he was right it wouldn't have been a retreat, it would have been a tactical redeployment in order to force the union to pursue lee therefore allowing lee to find ground of his choosing to set up a defensive battle

lol 2:24 i like Lee expression and motions as he realizes that longstreet is suggesting to go on the defensive. lol the slow drop of the binoculars and the angry eyebrows like >=-I

Supposedly Lee said to Longstreet that “If the enemy is still there tomorrow we will attack him.” To which Longstreet astutely replied: “If the enemy is still there it’ll be because he WANTS us to attack him, which is a good enough reason to me for not doing so.”

Unfortunately, convincing Lee was not easy, his ego at that time made him very stubborn for better and for worse

@@decimated550, worse than the defensive... Longstreet wants to maneuver across the face of an enemy who is already deployed...with a bad roadnet, to try to get behind him. This is exactly the mistake that the French made at Salamanca...which Lee would know very well. Longstreet is proposing a BAD plan, and Lee knows it.

i'm wondering if it's a backhanded compliment as lee was expressing gratitude to longstreet's subordinate, not longstreet himself

It's kind of a lost art of leadership. I've had plenty of leaders who were more interested in demonstrating their knowledge by verbally abusing or browbeating subordinates through the position of authority or expertise. There was never an actual interest in developing or mentoring junior leaders. For all of his faults as a commander and frankly as a person, Lee had a exceptional skill as a mentor to subordinate officers.

@@andrewroberts7428 It wasn't. Lee was thanking Longstreet, because his subordinate's excellent record and decisive nature reflected well upon Longstreet as a commander and officer. It meant he had chosen the right soldier for the job and developed him well for his position. A good commander will always feel a sense of accomplishment when receiving a positive report regarding one of their subordinate leaders.

That is Leadership

Great observation. One of the reasons why he was a great military leader. I'm from Pennsylvania, yet have all the admiration in the world for Robert E. Lee. Exceptional general.

Rimasta1 You are spot on. Had Lee listened to Longstreet, things might have been very different.

+Thomas Snapp ...a greater loss, although perhaps not as bloody a one. Lee had the full information of the supply state and ammunition state of his army. The goal was to fight one decisive battle, not a campaign far from supply and reinforcement. Longstreet's 'plan' (which only emerged 20 years after the battle) would have had the AoNV engage in a night march on bad roads directly into the center of the oncoming 5 Federal corps. (If, as Longstreet states, he gave the advice at the end of day 1...if he gave that advice at the end of day 2, it was already impossible to carry out...since the army no longer had the supplies and ammunition to fight a second major engagement)

I do not blame Lee. He understood the Napoleonic art of movement in corps level at lightning speed to surprise the enemy. It is his intelligence gathering that let him down at Gettysburg. If it were Napoleon himself he would utilise his vulnerable position to instigate the enemy to draw a frontal charge. In fact he should have feigned retreat to draw the union troops into a trap using his vulnerable position. That is the ultimate art of war. To use your position of supposed weakness and to give your enemy a false sense of security. That Lee did not master to win this battle. There was a chance for victory for the confederates and like Julius Caesar who used opportunity and every attempt to lure the enemy, General Lee could have done so much better than to use the good old sledgehammer frontal charge. He needed more guile to win this battle and did not bet on it but instead on the veteran ability of his soldiers

An attempted move around the Federal flank would have been very problematic. Federal Cavalry had improved a lot from previous battles, and they were on their home ground. Good luck getting on the high ground to provoke an attack from the Federals. I'm not sure that Longstreet even pushed that plan very hard himself. When Lee lost the initiative on the first day, personally, I'm not sure he had very good options.

Absolutely right . Furthermore , Gen. Longstreet has become the scapegoat of this battle , which he so reluctantly was dragged to fight.

Lot of people think if Jackson would of lived he would of taken the heights and won the battle but I feel like they lost that battle the minute Lee decided to not listen to Longstreets advice about redeploying the army.

Yeah, or at the very least, made it more difficult for himself. As to the other matter, I honestly think Jackson’s skill as a general is overstated. He was a good general, don’t get me wrong... but not QUITE as good as his reputation would have us believe.

@@Stardweller1 ya I think he's a bit overrated there's a theory that had Jackson not been wounded on his reconnaissance mission then his army would of met with disaster during his planned night attack. Also he was hated by just about everyone when he was a professor at the Virginia Military Institute.

Bad choice of words in a moment that needed swift action. What Lee meant was take the hill but if they put up a bigger fight don't push it. But didn't think they would do so, thus the hill would be in their hands. What Ewell heard was, if you want and can spare some men take the hill. But it has no priority. So he ignored the " suggestion" . Would it have mattered is a whole other question.

@@Stardweller1 He did very well against piss poor generals in his valley campaign. One that put him to the test was General Kimball who beat Jackson at 1st Battle of Kernstown. Sent Jackson and his men running. The next time Jackson, or rather his men met their match, was 2nd Bull Run, or rather the start to it where the Stonewall Brigade met the Iron Brigade, and walked away learning, the Union had their own crack units. Jackson is said have been desperate in that fight, which was unlike him. That day he was going toe to toe against General Gibbon, who was always one step ahead of Jackson. Jackson's engagement walked away with losses they could ill-afford, and took a massive beating to the Stonewall Brigade, which walked away with more losses then the Iron Brigade did, although they weren't known by that title at this time. I place several Union commanders above Jackson. Hancock, Gibbon, Kimball, Sherman, Thomas, McDowell, and Hooker, possibly. There weren't many in the Union army that could even handle Jackson. Gibbon & Kimball did. Hancock proved himself as a capable commander in many situations, Sherman did as well. Thomas did too. McDowell, had a green army but his plan was sound, and had piss poor subordinates such as...Burnside. Hooker was aggressive, and did force Lee to split his army, but lost faith in himself at a critical moment. Had he not...Chancellorsville might have been a Union victory. Coming down on the rebel army with 2 to 1 advantages, with their rear being cut off by a Union corp, they would've been doggedly fighting just to keep their lines of retreat open.

I agree Steven but the actor who is portraying Gen. Lee portrays him as aloof to the point of arrogance. Gen. Lee is hardly that. I submit Gen. Lee lost faith and may have unintentionally underestimated the Union Officer Corp based on how they conducted themselves and the strategies they used in past battles to this point. Gen. Lee was superintendent of West Point and knew so many of the Union Officers he engaged and fought against during the Civil War. Gen. Lee IS a genius; even at an early age, he was THAT Good so I'm not very happy with the way Gen. Lee was portrayed in this movie.

@@Dbusdriver71 disagree. Sheen played a complicated 19th century stoic Aristocrat like Lee was. He was a genius but still a man who had faults. That’s why I think it’s good to portray him that way and not the marble man

@@Dbusdriver71 Longstreet was better than Lee. Realistic and visionary.

@@MarkhasSteelfort BOTH should Genius thru out the Civil War. Gettysburg was a 'missed opportunity' that we look back on saying this was a turning point in American History that would have been 'if they had done thus'.

@@Dbusdriver71 honestly the more I look at Gettysburg it seems to become a study on why clear and concise communication and being able and willing to take the initiative is important for an army. Ewell not seizing the initiative he had won and falling back on the "if practical" part of Lee's order cost the Confederate's dearly. Then again on the second day General Anderson refused to reinforce Wright's Brigade after they took the crest of Cemetery Ridge and held it for 3 hours because he never received orders from AP Hill to advance. Then on the third day it is Longstreet delaying ordering Pickett to go forward. There are just so many instances at Gettysburg where if communication would have been more clear or commanders at the division level or higher had taken the initiative the Confederates might have won.

Also notice that the orderly looks confused and does not repeat the order back like in other scenes. He doesn't understand what General Lee means. When Stonewall Jackson gives orders he is more decisive and people understand his intention quickly.

Lee needed stonewall.

@@kevinpiacente3456 Yes he did, I was much more successful than Ewell.

@@kevinpiacente3456 Jackson was good but I fell he was overated

@@Strawberry-12. in what way??

I hope I can go there and visit one day. I live in Georgia, and there was quite a lot of battles here, but Gettysburg has always stuck out to me. Of course, it was one of the most if not the most important battle of the war.

Happy anniversary, I’m with you.

Well said.

My elementary school teacher said she wanted to leave immediately as she felt a very heavy presence. So did my language arts teacher in 9th grade.

Lee was the manager, Jackson was the prize fighter. They were a team, no one more valuable than the other, but without the other, the one left was bereft. I understand Lee's feelings perhaps more than most - the feeling that, with the death of someone important, you feel like your arm is missing, and things just don't quite go the way they used to. The Team isn't together any more. Here, we see Lee being the best manager he can, but without his prize fighter, he just can't win with the fighters he has left.

With those words, the battle - and the war - were lost for the Confederacy, though none yet knew it

brilliant take on this phase of the war

It depends what Jackson turned up. A seven days Jackson wouldn’t have even made it to Gettysburg.

If Lee had both Jackson and Longstreet at Gettysburg I can't imagine a similar outcome at all

Except that Lee's army didn't have the resources to fight two battles. Lee actually only had enough ammunition to fight one decisive battle. Plus, after the first day, there was every indication that the fight here could be a successful decisive battle. Lee's plan on Day 2 was sound, and only the execution was poor. Had Ewell and Longstreet's attacks been coordinated in time (which was mostly luck based, as command and control over that distance is problematic during this time period), the Federal Army would have been defeated and fallen back. Longstreet's 'plans' are to abandon the already successful action...move back through already scavenged land, cede the initiative to Meade....and blindly hope for another fight to materialize somewhere. This was never a practical or even worthwhile plan, and the myth surrounding its existence actively hinders an understanding of what actually happened during this campaign.

​@@dclark142002What two battles? Up until this point both armies had been involved in skirmishes at best. Lee's ammunition supply is irrelevant at this point because he'd barely started using it. Much of the effort on the Second Day was aimed at pushing the Federals off the high ground that they had regrouped on after falling back through the town. What was being advocated here was for the army to withdraw and regroup on more favorable terrain. That's basic strategy, especially at this point in military development. Similar strategies had been the primary reason for Lee's victories up to this point - not letting himself get bogged down in a place that was going to make him spend ammunition (and lives) any more than necessary. Which is exactly what he let happen at Gettysburg.

@@dclark142002 There wouldn't be two battles, this was a skirmish at best on day 1. Longstreet meant to disengage, not fight the enemy, making the supply point mute. Not an issue. Move south to Washington, the capital of the country, and FORCE the Union army to come at him on ground of the rebel's choosing. They needed Stuart to screen them though, and he was gone with the wind. However, the fight on Day 2, even if it had been coordinated well, the ground of Culp's Hill was well defended, with what was left of the Iron Brigade and other I Corps elements with II Corps and XI in support. There was no way in hell the Rebels would've won there. And they didn't. Their best chance was at the round tops where the Union was rushed to get men placed there. Sickles' in all his damn stupidity, accidentally stalled the enemy by moving his division forward. Idiot got a medal for that. It did force Hancock to send reinforcements that day, including what was left of the fabled Irish Brigade who marched into history that day, along with another regiment, the 1st Minnesota. Iron Brigade was already devastated and made their mark on history day 1. Now it was elements of the II Corps who would do the same.

He was using the speech patterns of his day.

No do it yourself

@CalvinV7 It don't matter when you're the head hocho

"lch hatte angeordnet den Hügel unter Feuer zu nehmen aber es passiert nichts. Schicken Sie jemanden, der nachsieht".

Every souvenir shop and t-shirt place in Gettysburg has the movie on a continuous loop. You can’t get away from it.

@@bcask61 I only heard the soundtrack in one muesem shop. I didn't see or hear the movie playing anywhere else

CALVIN FOSTER This video might be of interest to you, then: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fd2bhbp63MCYY3U.html The Townsends channel is a good reenactor channel focusing on 18th and 19th century reenactment (primarily food). In that video, he features Michael Twitty, who shows James Townsend a really tasty sounding barbecue. He also speaks a bit about black history and the challenges of being black and reenacting that period in history. I think it would be good for more black folk to get involved in reenactment. There's this perception that reenactors are there because they can be racist in an acceptable way, but I think most reenactors are there because they think that the clothing, the firearms, and the history interest them. Having more diversity in reenactment would help dispel this perception, I think.

Calvin, we might be kin as you and I share my mother's maiden name, lol. Anyway, as a born and raised Yankee I agree with you 100%. While I despise the radical republicans and the fire eaters of the South, I have a lot of admiration for )the fighting men and (most of) the leaders on both sides as well.

More Americans died in that conflict than any other.

It was just a sad and tragic time. Most Americans of the time on both sides were white supremacists, that's what they were brought up to believe so I hope you don't judge them through 2018 eyes. It was an erroneous and tragic belief that caused a massive stain on our history. I think slavery would have eventually died in the South anyway, not sure if you believe that, the Civil War just kind of sped it along. Sad so many had to die just to get things on the right track again. But war has a way of sorting things out.

Same, but as a white woman I hate how half of my people are mean to your people.

An excellent point. The War in the West is largely ignored.

Old comment, but yes. The Union control of the Mississippi was important not just to sever the west from the South, but also to allow commerce and supply for the Union. After Vicksburg, the Union grain could flow up and down the Mississippi and connected rivers.

It didn't help that Ewell, the key element of the crucial second day, was newly recovered from a serious wound, in poor health, and newly promoted.

@@jdsmith542 Also newly married, if I recall correctly.

Lee himself was also dealing with an illness. His health wasn't that great at this battle.

Yeah I'd have said something along the lines of "take if possible and if not maintain pressure on them".

Those words would have worked with Jackson in command...unfortunately he was already dead.

@@justinp5661 jackson would have already took it...

@@cm80 no he would have been reposled. The union had a fresh troops and 20 plus pieces to defend the hill. Plus the 12 and 3rd corp coming up

@@jasonadams9229 so ewell was right for being complacent? i disagree. lee wanted to be agressive.

The Emmettsburg Road held the key which was in confederate hands. Lee could have manoeuvred his army which would have put him between Meade and Washington thereby inducing Meade to attack. Another Lee BLUNDER!!!!

Yup, I thought Longstreet had the right idea on how to achieve a strategic victory over the North, not just a tactical one.

noleybo56 Gen. Lee was not prone to "blunders", however the Union generals executed one blunder after another in the early years of the war. You are correct however, that this was a tremendous blunder by Lee. Had he followed the recommendations of Longstreet and other subordinate generals, this "blood bath" for the Confederacy may not have occurred. Had they moved (deployed) the troops on a march towards Washington as suggested by Longstreet, Mead would have had to pull his army off of the heights at Gettysburg and follow. The Confederate troops (with intelligence and plenty of time) could have stopped and taken a position known from previous reconnaissance along the steep heights of the road and lay in wait for the Union army. Plus, the Confederates could have positioned a division or a corps. off of the main road behind the advancing Union army and come up behind them when they engaged the Confederates on the road which would have probably resulted in the Union army being caught in terrible fire from the front, the back, and from both sides.

I disagree with this. When you are in the enemy rear...you have to strike fast and hard. You don't have the luxury of hanging around playing defense.

​@Doug Bevins Sound reasoning except the use of the word traitors and patriots belie an even handed look at fact. Photos of confederate men captured at Gettysburg show emaciated soldiers. Asking/ordering emaciated men to march with little food and ammo would not advance the confederate "position". Elsewhere we see the artillery ordered to expend all their ammunition before Pickets charge. Lee may have felt he had to attack or not get another chance felt he had to attack or not get another chance. The dependence on "accepted" Napoleonic tactics was probably more destructive than the choice of location of the attack.

***** he was

+Thomas Baron Doubt it. The Confederates did not have cavalry till the third day. Withdrawing blind would be a disaster.

+Thomas Baron Lee's purpose was to engage the Federal Army in the North, in the Open, and defeat it. Day 1 of the battle certainly met the criteria. Once engaged, if he were to take Longstreet's advice, Lee would have had to disengage, move his army a sufficient distance away from the AotP, and then attempt to find a better location to fight the decisive battle Lee sought. Bear in mind that the road net restricts Lee's options here, as that Gettysburg is the nexus, and therefore all roads lead AWAY from where Longstreet wants to go. In addition, Longstreet and Lee only know the location of two or three of the seven Union corps. The main road around the union left is actually held by Federal forces. How can a blind movement into a strong force of Federals a good idea?Far better to attempt to attack as Lee did on day 2. That almost worked, and had Longstreet and Ewell properly coordinated, it had a good chance of succeeding. Day 3 was a gamble on Lee's part, since he could no longer afford to contemplate another battle beyond this one. Supplies, time, and ammunition meant that by day 3, Gettysburg had to be the decisive battle, and the only other option was a retreat. Lee gambled on pushing the force off the hill and lost.

+Aldous Jose A. Castro no it would not, Meade was reserved and defensive minded the whole campaign. He was passive.

Jackson, who was killed a few months before Gettysburg would have taken Culp's Hill without orders to deny the enemy a strong position. Its a pity for the Confederate Strategy, as Lee has been referenced as saying Stone Wall Jackson was like his Right Arm...so he issued orders to his Corps. as if he still had Jackson there, but instead, it was Ewell, a New to command general who did not have near the initiative Jackson would have had in his place. Longstreet was a Defensive Genius, but not as good at coordinating offensive actions as Jackson. Longstreet never wanted to stand up to Lee. Jackson, given his fiery personality would have convinced Lee to withdraw had it not been to their advantage. The entire Army of Northern Virginia, after a string of victories, particularly after Fredricksburg, had this air of Confidence and Ego bordering on Arrogance. They thought they were invincible despite the Union's larger numbers, they underestimated the commanders on the Union side, despite knowing all of them intimately, and encountered a Union army that had just had a new tougher supreme Commander named. Meade was tougher then Burnsides.

Longstreet on multiple occasions asked Lee to go to the right of Little Round Top. They would have had a chance to outflank the position. Most definitely if JEB Stuart and the Cavalry were available from the beginning instead of quote Riding around up North getting his name in the newspaper Lee could have properly scouted the area.

@@jasonhuff7725 Stuart's errors in this campaign were minor. The primary mistake was Lee's, who gave Stuart contradictory orders and failed to make proper use of the cavalry which Stuart left behind.. This error of Lee's led to the disastrous meeting engagement on 1 July, which all but ruined Lee's plan of campaign.

There's nothing brave about fighting for white supremacy. It's a hundred percent vile

the meeting scene is actually later on the second day. Without Stuart they had no idea how many men were actually there. The major detailing the plan estimates 70 000 to 90 000 men; Longstreet says 5 corps including 2 , while earlier he says 5 more meaning 7 corps. Stuart just left the others guessing, and everyone paid for it

Easier said than done as far as moving south and east - that was where the union army was coming up from in the first place. But no doubt a more defensive mindset would have been smarter.

Also, who knows which way the Union army would've retreated. Since much fo the damage was done to the northeast, perhaps the Union retreats southwest towards Frederick. If so, that opens up a lot of railroads and ways in which the Confederate forces could try to slip around the Union forces. It also could've turned into a divide-and-conquer situation. There's just no way to be sure.

Still would have been a tall order to get around the Union army and lay siege to the most heavily defended city in the world at the time. They would have to have hoped to take the city immediately as Meade would have been hot on their tail.

@@CowboyAxe When DC was half the size with no fortifications at all? Bad comparison but ok. Also comparing the British army to the Confederates is interesting but ok

@@CowboyAxe Over 40 forts built no more than a mile apart with interlocking fields of fire, connected trench lines and rifling pits, 90,000 or so troops in Meade's army, 50-70,000 fresh troops at any given time in DC with up and coming officers ready to lead and no Confederate Navy to think of to blockade DC from the coast to stop supplies. Explain how the confederates would have done it.

He was a very humble man so try again

Lee had no ego. I don't know what you're talking about. Lee was not the direct cause of the loss. Ewell's mistake on day 1, Stuart and his calvary missing and areas not being scouted, and a few other things. Had Ewell occupied Culp’s Hill, the union army would have had to leave and fought somewhere else that might not have been to their advantage. Also nightfall at Culp's Hill played a factor. Had it not been for the darkness, they would have been able to capture Culp's Hill and Baltimore Pike, which was where the union’s communication line, all the supply waggons, artilery, etc was. They would have forced Meade to retreat and it would have been a turning point in the war for confederate victory.

"Lee had no ego." Well, there is the "marble man" myth proved. Everyone has ego. Everyone. There was once a story recited about Lee after the war. While at Lee college, there was two young honeys talking to him on horseback. They were young and starstruck. Lee's horse kept bucking and neighing, but Lee got him under control, much two the delight of the woman. It turns out Lee was digging his spur in the horse's side to incite the horse. He was "showing off" for the ladies. I get why he did it, just do not put someone on such a high pedestal that they are immune from judgement.

It wasn't Lee's ego, it was his terrible desperation to end the war right then a d there that clouded his judgment.

In hindsight everyone can be the wiser man. Being in the spotlight at the time when things go down on the other hand, matters are not at all as clear. From Lee's point of view, where he was positioned, he must have felt sure of his actions.

13 years later. That's crazy dude, that this clip has been up for 13 years. I fuckin love this movie, ever since I was a kid. And I love your comment. Grant's a fuckin legend, one of my personal heroes, for being a troubled man with many failings and failures, but being uniquely suited to the task at hand. An absolute brilliant commander and THE man to defeat Lee. 13 years later lol, hope you still check your youtube 🤘🤘

George Meade is also one of the few not to be intimidated by Lee and Gettysburg showed it.

@@HuesopandillaGlorius No disrespect to Meade, as I am sure that he'd agree with this if he was alive to say this.. But the ones that won this battle for the North were Hancock, Buford, and, last but certainly no means least, Reynolds.

Oh and can't forget Warren.

Vicksburg fell basically immediately after this. No Pennsylvania invasion would have saved the South.

@@xotl2780 if they'd marched on DC and actually won, nothing else would have mattered

Jake Mackie By this point in time, the south was already being choked to death, and it was established after Antietam that the south would receive no support from Britain or France, which was vital. All a Gettysburg victory would’ve led to would be Lee’s forces remaining intact and the war going on a little longer than it did. Grant’s campaign in the west had basically sealed the confederacy’s fate already

Unlucky*

@@DialgaMarine3 George B. McClellan wanted to conclude peace in 1894 on some terms or other and he lost to Lincoln by 5%. There were anti draft riots all over the North. A capture of DC would've forced the north to negotiate.

Yup and good riddance

If practicable means i am the commanding general and i am not up front like you are so i leave it to your judgement

The confederacy was already losing when Gettysburg happened even if the confederacy won the battle Vicksburg would still fall and the Army of the Potomac would just come back.

Yes you're right - a very important hill indeed! ;-)

Doubtful that Gettysburg would have happened at all. Lee only split Jackson's Second Corps after his death. Had he not died that split would not have happened and you wouldn't have had the massive scattering of Lee's army in the days leading up to Gettysburg. Remember that it was Heth's division of Hill's Third Corps that ran into Buford's calvary; those units used to be under Jackson in the Second Corps.

Doubtful. The entire campaign was a clusterf--k waiting to happen.

From a New Jerseyian the critics and leftists pricks do not realize just how close things were. For all the stereotyping they do of the South they fail to realize how fierce and cunning opponents the Confederates were.

I have wondered that also, one can only speculate but given the fact that Jackson was a far different general than Ewell the outcome most certainly would have been different. Would it have lead to a total Confederate victory and an independent CSA well that we will never know.

@Doug Bevins He's quoting a line from the clip. He's quoting Longstreet, in particular.

Longstreet suffered from the 'slows', particularly when he was opposed to the plan, such as he was at Gettysburg. Lee had a blind spot for Longstreet's failing in that regard.

I agree. And the advantage would of gone to the Confederate army.

Absolutely, that one sentence changed the course of history.

You are right on the ball their friend. Although the notion still stands. Had the hills been taken. Perhaps more casualties on the Union side might been doubled.

I think Longstreet had the right idea, they should have redeployed and moved between the Army of the Potomac and D.C., and fought the Union Army on ground of their choosing in a defensive battle. Fredericksburg, Antietam, the Siege of Petersburg, Vicksburg, and other battles showed I think how a smaller confederate force could maul a much larger Federal force if they were in good defensive positions with supporting units and secure flanks, I believe the concept of invading the North was defeat the Union Army outside the Capital, and then dictate terms of peace to Lincoln in the White House. Theyd essentially have Lincoln by the balls at that point.

Rimasta1 Oh I dont know. Moving across the front of an entrenched enemy? Without Stuart's cavalry to screen? Would have been risky, to say the least.

It's insanely humid in PA in the summer too...

The North would have had a similar position as the actual battle as the ANV had no actual reason to even fight for Gettysburg and the AoTP any real reason to defend it. Lee would have just halted his army for no good reason. The Union didn't need to attack them at all had they occupied all the high ground and the town. It was only because Lee attacked them and forced them onto the ridges that it became a battle. What would happen is not Gettysburg but another battle further east with another name with the Union already entrenched and the Confederates having wasted days and weeks sitting on top of militarily useless hills, the column probably being raided from behind by Buford and other Union cavalry.

If Ewell took the heights Meade would have pulled back. He already had plans to do so. Gettysburg would have simply been a 1 day skirmish.

Travis Erickson meade was new in command, an confronted by the best general the south had, was hesitating, tje high ground saved the uinion.

Frank McWilliams It's hard to say. Meade in general had a reputation for being indecisive, but this was countered by his familiarity with Pennsylvania. If the battle wasn't IN Pennsylvania, who knows what might have happened. Probably not a presidency-defining battle victory which turned the election for Lincoln, though, and Jeb Stuart probably would've had a field day burning crops in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and maybe even New Jersey. If you don't press Lee, he can either cause trouble north or head to Washington..and he'd be picking the battlefield then.

Interestingly enough, Lee wasn't as strong at the logistical game as Grant...and it REALLY hurts him at Gettysburg. After all, why can't Lee withdraw? He doesn't have a source of food that isn't the farms he has already marched over...so he has to move into untouched areas. Why does Lee stay for day 2 and day 3? He doesn't have enough ammunition to fight more than one major battle...and day 1 was sexy enough to get him to stay. But once he stays, he can't withdraw or redeploy because the Federal army blocks the only ways for Lee to move that allow Lee to continue campaigning. If Lee has to move away from the battle after day 1, he essentially is forced to end the campaign. Brilliant positioning and maneuvering by Meade.

Grant was at Vicksburg.

@@Jermster_91 that's how good of a general he was. Grant could command troops wherever he was and he wasn't even the head of the army at the time, LOL

Longstreet was a defensive genera; unlike Jackson and Lee, he hated open engagements. Moving him into Jackson's role was one of Lee's most costly errors. Lee's plans called for a high degree of personal daring and initiative from his corps commanders, and at Gettysburg he was poorly served by his generals.

Someone said the Confederacy "died of a theory" as they realized the same thing later in the war. Joe Brown, governor of Georgia withheld supplies to the main armies throughout the war, saving them for "our own boys"; he threatened to secede from the CSA in 1864 on more than one occasion.

@@indy_go_blue6048 also didnt the rail lines stay private, so the CSA army could not travel by rail unless they went to each owner to get permission to use the rail. that would really suck to be out of supplies because a governor did not want to contribute to the supply effort. all of that food just sitting there but out of reach

The war wasn't about slavery.

Hyunjay Cho guess what? Only four states cited slavery as one of the causes. Many states refused to join the csa until Lincoln’s call for troops. This was a defensive war against tyranny.

You like to play with fire huh? 😅

Doc Holiday oh so when the CSA said they would offer no quarter to black prisoners that wasn’t evil? How about those states sending people into other states, overriding those state laws to get their slaves back? That seems like tyranny on the part of slave states.

Lincoln didn’t care if the slaves were freed or not and the war was really about economic growth of the union

Lee believed in defeating the enemy army in the field. That was the norm in those days. Once the enemy army was defeated then the politics could happen. He thought he was in a good position to defeat them and he want wrong. Day 2 of Gettysburg was about 60k vs 70k. Victory might have meant a new nation in the south,

Hmmmmm, I never bought Longstreet's vision. You can play defense on your own ground, not when you are in the enemies rear. The North would have cut them off from their supplies and starved them out.

mark viking The Confederate army was already north of the Union army. If anything, his strategy would have brought the Confederate forces closer to Virginia (though the Union forces would still be out there, of course). In addition, the land in Maryland was a little more friendly to the Confederates than Pennsylvania was - Maryland was a Southern state which had been policed harshly by Lincoln to prevent it from joining the Confederacy. Check out what happened later with Jubal Early and Monocacy. The game would be to get to Washington before the Union could reinforce those forts, and I think they might have. All they had to do was embarrass Lincoln, but they failed to do so.

Absolutely correct. Faced with such as disadvantageous situation before Gettysburg, and given Lee's previous strategic skill, one wonders why he did not launch a powerful feint attack there to temporarily throw Union forces onto the defensive, then quickly disengage and march his army against Washington, D.C. I can only speculate that he was prevented from doing so by Jefferson Davis, who had previously, at Bull Run, forbade his field commanders from moving on the Capital. Any enlightenment concerning this issue would be welcome.

@@markviking7617 When he is talking about 'playing defense', he means to have the Union attack CSA dug-in positions. He doesn't mean to sit in a castle for 4 months, it's still a 3 day battle. Defensive works, simple items such as breastwork and trenches lower causality greatly. Look at how well those 2 fences worked in the Union Favor

Lol. The Confederates, the 2nd Miss that the 6th WI attacked at the railroad cut, had another Yankee regiment on the run. He simply waited and blindsided that Confederate regiment that day. The 2nd Miss had bad leadership also under President Davis’ nephew, (the brigade commander)he was simply a political appointee.

It's a shame that this movie was based on a novel instead of actual history; now a generation of people believe this is the way it really happened, right down to the speeches.

Yes the Pennsylvania campaign represented Lee’s last best chance for a tactical triumph that may have led to victory- however after Day One it would have been very difficult to “redeploy” as Longstreet suggested without Stuart’s “still missing” Calvary to screen the movement and give Lee accurate information on Meade”s position and positioning in response to Lee’s movements

Federal government should have more authority than states, otherwise the nation will never be strong enough. Without federal authority, you can bet colored people would have still been treated separately like garbage in the South, even to this day. Some states might have even stayed out from the World Wars.

As an Australian we have a Federal Govt and State Govts. But the Fed Govt is much stronger than that of the States. For example the Senate is by far the weaker of our two houses of parliament. Everytime I go to the individual states in the US ts like visiting different countries. Each seems to have so many policies such as personal income tax and foreign investment laws etc that to me seem best left to unified Federal laws. And this is not to mention phone, train, and bus systems etc. It can be so confusing. I am not being critical, just a bit confused, lol.

Propably becouse it has 2 quite similar armies fighting against each others, as it was a civil war. In European wars it was often nations of roughly equal size fighting against each others, and their armies could be quite different. Every war is interesting if you search deep enough. But on the top, American civil war can seem as boring, a far smaller nation trying to fight against far larger nation with quite similar tactics and armies.

I supposed if we call it a secession war (though a failed one) it might be better recieved.

Exaclty who said the war was "boring" ?

"if practicable". Simply means take the hill...

By putting "if practicable" in his orders, Lee was giving a subordinate commander discretion to take or not take the hill, depending on any number of circumstances that the subordinate commander might choose to consider. My men are tired. The day is getting hot, and my men are thirsty and hungry. My units are disorganized from previous fighting. My units are low on ammunition. It looks like the Union army has moved reinforcements onto the hill, that Lee was probably unaware of when he gave the order. Oh well, it no longer looks "practicable" to take the hill, so I will stop and not try to take it.

Gregoryt700 Oh boy, a PhD! You and your colleagues post here quite a bit. I suppose I should be honored to reply.

+Gregoryt700 grant was bloodied because he faced a better general. 60000 troops in six weeks should tell you that.

Gentleman is not a title that a gentleman takes for himself, but is instead something that is recognized in others. You are no gentleman, I fear, regardless of whether or not you are correct.

I'd also like to add that Lee lost more men commanding one Army than Grant did commanding FIVE. Lee was not nearly as good of a general as people make him out to be.

Had Lee taken command of the Union army instead of going with VA, the war would've been over in 1862. No way he would've pissed around in front of Williamsburg, Yorktown and Richmond like McClelland did. He was a good general, he simply didn't have the means to fight the way he wanted to and once Grant came along, as well as he handled things between the Wilderness and Richmond, he was finished, and he knew it but he continued to do his duty as he saw it.

yes Lee tried throwing his army into politics instead of keeping his head into strategy. why didnt they just sneak some soilders into DC and set the city on fire that would have allowed Lee to come in and get his victory in the north. cant be in two places at the same time and lincoln would have demanded the fire be put out.

I'm sure Robert E. Lee would've benefited with you armchair generals speaking from such insightful hindsight... While the Confederates were winning defensive battles in the East, they were losing in the West and still suffering from the Union blockade. Lee's forces were also not in a position to besiege Washington D.C. with the Army of the Potomac still a threat. The plan was to lure them away from D.C., swing around and cut them off from the capital, and win a defensive battle (ie. as is specifically mentioned in the scene you're commenting on) before either marching on Washington or hoping it would cause enough fear about D.C.'s fate and play on North's public opinion of how the war was going, after so many recent defeats, for the Union to sue for peace. It was an act of desperation, and 'sneaking in and setting the city on fire' would've both been an uncivilized act of terrorism and act as a rallying cry for the North.

I didn't say to sneak in a set the place on fire. That was the other guy. As far as me being an "armchair general", Lee didn't need me to tell him this, most of his generals also told him this. They also told him not to charge a fortified position across a mile of open terrain, but he didn't listen to them either. Old Robbie started believing in his own myth. Hubris. You guys that worship at the alter of Robert E. Lee all seem to make him out to be some high minded genius, but seem to forget the only reason he wasn't completely wiped out in his first year of command is because his men were suicidal fanatics and the Union Generals were completely incompetent. It's easy to be the smartest guy in a room full of coma patients. It doesn't take a brilliant mind to line your men up behind cover and shoot across open fields at men charging in formation. And don't bother bringing up Chancellorsville. Dividing the army wasn't brilliance, it was desperation and he was lucky.

ered203 Did I say it was you? No? I was just making a general response to both of your points? That's right. Is what you *DID* say about "the entire campaign into the North"? Yes. Did I address that? Yes. Did you try to project the thoughts regarding Pickett's Charge onto "the entire campaign"? Yes. Did I focus exclusively on the Confederate's situation in the war at that point and the campaign's intentions and goals? Yes. Did I say anything opinionated about Lee? No. Yet you wanted to rant about 'worshipping the altar of Robert E. Lee' anyways that just proved how you really only have an ax to grind...aight then. That said, it's fitting the rest was just ad hominems, but given the comment as a whole, the best part is you don't see the irony in talking about "hubris"...

I was a Marine in Vietnam, then (as a civilian) on the faculty of the Army War College. Included a tour of the Gettysburg battlefield. Unanimous view (all 270 of us veterans) that the dumbest corporals in our units would never have made the attacks on either the 2nd or 3rd days - just be on the ground and look where the Confederates had to attack. Ought to have hanged Lee after the battle, or ignored his commands for frontal attacks (which at best wastes inferior numbers of troops) or removed him.

Longstreet addresses his view of the Stuart situation in his memoirs pretty well. Another note from Longstreet's memoirs is he thanks some of his staff that fought with him through the war by name. One of those was a Major Peyton Msnning.