History Professor Breaks Down "Gettysburg" (Part 1) / Reel History
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- (Day 1, July 1) The epic 1993 film "Gettysburg" brings to life the events that changed American History during the bloodiest battle of the American Civil War. Historian and former Gettysburg park ranger Jared Frederick walks us though the film and the history, separating fact from fiction.
Turner Classic Movies commentary link. • Introduction of the Mo...
Reel History delves into historical films to separate fact from fiction. These engaging episodes explore, contextualize, and clarify stories related to the most famous historical movies. In contrast to the more prevalent "reaction" videos, these installments seek not only to entertain but to educate and inform. For host Jared Frederick and video editor Andrew Collins, these Reel History episodes are a labor of love and a means of expressing passion for the past as well as cinema. Courteous viewer feedback is always welcomed. Contact information for the hosts is available on the homepage.
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED. All rights belong to their respective owners.
![Run Away - Tzuyu(TWICE) ツウィ 쯔위 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240906](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KnHNNyAYiu0/mqdefault.jpg)
No one ever mentions the film score. I believe that this can make or break a movie. I love this sound track.
Amen!
Agreed. Music is the voice of the soul, and it gives context to the world you're building. It's also one of the reasons Lord of the rings was so popular. Howard Shore did an amazing job on that movie's sound.
Unfortunately, like with the Star Wars movies, there's far too much of it.
@@Holdit66, too dramatic a score perhaps?
No perfect for the music
This film has been one of my favorite "War movies" since I first watched it in '93. Sam Elliot and Martin Sheen are very convincing in their respective roles. Last year I purchased the Anniversary DVD to get the directors cut of this film and "God & Generals". Been to Harpers Ferry twice. Love that place.
Member of American Battlefield Trust.
Cheers!
I'm heading to Gettysburg next month 8/2023 on my motorcycle for a bike rally. This is around my 15th visit to Gettysburg. My first visit influenced my lifelong passion for studying the ACW, even though I was only 4 or 5 years old (I'm 66 now). In 2008 and 2013, I reenacted at Gettysburg for the 145th and 150th anniversaries. My most memorable part of the reenactment was when we recreated Pickett's Charge. It really helped me understand how the lines fell apart the closer we got to the Union line. It really was amazing.
Ironically with my interest in CW history, of my 8 gr gr grandfathers who lived in the US at the time, only 3 were soldiers. Two Union 13th Indiana Cavalry and 48th Wisconsin Inf and one Confederate the 40th Georgia infantry. All of them fought in the Western Theater. I'm originally from Southern Indiana along the Ohio River. My dad's family The Hunts were originally from Virginia and my mom's family The Miller's were from Kentucky. The Hunts moved to Indiana in 1835 and many of the Miller's still lived in Kentucky when the war started.
The biggest problem with Gettysburg is that it overshadows the Union victory at Vicksburg which occurred one day later. The Western Theater battles, except for Shiloh, were often overlooked by the eastern press at the time.
I thought Berenger (aside from the beard) and Lang much more convincing in their performances. Sheen was the least convincing as his character. Duvall (the director’s original choice to play Lee) showed he would have been much more convincing as Lee when they did “Gods and Generals”.
I am a HUGE Sam Elliott fan, but found this to be one of my least favorite roles. In the lead up to battle, he waa far too over the top.
After Chamberlain died his family looked for his MOH but could not find it among his possessions. It was missing for 80 years, IIRC. His granddaughter, and last surviving relative, donated her estate to a church in Massachusetts. The church held an estate sale to raise money and a person perusing books found the medal being used as a book mark! Knowing what it was and realizing its historic significance it was given back to his heirs and is now in a museum in Maine.
I read his book ‘The Passing of the Armies’. The style of writing was so elegant, I had to read some passages 2 or 3 times to grasp what he was saying.
So you say his last surviving relative, and then you say "heirs" which is it?
When a person dies whoever is legally entitled to his estate is their heir or heirs. They don't have to be relatives. His last relative died without a child but someone was still legally entitled to their property. It is the root of the word inheritance. According to the DOD web site that relates MOH stories, "Chamberlain's original Medal of Honor resides with the Pejepscot Historical Society, which owns and operates the Joshua L. Chamberlain Museum near Bowdoin College. According to the school, an anonymous donor found the medal in the back of a book the donor had bought at a church sale. That church had been gifted the estate of Rosamond Allen, Chamberlain’s granddaughter and last surviving descendant, when she died in 2000." @@euj0
I'm Australian and this is one of my favourite movies of all time. For me, I will only ever watch the director's cut. The running time never feels like an issue.
This series of videos have been great to watch. You've done a great job. Most of these historical movie review channels are just people giving info that they've found online or wherever, but your time as a battlefield guide at Gettysburg has given all the information much more credence.
Top job mate!
Thanks!
For the longest time it was possible to watch the directors cut on youtube, someone had uploaded it in great quality. Was taken down eventually
In the UK, Gettysburg was shown in selected cinemas and I saw it here in London, it's amazing experience to watch it on the big screen especially Pickett's Charge. I have also owned the video, DVD and the director's cut Blu -ray edition.
I saw it at Grauman's Chinese Theatre.
How did you find the portrayal of the British officer Fremantle?
found it ridiculous! everyone in pretty new uni's, perfect flags, as those fat 'confederate' reinactors walked around. everyone who spoke always issued great perfound stmts, never just spoke.
Every time I watch this film, I am always shocked that Pickett’s Charge takes place so early in the movie before reminding myself that we are over 3 hours into the movie 🤣
As a Pennsylvanian from Allentown,only about 2 and a half hrs. from Gettysburg, I have visited there more than a dozen times. Everytime I go I learn something new. Oh, the Lutheran Seminary has now reopened as a great Museum worth a visit. You can go up into the cupola and see what Beauford saw. It's a real Ah Ha Moment! I must say I love this presentation and have learned quite a few facts I had not known! Thank!
Being a resident of Emmaus, Pa., your thoughts and experiences match my own. Good job!
My cousin Gregg is one of those Reenactor background artists who LOVED being a part of this film. He even got a five second close up!
120 mutineers at the beginning of the film. Look for the tired bent over head. As an extra this was a birthday present to the man next to me in the scene.
When I toured Waterloo several years ago, I was struck by the parallels to Gettysburg and was therefore somewhat dumbstruck that Lee repeated Napoleon’s failure. In both battles, the limitations of 19th century communications were pivotal to the outcome of the battle as the losing generals of both wars lacked critical information. Both battles were initiated and shaped by precipitate skirmishes at the wrong places that escalated and ended with final futile offensives across a wide stretch of open land going uphill.
"If practicable" almost certainly is one of those orders that haunted Lee for the rest of his life.
Lee was used to giving orders to Jackson and giving him a lot of latitude because he would like to improvise. Ewell and Hill were Jackson subordinates and was a micro manager who would never give either latitude so they were used to direct and specific orders not vague orders. This was a mistake by Lee because he didn’t know his corp commanders that well or their command structure.
Ewell should have taken Culp's Hill. Not Lee's fault that Ewell missed this opportunity.
It does make sense of Lee doesn't know what is going on or what is in front of him, to give cautious orders to Generals who know the situation better than him.
I have watched this movie and read the book multiple times. I have also listened to a good deal of analysis of the movie (heck, I've even done some of my own on a podcast). I have to say that this is by far the most insightful and balanced commentary I've ever heard or seen. Thank you so much, Professor Frederick. You're brilliant!
Well thank you very much!
I read "The Killer Angels" back in the 1970s and became more interested in the actual figures involved particularly James Longstreet. Having grown up in a southern culture I was used to Longstreet being the scapegoat. Interesting to see a more sympathetic portrayal.
There are serious arguments to be made that Lee had dysentery at the time of Gettysburg and this, along with the absence of Stuart’s cavalry, crippled Lee’s judgement. That said, until very recently Lee Was universally hallowed in the South. He could NOT have been mistaken at Gettysburg.
Even then, plenty of Union leaders made glaring mistakes (Wheatfeild). The South could’ve won Gettysburg if…
Respect from a Missouri Yankee.
I recommend Longstreet At Gettysburg: A Critical Reassessment by Cory M Pfarr. One thing I could never understand, as voiced by Fitzhugh Lee in his biography, is why, if Longstreet was so insubordinate, having fits of temperament over Lee's imagined betrayal by ignoring his plan, or because he couldn't take the place of Jackson, who he had seniority over(Jackson becomes more important as the Lost Cause is formulated), and dwaddled. Pfarr makes it clear that when most of the insubordination was supposed to take place, Lee was near or with Longstreet. Longstreet himself said that if Lee had any issues with his performance Lee had the authority to move things as he desired. It is plain enough that many 'conversations' with Lee happened after his death, and were with Lost Cause supporters.
@Kabuki Kitsune Pretty accurate assessment. Stuart doesn’t seem the type to disobey orders or even fudge them much…but the communication disruption thing? The enemy ALWAYS gets a say. And the Union Wouldn’t just say sure take all the supplies you need…
What kind of difference to that entire war would telephones and walk-in talkies made?
@Kabuki Kitsune as far as I understand Stuart did try to come back to Lee. Stuart had moved too far out of the reach of Lee. Then he was cut off by the unions movement. Making it extremely difficult to get around the entire army. By the time he finally got around and was able to link back up with Lee, it was already too late and the Confederates were fully engaged.
To my way of thinking, Lee, should NOT have invaded Penn. (1) The Confederate states' government had adopted an overall DEFENSIVE approach to fighting the Union. This invasion was OFFENSIVE in nature. (2) Despite Lee's rather logical reasoning to go ahead with the move north, his greatest blunders included the facts that (3) it had been only a month and a half since his successful, but costly, battle of Chancellorsville -- the large number of CSA casualties (including General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson) as well as (4) the large-scale reorganization of the CS Army (with new leaders who had never had leadership experience at the higher levels) put serious crimps in the smooth operation of Lee's army. Yes. Stuart's absence, the absence of his scouting reports, handicapped Lee for almost the entire 3 days. Good explanations of the Confederate failure at G'burg are included in a recent book -- "Plenty of Blame to Go Around: Jeb Stuart's Controversial Ride to Gettysburg" by Eric J. Wittenberg and J. David Petruzz -- and a quote purportedly by real-life battle participant CS Genl George Pickett (he of the misnamed Pickett's Charge on July 3), who said when asked for the reason of the loss, "I believe the Union army had something to do with it." This could be interpreted as a slight nod to the abilities of the northern soldiers and commanders ... and in some cases LUCK.
I'm catching up on your videos and watched this Gettysburg one last night. Thank you for addressing that slavery was the cause of the war. As a transplanted Yankee to Alabama it is sickening to hear the False Cause version from even our elected officials.
Shorty after moving to Huntsville, AL from Florida the Civil War reenactment unit I joined held a living history in nearby Madison, AL. Within the downtown gazebo we hung various flags both Federal and Confederate. An older gentleman pointed to the "Rebel" flag and said "I know that one, but what are those other three" (pointing to the three CSA national flags). I thought to myself, "Please allow this Yankee to teach you about your southern heritage."
Amen ! Truth reigns ! ✝️ 🇺🇲
Gettysburg WAS a miniseries filmed for TNT that was cut to make a theatrical release version. I saw it on TNT first and then dragged my wife to see it in theaters all at once. I'm not sure she ever forgave me, between that and dragging her around the battlefield after they had just cut the grass for the upcoming re-enactments and the cut grass set off her allergies! But I spent from 7-9 years old in Lancaster and spent a part of every Summer, usually around the 4th of July in Gettysburg because my dad was an Historical Enthusiast.
Now let your wife drag you.
@@kentkearney6623sadly, she passed away over a decade ago.
It was going to be a miniseries, but during post production they realized it would be a great theatrical release. It went to 248 theatres October 8, 1993, only had two showings a day. The TNT premiere was June 1994
@@TheArthoron I’m sorry for your loss
It is an annual ritual at my house to watch Gettysburg (Director’s Cut) on 4th of July weekend. Seeing this video is the perfect launch point. Thank you so much!
You're very welcome!
One of my favorite movies of all time. General Buford and General Hancock are my favorite commanders in this battle. And yes, "Fife & Gun" is my favorite song on the soundtrack as well.
Hancock was always in the thick of the actual fighting. His 2nd Corps was basically in every major engagement and played an important role. His refusal to yield the field command until Meade arrived toward the end of the day was undoubtedly key in helping secure the victory. Other than Reynolds he was undoubtedly the best Union field commander available.
@@donpietruk1517 Hancock calmy riding across the field during that artillery firestorm....lasting image....
"I fighting for ma rats!"
I just went to Gettysburg a month ago for the first time. I have wanted to go there my entire life. I’m a huge civil war buff and my second oldest shares my passion. I am also a professor but I teach nursing in Michigan. History is just a hobby. Your reactions are wonderful and I am truly enjoying (and losing a lot of sleep) watching them. Great job.
New subscriber, I'm here to lament the fact that this channel is criminally underrated in the YT history community, you deserve WAY more subscribers than you actually have.
Thanks! We're getting there quite quickly believe it or not. Almost 20k subs in the past 4 months. Feel free to tell your friends. New video out 8am EST tomorrow!
Arthur Fremantle's book is so good. I read it every year to keep it fresh in my mind.
Side note: the artillery pieces don't recoil because there is no projectile so there really isn't any pressure in the barrel. :)
Yup, Newton's third law 😉
Professor, you are extremely sharp and well versed in your field. Damn, I'm almost 70 and jealous as hell of such a gifted young man.
"what I fight for is the right to prove I'm a better man than any of them!" -Buster Kilrain.
my favorite qoute from this movie. 🙂
Greatest line
I agree, and just to clarify, that defines a meritocracy and democracy.
I am enjoying your take on History and Historical movies. I have a Degree in History from AZ State with a focus on Warfare. My Parental Grandfather Nelson from Washington Co, in PA was a co-pilot for B-17s 43-45 and was apart of the Berlin Airlift. My Maternal Grandfather Howland from NYC was also in the AAC but me was a Supply Sgt and never left London. I grew up hearing War Stories them which triggered my love for History. Nelson was called up during Korea and was now in the Air Force Rev. and trained Pilots on Cargo Planes in what is now Edwards AFB. That is how my Dad and his Fam. got to Cal. Howland Got a job offer with US Border patrol in Cal. in 49 so he and his wife and daughter moved to S.D. Cal. by 52 they moved to L.A. where my mother was born. This is how a PA and NY Yankee came to be from L.A.
I note a more northern point a view in some of your points. Not that they are wrong just from a different point of view. Born in L.A. but lived in VA and GA from 12-17 and then College in AZ, my historical knowledge and view comes from a southerner view. I am looking forward to Part 2.
I've always taken a great interest in the loss of General Reynolds, because of our common last name. He was one of only two Union Corps Commanders to die during the war. The other being John Sedgwick in 1864. Thank You for Your Channel and Excellent Content. One day I hope to visit Gettysburg and the statues of General Reynolds.
Jesse L Reno and Joseph K Mansfield were corps commanders who were killed in battle at South Mountain and Antietam respectively.
@@briansass4865 Thank You Brian, I stand corrected. Never to old to learn something.
When visiting Philadelphia on business from the UK, many years ago, my colleague and I came across two statues of mounted soldiers in front of a large building. From the other side of the street, I remarked that they were probably Generals McClellan and Reynolds. My colleague crossed the street to read the inscriptions, and returned to my side. "How did you you know that ?" he asked. "You've been here before." "Never", I replied. I happened to know that both were from Pennsylvania ...
McPherson too.
Lee's order to take the hill if practicable is an example still used to emphasize the need for clear instruction.
Being English my knowledge of the American Civil War is somewhat basic, so I'm finding your commentary hugely informative. With regard to battles in films that use hundreds of extras rather than CGI, have you seen the 1970 film Waterloo? The battle sequences are quite amazing.
That movie is BANANAS in terms of extras. Just the number of horses alone is mind boggling. Those helicopter shots of the infantry squares are just *chef's kiss.
@@cleverusername9369 those were soldiers from the Warsaw pact who were dressed and kitted out in the appropriate gear, trained in drills and movements for the English, French and Prussian Armies.
Truly a once in a lifetime opportunity for military realism on such a huge scale.
I agree. Before the age of sci fi block busters, I believe Waterloo was the most expensive movie because of the extras.
@Rick Hudson, being English, your knowledge of the American Civil War is likely more extensive than the vast majority of my fellow citizens, and I’m no scholar myself. For the majority of my life, I could've probably told you more about Lord Nelson’s exploits than R E Lee’s or U S Grant’s. Sad but true.
He made some errors. The North didn’t fight to end slavery. Lincoln himself did so and even in 1863 maintained that slavery would continue in the North. Lincoln even offers the South in 1862 the right to maintain slavery if they surrender. It was out of military necessity that he end slavery in the South.
If there had been provision in the constitution to leave the union, like say the GFA today, the Civil War wouldn’t have happened.
Too many revisionists today!
my dad took me to see this as a 13 year old 😃 4 hrs starting at 7pm. Bless that man
My ancestor Gabriel Knapp was there fighting for the Union. On the home front the rest of the family were involved with the underground railroad, several of them were wanted in the south for "theft of property."
This Yankee thanks your ancestors..both in the war and serving in the underground railroad.
Salute from the descendant of a black Union soldier.
Very good. My ancestors were on the Vicksburg campaign. Their Quaker community at home likewise provided shelter along the “railroad “
Knapp? Bap! Cap!Dap!Gap!Hap!Jap!Lap!Map!Nap!Pap!Rap!Sap!Tap!Vap!Wap! ZAP!!! That's All Knap. Wah Wah Wah Wahhh!!!
Great video. Super informative and one of the best reviews created about Gettysburg.
I'll be checking your outs.
A lot of great memories being drug to tour Gettysburg battlefield on several weekends in my youth, my brother (also a professor) was a guide at antienam and harpers ferry battlefields in the early 70s, Chamberland was his hero, when movie came out, him and all his buddies kept going up to try and get “extra” jobs and some did. Great back stories, thank you!
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain
I began doing Civil War reenacting two years before this film was released. I wasn’t able to make it to the filming but, I was able to make it to “gods and generals”. I am enjoying your channel as I am now participating in World War II reenacting and I love how you are presenting the history with this movie and others. Thank you
I absolutely love God's and Generals, and Gettysburg. Thank you for being a part of history and giving your time! God bless
same guy played Pickett in one film...Jackson in the other...with the exact same appearance...kind of confusing
I first watched this movie when I was about 13 years old and I watched it again in my late teens, early 20s and most recently in my late 20s and it’s struck me how differently I’ve felt watching it each time as I’ve matured and learned more about history and life in general over the years.
I love this movie and I’m sure I’ll rewatch it several more times in the future.
Have come to see the outcome at Gettysburg as largely due to the command of the Army of the Potomac (AOP) having finally developed into a cooperative, imaginative, thorough set of generals and officers who had attained a quality equal to that of the soldiers of the AOP. What Meade accomplished within his first week as commander of the AOP should be seen as astounding. It was sound judgement on U.S. Grant’s part that Meade was retained as the AOP Commander to the end of the war.
but he didn't do much afgterwards. grant had several successes before and then afterwards.
could you imagine Robert E Lee taking a vote among his commanders?
Agreed on Meade. He alienated the press and his rep suffered as a result. Grant thought very highly of Meade and his abilities, just check the performance reports.
This is great testament to Jeff Daniels as an actor. Me being from Michigan have always been a fan of his work. Here he is as Colonel Chamberlain, a very dramatic role, and the next year he is Harry Dunn in Dumb and Dumber. He has a great range as an actor. I also love his work in fly away home.
Thank you for pointing out that Ken Burns adds myths and untruths in his documentaries. Most credible historians I've read and listened to and spoken to have remarked their complete disdain for Burns' false narratives in his historical documentaries.
Well, I very much appreciate Ken Burns' excellent Work over decades ( my very scholarly Friend points out how Mr. Burns' team also underestimated the Abolitionist's role ). 🇺🇲 🇨🇿 🇬🇧
abolitionist movement probably played more a role in convincing the South to secede than their relevance in the war. Lincoln offered the South the option to keep slavery at the end of 1862 if they gave up. The EP was announced for military reasons and only covers the South. It wasn’t until 1864 that abolition was the outcome intended for slavery. And the Union set up Liberia to take ex-slaves rather than accept them as fellow Americans. Lincoln was as a racist as most. Notably the GOP was set up to restrain slavery but not abolish it.@@lucybrindlebrownie8994 the
@@Torric25Barbara Fields of all people even admits on camera that the war was so terrible, they had to ‘create’ a noble reason to justify all of the bloodshed.
This was great! I'm big into history and first studied the US Civil War just before Gettysburg came out, but _somehow_ I've never seen it 😂 you've convinced me it's finally time 😁
The reason "Uncle Joe" was in the movie is because he is one of 13,000 re-enactors in the film. Re-enactors tend to be older and better fed.than Civil War infantry.
I first saw this movie when I was 6 or 7. I try to watch it at least once a year. It's influence on me growing up cannot be overstated.
Another great and informative video! As someone who has read many books on Gettysburg and the Civil War, it is always awesome to learn something new (there was plenty!). Looking forward to the next video!
Lived in PA for years and been to Gettysburg many times; little round top, the ridge, devils den, etc. Amazing to walk the ground these armies walked upon. Anyone interested in the Civil War should read Shelby Foote's trilogy "The Civil War. He brought the war to life!
That is really cool that you were a Park Ranger. I did a personalized tour with one which was awesome. I am just starting on with part 1 here. I do hope that Part 3 you go over the cavalry battle that Custer participated in. It isn't talked about as much at it should. That story about Arthur Fremantle is crazy! He witnessed so much.
I had the pleasure of visiting Gettysburg last year. Little Round Top was still under construction and the weather wasn't cooperating, but I guess it just makes for an excuse to visit again in the future.
It was just striking to me how there are certain aspects of the battle that make so much more sense when you see the ground in person. I remember reading how Lee was using the mountains to mask his movements up into Pennsylvania... well, we were driving up from DC and we saw those mountains.
The entire cavalry delaying action of the first action makes a lot more sense when you realize that everything northwest of the city is just sloping hills, over and over again.
The horrible casualties of the third day made so much more sense when I saw the view from the cemetery ridge.
But nothing made sense when I saw Culp's Hill. My mind just boggled. How the heck is anyone supposed to attack a wooded, rocky hill like that?
i think russel crowe wouldn't have done chamberlain as well as jeff daniels. crowe's a great actor, but he does the Great Hero very well whereas chamberlain was very much the unsteady everyman daniels portrayed.
I'm so glad you noted that the other pivotal moments of the Civil War (Vicksburg) was also taking place at this same time. The Confederacy was killed on July 4, 1863, it just had to go through the act of dying after that. Yes a dying tiger can/will lash out, but it's still dying. The loss of Vicksburg was strategically the more serious loss, the Gettysburg loss was the political defeat. If the south had won both they could have won the war, but anything else would have extended the war but likely not the end result.
I'm reading the book now. It must have taken forever to research and write back in the day. Great novel.
Indeed!
Fremantle = Forrest Gump
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
That is a quote worthy of the ages.
Loved Sam Elliott's hard bitten cavalry commander. Great actor.
Good Ground.
never shied from a dismounted fight...his boys prided themselves on their ability to slug it out...
You saw Gettysburg in 1st grade. Great. I was 38. There were fires all over southern California but I literally drove through all the smoke and haze to see it in a giant movie theatre in Orange, Ca.
Directors Cut is absolutely the way to go if not just for the additional Reynolds’s time you get to see. His interaction with his staff members when the arrive to Buford shows why he was thought so highly of.
Major Taylor also gets a lot more run in the DC.
Such a great movie.
I really wish Last Full Measure would get made using the book as the screenplay similar to the way killer angels became Gettysburg.
I have a pipe dream that someday someone will remake Gods and Generals based on the book. Not the puke fest they made that great book into.
Thank Ted Turner for it turning into the turkey of the film that was produced. He never should have had a speaking part in that bomb.
Wool was everyday work clothing, as it didn't catch fire as easily as cotton, and open flames were ubiquitous. Thus cotton was worn by the richer classes, who didn't have to deal with flames (mostly rich women in hoop skirts who had servants). 160 years later, the use of cotton and wool has completely reversed; cotton is everyday clothing, while wool suits are worn by the upper classes or special occasions.
Another error is that in an individual unit, the Confederate soldiers are shown in an incredible variety of uniforms. While there were extreme shortages of material goods in the south, uniforms were usually re-issued by unit, resulting in a variety by UNIT, not individual.
I don't think people understand the distance between the armies. An army can walk 20 miles in a day. You wouldn't want to go into combat after that march...but 4-6 miles to get into position for an attack is real.
Best bit of my trip to USA a few years back . Even my Mrs enjoyed it. Showed her the film before we went.
That was a great review, learned a lot from it. Always fascinated about how film or TV productions use or recreate locations, and that was really interesting. I also note from imdb that Sam Elliot was the only actor to follow all the costume department instructions on how to age your uniform, using the bathroom in his motel room to do all the work, which is why his blue tunic is the only one properly faded compared to all the others!
On the subject of slavery, I've noticed there's a lot of reaction videos on RUclips to a video called 'The Bitish Crusade Against Slavery', which was intended to be a rebuttal to common wokish views as expressed in particular by Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle. A lot of American reactors are shocked by the point made in the video that human slavery was the default human practice around the world since tha dawn of time until William I (aka William the Conqueror) outlawed slave ownership in England in 1103. In fact, there was an interesting test case of that law in the 1800s of an American plantation owner visiting England with one of his slaves in attendance, and this man was legally free the moment he set foot on English soil. He took the Government to court and lost his 'right' to own the slave as his property.
It's shocking to the RUclips reactors because it's something that doesn't seem to be taught in American schools, which concentrate very much on American history as we've all come to expect. Many of the reactors ask "why isn't this taught in schools?" and my own take on this is that it is a central plank of American education that the British have to be the bad actors in the War of Independence and American educators cannot undermine that teaching by starting to list all the good things the Brits hve done around the world... like eradicate slavery throughtout the empire. It's ironic that the West Africa Squadron of the Royal Navy that blockaded the African coast to prevent slave ships exporting their human cargos to the New World had to be stripped of vital ships to fight the Napoleonic wars and the War of 1812 with the United States, reducing the effectiveness of the Squadron.
I read somewhere recently that Sam Elliot was trying to get a movie done about Buford. That would have been great.
@@mako88sb - sounds like Sam Elliot was very invested in his character. It's really nice to see that.
Liking your comment sir, are you by chance British? I ask because my perception of Europe is an anti colonialism world veiw. What are non British Eroupeans taugh on this?
@@gravitypronepart2201 - I am British but I only went to school in England, so I can't really comment about the teaching of history on the continent. I imagine it's very different from one continental country to the next. Not sure I understand if your question is based on the European countries having an anti-colonial worldview or yourselves? Our perception of American foreign policy in the 20th Century is an anti-colonial one, while at the same time expanding its own global influence at the expense of the UK.
The other great European colonial powers, namely Spain, Portugal and France, along with ourselves, had done such a good job of carving up the world between us, that newcomer Germany (only unified in 1871) was too late for overseas exploration and has been focussed on imperialism on the continent of Europe in a sort of winner-takes-all strategy, like the board game 'Risk'. In other words, if Germany takes France, Spain, Portugal and Britain, it gets all their colonies as well. This backfired twice in the 20th Century because Britain stood firm against Germany's military adventurism. They then went back to the strategy of Bismarck (Prussian foreign minister in the 1860s) that worked for the unification of the German states in 1871 under Prussian domination - a series of Trojan horse treaties that led to political unification by stealth. Those treaties were military alliances, playing on the smaller states' fears of attack by larger powers like France, Austro-Hungary, or Russia. Today, the treaties are economic, but at each stage of their development, from the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) to the European Economic Community (EEC) to today's European Union (EU), the direction of travel is towards political union into a United States of Europe.
We were temporarily neutralised as a competitor nation by absorbtion into the EEC in 1973, and that process is being reversed (with great reluctance on the part of the EU) by Brexit.
One of the flashpoints of the Brexit divorce nightmare is Gibraltar. This has been a British possession after being captured from Spain in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession, and since Britain and the Netherlands won that war, the 1713 treaty of Utrecht ceded the territory to Britain in perpetuity, along with some Spanish foreign possesions to the Netherlands. Spain has been trying to re-open the question of Gibraltar's sovereignty ever since, despite most residents being either Genoese (ethnic Italians) or Brit ex-pats, who absolutely do not want to be part of Spain.
Another flashpoint is the Falkland and South Sandwich Islands in the South Atlantic, claimed by Argentina, but permanently occupied by Britain since 1833, when earlier outposts established by France and Spain were withdrawn during European wars, which we always won. Argentina is basically trying to uphold the claim of its former colonial power, Spain.
Just like Gibraltar, the residents are nearly all Brits, and referenda in both territories have the same 99+% result of wanting to remain British. Our policy is one of upholding the right to self-determination, which applies to the biggest Brexit flashpoint of all - Northern Ireland. I won't even go into that one - it's too complicated!
Obviously, this is a British point of view, but I think you can probably extrapolate the views of the Germans, French, Spanish (and Argentinians), from that. You start a war with the Brits. You lose the war. You lose some territory and influence as a result, and this becomes an ongoing sore and the focus of some perceived injustice, as if starting a war is something you can conveniently just forget, but the loss of territory and global influence cannot and must be somehow redressed.
A useful video - The United Kingdom Explained: ruclips.net/video/rNu8XDBSn10/видео.html
The Venn diagrams showing the various overseas bits are very good.
For a more light-hearted view of British history, try comedian and Oxford History graduate Al Murray and his stand-up stage persona of the know-it-all pub landlord in the video 'Name a country... We have defeated them': ruclips.net/video/_x2ovlPr2IE/видео.html
Like what you said.....it is definitely an embarrassment to me as an American that Britian was more enlightened than we were about slavery and were able to settle it non-violently. Idk Britian outlawed slavery on it's home soil but the fact remains they too had slaves in their overseas possessions, they were just as responsible as America and other countries in participating in slavery, if only abroad. As I understand it, it only ended when the British people rose up against Britain's overseas slavery and in essence, bought out the British companies employing slaves. Again, Kudos to the British people and government for non-violently exiting the slavery market. But their hands weren't clean either. Sadly, everyone was engaging in slavery up to the 1800's not just America. That we get singled out from the others also doing it rankles me.
I thought that Gettysburg was pretty faithful to the book, which is my all time favorite. There’s always going to be some deviation due to having to squeeze an entire book into roughly 2-3 hours, but I thought that Maxwell did a nice job!
As an aside, I’m quite envious of your service as a Gettysburg Park Ranger. I had given some serious thought as a youth to this profession.
My first trip to Gettysburg was at roughly the age of 10. We were out on a tour; as we stood on Little Round Top, our guide mentioned that Law’s Brigade had charged straight up the hill. I, shyly, raised my hand and mentioned that Law’s Brigade had actually flanked the hill. My Dad was mortified: “Shut up; this guy is a tour guide and knows what he’s talking about”. The guide, seeing trouble brewing, tried to diffuse the situation by telling the group that he’d check when we got back to the Visitor Center.
The guide had the decency to come out of his office and tell the group that the little guy was correct. My Dad’s jaw slammed into the floor. “How the hell did you know THAT?” My response was that I’d read The Killer Angels on the drive from SW Lower Michigan.
I was wondering what part Buford and his cavalry played in Gettsyburg after the first day. Checking Wiki there was no more info about his cavalry during the battle but I did learn that he was part of the pursuit of Lee after the battle was over and that he passed from illness just 6 months later in December at the age of 37.
he kept Staurt from assistinjg the third day charge
Meade sent most of his cavalry after Lee...it was a fighting retreat...
One major error: The North DID NOT fight to free the slaves; for the North the war was about preventing secession. There were slave states in the North. the Lost Cause myth is mirrored in the Northern Saviour myth. Lincoln freed the slaves in the SOUTH to undermine the South's economy, while Union slave states maintained slavery.
No error. There is nuance, but it comes down to this: The U.S. destroyed slavery as a means of saving the nation--all while gradually offering African American empowerment. On this issue, the U.S. moved incrementally on the rising road of history. The Confederacy offered the dark alternative.
@@ReelHistory Incorrect; here is someone who said it is best:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that…."
--Lincoln letter to Horace Greeley, 1862.
The only nuance necessary is to distinguish bad fro less bad. After the EP, Lincoln thought that the "solution" to the freed slaves would be to ship them to Africa.
The Union fought to quash a separatist effort; and it would be a SCOTUS case 4 years after the War, that would rule that the Union UNILATERAL secession is illegal (Texas v White, 1869).
Slavery was the issue to force a debate and then war over secession and that is the NUANCE needed.
Your Mythology is as bad as the Lost Cause. History is better when discussed in facts and not myth.
The world isn't good and bad, but often bad and less bad. History is not simple.
Confederate apologists always leave out a concluding part of Lincoln's correspondence to Greeley: “I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.” Lincoln was not the same political thinker in 1865 as he was in 1861 or early 1862. He made good on his evolved ambition to be save the Union and destroy slavery--causes that were inherently intertwined at the outset.
@@ReelHistory The fact remains, by Lincoln’s own word, that the North fought to end a rebellion. His well known distaste for slavery is not really relevant, given it doesn’t seem to have influenced his actions (by his own assertion).
😆
Lots of changes for time, and that is a lot in such a long movie! But I would still love it even if it was longer. One thing that supports the Lost Cause theory is that this battle was so critical for the Confederacy. If that was so, why was Lee so puzzled by what to do? There was no planning beyond what they thought was happening after the fact. It was more of a reconnaissance in force and not a planned assault on Washington. As far as I have read, the goal was to occupy the Federal forces and keep them out of the Shenandoah Valley. It does show the chaos caused by Stuart's absence, and if anybody bears the guilt for the poor decisions made it is he, not Longstreet. The engineers that Lee assigned to recon the ground did a poor job, leading Longstreet in the open, causing him to have to backtrack to find an approach that was hidden from Federal view even though it would have been obvious by then that there was no way to make the march unseen. Lots of little mistakes that probably seemed unimportant at the time and have been underplayed, or discarded entirely, to keep Lee as a leader than made no mistakes and never gambled or acted on faulty information but was always let down by subordinates.
I admire Lee for his dedication to the Confederacy as it was never an easy decision. I remember Rodney Lee, I think, commenting on the torment he felt when he resigned his commission and returned to Virginia. His letters reveal he thought it would be a long and bloody affair and not the glorious and dashing charge most thought it would be. I don't think he entertained losing, but he also did not entertain a victory, more of a statemate relying on the North's fading will to fight. Perhaps you can correct me, but maybe the incursions into the North were meant to break the morale of the yankees more than affect a strategic advantage. Certainly, opportunities would have been taken, but so many were not! The 'fruitless victory' lament showed Confederate forces in a defensive mindset and with few exceptions, I think this was the midset for the course of the war. That may seem obvious, as the thought was to become a separate nation, but if you can't muster the power to threaten your enemy effectively he will keep on coming. At any rate, the movie presumes there was a grand plan that got sidetracked when Heth blundered into Buford, and that was more of a deciding factor than lack of intelligence or leadership. As I recall, that wasn't detailed in The Killer Angels either, as it was a work of historical fiction and not a treatise on the battle.
Some 35 years ago I participated in a relatively small reenactment. There was one unit of artillery reenactors and they were using 12 pounder guns. They only used a quarter charge of powder without any wadding or projectile but even so at 50 yards you could feel the pressure wave that each firing caused. Later in the film when you see some 80 or so field pieces being fired and realize the actual battle had like four times as many guns, all firing full charges, the blast effects and pure noise must have been enormous. I suspect a good number of Civil War veterans suffered significant hearing loss after the war just from the cacaphony of battle, especially if one were serving in artillery units.
I like the comments about Gen Buford fighting a delaying action. Watching this after your Band of Brothers segments reminded me that while the Americans were pushed back throughout the Ardennes there were many small unit actions that held up the German advance enough to allow reinforcements to arrive all through the region Sounds like there are some parallels?
Any time a unit engages the enemy it's going to slow their progress. In the Ardennes those skirmishes weren't really "delaying actions" in that they were done with that purpose in mind. US Army units simply fought the enemy in front of them and the result was that the offensive was stalled at critical moments. One of cavalry's tasks whether it be horse or armored is to find and "fix" the enemy in place to buy time for the larger force to arrive, usually as part of a much larger plan.
@@tbeller80 you are correct. Thanks for making that distinction
An extraordinarily good video - thanks! My sister and I have watched the film repeatedly and have made the trip to the battlefield three times, all because we had so many relatives there. Our 2nd great-grandfather was in the 50th NY Engineers (who walked through before the battle) and a 2nd great-granduncle in the 141st PA infantry (Peach Orchard). Three 1st cousins: Lewis C. Griswold, Hazlett's battery, died on the 3rd of wounds received on Little Round Top and is buried in the National Cemetery; Lathrop Baldwin, commander of Company B of the 107th NY inf; and another in the 16th U.S. Infantry (Devil's Den and the Wheatfield). A more distant cousin was Rufus Dawes, commander of the 6th Wisconsin.
Once again - thank you for this. I'll watch the next two before the day is over!
Wow ! Your Ancestors were committed to our remaining a Union of states ! Thanks 🥉
@@lucybrindlebrownie8994 I could almost write a book about my relatives during the war! Lathrop was with Sherman outside Atlanta. His brother Elisha was a company commander in a different brigade but the two companies were side-by-side at the Battle of Peachtree Creek. Elisha saw his brother had been shot and went to his side, but couldn't stay because the fight was still going on. Lathrop was removed from the field and sent to a hospital in Chattanooga where he died 10 days later, so that was the last time Elisha saw him. (The Elmira, NY GAR post was named for Lathrop.)
The cousin in the 16th U.S. infantry had three brothers in the war, one of whom died in the Andersonville prison.
Rufus Dawes' great-grandfather was William Dawes, the man who in April of 1776 actually did what Paul Revere gets credit for. Rufus' son Charles won the Nobel Peace Prize and was Vice President under Calvin Coolidge.
There's more but you get the idea....
As a Canadian who has never seen this movie and has next to no knowledge about the American Civil War I find it VERY funny that this battle began today of all days… today is Canada Day
One of my favorite tidbits from Gettysburg (not in this movie) was when the Confederates formed a battle square (similar to that used by the British at Waterloo against Napoleons French Cavalry) anticipating a Union Cavalry charge against their flank (if I am not mistaken I think the feint was also by Bufords Union Cavalry) the Intent being to slow the Confedetate advance into and thru the town of Gettysburg.
Seen this in the theatre with some friends who are much more knowledgeable about the ACW than me and I found out later that scene with the overweight skirmisher gave them a bad feel for how the rest of the movie would be. It didn’t take long for those worries to be squashed and we all thoroughly enjoyed it. I wonder if it was ever explained why they decided to go with that guy?
I think it was to show the motley nature of the Confederate volunteers as opposed to the well-equipped and uniformed Federal forces. Or maybe he looked like the sort you would prefer on guard duty? Certainly, he doesn't fit the feel of a lean, mean veteran that has seen the Yankees running as much as fighting. Maybe he was the only one handy that could say a few lines. I never gave it much thought until now! Or perhaps he was the leader and spokesman for his little group of reenactors. Now I am going to puzzle over the man!
I venture a guess that he was used because he was a member of the Screen Actors Guild as all the other players with speaking parts that I have seen at the 40min mark are people I know are Professional actors
A side comment, the musicians in the movie are portrayed by local musicians and music teachers from the surrounding area. My father was asked to do it, but declined as me and my sister were fairly young at the time. However, I recognize many of the musicians as my parents friends and colleagues
Great story! The community really rallied around this movie--one of the things that makes it so special.
Both my parents are from Louisville, KY and it took us years to realize the song being played by two Union soldiers as Tom Chamberlain is talking to the Confederate prisoners is actually My Old Kentucky Home
Sharp young man with a ton of knowledge on the war and the men who fought it…..AND the movie’s right and wrongs. Well done sir!
I have read Fremantle’s memoir of his trip through the Confederacy. It is well worth reading. He did not wear a uniform.
He was on vacation
Me too. Fascinating.
I first saw this movie when I was around 8 or 9 I think. The phenomenal score, the rich characters, I became enamored. Later in my teens in the very late 90's or early 2000's I read the novel 'Killer Angels' and came to appreciate it more for how close it stuck to the book. I still own the movie on DVD and watch it around once a year. I also visited the battleground my senior year in high school in 2004. That was an amazing experience.
Just seen this posted and looking forward to watching your break down on Gettysburg. I've seen this in the original mini-series format in three parts on terrestrial TV here in the UK on one of those channels that show the three parts back-to-back and re-run for several days. So I think I've seen this about three times now in the last year since lockdown began.
The only bit I'm not looking forward to is the one British character - the observer from the Coldstream Guards, Lt.Col. Arthur Fremantle. Just awful. The actor is James Lancaster, who is actually Irish, and is in full dress uniform, when he should be in civilian clothes because he was there in a personal capacity and not an official representative of his Regiment or the British Government.
Fremantle actually has a book - Three Months in the Southern States: an officer of the Coldstream Guards' Observations of the Confederate Army on Campaign During the American Civil War - available on Amazon.
Interested to hear your thoughts, we cover Fremantle a few times in this series.
@@ReelHistory - OMG. At least George Lucas had the decency to hire good British character actors to pay the Imperial officers in Star Wars, and a very good job they all did too. If it wasn't for Harrison Ford (one of favourite actors), they probably would have won the star wars!
@@ReelHistory picked a bad time to visit New York!....most of those soldiers who put down that riot had just come from Gettysburg.....
God, I love this movie. I will always be grateful that I saw it after reading Trulock's brilliant Chamberlain biography - it gave extra context to the whole thing. I have the extended version and rewatch it at least once a month. The extended version gives far more time to Buford, and really drives home how much we owe to his efforts on Day 1.
Your comments on why the southern states were fighting at the 50:00 mark is pretty well on mark. However, in this scene with the captured soldiers I took it as the individual talking about what he himself was feeling about fighting the war. Certainly he could be representative in the film of saying what the Confederacy was fighting for but I just couldn't get that from him. More than 90% of the confederate soldiers didn't own slaves and the issue wasn't that important to them. They felt the northern states were intruding on their rights as free men. Rightly or wrongly the individual southern soldier had other ideas of why he was fighting. Your statements are totally correct but I wasn't sure they actually applied to the way I saw this scene. However, that doesn't really matter...I'm enjoying your analysis and I'm learning plenty. Thanks!
So the underlying issue was federalism and not slavery per se? I can relate to that in the UK because most of the arguments over Brexit were on immigration, fishing rights, border controls, yadda, yadda, yadda... It was only students of history like myself (we were being taught Bismarck at school during the 1975 referendum campaign to confirm our joining the EEC) that understood the real issue was European federalism. All other issues that cause so many of the arguments actually flow from that.
@@davemac1197 I'm only talking about what individual soldiers expressed about the causes they believed in that made them join up. For many southern foot soldiers slavery was not the driving force. In the upper ranks of wealth and politics it was a different story.
@@Farbar1955 - sure. But what those soldiers were talking about was the interference of federalism. They weren't expressing it in a schooled academic way, but in their own terms that was the basic complaint I was getting. In Europe, the debate is always about the issues that matter to individual people, but the root cause is Germany's federalist ambitions on the European continent that go all the way back to Bismarck in 1870 and started two world wars in the 20th century.
@@davemac1197 federalism was just a thin lie over the real issue - slavery. as jared clearly stated, the slave owners had dominated the US government for decades, and they were happy to wield the power of the federal government in their own hands and brow beat the north with it. it was only when they finally (and legitimately) lost it to the majority population in the north that their crocodile tears led to the civil war. states' rights was a lie back then, it was a lie during jim crow, and it's a lie today to obfuscate the (hopefully) death throes of white nationalism. states should definitely have their own rights, but historically it's mostly been used as a cudgel justify a way of life that must be stamped out.
i won't pretend to be an expert on european geopolitics, but i can tell you that here, federalism vs state's rights was a civil war lie used to justify the perpetuation of slavery from which all othere issues flowed.
@@oldfrend - by your own evidence federalism was the issue. The slave owners were happy with federalism as long as they dominated the federal government. As soon as the balance of power swung the other way, federalism became a problem for them because it meant the southern states were under pressure to discontinue a way of life they wished to preserve.
In Europe, federalism under German domination is fine for the Germans, and for the surrendered French as long as the Franco-German alliance that runs the EU goes France's way in dominating the continent's agricultural industry.
German federalism came about in 1871 when Prussian Foreign Minister Bismarck used a series of stealth treaties, ostensibly mutual defence treaties with a strong Prussia (the people that showed up late at Waterloo to seal Napoleon's fate), as the main component, just as the USA is the main component of NATO. Bismarck used these military alliances to bring about a political unification of the German states by the back door, dominated by Prussia, and even engineered a war with France to prompt the other states to fall into line (and seize the Alsatian iron ore fields as reparations when France lost the war).
Brexit was as inevitable as the southern United States' desire to break away from the union, in our case because we realised that our more efficient agricultural industry was being disadvantaged by French influence in EU policies, and the same for our heavy industries because of German domination. We were being eliminated as a competitor nation by absorbtion into a political union by the back door, a union dominated by German industrial and French agricultural interests.
The issues that affect eveyone's daily lives at ground level are the ones that always fill the political debates on TV, but the bigger picture has always been political ambitions at the higher, federal, level, and that is ultimately all about global influence.
You would have found that the EU would be another emerging unfriendly power block competing with the United States, along with China and Russia, something we didn't want to see as the mother country to our former colonies in the US. We certainly didn't want to be part of it, and hopefully we have dealt a fatal blow by leaving. You're welcome!
Saw the theatrical release back in 1993. Bought two copies of the film (VHS) for friends who knew about the Civil War and played the old Avalon Hill war game. Great film
I still have my double VHS!
Excellent series. HOWEVER (uh oh), I am not sure I agree with your assessment that Heth propagated a "cover up" story re: the shoes as a way to "cover up his tracks for some of his blunders that he makes on July 1."
I freely admit that as both a history professor as well as former Gettysburg park ranger, you most likely have access to information that I do not have which might alter my views. But on the face of it I don't think your presumption even makes much sense. Here are my reasons:
1) In his battle report, Heth only mentions the shoes once. And when he does so, they are merely offered as one of the reasons he sent Pettigrew to Gettysburg on JUNE 30. (Not July 1). He writes: "On the morning of June 30, I ordered Brigadier-General Pettigrew to take his brigade to Gettysburg, search the town for army supplies (shoes especially), and return the same day." One is hard-pressed to show how this innocuous language relating to essentially a foraging mission can be interpreted as a "cover up" for his brash actions on the morning of July 1, a full day later. Furthermore, his following sentence jibes with what actually transpired that day before the battle: "Under these circumstances, he did not deem it advisable to enter the town, and returned, as directed, to Cashtown." Nowhere does Heth offer up a quest for shoes as the reason behind his ordering Archer and Davis now in the vanguard to "advance and take the town" on July 1. And to my knowledge Pettigrew marched his brigade on the 30th with a complement of empty wagons. One does not encumber infantry like that without expecting to fill them up with something and return home.
2) Heth clearly had Corps Commander Hill's approval to return to Gettysburg on July 1. I do not know if the record (other than Sears' account) shows that Heth actually sought permission to get shoes, but we do know that he had to have been moving east from Cashtown to Gettysburg at the behest of Hill. Otherwise he'd have been advancing alone, without support from two battalions of corps artillery and Pender's entire division behind. In fact, Hill himself in his battle report offered "I intended to advance the next morning and discover what was in my front."
Heth's big mistake was ordering his two front line brigades to attack the Union troops on McPherson's Ridge without knowing what exactly he was up against (Archer's concern). Hence his surprise at finding himself in a major engagement with the Union I Corps and not just plucky cavalry. To my knowledge (key words I admit) Heth never offered up the shoes as a reason for his pressing his attacks on July 1 rather than doing what he should have which was to pause and await further instructions from Hill. (Maybe he knew Hill was sick in his tent so took some initiative? Who knows?)
3) Finally, no doubt Heth and the men of Third Corps and First Corps behind knew very little about what was in Gettysburg. Yes, Ewell’s Second Corps had already passed through, but then they headed north and out of touch for the most part, but for a few couriers back and forth, towards Harrisburg. Heth may have heard rumors of shoes, which perhaps arose because of the fact that Gettysburg did have several tanneries. I am not sure if a division commander of a different corps would have been privy to the bounty already levied on Gettysburg three days before. So it is quite possible Heth sincerely THOUGHT there were shoes there. Again, though, he barely mentions them in his report other than as an especially desirable booty.
Unfortunately, Hill and Pettigrew, the men both directly above and below Heth respectively, did not live long enough to write memoirs that might have offered some clarity--Hill especially is a terrible loss given he is a bit of a mystery in the historical record of the battle. I do think to offer that a general officer in divisional command in effect blatantly LIED on his battle report is a pretty serious charge. Again, for all I know you have mountains of information/evidence I have never seen proving Heth did just that. If so I humbly stand corrected and sincerely appreciate the learning experience. If not...
I used to give boat tours off Key Largo, FL where Carysfort Reef Lighthouse still stands. I always liked to mention to the tourists that the young army engineer who built the light went on to lead the Union forces at Gettysburg: George Meade.
Reenactors made this movie come to life.
Shout out to the 44th Massachusetts! Their generosity at the 1994 Eastover demonstration is one of my fondest memories.
I will take issue with one thing the professor says in his analysis. At 50:12, he states that the rights the Southerners were fighting for was the right to own slaves. Yes, the Articles of Secession of most of the States named slavery as the the primary reason, but those words came from the politicians, or the elite southern aristocracy. The average soldier didn't care about whether slavery was legal or not. The rights he was referring to was their right to govern themselves. Georgia was to be governed by Georgians not New Yorkers or Michiganders. Alabama, South Carolina, and pretty much all the Southern states had similar attitudes.
The "professor" here is just picking and choosing his historical interpretation to suit his political beliefs.
He attributes the northern cause to one of freeing slaves and cites individual soldiers as his evidence (even though Lincoln said he would have preserved slavery if it meant preserving the union) and attributes the southern cause to preserving slavery and cites politicians (even though numerous letters from actual southern soldiers, including southern soldiers at Gettysburg, said they were fighting for the right to govern themselves)
The "professor" is nothing more than a modern charlatan, pretending an air of learned understanding while in reality being a slave to his own ideology.
Outstanding review of the initial start of the battle. Always learn something new when you lecture. Thanks for giving Meade his due. Thanks for leading the charge in truth on the battle.
This is a great movie! I have been to the battlefield three times. I could most likely spend a month or two and not take in everything. I was an Army officer and I took my officer basic at Ft Lee, Virginia. All of the Army schools encourage and teach about military history. What command decisions were made based on terrain, logistics, enemy strength, and a whole host of other things. One of the greatest things that I got to do was my military history assignment while at officer basic course in Ft Lee.
We had to do a full report on the Battle of Gettysburg from a command point of view. After studying many books and papers on the subject but before writing the report, our class went to Gettysburg. 'We went to almost every point on the battlefield and stood where command stood, looking at the ground, and then understanding why they did what they did. This was done for both sides. It was as if you were really there during the battle! I will never forget that !
It is so funny you think alot of people re.ember Petty Coat Junction and Uncle Joe. I only remember his nieces..
I was in Saxton's Cornet Band, which appeared in three scenes of this movie.
We were General Lee's band in the film.
Despite the process being hot and at times thoroughly miserable, it was a fun way to spend the summer between my Junior and Senior year of college.
bands were pretty common on the battlefield into the twentieth century.....WWI put an end to that....
Thank you for this video. There are some very interesting comments and aspects. As a non-US citizen, it seems to me that your Union sympathies are very evident. For example, why should it matter that the Confederate States' reason for secession was slavery ? Were they not entitled to secede if they wished, whatever their reasons ? It's not as if the stated aim of the Union was to abolish slavery, but to preserve the Union, and dominion over the territories of North America.
As a US citizen I'll attempt an answer.... as the years passed, and slavery became a more and more embarrassing reason for secession, a new narrative was formed, saying that the South left over other reasons, summarized as "states rights". The claim was that the North was pushing them around on other issues, and the South had enough of being treated like children and left the union. Thing is, every time I've ever asked someone espousing this belief to enumerate some of these other issues (that were worth starting a cataclysmic war over) they can't name one. Because there really weren't any worth going to war over. Only slavery was important enough. So basically, the reason he wants to correct the record over why the South left, is to call BS on this re-write of history, by Confederate apologists. If you lived in the states, or talked to just a few people from the south, you'd have run into this long ago.
And no, they were not "entitled to secede", for any reason. There was no exit clause, no divorce provision built into the constitution.
But societies have been rewriting history to make themselves look better for as long as there have been people. The US (and Canada) is only now admitting some of the things they did to the Native Americans. Don't ask a Brit if you want the true story of how Ireland ended up as messed up as it is. And then of course there are the Japanese, who paint themselves as the innocent victims of two atomic bombs.
@@bab3038 Just because something is not written down, doesn't invalidate it. What is written in the constitution can clearly be changed, as evidenced by the number of amendments.
@@bab3038 That's an interesting reply about entitlement to secession. It's like 1861 again. A large section of American at that time disagreed with your statement. In fact, that is the issue: States rights. The South asserted that they could secede and the North disagreed, and both sides were willing to take up arms to assert it.
It's a bit like the American Revolution. The rebels wanted their independence from Britain so that they could decide things for themselves.
Briton here, fascinated by the Civil War.
My opinion is in agreement with the one you expressed. I don't think it really matters if the South seceded because they wished to keep slavery, the fact is that they desired independence.
As much as I enjoy the professor's videos I am wary about the apparent Union sympathies, especially with the references to the North fighting for freedom and to put an end to slavery, when it is clear that the Union was fighting to suppress secession and restore the Union, (which he has stated).
The American Civil War has a hold over Americans even today. Some of the beliefs about it appear to be ingrained in society.
It's interesting to keep hearing from many Americans that the North was fighting for freedom, when there were over 450,000 slaves on their territory at the outset but they were not freed. Nor was it Union policy to free the slaves in the territory they controlled, even while issuing the Emancipation Proclamation to declare as free those slaves held in the Southern states still in "rebellion": this was merely a war measure. The fact is that Southern states wished to secede and the Northern states fought to stop them.
A must read is The Passing of the Armies. First hand accounts written by Joshua L. Chamberlain himself. He takes you into battle with him and it is amazing. Also read Killer Angels, written by Michael Shaara, the book that inspired Gettysburg. So we'll written you can smell the campfires and the coffee brewing.
I'm really glad to see you took an aside to be explicit about the intentions of the Confederacy in seceding as there's always at least a few Lost Causers in the comments. I'll also be honest and say when I saw the length of the video I thought "Oh, I dunno if I can do the whole thing." The time just flew by, and before I noticed it was on to part 2. Supremely informative and entertaining!
Thanks for believing!
If what you say about the South having a monopoly on the government from it's founding to the point of war - would it not make more sense to remain in the union where slavery was protected and legal, than to cast those guarantees aside and up to chance by declaring secession?
@@jonathanbaggs4275 It's a good, fair question. There is an answer. Please, do read the articles of secession from the various Confederate states, especially South Carolina. Slave holders thought the tide had turned against slavery and wasn't going to turn back. They saw what happened to other slave nations (Great Britain and France abolishing slavery decades before). In their eyes, the nation just elected a radical from a new radical party, and their best chance was to leave before he had the levers of power. Keep in mind, also, that fear and support for secession was at its highest at the time of Lincoln's election.
you are the lost cause if you think secession is single issue.
@@carl5381 Please give us details on what the other issues were.
HOLY CRAP. ASK AND YA SHALL RECEIVE. Love how we get the American Waterloo right after Band of Brothers. Thank you so much and please keep up the good work!
Regarding the comments on Meade, before the war as an engineer he oversaw the construction of the lighthouse in Key West, Florida as well as several others in the Keys. Just learned that on a visit there a few weeks ago.
I was just at Barnegat Light and saw another lighthouse of his a few months ago!
@@ReelHistory cool stuff! yes I wasn't aware of just how involved he was in that field. A bunch in the Delaware Bay are his also. He also, (during down time waiting for funding from Congress) he invented a 5 wick hydraulic lamp that replaced the French lamps that were currently in American lighthouses.
From David A. Wood: I fully agree with "@johnschomburg563" in that the score of "Gettysburg" is a sublime score. The theme song for "Gettysburg" is my second favorite film score with the Teutonic childhood-sounding theme song to the 1977 war film "Cross of Iron" still being my favorite one. Going back to "Gettysburg," it is no wonder that this majestically beautiful score is used as the theme song for the NBC Olympics.
I lived in Stateline PA right up the road from Gettysburg when this was filmed and my mom and grandma made me stand in line for over 4 hours to get Sam Elliot's autograph...
My family is from this neck of the woods. Sister lives in GBurg Borough, and most of immediate family in surrounding area. Kinda my backyard. Though I'm 65 and pretty much spent my entire life here, it still brings wondrous awe and somber reverence to my core being. I am a student of it's story.
Always feel bad for John Buford. After playing a very significant role in many of the battles of the Civil War even before Gettysburg, he passed away only about six months after the battle. He was only 37 and died as a result of pneumonia, but may have had typhoid or as a result of prior wounds. Only a Brigadier General at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln promoted him to Major General on the day of his death, December 16, 1863. Buford asked if Lincoln really meant it, and when assured that it was so, commented "It is too late, now I wish I could live." He died a few hours later in the arms of his aide, Captain Myles Keogh (who would later be killed at the Battle of the Little Big Horn with Custer's 7th Cavalry in 1876.)
Stumbled upon your channel. Have been binge watching episodes throughout the day. Subbed.
Awesome, thank you!
This is the first movie I ever sat through that had an actual intermission. Very old school.
I love this movie. Saw it when I was young as well. Ted Turner was a legend for making this and Gods and Generals. Loved that one too.
as exhausting as it was...this movie makes you yearn for more....
@@frankpienkosky5688 Its definitely a process! Thankfully Lord of the Rings trained me for this long movie.
Nice overview on the battle of Gettysburg. A Teenager’s Guide to the Civil War: A History Book for Teens gives a nice overview too.
These reactions you guys do are the best...keep them coming...thank you👍
An Officer from my Base in California was an Artillery Reenactor in that movie and had some great stories to tell from behind the sets when they wear not filming their parts. I also served in Korea when the Armor unit known as the Iron Brigade was there, that has roots back to that unit from history, though the real Iron Brigade was made up from several state units that some had been drummed out after the war and some remained as and to become state National Guard.
49:19 It never ceases to astonish me (and I speak of many references beyond just this film) that back then you could ask a captured enemy about what I would regard as sensitive military information and they'd just spill it. 😮
Contrast that with the British paratrooper, captured after jumping into Normandy,, who was asked by his German captors 'How many more of you are there?" He replied, as thousands of his comrades were clearly landing all around in the dark "Just me, mate." 😉
Re artillery recoil, yes the guns didn't use a full powder charge, but even if they had, with out shot in the barrel, youll not get any real movemnet.
Firing a gun with full charge and a round, will drive the guns back.
I've written this somewhere else, but I have to do it again. Your English is a delight... There, said it again.
I wasn't going to watch this movie but my children kept encouraging me to watch it. When I did watch it I was puzzled why I knew what was coming next. It wasn't until the movie was scrolling through brief biographies of the characters that I realized that I'd read a book twenty years or more ago that also had these biographies. I went to a bookshelf and pulled out The Killer Angels. I was so surprised that I knew which book to pull out. The movie was long enough to have covered the book from cover-to-cover.
One of my GGGrandfathers fought and was wounded at Brandy Station as a member of the 9th Virginia Cavalry