@@KneesPHD it wasn't Cemetery Hill they were referring to, it was Culps Hill. At this time, Culps Hill had the remnants of 1 division of the 1st corps defending it, probably less than 1000 men.
There's more to the controversy than what is shown in the film. By any measure, he also made mistakes in command of his corps at Gettysburg, which the film glosses over entirely.
@@mikem9001 And what controversy isn't shown in the film? Aside from him openly disagreeing with Lee's battle plans and tactics and his disdain for Gen. Bragg?
@@KoMDraegast Its not clear that he did disagree with Lee's battle plan in the way he tried to suggest later, and he didn't disagree with his tactics. Like I said, the film glosses over that entirely.
North: 22 million people, more industrialized, more tech, overwhelming navy. South: 9 million people, agriculture income with slaves. Sure, going on defense and make more trenches. Jackson and Longstreet surely are the south pride.
@@nacionaldelacapital Same old crap about the Yanks having more people. Doesn't matter if you lack the will to win. The South came close to winning the war on a number of occasions. Learn your history.
@@academyofshem they never had a chance, learn your history. People in the south were starving from the northern blockade and by the time Gettysburg was happening the entire confederacy had been split in two by union forces. The only reason the south hung on so long is the incompetent leadership of the army of the Potomac in the first 2 years of the war.
@@brendanbrandau9306 You should read more Catton. You have to take into account Northern war-weariness. As late as the summer of '64, Lincoln wrote that he didn't think he was going to win the election, and the Democratic platform of 1864 was very clear they wanted to end the war: "That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view of an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States." And besides, Ginger Baker was a total asshole.
@@academyofshem - July 4th, 1863 is the key to understanding how the South was defeated. Gettysburg and Vicksburg. Only the northern papers shrilled about how costly the war was and Union defeat "would be eminent." Lincoln and Grant persevered and the Union was victorious....plus the North certainly had the manpower and industrial strength to accomplish that goal.
If Lee was going to follow Longstreet's advice he had to do it right then, on Day 1, July 1. But, Ewell's corps was still scattered back to the north and some of it did not arrive at Gettysburg until after dark. By first light on July 2 it was already too late to conduct Longstreet's flank march. The meeting with Ewell, Early, Rodes, and Hill that was in the extended version tells the whole story. Now, what if the Army of Northern Virginia could have pulled off a successful flank march, then what? Meade would have retired as quickly as he could back toward Washington. Meade had plans to set up defenses at Pipe Creek and had he beaten Lee there, then...the same situation would have existed. Again, Lee would have faced the same question: attack an entrenched enemy or conduct another flanking march.
I have read Confederate diaries (archived at the Army Heritage and Education Center beside Carlisle Barracks, Carlisle, PA) of the regiments that bonded with Jackson to Chancellorsville and then when the Army of Northern Virginia were reconstituted into 3 Corps, not two, once led by Jackson and Longstreet. The diaries were quite explicit by "the average Johnny Reb," that IF Jackson was leading the Corps, they would have swept through Gettysburg and headed straight for Washington, D.C........"but, alas!"
Of this is historically accurate I don't see how Lee is considered such a good General. The obvious move would be too redeploy towards Washington and find advantageous position. Not attack an entrenched enemy that had the high ground.
They dramatize this a bit obviously. Lee did consider Longstreet's idea, but he did not have any info on the Union strength or position. Stuart was gone, so good scouting was almost impossible. If Lee had followed Longstreet's suggestion, they would have ended up running into 2 more Union corps marching from the south.
@@Charles-mz7rm yes, but they would have been able to find themselves ground that gives them the advantage. Then they would have entrenched giving them even more of an advantage.
Grant was busy taking Vicksburg down south and strangling the CSA. If Lee tried Longstreet's method he might have gotten to DC itself but the state militias would be horrified to hear that Grant and his troops would be burning their homes and towns, striking at the south via the coasts and Mississppi River. Win they might but they will return to ashes.
@@kevinsteele8447 If Lee won, and the Union Army went streaming back to Washington, there was nothing that would have kept the Army of Northern Virginia out of Philadelphia, Boston, New York City...
@@kevinsteele8447 Not really. Likely thing would've happened was officials would've left Washington and just told the other armies to put the squeeze on their other fronts, at the end of the day, this war was not about tactics as much as it was about resources. The north was richer, had more industry, more resources, more food, more men, and more money, and most importantly, a vastly better navy. The blockade of the south was one of the big reasons why the rebels were trying to bring about a quick peace treaty. Their hope was to create fatigue amongst the northern states to push for peace, maybe even get Lincoln ousted in the next election. There were too many factors going against the rebels, and too many weak points. There are a lot of maybes that go along with it. This is the same argument people use about Germany and WW2. What if they had taken Stalingrad, what if the Normandy invasion failed, etc. Maybe the war goes on a bit longer, but the likely scenario is still that usually the richer side wins.
@@academyofshem Other than supply lines...In this movie, Lee says that they cannot sustain themselves in this part of the country, they have to force a decisive victory. Lee would've maybe made it to Washington, and likely found it abandoned by the government (like they did in 1812), and moved to Philadelphia or New York. And some other Northern Army would've come up behind Lee and trapped him. And if you think the people in places like Philadelphia and New York would've been accommodating to this invasion...well you're wrong. Lee would've basically found himself behind enemy lines if he ventured that far north.
0:50 Practicable. Didn't sound right, but I looked it up, and it's a real word. prac·ti·ca·ble /ˈpraktəkəb(ə)l/ adjective able to be done or put into practice successfully. "the measures will be put into effect as soon as is reasonably practicable"
2 words that altered the course of the war: "If practicable".
It wasn't practicable to take cemetery hill on July 1, 2 or 3rd
@@KneesPHD it wasn't Cemetery Hill they were referring to, it was Culps Hill. At this time, Culps Hill had the remnants of 1 division of the 1st corps defending it, probably less than 1000 men.
1:37
This, in solely my opinion, was the mindset that lost Lee the battle.
I could never understand the south thinking Gen. Longstreet cost them the war he was an outstanding officer.
There's more to the controversy than what is shown in the film. By any measure, he also made mistakes in command of his corps at Gettysburg, which the film glosses over entirely.
@@mikem9001 Longstreet was one of the most successful commanders of the Civil War.
@@mikem9001 And what controversy isn't shown in the film? Aside from him openly disagreeing with Lee's battle plans and tactics and his disdain for Gen. Bragg?
@@MarkhasSteelfort He had his ups and downs like everyone. To his defenders he was the best, to others, not so much.
@@KoMDraegast Its not clear that he did disagree with Lee's battle plan in the way he tried to suggest later, and he didn't disagree with his tactics. Like I said, the film glosses over that entirely.
Longstreet strategy make more sense.
North: 22 million people, more industrialized, more tech, overwhelming navy. South: 9 million people, agriculture income with slaves. Sure, going on defense and make more trenches. Jackson and Longstreet surely are the south pride.
@@nacionaldelacapital Same old crap about the Yanks having more people. Doesn't matter if you lack the will to win. The South came close to winning the war on a number of occasions. Learn your history.
@@academyofshem they never had a chance, learn your history. People in the south were starving from the northern blockade and by the time Gettysburg was happening the entire confederacy had been split in two by union forces. The only reason the south hung on so long is the incompetent leadership of the army of the Potomac in the first 2 years of the war.
@@brendanbrandau9306 You should read more Catton. You have to take into account Northern war-weariness. As late as the summer of '64, Lincoln wrote that he didn't think he was going to win the election, and the Democratic platform of 1864 was very clear they wanted to end the war:
"That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view of an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States."
And besides, Ginger Baker was a total asshole.
@@academyofshem - July 4th, 1863 is the key to understanding how the South was defeated. Gettysburg and Vicksburg. Only the northern papers shrilled about how costly the war was and Union defeat "would be eminent." Lincoln and Grant persevered and the Union was victorious....plus the North certainly had the manpower and industrial strength to accomplish that goal.
"Yay, we've driven them back through Gettysburg and up onto that worthless hill you see yonder. We've got them now for sure."
Said Gen. Ewell.
If Lee was going to follow Longstreet's advice he had to do it right then, on Day 1, July 1. But, Ewell's corps was still scattered back to the north and some of it did not arrive at Gettysburg until after dark. By first light on July 2 it was already too late to conduct Longstreet's flank march. The meeting with Ewell, Early, Rodes, and Hill that was in the extended version tells the whole story.
Now, what if the Army of Northern Virginia could have pulled off a successful flank march, then what? Meade would have retired as quickly as he could back toward Washington. Meade had plans to set up defenses at Pipe Creek and had he beaten Lee there, then...the same situation would have existed. Again, Lee would have faced the same question: attack an entrenched enemy or conduct another flanking march.
Given what happened, the flanking march would’ve been better by default. Hindsight is 20/20 but even so.
If Jackson had been available, they could very well have swept into Gettysburg...but, alas.
Very True
They DID sweep into Gettysburg. It was the high ground outside the town that confounded the CSA and stopped their advance.
@@SantomPh general Jackson would have secured the heights past the town on cemetary ridge
I have read Confederate diaries (archived at the Army Heritage and Education Center beside Carlisle Barracks, Carlisle, PA) of the regiments that bonded with Jackson to Chancellorsville and then when the Army of Northern Virginia were reconstituted into 3 Corps, not two, once led by Jackson and Longstreet. The diaries were quite explicit by "the average Johnny Reb," that IF Jackson was leading the Corps, they would have swept through Gettysburg and headed straight for Washington, D.C........"but, alas!"
Of this is historically accurate I don't see how Lee is considered such a good General. The obvious move would be too redeploy towards Washington and find advantageous position. Not attack an entrenched enemy that had the high ground.
They dramatize this a bit obviously. Lee did consider Longstreet's idea, but he did not have any info on the Union strength or position. Stuart was gone, so good scouting was almost impossible. If Lee had followed Longstreet's suggestion, they would have ended up running into 2 more Union corps marching from the south.
@@Charles-mz7rm True.
@@Charles-mz7rm yes, but they would have been able to find themselves ground that gives them the advantage. Then they would have entrenched giving them even more of an advantage.
Pride goes before the fall !
I always wonder what would have happened if Lee listened to Longstreet. Good thing he didn't haha.
Grant was busy taking Vicksburg down south and strangling the CSA. If Lee tried Longstreet's method he might have gotten to DC itself but the state militias would be horrified to hear that Grant and his troops would be burning their homes and towns, striking at the south via the coasts and Mississppi River.
Win they might but they will return to ashes.
We would've won
@@kevinsteele8447 If Lee won, and the Union Army went streaming back to Washington, there was nothing that would have kept the Army of Northern Virginia out of Philadelphia, Boston, New York City...
@@kevinsteele8447 Not really. Likely thing would've happened was officials would've left Washington and just told the other armies to put the squeeze on their other fronts, at the end of the day, this war was not about tactics as much as it was about resources. The north was richer, had more industry, more resources, more food, more men, and more money, and most importantly, a vastly better navy. The blockade of the south was one of the big reasons why the rebels were trying to bring about a quick peace treaty. Their hope was to create fatigue amongst the northern states to push for peace, maybe even get Lincoln ousted in the next election. There were too many factors going against the rebels, and too many weak points. There are a lot of maybes that go along with it. This is the same argument people use about Germany and WW2. What if they had taken Stalingrad, what if the Normandy invasion failed, etc. Maybe the war goes on a bit longer, but the likely scenario is still that usually the richer side wins.
@@academyofshem Other than supply lines...In this movie, Lee says that they cannot sustain themselves in this part of the country, they have to force a decisive victory. Lee would've maybe made it to Washington, and likely found it abandoned by the government (like they did in 1812), and moved to Philadelphia or New York. And some other Northern Army would've come up behind Lee and trapped him. And if you think the people in places like Philadelphia and New York would've been accommodating to this invasion...well you're wrong. Lee would've basically found himself behind enemy lines if he ventured that far north.
God if he listened to Longstreet
Bobby Lee's ego lost the war for the south.....long live the USA
Tell him to take that hill, if practical
Its a good thing that Lee said 'if practical'
Except he didn't. He said, "practicable." Confused me-had to look it up to make sure it was a real word-so it must have confused Ewell. 0:50
@@academyofshem hmmm... practicable means doable no? If so, how come they didn't do it? Any way, its good for Meade's men and the Union they didn't
@@vicmontseq Yep. Ewell screwed the pooch.
@@academyofshem Good for the Union
@@academyofshem yes he did. Cost the south Gettysburg and probably the war
shoulda listened to Longstreet, but the list goes on - 'jeb' Stuart shoulda done his job
and yeah IF 'stonewall' had been there ...
This is the biggest mistake order. Ewell never understood the order
"If practicable."
@@joshuadesautels lost them the battle
@@kevinpiacente3456 Yep.
General lee sending out “ fb and what’s app messages in 1863 on horse haha
"if practical"
0:50 Practicable. Didn't sound right, but I looked it up, and it's a real word. prac·ti·ca·ble
/ˈpraktəkəb(ə)l/
adjective
able to be done or put into practice successfully.
"the measures will be put into effect as soon as is reasonably practicable"
@@academyofshem👍 said Practical not Practicable.
@@badmonkey2222 That's what Martin said.
@@academyofshem ah yes ok.
@@badmonkey2222 Dang. Most of those actors know how to ride a horse. Every time Sheen gets on a horse it scares me to death.
Why does it cut off mid sentence
Lets secede if practical 🤣
Lee was responsible for losing the battle of Gettysburg. Greatly overrated general.
Of course, the Union army had a bit to do with the outcome.