Just watched Gettysburg for the first time. Blows my mind how much effort was put into this.
Also, could they have unironically won?
 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Just watched Gettysburg for the first time. Blows my mind how much effort was put into this. Also, could they have unironically won?
This movie is great if you know very little about the Civil War.
What if you know a lot about the Civil War?
He probably doesn't know. He's just trained his brain to come up with quick sound bites to get attention on the interwebs.
Then you'll become angry at how Lee and Armistead are portrayed and use that anger to jerk off but not in a good way.
At the onset of the Civil War, a 34 year old man was supreme military commander of the world's largest and most powerful army. You are are probably 5 years older and sitting here on Cinemaphile with no job.
Alexander the Great formed one of the largest empires in the world by the time he was 23.
There are kids in China making iPhones right now.
He inherited it
and he used it brilliantly.
Indians defeated him.
No they didn't his mother did chinb
Moltke the Elder was 64 when the ACW broke out tho...
the dude who got btfo in turkey???
let me guess, the winning side always lies?
Are you implying they don't?
I'm sorry that you live in a communist state.
Even if the South did win at Gettysburg, it wouldn't have ended the war. The North would have simply raised a new army and DC was still too heavily fortified to be captured.
The South was doomed from the start once Lincoln decided to double down and go total war on them.
You might say it was a lost cause.
The South was always going to lose. They had logistic problems, like not having a standard rail gauge. The March to the Sea just hurried thing along.
General I agree the south had no chance, you could see a situation where a win at Gettysburg could result in the army of Nova taking Harrisburg or even moving on Philadelphia
That paired with the nyc draft riots and the un/France recognizing the south and pushing for an armistice.
But the north was industrialized had double the pop and economy of the south and never fully mobilized like the south had to.
I mean they never had had a full true draft you couldn’t buy out of
boat loads of Irish cannon fodder too
Ehhhh the UK and France both abhorred slavery and their populations would not have let them.
>thinking anyone actually gave a single shit about slavery
Are you a child?
They cared about cotton supplies more. And the twin Union victories at Vicksburg and gettesyburg prevented them from trying to stop the war which they saw on the outside as a stalemate
>Even if the South did win at Gettysburg, it wouldn't have ended the war.
If it redirected troops in the Western theatre back towards Washington it might have given the Confederates time to recapture parts of the Mississippi region. Since the South just wanted a peace treaty they didn't have to actually destroy the North in order to win.
In retrospect it looks bad since Lee lost at Gettysburg, but I actually agree with his strategic reasoning given a bad situation. Divert armies away from the West, get a solid victory that (whether realistically achievable or not) makes Washington fear invasion, and continue with diplomatic pressure trying to achieve a peace treaty. It seems to me that just waging a purely defensive war against a numerically superior enemy is going to just be a drawn out defeat, but the high-risk aggressive strategy advocated by Lee at least gives a clearer path towards a negotiated peace (even if it didn't pan out in the end due to the defeat at Gettysburg).
They were fighting for state rights, right? Not wanting a big federal government dictating things? In order to fight their war, they had to pass legislation allowing the military to seize control of the railroads. Do you think the plantation owners liked that? They lost their principles only a couple of years after succession. They would have lost complete support given time.
the South's mistake was fighting a conventional war. they should have used guerilla tactics and avoided open battle as much as possible. much like the founder fathers did.
they could have bled the North, all the while seeking help from the British or even the French who were already in Mexico.
The French wasnt close to the American border
The French didn't realize, the reason why Mexico wasn't paying their debt to them, is that the infrastructure wasn't built up. So they had troubles taking over, and once the Americans showed up after the Civil War, they were quickly driven out.
The British and French were more worried about each other in Europe. That's why the French were trying to speed-run Mexico, because they needed those men and ships back asap. Speaking of Mexico, the Confederate envoy got himself kicked out for starting a fistfight with an expat yankee. The yankee whipped his ass thoroughly. The Mexican government used that as an excuse to kick the confederado out but not before he spent a month in jail. On top of always begging for money, he also liked to get drunk and brag about how the rebs were gonna come down and annex Mexico and the entire Caribbean after they were done whipping the yankees. Meanwhile in France, the CSA envoy there was the joke of town due to his atrocious French pronunciation and knowledge, and his Baghdad Bob level of war reports.
>4 and a half hour kino
I'm sold
I was a reenactor in God's and Generals and have a shot in the film focused on me. Jeff Daniels was a douchebag, C. Thomas Howell was cool, Stephen Lang was awesome, Bruce Boxleitner was ok. We are pretty sure Kevin Conway showed up to set every day drunk or stoned. Robert Duvall would cuss up a storm when he forgot his lines.
Was martin Sheen in that one or the other one? Also, are you like 50?
Also for me, it's Andersonville https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eGksYS-kmQ
Martin Sheen was in Gettysburg, I'm 37. I was 16 when we filmed. I was there right after 9/11.
I thought G'n'G was early 90's. I'm thinking of Glory probably. Post youtube clip that you're in. Also, did they let you keep your costume?
Not going to post the exact clip in case anyone here knows me, but it's during Chancellorsville when Stonewall's troops are raiding the Union campsites. Also I owned everything before filming, as did every other reenactor that got selected for filming.
unless it could somehow bleed into affecting your career I don't know why people are so sensitive about being recognized on here, its not like this thread is controversial
Cinemaphile(nel) is 'le racist and bigot', remember.
Do you still do re-enacting? Is it basically an excuse for boomers to dress up in old timely clothes and get drunk?
I haven't had the time to for a while due to my professional career. The drunkenness depends on who you choose to fall in with, the unit I was a member up was more serious about it and advised against drinking too much. Most people take it seriously and want to educate themselves and the general public on the war and how soldiers lived through it.
First of all, thanks to you and all the other
re-enactors, Turner couldn't h as have made
the pictures without you.
I always wondered what might have happened if the Confederate artillery had aimed for that stone wall that protected
some of the Union soldiers in the middle
as did the one at Fredericksburg.
Lets assume that the South achieved victory and seceded aswell as maintaining their right to have slaves. How many years with no foreign intervention would it be before they outlawed slavery on their own? Would it have happened at all? Probably just make Blacks into indentured servants
Slavery was only gonna be profitable for like 20 years max from 1860, after that they would've had no use for slaves in the south.
they had use for the houseBlack folk, especially the women
>Lets assume that the South achieved victory and seceded aswell as maintaining their right to have slaves. How many years with no foreign intervention would it be before they outlawed slavery on their own?
Tractors were 1-2 generations away. Slavery was going to go away just through economics.
Slavery was also going away because it was cheaper to grow cotton in Egypt, India and China than to buy it from the South.
If the civil war hadn't happened or the South had a decisive victory then Slavery in the South or at least in a large part would have ended in 1680.
People tend to get hung up on the idea of slavery as an institution in the South, where as the grand majority of the population couldn't afford slaves, and outside of the elite plantation holdings most middle class households owned one slave. The equivalent of owning a slave money wise was like buying a sportscar.
Technological innovation had already made plantation slavery less profitable from a production basis, the closure of the North Atlantic slave trade is what caused the prices to go up as a lot of plantations traded slaves and children as a commodity, since you couldn't bring in boatloads. The slaves themselves became a wealthy commodity.
The offset of this was the secession itself. White trash or poor working whites in the South had been politically marginalised despite making up the vast majority of the population. They suffered economically under slavery, as slavery as an institution morons freedmen wages and innovation. With the seccession of the South these working whites suddenly had full rights to vote, and if the South had won, would have had a large amount of political power in terms of elections and representation that would have run counter to the plantation owners interests. The demand for decent wages and representation would have eventually spelled a deathknell for slavery as an institution in the South, the war only sped up the process and created bitter recrimination on it's part.
Then there is the international relations, a free CSA would have had to end slavery due to British acquistions in Egypt and the loss of principal cotton trade, not to mention other nations that tentatively supported the South if but for the ghastly practice of chattel slavery.
In order to keep the market, they would have had pressure to abolish it.
The south will rise again, we need to put Black folk into place.
>Also, could they have unironically won?
politically yes (and they arguably did after Reconstruction was abandoned) but militarily no.
>Also, could they have unironically won?
Yes
But you asking a non stop winning streaks that would the force the north to treaty up but that is simply not possible.
Imperial Japan pulled something like this with the czar Russia but never able to with china and later the US.
>Imperial Japan pulled something like this with the czar Russia but never able to with china and later the US.
Japan had their entire war chest funded by bankers like Jacob Schiff. It was one big proxy war by the British and even then it was a very narrow run affair, the Japanese failed to sink the fleet anchored at Port Arthur and couldn't effectively blockade it until the IJA was able to take the heights surrounding it at an extensive cost of life and start shelling the fleet.
If the Russians were able to stall negotiations for a few weeks the Japs would've been insolvent.
>Also, could they have unironically won?
The Gettysburg attack only happened because Lee was in a position where to stand and hold would have been to await being surrounded, and to withdraw would have been to invite a crushing attack. He had no choice but to attack and hope that his troops valor or the enemy's fear would give him a victory, or room to withdraw, despite the odds. However this was very unlikely, about as unlikely as the Union attacks on Fredericksburg at "Mary's Heights."
Lee did make it out with his army bleeding but intact, the Union really wasn't up to following afterwards, nobody in the army was in any condition to.
My happiest memory with my dad is being at the Gettysburg battlefield.
LMAO at euros and the giant pile of dirt they put in the middle of waterloo, way to preserve your battlefields homosexuals
The South was the Ukraine of its day.