions or maybe he never should have been promoted. Poor Longstreet took too much blame but somebody always does.
It would be interesting to know how the instructor reached the conclusion that Lee's objective was to destroy the AotP when Lee stated in his after action report that he had not intended to fight a battle so far from his base unless attacked.
Simple. Lee knew that, to win the war, they (the south) had to either break the north's ability to wage war, or to break their will to wage war. As he hadn't the ability to break their ability, he chose to break their will and that meant destroying the Army of the Potomac. Winning battles wasn't sufficient. He had to destroy that army utterly and that meant doing so under carefully crafted circumstance where their superior numbers would not be an advantage. . This explains his frustration when "those people": continued to slip away. Moving towards Washington, or Harrisburg was merely the bait to get the Army of the Potomac to move to counter his movement. In doing so, he would hamper the ability of the Army of the Potomac to concentrate their forces. Lee felt that he finally had the Army of the Potomac "cornered" at Gettysburg but he was unable to discern that they were so rapidly concentrating and consolidating their forces.
Lee didn't intend to fight at Gettysburg, he didn't want to bring on a general engagement until his Army was concentrated. The Confederates were spread out, and once Lee found out how close the Army of the Potomac was he feared his Army would be destroyed in peace meal. Now as for his desire to destroy the Army of the Potomac that was Lee's plan in every engagement. Lee knew the longer the war drew out the worse off the South would be. The South didn't have the resources the North had. The goal was to smash the Union Force on Northern territory to force Lincoln to purse a compromise. People in the North were growing weary of was a convincing victory in the North may have very well ended the Waa in 1863.
Lee made many mistake's that fateful day. But his exit strategy of the battle of Gettysburg was a thing of beauty, composure extreme. I believe if the south had the industry the north had. The world would be a very different place today.
The Confederate political leadership made a great strategic error when they authorized Lee's invasion of Maryland and Pennsylvania. They should instead have sent forces from the AoNV west to either directly or indirectly assist Vicksburg, because the Confederacy couldn't survive loss of control of the Mississippi. However, they needed to do this by early April at the latest. Instead, they procrastinated for months until it was too late. This shouldn't be surprising when one remembers that this same leadership ignited a war over a territorial dispute which they had no legal claim to- and at a time when the Confederacy had no army, no navy, no general staff, no military industry, and no allies. They quite literally brought on their own destruction.
Like too many historians, the guy tosses in personal opinion (often factually wrong) along with the good stuff. Unfortunately this means you have to go elsewhere to get the real picture.
So you do not consider the Raid on St.Albans Vermont significant?.. or Stuart's Calvary penetration of Harrisburg?..both "Farther North" than Gettysburg.
While I agree that Martin Sheen was a poor bit of casting for the part of Lee in *Gettysburg* I'm uncertain why the speaker feels this is true. The speaker goes on to say that Lee was "a killer." No doubt this is true. His audacious go-for-the-jugular approach is certainly well-known. Sheen plays Lee as somewhat hesitant, which may be the speaker's issue. I wonder though, how much of that was Sheen's acting choice and how much of it was the choice of the novel's author, Shaara, the screen writer, and the director.
IIRC Lee was a killer, UP CLOSE & PERSONAL one, too. IIRC down in Mexico, he was with an Engineering unit. He was a young officer, so he got sent out alone go scout out some terrain to make some engineering contingency plans, when he was uncovered by a squad of Santa Anna's soldiers. Killed him all, or killed enough to make good his escape. Im remembering this vaguely from American Caesar which recounts a near identical situation happening to Gen. MacArthur in the 20th C during one of the interventions chasing Pancho Villa or the Veracruz incident. So take my vague memory of that story for what it is.
20:24 Sounds like USA military thinking hasn't really changed in the last 150 years or so. "Good things will happen after that". It sounds like the (lack of) plan that the USA had going into Irak, at least to me.
Ike, Im of german decent and a southerner. A part of my heart still longs for freedom from the bureaucrats in washington. Dixie was a special place in time and it saddens me that Dixie was lost.
Understandable. Bill and Hillary Clinton feel your pain, as well. The Confederacy was much like Nazi Germany, where people cherished the right to be wrong, that special 'freedom' to be inhumane, without consequence of moral authority, and had it codified into law. It was racist, thrived on slave labor and its POW camp prisoners looked exactly like the WW2 Nazi Concentration Camp prisoners. There are many more analogies. Dinesh D'Souza just wrote a best selling book pointing out the common threads between the American Left and Nazi Germany, in a scholarly fashion. I don't want to spoil your fun reading it. Enjoy!!
Well Reb, I'm a Yank from Minnesota. The right side won, but damn it was one hell of fight, I just cannot believe the hardships and obstacles that the South had to overcome just to last a year or year and a half - let alone four long years of deprivation and sacrifice. I've always been glad to have one you boys from Georgia on my right and one of you boys from Tennessee on the Left, and to have the rear covered by another from Mississippi. God Bless The USA (ALL of the States, even the Rebs)
So you would have been free from the bureaucrats in Washington but then would've been subject to the bureaucrats in Richmond, or, you could have had your precious states rights so the confederacy could have existed as a set of little sovereignties each unto themselves - which mentality greatly helped them lose the war (lack of strong central leadership, lack of cooperation between the states)..
As usual the love affair with Lee. The bottom line in the biggest battle of the Civil War he faced a semi competent commander and lost. Meade had mere freaking days to get his Army ready and to say he outperformed Lee in just about every area is a gross understatement. Tired of the Lee worship, even at Cville he was reliant on Hooker being an incompetent fool. Pope the same at 2nd bull run and Burnside was beyond a fool. When Leed attacked during 7 days war on peninsual he faced a semi competent but ultimately gutless commander in Little Mac. Go look at the actual results of those battles, all of them were phyrric victories that had Mac bothered to follow up wouldve destroyed Lee before he even got started. Malvern Hill and other battles should a wanton recklessness that Lee got away with time and again. When he finally tried once to often Gettysburg was the result.
George McClellan and Joe Hooker were pretty competent commanders. Hooker was not an incompetent fool - he was a good corps commander but as Army commander he ran up against Lee at Chancellorsville - Lee's and Jackson's finest hour. McClellan very nearly took Richmond during the Peninsular Campaign but after defeating several Confederate Commanders he ran into Lee near Richmond. Meade was a good commander and wisely choose to fight a defensive battle at Gettysburg. The Gettysburg Campaign was not Lee's shinning hour. He made several critical errors and his Army paid the price for them
+Pill Box Actually Lincoln intended something like that for Lee. It was Gen. Grant and Sherman that stoped him. ref lincolns papers vol 3 and Grants Mem.
There is so much nonsense here, I don't know where to begin. Suffice to say that the gentleman here is finding excuses for Lee's failure to take the initiative with his victory at Challencorsville. Thanks to Jackson he had routed the Union forces and should have kept the pressure up. After Jackson's victory at Challencorsville Hooker was retreating in disarray towards DC. Lee failed to keep on the pressure, inflicting more casualties, and following Hooker along the more direct path to the obvious target of strategic value, DC. Hooker knew that his rout at Challencorsville left DC open and he had to protect it, as well as save himself. He wasn't moving on Richmond immediately after Challencorsville because he had been routed. Instead Lee chose to invade through the backdoor and meander aimlessly about Pennsylvania, hardly bold. There he lost heavily at Gettysburg, a place of no strategic value. He WAS FIGHTING A WAR OF ATTRITION and not one of boldness. There was no way the South could win the war of attrition that Davis and Lee were fighting. The Confederacy had a truly bold general with true genius in the Eastern theater, but it wasn't Lee. His name was Thomas "Stonewall Jackson and he was killed by "friendly fire" at Challencorsville. I am wary of trusting experts. I have known "famous" surgeons who couldn't operate their way out of a paper bag or make a good clinical decision if someone's life depended on it. Unfortunately it often does. The same goes for generals and apparently professors at the US Army War College. Too often they rely on their credentials to avoid serious questions. These are just some of my opinions regarding this video which I am little more than halfway through. Yours may differ. The lecturer obviously disagrees with me.
@temporarysanity Lee never tried to finish off the Army of the Potomac. That was my point. He had his opportunity at Challencorsville and let it slip away in the same way Bragg failed to followup at Chickamauga. Gettysburg was a war of attrition as it resulted in heavy losses for both sides over a piece of ground which did not matter. The losses at Gettysburg could be better tolerated by the North. Then there is the question of decision making by Lee at Gettysburg itself. Since when do you defend Lee? Don't bother. We never agree.
High Schooler's Teacher? Not sure what you mean by that but this guy is instructing a class from The United States Army War College. The folks in attendance are like LT Colonels who are going to get promoted to Colonel. Which for those who don't know is 06 in the Army next step after that is General......high schooler's teacher I don't think so.
Lee and the south was ready to end the war , the gamble , draw out the union army from Washington , annialate it , surround Washington with the confederate army and then sue for peace on southern terms , great plan , had to be perfect though in strategic operations w great intelligence , the south got neither in this case , Lee was tired as was the south and couldn't keep sustaining the effort , the great gamble failed , in hindsite the southern army was one of mostly defensive strategy , did not have the resources to maintain offensive operations for an extended time . Once Lee got his blood up for a battle it was difficult change his thinking ,. They are weakest at the center , we shall attack their center .
Steve Godfrey Lee did not have the man nor the resources to lay siege to Washington. Such a plan was strategically not possible. Lee needed to plunder to keep his troops feed. As soon they tried to hold positions for weeks the hunger would come. Not to mention that the North had more men to stem against him as he could sweep away.
I am assuming your asking a question about states right. Basically the 13 Confederate States believed they should govern their own state with no interference from the Federal Government. Basically make our own rules.
I wish I was in Dixie. Away, away. In Dixieland I'll make my stand to live and die in Dixie. Keep your Stars and Stripes and I'll keep my Stars and Bars.
One major wrong here was the southern army was not fighting to preserve slavery as a goal it was just Independence and rights to the state. Slavery didn't become an issue until the end of war.
Lee more like Custer at Little Big Horn. Both examples of how NOT to fight a war. Lee went into Pennsylvania stealing chickens, hogs, hams, wagons, shoes, and money. Lee acting more like a pirate than a soldier. The only ground Lee held in Gettysburg were the burial plots for his troops.
Lee came in to Pennsylvania and did exactly what the Union had been doing for over 2 years in the South. Oh and lets not forget Sherman's march to the Sea. Armies have been doing this for thousands of years.
The Army War College is located in Carlisle Pennsylvania which is 34 miles north of Gettysburg Pennsylvania. They do staff rides there all the time, so its a battle they go in depth on. There is no hard on for the Confederates they discuss tactics and strategy as it relates to a major campaign/battlefield located within a stones throw of the war college. Calm down no one is hating on anyone.
Many reasons the South lost. Main ones= Lee's refusal to listen to the military logic of Longstreet and the totally missing Stuart and his cavalry!..Stuart should have been dismissed his command for that. Lee had little idea of who was where on the high ground at Gettysburg.The mistake of not assaulting that high ground when they had an open opportunity was also a factor!..Compounding error upon error! Hood's attempts to charge, under Lee's orders over impossible rocky ground resulted in slaughter!..Even the wheat field was a disaster despite the worst efforts of that military idiot Sickles. Meade's dispositions were so good that he was able to cover it!..Then the so called 'Pickets Charge' an act of sheer bravery and folly! A mile of open ground under constant round shot, explosive shells and finally, canister and mini ball!...Terrible slaughter! And still some of you Americans try to find excuses for Lee?..Incredible!
No, you're stupid and wrong and don't know anything about the Civil War and what happened at Gettsyburg and you don't understand why the South lost the Civil War. Anyhow, they'd didn't lose it. We, the North lost it, because we ended up getting stuck with you for the last 150 years! We should have been fighting to get rid of you, not keep you in the Union! And our cities wouldn't of gotten all polluted by your blacks migrating north to get away from you assholes.
Pill Box In case you haven't noticed the constitution of the United States prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. That clause was written in specifically against such things as being drawn and quartered.
Lee was not an expert on conducting warfare. His training at West Point was primarily engineering. Lee got Davis' approval to invade America in May of 1863. Less than a month and a half later Lee had his butt whipped at Gettysburg and was sent packing back to his beloved slave state, Virginia. Lee lost at Antietam. Lee lost at Gettysburg. Lee lost at Petersburg. Lee lost at Appomattox.
You know what separated Lee and the men who led in those days vs. the Brains of today? It's that the men were fighting for something that they believed in, also they still possessed morals. Today we have many, many soldiers fighting for what they believe in and giving all they have while doing so, while our leaders behind the seen have none of what our soldiers do. They are all in it for self gain and riches, they have no care for this Country, they have no heart for this Nation, they have no Morals anymore. I'm sure there are a handful who does, but I speak about the Majority. Also, tell me this Countries belief??? If we have a major tragedy the Country wants to be Patriotic and sing out to God. But when things seem smooth it's tell a man he can't speak about the God this Country has been so Blessed by. Then go against all morals and protect the liberals and there Gay's...You do the math here. This Country only stands because of God who Son is (JESUS CHRIST). It will not continue to stand with the way this Country has turned. God help us please. Help the blind to see and the saved to tell the Gospel.
jesse murray I am not saying that slavery is a good thing. I believe it should have been abolished when the founding fathers decided that all men are created equal. However, slavery was legal under US law up to and including the years during the civil war. The slave states that did not secede from the union maintained slavery throughout the war. You mention Andersonville, what you don't understand is there were camps in the north that were just as bad, including Elmira, Point Lookout, Camp Douglas etc.. In fact, this should interest you: "Rebel prisoners in our hands are to be subjected to a treatment finding its parallels only in the conduct of savage tribes and resulting in the death of multitudes by the slow but designed process of starvation and by mortal diseases occasioned by insufficient and unhealthy food and wanton exposure of their persons to the inclemency of the weather." -- Official U.S. Policy on Confederate Prisoners of War (Preamble to the H.R. 97, passed by both Houses of Congress) Your timeline on the south seceding and firing on Ft. Sumter is a bit off as well. South Carolina seceded in December of 1860, Ft. Sumter was not fired on until April. During the time between December and April the US Government assured South Carolina the garrison of fort would be removed. This was a lie. The US Government had no intention of abandoning the fort, they were in fact sending a military fleet with 2000 soldiers to reenforce the area. They just wanted South Carolina to fire first so they could swing public opinion towards their invasion. At the time most people were more than willing to just let the south go peacefully.
jesse murray This is an except from Lincoln's first inaugural address: "Fellow-Citizens of the United States: IN compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office." 1 I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. 2 Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that- I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. 3 Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes." Slavery was a legal institution in the UNITED STATES before, during, and up to the end of the Civil War.
IMO Missleman is an Idiot... Tide16nc, let me clue you in on something. War is a complete absence of morality. And your not fighting "for" anything, your fighting "against" that person over there, who is trying to kill you. God is not going to blame you for what someone else is doing, or not doing. lol Mind your own business, and you'll be ok. have a good day.
Why the Confederates were defeated at Gettysburg: It was all my fault - General Lee; It took many mistakes to lose that battle, and I made most of them - General Ewell; It was Lee's fault - General Longstreet; I have never known General Lee to bollocks a battle so badly - Colonel Alexander; It was Longstreet's fault - General Early and last but certainly not least - I always thought that the Union Army had something to do with it - General Pickett
Found this by accident, but stayed till the end. Excellent speaker makes me wish for a trip to Gettysburg.
This was great! The nitty-gritty of strategy and politics. Loved it!
I do love the USAWC Lecture Series, keep up the good work!!!
Thank you for posting this excellent presentation.
Lee was very lucky. He greatly benefited from the series of inept commanders of the Army of the Potomac,
I've visited Gettysburg twice. Stood on Little Round Top and looked down where the Confederates would be charging from. What a sight that must have been for Chamberlain and his men. I'm not a reclusive person, but when I visit a battlefield I prefer to be alone so I can absorb the surroundings. I've visited a lot of battlefields and Little Round Top speaks the loudest.
Ever been to bunker hill? The ground speaks.
While I'm not sure if this is an Official 'USArmyWarCollege' If it is I would just like to send a quick thank you!
I am a game developer, currently working on the design of a strategic war game for PC. I am not an army 'brat' myself, and trying to find videos, presentations and documents on strategic and tactical considerations that I might find useful, professionally is (that are easy enough to understand) challenging to say the least.
Regardless, this is my thanks. It might seem odd that a game designer is taking interest in the video. But I thought you [USAWC] might like to know, or otherwise find it interesting. You have my respect and warmest thanks for making said videos public.
Regards Nick.
UG:G and UG:CW made me watch this video. Thanks for a great game and keep adding improvements suggested by the community.
Cheers!
The United States Army War College is legit and located at Carlisle Barracks in Carlisle Pennsylvania about 45 minutes from Gettysburg.
There was no discussion of the battle to cut out. The students would discuss the battle the next day during the staff ride around the battlefield. This purpose of this lecture was to put the battle in context.
Video has been edited and is out of order. However, an outstanding overview of the strategy.
The Federals occupying the battlefield after the conflict picked up more than thirty-five thousand long guns and checked out their condition. Many of them had been loaded before the owner either abandoned the weapon or it fell with him and had not been fired. In fact a bunch of the muskets held six or seven loads, some of them in backwards so that if the owner had fired the gun it likely would have exploded. One musket had 23 loads in it, the soldier likely running out of barrel to fill. The conclusion was that many of the soldiers were scared frozen stiff, such that they had no idea about firing their weapon, only loading it. So about 20% of the troops were ineffective in battle. This was not only the case in this war. It has been the case in every war. In WW I only about one in five of the fighter pilots competing in European skies sought to shoot down an enemy. In WW II about 5% shot down the great majority (89%) of the enemy. And of course by that time half the pilots were wingmen not expected to shoot down the enemy, instead having the responsibility of guarding the shooter in front of them. The byword was "fly five to stay alive," meaning that until a fighter pilot had been in combat five times they were behind the power curve and unable to understand what was going on. Currently, fighter pilots need only one or two flights in combat to get up to speed due to the system - help from AWACS, ground control, etc.
Sabra S This is very interesting information about un-fired weapons; could you share your sources? I do not doubt that this situation could have occurred, and likely did occur. I have been in a combat zone myself, though only under indirect fire (it was fairly "quiet" at the time), and I can imagine remaining brave enough to keep moving forward, "doing my duty," yet being quite literally scared out of my wits. Every soldier hopes that won't happen to him or her, but doesn't know that it won't until they are in that situation themselves.
Therefore I do not judge these soldiers: what a grim and bloody sacrifice to preserve an economic system that depended on the complete exploitation of one race of men by another, in the name of 'independence.' But who among us would choose to fight against our own home towns, our own home states? It must have been a terrible time.
Tina, I can not account for the numbers of weapons, or the "claims" of multiple rounds in weapons. Like you, I believe it could have happened, but I doubt that it did in those numbers.(Propaganda?) As far as the weapons being loaded?? That one is easier to explain. It's a mile long walk across that field. Do you want to load your weapon before you start the walk? And fix Bayonets. Or, are you going to stop once you get within range, to load your weapon? Waiting until your within 100yds or closer to the enemy to fire, increase your odds to score a hit. And it's really no more dangerous to "wait" for the shot, than it is to fire, reload, advance, fire, reload, all the while being inside the killing zone. Hope this helps a little, Thank You for you service.
Check "On Killing", by Lt Col David Grossman.
Aye, people in a society that teaches the sanctity of human life and the taboo of killing another person it is incredibly hard to get them to fire at the enemy with the intent to hit and kill and incapacitate and that is why after the Second World War the military began to use operant conditioning to condition a muscle response in their soldiers - getting them to pull the trigger without thinking, without rationalizing, without that apprehension coming to mind - not until later, perhaps this has some part to play in the prevalence of mental issues facing returning veterans - perhaps not.
Beyond the scope of the talk. More about strategic and operational maneuvers leading up to Gettysburg - the audience was going to travel to the actual Gettysburg battlefield on the day after this lecture to hear about the battle itself..
29:55 on his comments on Martin Sheen in "Gettysburg", the production crew wanted Robert Duvall to play the part but he was unavailable. BTW Duvall's actually related to Robert E. Lee on his mother's side.
in 1860 France & UK imported cotton from the South, by 1864 UK was importing cotton from Egypt & India and had greatly increased their imports of grain/corn from the North. the economic value of the South diminished as the value of the North increased. Slavery was outlawed in both France & UK and neither wanted to ally themselves with the South which from day 1 had stated that slavery was paramount to the economic well being of the South.
Plz share any video which is related to strategy
Any informed opinion as to just how coincidental the British Cotton glut really was? Did they see this coming? Did they somehow encourage it?
Thanks.
A real shame that this vid only has 7,500 views after more than a year.
Well there was the Bulge, with 19,000 fatal, and 89,000 total, casualties - the actual bloodiest battle in American history by a wide margin.
thanks so much for the interesting show!
von clauswitz is usually remembered when covering history pertaining to the First World War and The Second World War. total war
Outstanding presentation, but needs some corrections to the editing.
Nicely & well done.
nearly had a heart attack at 18:05
what the!!!
what was on the screen at 6:30? does anyone know?
Getttysburg war was fought without proper planning or stratagic failure at some point. not to blame anybody for that matter. intentions were good & fought hard - lost lives for no result & furthered cvil for few.more years. most importantly it was not btw kingdoms but a civil war, wll be remembered for longtime. Respect Bravehearts
I think your wrong. There was proper planning, however things happen and plans change. Also plans have to be executed and if not again plans fall apart. Your statement is broad. Meade had a plan, he wanted strong interior lines where he could reinforce his lines with little effort and his plan in the end although not perfect worked.
I`m german and i want to know if the defeat of the south still bothers the americans in the south. How would the USA look today if the south had won the war?
Ike Wasweissich Most Americans are over it, but there are some that have that whole "The South Will Rise Again" mentality. They won't even call it the Civil war, but "The War of Northern Aggression" instead. I think if the south had won the right to secede that the US would certainly not be a superpower and certainly not as advanced.
baconfatlabs By definition, it was not a Civil War. A civil war is a fight between 2 or more factions for control of the government. The South wanted their own government because the Union interests were against theirs.
CheckmateKing2 By definition, and name, it was in fact. A territory does not have to be vacant of a governing body for it to be considered a civil war, which is merely a war between the citizens of that territory and nothing more. The Confederate "faction" was fighting against the Union "faction" for control over the governance of the southern states. You can put lipstick on a pig all ya want man, but it's still a pig. ;-)
But since we're on the subject of misnomers, I take issue with purists calling it the "War of Northern Aggression". The only aggression that took place on behalf of the north was to respond to the forces of the Confederate army, which, might I remind you, were the first to commence hostilities by firing on Fort Sumter.
Cheers.
baconfatlabs
" I take issue with purists calling it the "War of Northern Aggression".
Yes I would agree you are correct.
Ike Wasweissich I'm in Georgia, born and raised though my father was in the military so we moved around a bit. Anyway, there is still a strong dislike for those people up north, the yankees. To this day many northerners look down upon southerners as in-bred hicks/hillbillies/racists, which just isn't true. Northerners who move down to the South often behaive very rudely for awhile until they see it's not like they thought. The South is not going to "rise again" (unless Hillary or bernie sanders gets elected, lol), but we still have no love of them "Damn Yankess". PS, don't ever call a southerner a "Yank". Hope this helps. Also, as regards to racism, I believe the people of the South get along together more than up north.
I like how the speaker keeps screaming into the mic.
funkervogt47 I do to, I can always turn the volume down if it'd too loud,
In reality it started when the ships loaded to leave England. The bulk of the men were Gentry. At that time members of the Gentry Class were the Knights and Squires and most often landed. This land that they had in most cases were from grants going back to 1066. At that time the eldest son would inherit every thing unless the mother also held title then the second son got her titles. The younger sons had limited choices, become a priest, join the army or navy, live off big brother or go adventuring. So when they go to Virginia they wanted the same privilege they had in England. They were building a society like they had in England with the classes now they would be on top. When the slaves arrived they were brought in they were put on the bottom and what good is it to be on top if no one is below you?The brownest or Pilgrims were persecuted for not going to the Anglian church, holding Bible studies in their homes and getting locked up for it by the fathers of the former bunch. When the landed at Plymouth they set a more democratic government different from what they had in England.
If you want a VERY long and detailed version of this read Albion's Seed.
I think that if our leaders in government actually represented the common American people that you would see them physically fighting in the House.
I would add Forts Henry and Donelson to the list of Turning Points. Rise of Grant. Opened the Confederate heartland to invasion vis the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers.
Railroad junctions were critical during the American Civil War
It seems that failure is often due to over-confidence. Hitler chose to unleash Operation Barbarossa after the swift fall of France. Lee decided to make his northern move after his string of victories. I believe his initial thinking was to attack only if he had the edge and was able to choose the place and time. Perhaps Heth mucked up his plans.
+bg147 nope it was Ewell . Lee's plans were sound Ewell was not Jackson. The sceen in the movie when Gen Tremmel requsts another assignment happened. Gen Rhodes was forced to with draw from the high ground due to Ewell's lack of anything. Day three should have been a replay of day 1&2.As old Fritz would say a lazy thinker is the worst thing in an army.
osipruessen ritter
I was referring more to the catalyst. Wasn't it Heth who engaged despite Lee's orders not to? I would agree about Ewell but perhaps Lee should have been more aware of Ewell's need for very specific instructions or maybe he never should have been promoted. Poor Longstreet took too much blame but somebody always does.
+bg147 ml
This is a good question, I wonder if anyone has any insight on it?
Should have read "DIE", but you get the idea.
M = millitary
What about the battle of Hanover that took place in the snack capital of the us Hanover pa
It would be interesting to know how the instructor reached the conclusion that Lee's objective was to destroy the AotP when Lee stated in his after action report that he had not intended to fight a battle so far from his base unless attacked.
Simple. Lee knew that, to win the war, they (the south) had to either break the north's ability to wage war, or to break their will to wage war. As he hadn't the ability to break their ability, he chose to break their will and that meant destroying the Army of the Potomac. Winning battles wasn't sufficient. He had to destroy that army utterly and that meant doing so under carefully crafted circumstance where their superior numbers would not be an advantage. . This explains his frustration when "those people": continued to slip away. Moving towards Washington, or Harrisburg was merely the bait to get the Army of the Potomac to move to counter his movement. In doing so, he would hamper the ability of the Army of the Potomac to concentrate their forces. Lee felt that he finally had the Army of the Potomac "cornered" at Gettysburg but he was unable to discern that they were so rapidly concentrating and consolidating their forces.
Lee didn't intend to fight at Gettysburg, he didn't want to bring on a general engagement until his Army was concentrated. The Confederates were spread out, and once Lee found out how close the Army of the Potomac was he feared his Army would be destroyed in peace meal. Now as for his desire to destroy the Army of the Potomac that was Lee's plan in every engagement. Lee knew the longer the war drew out the worse off the South would be. The South didn't have the resources the North had. The goal was to smash the Union Force on Northern territory to force Lincoln to purse a compromise. People in the North were growing weary of was a convincing victory in the North may have very well ended the Waa in 1863.
Wasn't Atietam the bloodiest battle of the civil war?
Antietam had the greatest casualties for a single day. Gettysburg was three days.
Bloodiest day, Gettysburg was bloodiest battle
Bloodiest Single Day Battle not to mention in American History to date period.
All that Northern industrial superiority -- but artillery ran on gun-cotton, and an average shell ate 17 pounds of cotton.
Lee made many mistake's that fateful day. But his exit strategy of the battle of Gettysburg was a thing of beauty, composure extreme.
I believe if the south had the industry the north had. The world would be a very different place today.
The Confederate political leadership made a great strategic error when they authorized Lee's invasion of Maryland and Pennsylvania. They should instead have sent forces from the AoNV west to either directly or indirectly assist Vicksburg, because the Confederacy couldn't survive loss of control of the Mississippi. However, they needed to do this by early April at the latest. Instead, they procrastinated for months until it was too late. This shouldn't be surprising when one remembers that this same leadership ignited a war over a territorial dispute which they had no legal claim to- and at a time when the Confederacy had no army, no navy, no general staff, no military industry, and no allies. They quite literally brought on their own destruction.
Wonderfull!
Combover on the front row is distracting.
Anybody "Up" for an interesting American History Lesson? Take it away, Dr. Weddle
Like too many historians, the guy tosses in personal opinion (often factually wrong) along with the good stuff. Unfortunately this means you have to go elsewhere to get the real picture.
No wonder they call the American Civil war the greatest civil war. Mind boggling!
WATCH YOUR EARS @17:57 !!!
To late :(
Should of look at the comment section first. Scared the shit out of me.
@@robertparsons4395 Nearly fell backwards out of my chair, pets shot up the walls and scurried under the furniture. I think my beard turned white. :)
So you do not consider the Raid on St.Albans Vermont significant?.. or Stuart's Calvary penetration of Harrisburg?..both "Farther North" than Gettysburg.
He says Calvary.
People don't like sitting right at the front
While I agree that Martin Sheen was a poor bit of casting for the part of Lee in *Gettysburg* I'm uncertain why the speaker feels this is true. The speaker goes on to say that Lee was "a killer." No doubt this is true. His audacious go-for-the-jugular approach is certainly well-known.
Sheen plays Lee as somewhat hesitant, which may be the speaker's issue. I wonder though, how much of that was Sheen's acting choice and how much of it was the choice of the novel's author, Shaara, the screen writer, and the director.
IIRC Lee was a killer, UP CLOSE & PERSONAL one, too. IIRC down in Mexico, he was with an Engineering unit. He was a young officer, so he got sent out alone go scout out some terrain to make some engineering contingency plans, when he was uncovered by a squad of Santa Anna's soldiers. Killed him all, or killed enough to make good his escape. Im remembering this vaguely from American Caesar which recounts a near identical situation happening to Gen. MacArthur in the 20th C during one of the interventions chasing Pancho Villa or the Veracruz incident. So take my vague memory of that story for what it is.
Lee was a douche.
Very good speaker and excellent content. But please please please learn to pronounce von clausewitz correctly....
God man why are you yelling? You have a microphone.
20:24 Sounds like USA military thinking hasn't really changed in the last 150 years or so. "Good things will happen after that".
It sounds like the (lack of) plan that the USA had going into Irak, at least to me.
RogerWilco Your joking, right? The US knew FULL WELL that sectarian violence would erupt after Saddam was ousted. That was a given.
+RogerWilco Its Iraq not Irak Talk about lack of planning..............
still a fair point tbh
Military doesn't set foreign policy, they just execute it.
Ike, Im of german decent and a southerner. A part of my heart still longs for freedom from the bureaucrats in washington. Dixie was a special place in time and it saddens me that Dixie was lost.
Understandable. Bill and Hillary Clinton feel your pain, as well. The Confederacy was much like Nazi Germany, where people cherished the right to be wrong, that special 'freedom' to be inhumane, without consequence of moral authority, and had it codified into law. It was racist, thrived on slave labor and its POW camp prisoners looked exactly like the WW2 Nazi Concentration Camp prisoners. There are many more analogies. Dinesh D'Souza just wrote a best selling book pointing out the common threads between the American Left and Nazi Germany, in a scholarly fashion. I don't want to spoil your fun reading it. Enjoy!!
It was a state built and founded on slavery. Think about that for a long moment.
Well Reb, I'm a Yank from Minnesota. The right side won, but damn it was one hell of fight, I just cannot believe the hardships and obstacles that the South had to overcome just to last a year or year and a half - let alone four long years of deprivation and sacrifice. I've always been glad to have one you boys from Georgia on my right and one of you boys from Tennessee on the Left, and to have the rear covered by another from Mississippi. God Bless The USA (ALL of the States, even the Rebs)
You can always go to Netflix and watch "Heart of Dixie".
So you would have been free from the bureaucrats in Washington but then would've been subject to the bureaucrats in Richmond, or, you could have had your precious states rights so the confederacy could have existed as a set of little sovereignties each unto themselves - which mentality greatly helped them lose the war (lack of strong central leadership, lack of cooperation between the states)..
As usual the love affair with Lee. The bottom line in the biggest battle of the Civil War he faced a semi competent commander and lost. Meade had mere freaking days to get his Army ready and to say he outperformed Lee in just about every area is a gross understatement. Tired of the Lee worship, even at Cville he was reliant on Hooker being an incompetent fool. Pope the same at 2nd bull run and Burnside was beyond a fool. When Leed attacked during 7 days war on peninsual he faced a semi competent but ultimately gutless commander in Little Mac. Go look at the actual results of those battles, all of them were phyrric victories that had Mac bothered to follow up wouldve destroyed Lee before he even got started. Malvern Hill and other battles should a wanton recklessness that Lee got away with time and again. When he finally tried once to often Gettysburg was the result.
George McClellan and Joe Hooker were pretty competent commanders. Hooker was not an incompetent fool - he was a good corps commander but as Army commander he ran up against Lee at Chancellorsville - Lee's and Jackson's finest hour. McClellan very nearly took Richmond during the Peninsular Campaign but after defeating several Confederate Commanders he ran into Lee near Richmond. Meade was a good commander and wisely choose to fight a defensive battle at Gettysburg. The Gettysburg Campaign was not Lee's shinning hour. He made several critical errors and his Army paid the price for them
+Pill Box Actually Lincoln intended something like that for Lee. It was Gen. Grant and Sherman that stoped him. ref lincolns papers vol 3 and Grants Mem.
@@BIRISHPM The first strategic mistake was to march north.
There is so much nonsense here, I don't know where to begin. Suffice to say that the gentleman here is finding excuses for Lee's failure to take the initiative with his victory at Challencorsville. Thanks to Jackson he had routed the Union forces and should have kept the pressure up. After Jackson's victory at Challencorsville Hooker was retreating in disarray towards DC. Lee failed to keep on the pressure, inflicting more casualties, and following Hooker along the more direct path to the obvious target of strategic value, DC. Hooker knew that his rout at Challencorsville left DC open and he had to protect it, as well as save himself. He wasn't moving on Richmond immediately after Challencorsville because he had been routed.
Instead Lee chose to invade through the backdoor and meander aimlessly about Pennsylvania, hardly bold. There he lost heavily at Gettysburg, a place of no strategic value. He WAS FIGHTING A WAR OF ATTRITION and not one of boldness. There was no way the South could win the war of attrition that Davis and Lee were fighting.
The Confederacy had a truly bold general with true genius in the Eastern theater, but it wasn't Lee. His name was Thomas "Stonewall Jackson and he was killed by "friendly fire" at Challencorsville.
I am wary of trusting experts. I have known "famous" surgeons who couldn't operate their way out of a paper bag or make a good clinical decision if someone's life depended on it. Unfortunately it often does. The same goes for generals and apparently professors at the US Army War College. Too often they rely on their credentials to avoid serious questions. These are just some of my opinions regarding this video which I am little more than halfway through. Yours may differ. The lecturer obviously disagrees with me.
@temporarysanity Lee never tried to finish off the Army of the Potomac. That was my point. He had his opportunity at Challencorsville and let it slip away in the same way Bragg failed to followup at Chickamauga.
Gettysburg was a war of attrition as it resulted in heavy losses for both sides over a piece of ground which did not matter. The losses at Gettysburg could be better tolerated by the North. Then there is the question of decision making by Lee at Gettysburg itself. Since when do you defend Lee? Don't bother. We never agree.
not bad for a high schoolers teacher...
High Schooler's Teacher? Not sure what you mean by that but this guy is instructing a class from The United States Army War College. The folks in attendance are like LT Colonels who are going to get promoted to Colonel. Which for those who don't know is 06 in the Army next step after that is General......high schooler's teacher I don't think so.
Lee and the south was ready to end the war , the gamble , draw out the union army from Washington , annialate it , surround Washington with the confederate army and then sue for peace on southern terms , great plan , had to be perfect though in strategic operations w great intelligence , the south got neither in this case , Lee was tired as was the south and couldn't keep sustaining the effort , the great gamble failed , in hindsite the southern army was one of mostly defensive strategy , did not have the resources to maintain offensive operations for an extended time . Once Lee got his blood up for a battle it was difficult change his thinking ,. They are weakest at the center , we shall attack their center .
Steve Godfrey Lee did not have the man nor the resources to lay siege to Washington. Such a plan was strategically not possible. Lee needed to plunder to keep his troops feed. As soon they tried to hold positions for weeks the hunger would come. Not to mention that the North had more men to stem against him as he could sweep away.
Lee more like Custer at Little Big Horn.
Out numbered, outgunned, and out generaled.
states rights/civil war?
I am assuming your asking a question about states right. Basically the 13 Confederate States believed they should govern their own state with no interference from the Federal Government. Basically make our own rules.
I wish I was in Dixie. Away, away. In Dixieland I'll make my stand to live and die in Dixie. Keep your Stars and Stripes and I'll keep my Stars and Bars.
One major wrong here was the southern army was not fighting to preserve slavery as a goal it was just Independence and rights to the state. Slavery didn't become an issue until the end of war.
The right of the states to retain slavery...
I couldn’t imagine being stupid enough to believe this.
Rodriguez Jeffrey Brown Nancy Jones Cynthia
Lee more like Custer at Little Big Horn. Both examples of how NOT to fight a war.
Lee went into Pennsylvania stealing chickens, hogs, hams, wagons, shoes, and money. Lee acting more like a pirate than a soldier.
The only ground Lee held in Gettysburg were the burial plots for his troops.
Lee came in to Pennsylvania and did exactly what the Union had been doing for over 2 years in the South. Oh and lets not forget Sherman's march to the Sea. Armies have been doing this for thousands of years.
Lee was a D bag.
There is some serious Confederate hard on at the War College I see. Very glad I never had to deal with these folks.
I'm sure they are glad they never had to deal with you.
Dont kid yourself you wouldn’t be accepted
The Army War College is located in Carlisle Pennsylvania which is 34 miles north of Gettysburg Pennsylvania. They do staff rides there all the time, so its a battle they go in depth on. There is no hard on for the Confederates they discuss tactics and strategy as it relates to a major campaign/battlefield located within a stones throw of the war college. Calm down no one is hating on anyone.
Martin Jose Jackson Steven Jackson John
R.E.Lee was less Martin Sheen and more Charlie Sheen.
Jomini
Many reasons the South lost. Main ones= Lee's refusal to listen to the military logic of Longstreet and the totally missing Stuart and his cavalry!..Stuart should have been dismissed his command for that. Lee had little idea of who was where on the high ground at Gettysburg.The mistake of not assaulting that high ground when they had an open opportunity was also a factor!..Compounding error upon error! Hood's attempts to charge, under Lee's orders over impossible rocky ground resulted in slaughter!..Even the wheat field was a disaster despite the worst efforts of that military idiot Sickles. Meade's dispositions were so good that he was able to cover it!..Then the so called 'Pickets Charge' an act of sheer bravery and folly! A mile of open ground under constant round shot, explosive shells and finally, canister and mini ball!...Terrible slaughter! And still some of you Americans try to find excuses for Lee?..Incredible!
No, you're stupid and wrong and don't know anything about the Civil War and what happened at Gettsyburg and you don't understand why the South lost the Civil War. Anyhow, they'd didn't lose it. We, the North lost it, because we ended up getting stuck with you for the last 150 years! We should have been fighting to get rid of you, not keep you in the Union! And our cities wouldn't of gotten all polluted by your blacks migrating north to get away from you assholes.
troglodite30 Excuses for Lee? He was and is to this day the greatest general the US has ever had! GOD BLESS YOU GENERAL LEE!
Ray S He was a traiter and should have been drawn and quartered on the White House lawn.
Pill Box In case you haven't noticed the constitution of the United States prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
That clause was written in specifically against such things as being drawn and quartered.
+Pill Box must be full of phsycotrphics
Gettysberg Address = Biggest political spin EVER!
I SEE IT AS THE PETTY DRIBBLE OF A NUTCASE THAT CAUSED MORE NEEDLESS DEATH AND SUFFERING ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAN ANYONE IN WORLD HISTORY
17:58 ear rape
God you clowns suck. Blurry shit?
Lee was not an expert on conducting warfare. His training at West Point was primarily engineering.
Lee got Davis' approval to invade America in May of 1863. Less than a month and a half later Lee had his butt whipped at Gettysburg and was sent packing back to his beloved slave state, Virginia.
Lee lost at Antietam.
Lee lost at Gettysburg. Lee lost at Petersburg. Lee lost at Appomattox.
Why didn't the vote to ban assault rifles. Just saying.
No matter how you spin it the North INVADED their peaceful neighbor. Period!
you don't need to type the word "period", you used the "." key already
No matter how you spin it the confederate were democratic party state governments that refused to accept the election.
No matter how you spin it the Confederacy fired the first shots.
The confederacy was a bunch of Democrats that did not accept the out come of an election.
What are you talking about...the South fired first. Also, they were putting down a treasonous revolt.
Try standing still.
You know what separated Lee and the men who led in those days vs. the Brains of today? It's that the men were fighting for something that they believed in, also they still possessed morals. Today we have many, many soldiers fighting for what they believe in and giving all they have while doing so, while our leaders behind the seen have none of what our soldiers do. They are all in it for self gain and riches, they have no care for this Country, they have no heart for this Nation, they have no Morals anymore. I'm sure there are a handful who does, but I speak about the Majority. Also, tell me this Countries belief??? If we have a major tragedy the Country wants to be Patriotic and sing out to God. But when things seem smooth it's tell a man he can't speak about the God this Country has been so Blessed by. Then go against all morals and protect the liberals and there Gay's...You do the math here. This Country only stands because of God who Son is (JESUS CHRIST). It will not continue to stand with the way this Country has turned. God help us please. Help the blind to see and the saved to tell the Gospel.
Those Southern soldiers had morals, fighting for what they believe in - SLAVERY?
Andrew Molloy Those Southern soldiers didn't fight for slavery they fought because they were invaded.
jesse murray I am not saying that slavery is a good thing. I believe it should have been abolished when the founding fathers decided that all men are created equal. However, slavery was legal under US law up to and including the years during the civil war. The slave states that did not secede from the union maintained slavery throughout the war.
You mention Andersonville, what you don't understand is there were camps in the north that were just as bad, including Elmira, Point Lookout, Camp Douglas etc.. In fact, this should interest you:
"Rebel prisoners in our hands are to be subjected to a treatment finding its parallels only in the conduct of savage tribes and resulting in the death of multitudes by the slow but designed process of starvation and by mortal diseases occasioned by insufficient and unhealthy food and wanton exposure of their persons to the inclemency of the weather."
-- Official U.S. Policy on Confederate Prisoners of War (Preamble to the H.R. 97, passed by both Houses of Congress)
Your timeline on the south seceding and firing on Ft. Sumter is a bit off as well. South Carolina seceded in December of 1860, Ft. Sumter was not fired on until April. During the time between December and April the US Government assured South Carolina the garrison of fort would be removed. This was a lie. The US Government had no intention of abandoning the fort, they were in fact sending a military fleet with 2000 soldiers to reenforce the area. They just wanted South Carolina to fire first so they could swing public opinion towards their invasion. At the time most people were more than willing to just let the south go peacefully.
jesse murray This is an except from Lincoln's first inaugural address:
"Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
IN compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."
1
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
2
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that-
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
3
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
Slavery was a legal institution in the UNITED STATES before, during, and up to the end of the Civil War.
IMO Missleman is an Idiot... Tide16nc, let me clue you in on something. War is a complete absence of morality. And your not fighting "for" anything, your fighting "against" that person over there, who is trying to kill you. God is not going to blame you for what someone else is doing, or not doing. lol Mind your own business, and you'll be ok. have a good day.
The South had ironclads and blockade running