Teaching the Civil War, 150 Years Later...THE MEGATHREAD

[jimmy olsen]

The essential problem here is that Jackson was dead by the time Gettysburg was fought 

Right, I just figured out, I mistaked him for Longstreet.

New problem chief, the Confederate's defeat at Gettysburg can in part be blamed on Lee not listening to Longstreet's advice.

[Tamas]

The essential problem here is that Jackson was dead by the time Gettysburg was fought 

Right, I just figured out, I mistaked him for Longstreet.

About fucking time.
Which brings us to Problem #2 with your fucked up gypsy comprehension: there was no cocksuckery of Lee by Longstreet.  There never was.  Not in the film, not in real life.

In the movie there was. As I said, I think it is a good movie, but Longstreet is ultimate wisdom embodied in it , and Lee is practically in love with him.

[CountDeMoney]

Go back to pirating software, because your grasp on pirated DVDs is for shit.

[Lettow77]

New problem chief, the Confederate's defeat at Gettysburg can in part be blamed on Lee not listening to Longstreet's advice.

Or in Longstreet's unenthusiastic and flawed execution of Lee's orders. Even assuming Lee listening to Longstreet or Longstreet doing what he was told would have provided victory, Lee has no obligation to obey Longstreet, which is a claim Longstreet couldn't make.

Edit: Tamas is actually right, though, that Longstreet is way too much the avatar of wisdom in the film.

[Tamas]

Go back to pirating software, because your grasp on pirated DVDs is for shit.

IIRC, the movie  admittedly used Longstreet's memoirs. And it clearly shows. He is both without fail, without error of judgement, and yet with no control at all over the fate he clearly foresees from the get go. A victim without responsibility despite being second in command. Almost as if he wrote his memoirs from his own persective, to defend his role; shockingly.

[grumbler]

Go back to pirating software, because your grasp on pirated DVDs is for shit.

IIRC, the movie  admittedly used Longstreet's memoirs. And it clearly shows. He is both without fail, without error of judgement, and yet with no control at all over the fate he clearly foresees from the get go. A victim without responsibility despite being second in command. Almost as if he wrote his memoirs from his own persective, to defend his role; shockingly.

You recall poorly.  The movie was an adaptation of the novel The Killer Angels by Michael Shara (which would have been informed by Longstreet's memoirs, but remains a novel).  The story is told from several perspectives, including Longstreet's.  Of course he is going to believe himself to be right when his advice is ignored - in that respect, the fictional Longstreet is probably not unlike the real Longstreet.

Keep telling yourself that Jackson /= Longstreet and novel /= history and you will avoid these Crazy-Canuck-style embarrassments in the future.

[Tamas]

Keep telling yourself that Jackson /= Longstreet and novel /= history and you will avoid these Crazy-Canuck-style embarrassments in the future.

The likely overvaluation of Longstreet's oracle-ish insight and unparalelled command of respect in the movie is a valid argument regardless wether sayed movie poses to be fiction or fact

[grumbler]

The likely overvaluation of Longstreet's oracle-ish insight and unparalelled command of respect in the movie is a valid argument regardless wether sayed movie poses to be fiction or fact

How can you "over-evaluate" the oracle-ish insight of a fictional character?  Is that like complaining about over-evaluating the spear-throwing ability of King Leonidas in 300?

Was the real Longstreet as good as the fictional character thought he was in the movie?  No.  But the character was closer to being the general Longstreet thought he was than you are to the movie-reviewer you think you are.

[Tamas]

The likely overvaluation of Longstreet's oracle-ish insight and unparalelled command of respect in the movie is a valid argument regardless wether sayed movie poses to be fiction or fact

How can you "over-evaluate" the oracle-ish insight of a fictional character?  Is that like complaining about over-evaluating the spear-throwing ability of King Leonidas in 300?

Was the real Longstreet as good as the fictional character thought he was in the movie?  No.  But the character was closer to being the general Longstreet thought he was than you are to the movie-reviewer you think you are.

So first you decline my right to have an opinion on the personality of this fictional Longstreet, and then you proceed to state your opinion on the fictional Longstreet?

Not too sporty.

[grumbler]

So first you decline my right to have an opinion on the personality of this fictional Longstreet, and then you proceed to state your opinion on the fictional Longstreet?

Not too sporty.

  What part of the smiley makes you think I intended that line to be taken seriously?

Somebody woke up cranky today.  I'll just leave you to take out on someone else.

[Ed Anger]

This isn't the grumbler I know. Where are the long winded retorts?

WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE REAL GRUMBLER?

DO WE HAVE HIS PHONE NUMBER? CLEAR THE AIR!

[Razgovory]

Keep telling yourself that Jackson /= Longstreet and novel /= history and you will avoid these Crazy-Canuck-style embarrassments in the future.

The likely overvaluation of Longstreet's oracle-ish insight and unparalelled command of respect in the movie is a valid argument regardless wether sayed movie poses to be fiction or fact

It's a major reversal in American opinions of Longstreet.  Longstreet was seen by many Southerners (who have long dominated American scholarship on the war) after the war as a traitor because he had criticized Lee and worked with the federal government.  They particularly have denigrated his actions at Gettysburg (as Lettow has done).  He always was somewhat fatalistic about the Southern Cause, but he did try his best to follow orders at Gettysburg.  He was critical of many the decisions Lee made during the battle (perhaps rightly as they did lose the battle despite a strong showing on the first day), and Lee did rely heavily on him as his best Corps commander.

In a more dramatic sense Longstreet is depicted as living through Buford's prophecy at the beginning of the movie, as a soldier who knows he is doomed to fail but can't stop it and must go along anyway out of duty.

One odd thing about the film, is that while the Southern Commanders get a lot of screen time their Union counterparts get very little.  General Meade only appears in one scene of the film.  Hancock is shown a bit more (and he was de facto Union commander for much of the battle), but still not as much Lee, Longstreet, and Pickett.

[Ed Anger]

Fuck Jubal Early and the Southern lost causers.

[Habbaku]

New problem chief, the Confederate's defeat at Gettysburg can in part be blamed on Lee not listening to Longstreet's advice.

Or in Longstreet's unenthusiastic and flawed execution of Lee's orders.

"[N]o 15,000 men ever arrayed for battle can take that position."  An enthusiastic and eager-to-follow-orders Longstreet (assuming that's the problem, which I don't believe) would've resulted in more pointless losses for the South.

[Berkut]

New problem chief, the Confederate's defeat at Gettysburg can in part be blamed on Lee not listening to Longstreet's advice.

Or in Longstreet's unenthusiastic and flawed execution of Lee's orders.

"[N]o 15,000 men ever arrayed for battle can take that position."  An enthusiastic and eager-to-follow-orders Longstreet (assuming that's the problem, which I don't believe) would've resulted in more pointless losses for the South.

I bet 15,000 SS with Tigers mounting 10.5cm guns (two each) could have.