QuoteTeaching the Civil War, 150 years later
By Nick Anderson, Sunday, April 10, 6:58 PM
Take an empty half-pint milk carton. Glue 12 Popsicle sticks onto the sides and hold them in place with a rubber band. Pretend it is a wooden warship.
Now make another, and wrap both vessels in aluminum foil. Float your two "ironclads" in a plastic tub of water. Bombard them with blue marbles. Pretend they are the Monitor and the Merrimack.
"Guess who won this battle?" teacher Cindy Agner asks.
"No one," the kids chorus.
"This is what they call a draw."
And this is how the Civil War comes to life for a roomful of fourth-graders in Northern Virginia, 150 years after the nation's deadliest armed conflict began. Agner's reenactment of the landmark naval Battle of Hampton Roads — a tactile lesson the veteran teacher dreamed up this year — drew her Fairfax County class into a chapter of American history that has long provoked education debate.
The war's sesquicentennial, starting Tuesday with the anniversary of the attack on Fort Sumter in South Carolina, provides a "teachable moment" for schools everywhere. But how and when students learn about slavery and secession, blue and gray, Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, Bull Run (or Manassas) and Appomattox varies enormously from state to state, school to school and even teacher to teacher.
This year, Virginia learned anew the sensitivity of Civil War education when the state Board of Education withdrew approval of a fourth-grade textbook — "Our Virginia: Past and Present" — that asserted thousands of African Americans fought for the South. Most historians reject that claim.
Last year, the Texas State Board of Education voted to require eighth-graders to study the inaugural address of Confederate President Jefferson Davis alongside President Abraham Lincoln's first and second inaugurals and his Gettysburg Address. That was one of many controversial revisions to Texas standards.
Jeremy A. Stern, a historian who reviewed state academic standards this year for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, said differences in the timing and scope of Civil War education across the United States are dramatic. Often, he said, the war is not taught systematically until middle school.
The big question: Why?
For elementary teachers, a central challenge is to explain why the war happened. Edward L. Ayers, president of the University of Richmond and a historian who has written about the Civil War and the South, said that he was working one day on an essay on nuances related to that question when his 11-year-old daughter walked into his study with a textbook and asked, "Daddy, what caused the Civil War?"
"I paused a moment," recalled Ayers, "calculated the costs and benefits of trying to explain historic complexity to a young person, and said, 'Slavery, honey.' "
As Ayers elaborated in an e-mail: "That's the bedrock of everything else that happened, even though white people at the time, especially in the North, might not have felt it so directly. They would have said they fought to maintain the federal government and the Union. But Americans would not have been arguing about that in the first place without the challenges slavery presented."
The bottom line for young students, agreed William Davis, a Virginia Tech historian: "Slavery led to secession, and secession led to the war. But even that so oversimplifies it."
South Carolina, where the war started, asks third-graders to "summarize the institution of slavery prior to the Civil War"; explain the reasons for the state's secession, "including the abolitionist movement, states' rights and the desire to defend South Carolina's way of life"; and outline the course of the war and the state's role in it.
Arizona asks third-graders to "recognize that there were issues (e.g., slavery, states' rights, South seceded from the Union) associated with the Civil War." Maryland calls for fourth-graders to "analyze regional differences in the Civil War" and "explain why loyalties to the North and South were divided" in the state. D.C. schools teach the war in fifth grade, including lessons on the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of slavery in the nation's capital.
In Virginia, scene of so many crucial battles, schools capitalize on their location to teach fourth-graders about a war that literally split the state.
Agner's school, Laurel Hill Elementary in the Lorton area of Fairfax, is about 20 miles southeast of the battlefield where a Confederate general named Thomas J. Jackson earned the nickname "Stonewall" in July 1861. The school, not quite two years old, neighbors rows of new houses and townhouses and a former D.C. prison.
Agner's students in Room 204, who have such surnames as Brown, Garland, Ghani, Holcomb, Kakar, Kapur, Pommer, Rahmani, Shah and Tran, reveal an ethnic mosaic that 19th-century Virginians scarcely could have imagined.
Sixty languages are spoken in the homes of Laurel Hill students. The most common are, in order, Korean, Vietnamese and Spanish.
Variety of strategies
Agner, 31, who is in her 10th year as a teacher, grew up in Fairfax. Pasted on a door inside the classroom are one of her childhood report cards and pictures of her in fourth grade and at her 1997 graduation from Lake Braddock Secondary School. Mrs. Agner, as the students call her, says in the biographical display: "My favorite subject is social studies."
Over six weeks in February and March, Agner immersed students in the war through a series of 45-minute lessons. The disputed fourth-grade text had been pulled from Fairfax schools months earlier, but Agner said she didn't use it much anyway. For the record, Agner said, she almost always calls the conflict the Civil War but tells students it is sometimes called the War Between the States. The latter name is often identified with pro-Confederate views.
Her students read aloud from a play called "Mary Chesnut and her Diary," dramatizing Virginians' torn feelings about secession in early 1861. They studied a map Agner had stapled to a corkboard with states colored blue for most of the Union, gray for the Confederacy, green for slave states that stayed in the Union and yellow for the Union-loyalist state carved out of the Old Dominion in 1863 — West Virginia.
They learned about the industrializing North and agricultural South, the fallout from Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860 and Lee's victory at Fredericksburg in 1862. Their Smart Board flickered with short video clips on key events and maps showing the evolving demographics of the slave population — a group that Virginia history standards ask schools to call "enslaved African Americans."
Students puzzled over whether the Army of Northern Virginia belonged to the North or South. At first most guessed North because of the army's name — a common assumption. The class cleared it up later.
One early-March afternoon, during a lesson on the First Battle of Bull Run, Agner sensed her students were getting antsy. She had read to them about civilian spectators whose day turned from picnics to panic, talked about the high toll of dead and wounded, recounted how Southern forces rallied around Jackson when another Confederate commander cried out that he was standing "like a stone wall."
Still, the students were restless. Agner improvised.
"Cavin," Agner said. "Come and stand and show us what he might have looked like."
Cavin Loh, 10, popped up to the front. He puffed his chest, stuck out his chin, stared sternly ahead.
"Can I blink?" he asked.
"No, you're a stone wall," Agner said.
Then she asked others to strike poses. One stood and saluted. Another put her foot on a chair and leaned forward. "I see him on a horse," Agner said. "I see him ready to shout. I see no fear."
In late March, the class capped its Civil War unit with a field trip to the Decatur House in Washington. Students donned costumes as soldiers and politicians from the period and produced a video about the Emancipation Proclamation.
What stuck with them?
Dominique Pham, 10, said the Monitor, the Merrimack and the marbles.
He added: "We learned about abolitionists. We learned about the two sides and what they liked and what they didn't like. The Union didn't like slavery because they thought it's wrong. I agree with them. And it's not nice to make people do things they don't want to do."
I watched Gettysburg this evening. Hadn't seen it in a while. I hadn't realized before how Lee comes off as a delusional old kook.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2011, 10:52:29 PM
I watched Gettysburg this evening. Hadn't seen it in a while. I hadn't realized before how Lee comes off as a delusional old kook.
Wasnt it written after the book of Stonewall? Because it certainly seems so. Everyone seems to be just moments away of kneeling down and giving him a blowjob, especially Lee, and most of the movie is about how he foresee the whol god damn thing, it's just that nobody listened to him.
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2011, 02:02:02 AM
Wasnt it written after the book of Stonewall? Because it certainly seems so. Everyone seems to be just moments away of kneeling down and giving him a blowjob, especially Lee, and most of the movie is about how he foresee the whol god damn thing, it's just that nobody listened to him.
You pirated the wrong movie, track suit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 02:05:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2011, 02:02:02 AM
Wasnt it written after the book of Stonewall? Because it certainly seems so. Everyone seems to be just moments away of kneeling down and giving him a blowjob, especially Lee, and most of the movie is about how he foresee the whol god damn thing, it's just that nobody listened to him.
You pirated the wrong movie, track suit.
I like the movie, especially after trying to watch Gods and Generals (which serve as a great example of how a totally boring ACW movie looks), it's just that the Stonewall fanboism was way too apparent. Lee keeps sucking up to him all the time. Who was the commanding officer there?
This has gotten more confusing.
Gods and Generals, which you pronounce as the boring, unwatchable one, was dedicated to worshiping Jackson.
In Gettysburg, Stonewall plays the role of Sir Not Appearing In This Film, for reasons that should be apparent.
Oops! Busted! :D
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 11, 2011, 03:05:15 AM
In Gettysburg, Stonewall plays the role of Sir Not Appearing In This Film, for reasons that should be apparent.
WTF. I am talking about stuff like every time Lee meets Stonewall, he says "OMG WTF WOULD I DO WITHOUT YOU?!!!!"
OK, Tamas. It's time to re-read the thread. I've had just about enough of you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 03:21:49 AM
OK, Tamas. It's time to re-read the thread. I've had just about enough of you.
I think you should ban him.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 03:21:49 AM
OK, Tamas. It's time to re-read the thread. I've had just about enough of you.
Excuse me. I did not know that suggesting the non-godliness of Stonewall Jackson is verboten here.
Keep trying, Tamas! You are getting so close!
The essential problem here is that Jackson was dead by the time Gettysburg was fought :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 11, 2011, 03:39:58 AM
The essential problem here is that Jackson was dead by the time Gettysburg was fought :hmm:
:lol:
Right, I just figured out, I mistaked him for Longstreet.
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2011, 03:41:37 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 11, 2011, 03:39:58 AM
The essential problem here is that Jackson was dead by the time Gettysburg was fought :hmm:
:lol:
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.
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2011, 03:41:37 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 11, 2011, 03:39:58 AM
The essential problem here is that Jackson was dead by the time Gettysburg was fought :hmm:
:lol:
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 03:45:36 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2011, 03:41:37 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 11, 2011, 03:39:58 AM
The essential problem here is that Jackson was dead by the time Gettysburg was fought :hmm:
:lol:
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.
Go back to pirating software, because your grasp on pirated DVDs is for shit.
QuoteNew 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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 04:01:10 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2011, 04:16:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 04:01:10 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2011, 06:31:44 AM
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
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2011, 06:36:00 AM
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. :P
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2011, 06:47:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2011, 06:36:00 AM
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. :P
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.
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2011, 06:55:08 AM
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.
:huh: What part of the :P 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.
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!
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2011, 06:36:00 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2011, 06:31:44 AM
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.
Fuck Jubal Early and the Southern lost causers.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 11, 2011, 04:12:39 AM
QuoteNew 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.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 11, 2011, 10:19:58 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 11, 2011, 04:12:39 AM
QuoteNew 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.
Are you actually quoting Longstreet's impudent complaining to explain away how Longstreet's efforts were doomed to failure even if he had put in an honest effort?
That said, we have a misunderstanding. Longstreet was criminally tardy on the second day, when the battle was still in the air. This quote refers to the third day.
By the third day, the best thing was to pack in and go home. Lee had a commendable faith in his men and the favor of an almighty God that misled him to contesting the issue anyway, and tragedy ensued. The blame for the third day is overwhelmingly Lee's.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 11, 2011, 07:01:42 AM
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!
I grumblered away grumbler! :o
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 10:24:14 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 11, 2011, 10:19:58 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 11, 2011, 04:12:39 AM
QuoteNew 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.
Only if led by Stuart.
I think Tamas is on to something. If Lee's necromantic powers had been greater, he not only could have solicited Jackson's advice at critical times at Gettysburg, he might have been able to revive Pickett's entire division for another go. But yet again, the Confederacy's embrace of traditional values -- in this case its aversion to withcraft, voodoo, and zombies -- prevented it from seizing what could have been a decisive advantage.
Quote
himself had funded the design of out of forsight for the threat the Confederacy could become.
The Confederacy: Jefferson is President in name only, having given the souls of the Confederate military and control of the land itself to Hell. Until the day of the Confederacy's victory (over the world? over god?) he's a hostage. Control of the now tainted Confederate territory and military is fought over by the "Demon Generals": Samuel Cooper (a manifested demon using the name of the host he sprang from), Albert Sidney Johnston (a possessed corpse), P.G.T. Beauregard (whose skin is being worn by a demon), J.B. Hood (under the influence of demonic body transplants, only his head and heart remaining his own), Bedford Forrest (his own evil side drawn out by an evil spirit inhabiting his sabre), J.E.B. Stuart (being ridden by a whole host of evil spirits), John S. Mosby (whose being possessed by a sadistic damned soul whose made his own deal while in Hell). Other luminaries include: Carmille Marie, a French born general whose bargained for return of his soul in exchange for using his occult knowledge to train Confederate cultists in black magic; Lloyd J. Beall, whose gone "too mad to possess" and leads the all-human suicide corps, the CSMarines; Benjamin Palmer, firey preacher who united the southern presbyterian church for secession and slavery, whose mind and faith were ripped to shreds by the Confederacy's demon reign and has since become chief heretic of the Confederate cultists; and most emminently, Stonewall Jackson, brought back from the dead (and slowly turning to stone) and forced to lead the peversely reanimated soldiers of his "Second Corps". Under the leadership of Hell the Confederacy has achieved riotous success in expanding their territory. With each push of the borders more American landscape becames poisoned by the infernal influence; most of the South is unrecognizable, and even the land sitting on the border between the pollution-spewing factory cities of the Union is becoming cracked and barren, razed from constant struggle between CSA and Union forces. However, as much ground as they'v gained, it's held together by a tenuos thread. The Confederacy is even less of a coherent structure than it's former set up. The 7 Demon Generals and lesser renegade devils have split up the Armies of the Confederacy, the Provisional Armies, and the State Militias, as well as the partisan bands; roughly between each other. The CSA is these days less a Confederation of states and more a Confederation of military powers that are tenuously allied posturing egomaniacs, fairly standard operating procedure for Hell.
:3
Could the South have won the war if Lee was a voodoo witch doctor?
Discuss.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 11, 2011, 10:19:58 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 11, 2011, 04:12:39 AM
QuoteNew 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.
In the film Longstreet advocates withdrawal after the first day. I don't know if that's true, I do believe he advocated a flanking maneuver on the 3rd day. Don't know if that would have worked, but we know that attacking the center did not work.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2011, 10:03:20 AM
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.
Chamberlain is the main Union voice in this book and movie, as Longstreet is the Confederates'. You get a lot more of the common Union soldier POV and the Confederate command POV. The book was deliberately designed that way, as those were the groups Shara thought most responsible for the outcome of the war.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 10:41:55 AM
Could the South have won the war if Lee was a voodoo witch doctor?
Discuss.
aww, you fixed it just as i hit quote. had a witty rejoinder set up and everything :(
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 10:41:55 AM
Could the South have won the war if Lee was a voodoo witch doctor?
Discuss.
Doesn't really help the leaders of Haiti.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2011, 10:52:29 PM
I watched Gettysburg this evening. Hadn't seen it in a while. I hadn't realized before how Lee comes off as a delusional old kook.
Odd-- that was the first impression I got when I first saw it in the theater. Particularly with the eerie music they played when he was explaining his plan for Pickett's Charge to Longstreet-- almost made Lee look like a psychopath. Not to mention the look on Tom Berenger's face.
I think they overplayed that, and I would not have picked Martin Sheen to play Lee, but Sheen did a lot better in that role than I expected. Tom Berenger was awesome, and I'm not just saying that cuz I'm a Longstreet fanboi :ph34r:
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 10:41:55 AM
Could the South have won the war if Lee was a voodoo witch doctor?
Discuss.
Undead Confederate soldiers? Instant win for the South.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmnpodcast.com%2Fimages%2Fcurseofcannibalconfederates.jpg&hash=37789d8401b27f1f93ab8e84765374d0e71c7650)
Btw, Iced Earth did a decent musical treatment of Gettysburg (obviously influenced by the movie):
July 1st (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=404MncCPR2I)
July 2nd (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPohN7QmSGU)
July 3rd (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn7cMcWpdkY)
Quotehttp://12. The Devil To Pay
[July 1st, 1863]
In July 1863
A nation torn in tragedy
A trick of fate, two great armies merge
Gods of war at Gettysburg
Devastation lies ahead
50,000 bodies litter the land
Hell rages three full days
The reaper sows, there's the devil to pay
The pressure's on and the reb's attack
The yanks must hold, They can't fall back
Just two brigades, 2000 strong
Against 20,000 they can't hold long
General Reynolds makes his way
Expect no mercy from the iron brigade
Until he shows they're on their own
But Buford's men have a will of stone
Bayonets gleam in the morning sun
Smoke and fire belching from their guns
Another volley and again they strike
Thousands more comin' down Chambersburg pike
[Chorus:]
This tragedy and what it brings
All the devastation
(The reaper has his way)
Men will kill, Blood will spill
To preserve the nation
(There's the devil to pay)
South of town down the Emmitsburg road
The first corps are starting to show
For Buford's men, they're here just in time
The desperate need to strengthen the line
Bodies dropping the blue and the grey
Muskets fire and cannon blaze
The union fights defending the town
But they're outnumbered and losing ground
From the north and the west more rebels arrive
Thousands more and the fight multiplies
McPhearson's ridge and the black hats strike
A rebel sharpshooter takes Reynolds life
[Repeat Chorus]
Attack! Attack! General Lee gives command
They're overwhelmed, The situation demands
The federals retreat and rush out of town
But they have fortified and saved the high ground
The day ends in victory for the south
Lee's as convinced as God's will is profound
They are invincible and their cause is just
But Longstreet is cautious and lacking in trust
Across the way the union digs in
The round tops, Cemetery Ridge and out to Culps Hill
Their lines are strong, no denying they'll stay
When the confederates strike
There'll be the devil to pay
[Repeat Chorus]
13. Hold At All Costs
[July 2nd, 1863]
Just a mile or so away
Is my dearest friend in this world.
He wears the Blue and I the Grey
And god it hurts me so
The last time we were together
I grabbed his hand and I pledged
If I ever draw my sword on you
May the good lord strike me dead.
The union flank's in trouble
To the round top on the double
A bad decision, insubordination
Exposed our lie in a dangerous way
The burden lies upon us
Surrender is not an option
We are the flank and if we break
The union crumbles, We could lose the war!
Down below's the carnage
The rebel's charging onward
Push the slaughter forward, the peach orchard.
Through the wheat field and devils den
The valour of the Texans
And Alabama's best men
Their Unrelenting and Devastating
The last full measure of devotion's clear.
[Chorus:]
We know what we're made of.
When up against all odds we hold our line
For the cause that we so love
We must hold at all cost
We know what we're made of
when our nation needs us we'll stay the cause
for the union we so love
We must hold at all costs!
Wave after wave they're coming
Their power must be waning!
We're out of ammo, we can't fall back, no!
One desperate measure, a means to end
On their next wave we charge them
There is no other option
Disconcert them, force submission
On my command, fix bayonets!
[Chorus:]
We know what we're made of.
When up against all odds we hold our line
For the cause that we so love
We must hold at all cost
We know what we're made of
when our nation needs us we'll stay the cause
for the union we so love
We must hold at all costs!
[Chorus:]
We know what we're made of.
When up against all odds we hold our line
For the cause that we so love
We must hold at all cost
We know what we're made of
when our nation needs us we'll stay the cause
for the union we so love
We must hold at all costs!
14. High Water Mark
[July 3rd, 1863]
[1. Cannonade/Intro]
[Instrumental]
[2. The Burden of Command]
[Lee:]
"It Was Very Close Yesterday
I Thought For Sure They Would Break
But This Attack That I Have Planned
A Massive Strike Across Open Land
In The Center They Will Break (Will They Break?)
But Plan It Well, Everything's At Stake
We'll Hit 'Em Hard, Not A Silent Gun
Before The Infantry's Begun"
"Execute It Well, We Risk Everything"
"It's In God's Hands Now
[Longstreet:]
"General Lee I Must Tell You Straight
I Believe This Attack Will Fail
No 15,000 Men Ever Made
Will Overtake That Ridge Today
A Mile Charge Over Open Ground
With Yankee Cannon Gunnin' Us Down"
[Lee:]
"We Do Our Duty, We Do What We Must
And In My Plan You Will Trust"
(Thousands Die, On This Day)
"Execute It Well, We Risk Everything"
"It's In God's Hands Now"
[3. The Last Full Measure]
The Rebel Cannon Break The Silence
150 Guns Make Up Their Cannonade
They Must Destroy The Union Center
Before The Infantry Can Launch Their Grand Assault
The Yankees Are Returning Fire
(The Earth Shakes Violently)
In Washington D.C. Lincoln Feels The Earth Shake
What Happens Here This Day
The Fate Of This Nation
In The Balance It Will Hang
Consumed With The Pain
The Courage Of The Blue
The Valor Of The Grey
So Very Sad But True
Consumed With The Pain
The Virginians Are The Chosen
In Wait Behind The Trees On Seminary Ridge
Longstreet's Slow To Give The Order
The Lines Emerge, A Mile, 15,000 Men
The Charge Begins In All It's Grandeur
(To The Copse Of Trees)
For Many Of These Men They Know It Is Their Last
The Slaughter Now Ensues
Bodies Fall Like Rain
They Valiantly Pursue
Yet Doomed To Remain
At The Double Quick They Charge
The Canister Rips Through Them
To The Mouth Of hell They March
Glory, The Only Gain
[4. Charge!!]
[Armistead:]
"We're Almost There My Boys
I've Never Served With Finer
We Must Push Forward Boys
And Bayonet The Yankee Tyrants
To The Copse Of Trees We Charge
To Crush The Union Center
And When They Turn And Run
An Open Road Leads Us To Freedom"
[5. The Melee]
[Lee:]
"It's Over Now We Are Retreating
I Never Thought That We'd Be Beaten
All This Blood Is On My Hands
The Thousands Dead Due To My Plan
I Am Responsible, All Of It Is My Fault
I Thought Us Invincible
Is This God's Will After All?
I Look Across This Blood Soaked Land
All This Blood Is On My Hands
God Forgive Me, Please Forgive Me
It's All My Fault, The Blood Is On My Hands"
What is this I don't even
Thanks syt thanks alot
A++ would listen again
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.knowyourmeme.com%2Fsystem%2Ficons%2F1332%2Foriginal%2Froflbot-ZfY6_2_.jpg%3F1273974755&hash=c7b9aaa2ec351fa7fd60bd86e3efda0cb95fbc11)
Lettow 1 - Grumbler 0
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/what-is-this-i-dont-even (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/what-is-this-i-dont-even)
...
Oh, wait.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Fthose-are-my-shoes.jpg&hash=4f4eb43a62bc78af38a26956349a11cb22f7a45c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn0.knowyourmeme.com%2Fi%2F20545%2Foriginal%2F15_postal_Japan_.jpg%3F1253776362&hash=57f5b876bfff0d2f129faaefb4b9f16d9c235568)
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 10:24:14 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 11, 2011, 10:19:58 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 11, 2011, 04:12:39 AM
QuoteNew 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.
Probably, but not if the South kept those Tigers tanks in the replacement pool too long. ;)
Given the lack of a sufficient support- and infrastructure, those tanks will be fine looking statuettes strewn about the landscape within weeks. The cost of attempting to get any use of them will only speed up the southern loss.
I didn't know Painfully Unfunny was doing cartoons now.
When I was in school, we were usually taught that the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg was Ewell's fault, but I think that Lee was correct about where the blame lay.
By his own account, Longstreet knew that Lee's singular flaw was that when he got his blood up over the enemy, there was no talking him out of the attack.
The first day was bad luck. The second day was *this* close. There was going to be no talking Lee out of the attack on the third day. Absolutely no way, no matter how much Longstreet counselled against it.
To hang it on Longstreet for failing to talk Lee out of something there was no chance of talking him out of is bullshit. And to think Longstreet in any way sabotaged or purposefully delayed the 2nd day attack on the Round Tops is even more bullshit.
I recommend the upcoming 8-volume magnum opus, Robert E. Lee at War: The Mind and Method of a Great American Soldier, soon to be released by Military History Press.
:D
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2011, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2011, 10:52:29 PM
I watched Gettysburg this evening. Hadn't seen it in a while. I hadn't realized before how Lee comes off as a delusional old kook.
Odd-- that was the first impression I got when I first saw it in the theater. Particularly with the eerie music they played when he was explaining his plan for Pickett's Charge to Longstreet-- almost made Lee look like a psychopath. Not to mention the look on Tom Berenger's face.
I think they overplayed that, and I would not have picked Martin Sheen to play Lee, but Sheen did a lot better in that role than I expected. Tom Berenger was awesome, and I'm not just saying that cuz I'm a Longstreet fanboi :ph34r:
You're older then I am. You probably watched at a higher level then a grade schooler would.
I felt Sheen did just fine, and was a much more convincing Lee than Duvall was. Duvall came across as too craggy, too bow-legged and raw. Sheen was true Virginian genteelman.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 05:02:41 PM
By his own account, Longstreet knew that Lee's singular flaw was that when he got his blood up over the enemy, there was no talking him out of the attack.
The first day was bad luck. The second day was *this* close. There was going to be no talking Lee out of the attack on the third day. Absolutely no way, no matter how much Longstreet counselled against it.
To hang it on Longstreet for failing to talk Lee out of something there was no chance of talking him out of is bullshit. And to think Longstreet in any way sabotaged or purposefully delayed the 2nd day attack on the Round Tops is even more bullshit.
I recommend the upcoming 8-volume magnum opus, Robert E. Lee at War: The Mind and Method of a Great American Soldier, soon to be released by Military History Press.
:D
He wasn't really all the great during the time he was an American soldier though.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 06:55:32 PM
He wasn't really all the great during the time he was an American soldier though.
Performed very well in Mexico.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2011, 07:07:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 06:55:32 PM
He wasn't really all the great during the time he was an American soldier though.
Performed very well in Mexico.
Name one american general that performed badly in mexico?
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 06:55:32 PM
He wasn't really all the great during the time he was an American soldier though.
He did well during the Civil War. That's certainly great.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 06:55:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 05:02:41 PM
By his own account, Longstreet knew that Lee's singular flaw was that when he got his blood up over the enemy, there was no talking him out of the attack.
The first day was bad luck. The second day was *this* close. There was going to be no talking Lee out of the attack on the third day. Absolutely no way, no matter how much Longstreet counselled against it.
To hang it on Longstreet for failing to talk Lee out of something there was no chance of talking him out of is bullshit. And to think Longstreet in any way sabotaged or purposefully delayed the 2nd day attack on the Round Tops is even more bullshit.
I recommend the upcoming 8-volume magnum opus, Robert E. Lee at War: The Mind and Method of a Great American Soldier, soon to be released by Military History Press.
:D
He wasn't really all the great during the time he was an American soldier though.
The name of the war implies that both sides were American. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2011, 07:07:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 06:55:32 PM
He wasn't really all the great during the time he was an American soldier though.
Performed very well in Mexico.
Yeah, but he was too junior to really be great.
Quote from: Viking on April 11, 2011, 07:09:17 PM
Name one american general that performed badly in mexico?
Gideon Pillow? Just a guess, he sucked in the Civil War.
Lee could have been the greatest American who ever lived. He could have ended the Civil War in a year, saved countless thousands of lives, and brought an end to slavery in the bargain.
All he would have had to do was be an American, show loyalty to his nation, and integrity and true leadership.
Instead he decided to follow his peers into treachery and deceit against his oath, and doomed a few hundred thousand of his countrymen (Confederates) and a couple hundred thousand actual Americans to death.
That should draw Lettow out.
Berkut shows an astonishing ignorance as to what constitutes an 'American'.
Quote from: Neil on April 11, 2011, 10:06:35 PM
Berkut shows an astonishing ignorance as to what constitutes an 'American'.
What would a Canadian know about patriotism, integrity, and honor?
Much less Neil?
Uh oh, I sense a coming Berkut-Neil "Mortal Kombat: Revolutionary War".
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 11, 2011, 10:22:42 PM
Uh oh, I sense a coming Berkut-Neil "Mortal Kombat: Revolutionary War".
Nah, I am already spent engaging Neil. There is no real upside to it.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 10:01:19 PM
Lee could have been the greatest American who ever lived. He could have ended the Civil War in a year, saved countless thousands of lives, and brought an end to slavery in the bargain.
All he would have had to do was be an American, show loyalty to his nation, and integrity and true leadership.
Instead he decided to follow his peers into treachery and deceit against his oath, and doomed a few hundred thousand of his countrymen (Confederates) and a couple hundred thousand actual Americans to death.
Ignored my comment I see.
Would slavery have been abolished that easily if the war was won in a year? Doubtful.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 10:01:19 PM
Lee could have been the greatest American who ever lived. He could have ended the Civil War in a year, saved countless thousands of lives, and brought an end to slavery in the bargain.
All he would have had to do was be an American, show loyalty to his nation, and integrity and true leadership.
Instead he decided to follow his peers into treachery and deceit against his oath, and doomed a few hundred thousand of his countrymen (Confederates) and a couple hundred thousand actual Americans to death.
He'd have had to have gone on the offensive where he... wasn't as impressive. I think Montgomery would have reached Paris before Lee reached Richmond.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on April 12, 2011, 02:20:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2011, 10:01:19 PM
Lee could have been the greatest American who ever lived. He could have ended the Civil War in a year, saved countless thousands of lives, and brought an end to slavery in the bargain.
All he would have had to do was be an American, show loyalty to his nation, and integrity and true leadership.
Instead he decided to follow his peers into treachery and deceit against his oath, and doomed a few hundred thousand of his countrymen (Confederates) and a couple hundred thousand actual Americans to death.
He'd have had to have gone on the offensive where he... wasn't as impressive. I think Montgomery would have reached Paris before Lee reached Richmond.
Totally disagree. The man was in love with the attack, it was a psychology that was much more appropriate to a military that had the manpower advantage rather then disadvantage.
The second manassas campaign is hardly "less than impressive."
But, a competent union commander should've crushed the confederates. Even leading inferior troops like foreign hirelings and pasty yankee tinkerers, Lee would have conquered Richmond by the fall of '62.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 12, 2011, 05:57:24 AM
The second manassas campaign is hardly "less than impressive."
But, a competent union commander should've crushed the confederates. Even leading inferior troops like foreign hirelings and pasty yankee tinkerers, Lee would have conquered Richmond by the fall of '62.
Agreed. Bad though his troops would have been, against the inbred aristocrats and the pigfucking peasants he would have been up against, he would have gone through the Rebs like crap through a goose.
Inbred aristocrats and the plain folk :wub:
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2011, 06:20:13 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 12, 2011, 05:57:24 AM
The second manassas campaign is hardly "less than impressive."
But, a competent union commander should've crushed the confederates. Even leading inferior troops like foreign hirelings and pasty yankee tinkerers, Lee would have conquered Richmond by the fall of '62.
Agreed. Bad though his troops would have been, against the inbred aristocrats and the pigfucking peasants he would have been up against, he would have gone through the Rebs like crap through a goose.
This.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 12, 2011, 06:21:06 AM
Inbred aristocrats and the plain folk :wub:
I hope your family is raped by negro soldiers.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 12, 2011, 06:21:06 AM
Inbred aristocrats and the plain folk :wub:
:lol:
Keep on trucking you crazy bird.
The American Civil War still rages on, and on, and on!!!
Quote from: PDH on April 11, 2011, 09:48:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 11, 2011, 07:09:17 PM
Name one american general that performed badly in mexico?
Gideon Pillow? Just a guess, he sucked in the Civil War.
Who?
I googled him. What a dick. I'll archive that name for a time when I have to eulogize a prat and say, "well, at least he wasn't as much of a dick as Gideon Pillow."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 05:02:41 PM
By his own account, Longstreet knew that Lee's singular flaw was that when he got his blood up over the enemy, there was no talking him out of the attack.
The first day was bad luck. The second day was *this* close. There was going to be no talking Lee out of the attack on the third day. Absolutely no way, no matter how much Longstreet counselled against it.
To hang it on Longstreet for failing to talk Lee out of something there was no chance of talking him out of is bullshit. And to think Longstreet in any way sabotaged or purposefully delayed the 2nd day attack on the Round Tops is even more bullshit.
I recommend the upcoming 8-volume magnum opus, Robert E. Lee at War: The Mind and Method of a Great American Soldier, soon to be released by Military History Press.
:D
There's sure to be nothing in there that's not already contained in Lee's Lieutenants.
For the wargamers, the Davy Twiggs rule from Gringo!
QuoteUNUSUAL EVENTS AND RULES
Duty Calls #1: Ole Davy Twiggs
This rule concerns one of those tangential stories that
make reading about wars and the people who fought
them so much less depressing than it ought to be. Seems
that the irrepressible Twiggs had this great fear of getting
a bullet in the belly and dying from, not the actual wound, but
the infection that would quickly result. Ole Davy, who was not the
Mensa representative at Monterey, theorized that if he emptied his
colon of all matter there would be a much lesser chance of succumbing
to such a horrible death. It, therefore, occurred to him that
taking a laxative right before the battle would allow him to enter the
fray clean as a whistle, at least "colonically." Then, extending that
line of thinking to the sort of conclusion Ole Davy often came up
with, he figured an extra dose would keep him extra spanking clean
...cleaner than clean, as it were.
Doesn't take too long to figure out where Twiggs spent the 21st: in
back of his tent, glued to his seat, lending depth to the phrase hors
de combat.
For those of you wishing to simulate this, at the start of each Period
of play, roll a die for Twiggs. If the die roll is odd, Davy's on the
throne and is unavailable for the day's events. Garland now commands
his division, with Major Lear running the 3/1 brigade. If
even, duty has called (ahem), and Twiggs is fit to command. Well,
he never was really fit to command—but at least he's upright. This
can only happen once.
QuoteThe first day was bad luck. The second day was *this* close. There was going to be no talking Lee out of the attack on the third day. Absolutely no way, no matter how much Longstreet counselled against it.
The South was not close to winning that battle on Day 1 or Day 2. Day 1 went about as well as could be hoped for the South, they broke the Unions initial positions and forced them back through the town.
Day 2 saw them getting some pretty huge breaks, and the only reason they did as well as they did was some pretty stupid decisions on the part of some of the Union commanders. Even at that, the "crisis" of Day 2 is largely over-stated.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2011, 08:47:12 AM
For the wargamers, the Davy Twiggs rule from Gringo!
:hmm: I wonder if that's a Richard Berg design. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2011, 08:47:58 AM
The South was not close to winning that battle on Day 1 or Day 2. Day 1 went about as well as could be hoped for the South, they broke the Unions initial positions and forced them back through the town.
Day 2 saw them getting some pretty huge breaks, and the only reason they did as well as they did was some pretty stupid decisions on the part of some of the Union commanders. Even at that, the "crisis" of Day 2 is largely over-stated.
Not only that, but had Longstreet attacked sooner, Sickles would have taken his position atop the Round Tops instead of sticking his troops out to be slaughtered, and there would have been nothing even close to a crisis on the second day.
Quote from: Scipio on April 12, 2011, 08:35:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 05:02:41 PM
By his own account, Longstreet knew that Lee's singular flaw was that when he got his blood up over the enemy, there was no talking him out of the attack.
The first day was bad luck. The second day was *this* close. There was going to be no talking Lee out of the attack on the third day. Absolutely no way, no matter how much Longstreet counselled against it.
To hang it on Longstreet for failing to talk Lee out of something there was no chance of talking him out of is bullshit. And to think Longstreet in any way sabotaged or purposefully delayed the 2nd day attack on the Round Tops is even more bullshit.
I recommend the upcoming 8-volume magnum opus, Robert E. Lee at War: The Mind and Method of a Great American Soldier, soon to be released by Military History Press.
:D
There's sure to be nothing in there that's not already contained in Lee's Lieutenants.
:lol: True. Lee's Lieutenants contains only history and opinion, and these books will contain nothing more.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2011, 10:11:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2011, 08:47:58 AM
The South was not close to winning that battle on Day 1 or Day 2. Day 1 went about as well as could be hoped for the South, they broke the Unions initial positions and forced them back through the town.
Day 2 saw them getting some pretty huge breaks, and the only reason they did as well as they did was some pretty stupid decisions on the part of some of the Union commanders. Even at that, the "crisis" of Day 2 is largely over-stated.
Not only that, but had Longstreet attacked sooner, Sickles would have taken his position atop the Round Tops instead of sticking his troops out to be slaughtered, and there would have been nothing even close to a crisis on the second day.
Indeed.
I've always thought even the RT "crisis" was a heroic stand that in sober analysis probably was not strictly necessary. The Union positions strength was its interior lines. Had Little Round Top fallen...well, it's not like the South actually had anything like enough troops there to actually accomplish anything, and the Union had more reinforcements coming up the road all the time.
I suspect all that would have happened would be that the Union would refuse the flank, shove in some reinforcements to check whatever tired and exhausted remnants of the Southern attack straggled in, and it would have had no real effect on the outcome of the battle. It's not like there was a couple fresh rebel divisions waiting to exploit a potential collapse of the left flank.
It's one of those things where both sides are happy exaggerating the importance after the fact. Which isn't to say that the stand of the 20th Maine was not impressive, just that is probably was not really decisive.
That was always kind of an elephant in the room. 50% of Hood's division was not going to roll up the entire Federal line.
I'm not sure I buy that. Artillery posted on LRT enfilades the entire Union position on Missionary Ridge. Plus the only road the Union controlled was the one leading from Gettysburg to the southeast. LRT threatens that. So the best case for the Union would probably have been a messy and difficult disengagemnt to Meade's original line of defense further south.
How was the south going to get artillery onto LTR in time to be useful?
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2011, 01:39:58 PM
How was the south going to get artillery onto LTR in time to be useful?
Pulling on ropes?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 01:26:13 PM
I'm not sure I buy that. Artillery posted on LRT enfilades the entire Union position on Missionary Ridge. Plus the only road the Union controlled was the one leading from Gettysburg to the southeast. LRT threatens that. So the best case for the Union would probably have been a messy and difficult disengagemnt to Meade's original line of defense further south.
QuoteThe two highest battlefield points are at Round Top to the south with the higher round summit of Big Round Top, the lower oval summit of Little Round Top, and a saddle between. The Round Tops are rugged and strewn with large boulders; as is Devil's Den to the west. [Big] Round Top, known also to locals of the time as Sugar Loaf, is 116 feet (35 m) higher than its Little companion. Its steep slopes are heavily wooded, which made it unsuitable for siting artillery without a large effort to climb the heights with horse-drawn guns and clear lines of fire; Little Round Top was unwooded, but its steep and rocky form made it difficult to deploy artillery in mass. However, Cemetery Hill was an excellent site for artillery, commanding all of the Union lines on Cemetery Ridge and the approaches to them. Little Round Top and Devil's Den were key locations for General John Bell Hood's division in Longstreet's assault during the second day of battle, July 2, 1863. The Plum Run Valley between Houck's Ridge and the Round Tops earned the name Valley of Death on that day.
From Wiki.
Basically you'd have to spend a day or two lugging the guns up there after taking little round top, taking the confederate artillery off line for that time, while hoping that the Union can't take LRT back with artillery support when the confederates clearly have their artillery limbered in bad terrain. In that case I'd expect a Union assualt with artillery support against unsupported confederate lines leading to the confederates breaking leaving the artillery stuck in bad terrain resulting in the confederates losing both the army and the artillery.
The Baltimore Pike ran up to Cemetery Ridge. This was not controlled by LRT.
Taneytown road did run just behind Cemetery Ridge, and behind LRT. But artillery on LRT cannot dominate the road, except for the part that would be directly behind LRT, and hence behind Confederate, not Union, lines. And even if the south could get artillery up there (almost impossible, the union could not and they actually had the road to use - LRT was desnely forested), they certainly could not get enough ammunition up to dominate anything. I've been on LRT - you can't see shit from up there.
Taneytown road, in fact, is what would make LRT almost useless for the South, even if they took it. It allowed the Union the ability to quickly shift forces along the length of their front, and would have allowed them to shift forces quickly south to contain any flanking effort.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fab%2FGettysburg_Map.png%2F397px-Gettysburg_Map.png&hash=ba13424df5499d310b0aa0920e56dbd3a4ec9c2b)
Here is a map of the battlefield. Note that LRT does not really dominate any of the roads the Union used for reinforcements by late in the second day. The Emmitsburg Road was used on Day 1 (and perhaps early on Day 2) but was clearly no longer under Union control by the time the fight for LRT got going, and controlling LRT meant nothing as far as reinforcements or supplies were concerned by the time it was fought over.
Kay.
There really isn't any good place to attack but Cemetery ridge and Cemetery Hill. Moving further south to cut off the Taneytown road would effectively split the army in two.
My grandfather went to a boarding school in Gettysburg after his mom died and then attended Gettysburg College and finally Gettysburg Seminary (the one by Seminary Ridge). He used to dig shit up from the battle in his spare time. He gave some of it to me. I have a bunch of minie balls and a cannonball. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on April 12, 2011, 02:59:42 PM
My grandfather went to a boarding school in Gettysburg after his mom died and then attended Gettysburg College and finally Gettysburg Seminary (the one by Seminary Ridge). He used to dig shit up from the battle in his spare time. He gave some of it to me. I have a bunch of minie balls and a cannonball. :cool:
That's pretty cool.
And hang onto that ammo, in case we have a second ACW. ;)
Oh don't worry, I have thousands of rounds of modern ammo stockpiled. :showoff: :tinfoil:
Quote from: Caliga on April 12, 2011, 03:16:00 PM
Oh don't worry, I have thousands of rounds of modern ammo stockpiled. :showoff: :tinfoil:
Hehe...
Pop quiz: where was the minie ball invented?
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 03:26:11 PM
France
Tres bon. And what's the correct pronounciation?
Min-yawn.
Le minie ball
min-eh
min-uh? :rolleyes:
Worst case scenario for the Union at Gettysburg: the Confederates win a minor tactical victory on the first day, and the Army of the Potomoc withdraws to Pipe Creek.
Minie is three syllables. Min ee eh. Captain Minie had an accent above the e in his name.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 04:16:44 PM
Minie is three syllables. Min ee eh. Captain Minie had an accent above the e in his name.
You're technically correct, but every resource I've dug up on the subject claims two.
From my limited french, I know that the trailing E is pronounced when accented, so it would suggest three... a modern mystery. :hmm:
I would've said Min-i-é but the dictionary claims Min-é.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/minie%20ball
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:28:26 PM
You're technically correct, but every resource I've dug up on the subject claims two.
From my limited french, I know that the trailing E is pronounced when accented, so it would suggest three... a modern mystery. :hmm:
I would've said Min-i-é but the dictionary claims Min-é.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/minie%20ball
:hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 04:29:22 PM
:hmm:
Oh, you're still doing the not-talking thing, even on such an innocent subject like this? :lol:
Fine. You're growing cranky with age, man.
For a while there, I thought we were playing a game where we make up words.
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:31:42 PM
Oh, you're still doing the not-talking thing, even on such an innocent subject like this? :lol:
Fine. You're growing cranky with age, man.
My smilie was intended as a small gesture of reconciliation. But since you responded in typical Slag Rot berserker fashion that policy does not appear promising.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 04:46:43 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:31:42 PM
Oh, you're still doing the not-talking thing, even on such an innocent subject like this? :lol:
Fine. You're growing cranky with age, man.
My smilie was intended as a small gesture of reconciliation. But since you responded in typical Slag Rot berserker fashion that policy does not appear promising.
Chillax, dude. You are only witnessing the dangers inherent in the over-use of emoticons with the presumption that they also magically convey our intention with no risk of signal decay or misinterpretation. :hug:
Incidentally I've been playing Sid Meier's Gettysburg! recently. Playing a random scenario I captured every Rebel regiment but one, and all the batteries but one. Admittedly I did outnumber the enemy two to one in infantry and something like four to one in artillery.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2011, 04:50:36 PM
Incidentally I've been playing Sid Meier's Gettysburg! recently. Playing a random scenario I captured every Rebel regiment but one, and all the batteries but one. Admittedly I did outnumber the enemy two to one in infantry and something like four to one in artillery.
I'm thinking of digging AGEOD's Civil War out and playing the crackers. mew.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2011, 08:47:58 AM
QuoteThe first day was bad luck. The second day was *this* close. There was going to be no talking Lee out of the attack on the third day. Absolutely no way, no matter how much Longstreet counselled against it.
The South was not close to winning that battle on Day 1 or Day 2. Day 1 went about as well as could be hoped for the South, they broke the Unions initial positions and forced them back through the town.
Day 2 saw them getting some pretty huge breaks, and the only reason they did as well as they did was some pretty stupid decisions on the part of some of the Union commanders. Even at that, the "crisis" of Day 2 is largely over-stated.
I was writing from my interpretation of Lee's perspective. But we all know about your grasp for nuance. NUANCE SMASH
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2011, 05:32:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2011, 04:50:36 PM
Incidentally I've been playing Sid Meier's Gettysburg! recently. Playing a random scenario I captured every Rebel regiment but one, and all the batteries but one. Admittedly I did outnumber the enemy two to one in infantry and something like four to one in artillery.
I'm thinking of digging AGEOD's Civil War out and playing the crackers. mew.
I gave that game a try, but quit in disgust. The tutorials are woefully inadequate. I spent hours trying to form my brigades into divisions, but apparently you can only do that at some arbitrary point in the war. It didn't help that the Confederate army inevitably ends up fighting on the border of Canada. They don't seem to care that I besiege Richmond. No, they are far to busy in raiding Buffalo. Because my generals can't organize into Divisions or Corps or anything they inevitable fight at about 1% efficiency. That got old fast. Also with so many retard generals in the Union camp I can really sympathize with Stalin.
Finally, my PC did not like the game at all. Vista is a bitch, and she hates AGEOD. The WWI game tired ran even worse, despite the fact it's suppose to be older.
This makes me sad we never got our Languish Gettysburg game off the ground.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2011, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2011, 05:32:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2011, 04:50:36 PM
Incidentally I've been playing Sid Meier's Gettysburg! recently. Playing a random scenario I captured every Rebel regiment but one, and all the batteries but one. Admittedly I did outnumber the enemy two to one in infantry and something like four to one in artillery.
I'm thinking of digging AGEOD's Civil War out and playing the crackers. mew.
I gave that game a try, but quit in disgust. The tutorials are woefully inadequate. I spent hours trying to form my brigades into divisions, but apparently you can only do that at some arbitrary point in the war. It didn't help that the Confederate army inevitably ends up fighting on the border of Canada. They don't seem to care that I besiege Richmond. No, they are far to busy in raiding Buffalo. Because my generals can't organize into Divisions or Corps or anything they inevitable fight at about 1% efficiency. That got old fast. Also with so many retard generals in the Union camp I can really sympathize with Stalin.
Finally, my PC did not like the game at all. Vista is a bitch, and she hates AGEOD. The WWI game tired ran even worse, despite the fact it's suppose to be older.
Problem is, the Matrix Civil war games are shit. The Grisby game turns into forts across America and the other one makes my eyes bleed. So there isn't much to choose from.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2011, 06:16:22 PM
So there isn't much to choose from.
There is, but it's all paper and cardboard. You'd actually have to do your own thinking for a change instead of loading
World of Warcracker on your hard drive.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2011, 06:18:15 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2011, 06:16:22 PM
So there isn't much to choose from.
There is, but it's all paper and cardboard. You'd actually have to do your own thinking for a change instead of loading World of Warcracker on your hard drive.
Victory Games
The Civil War. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2011, 06:16:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2011, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2011, 05:32:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2011, 04:50:36 PM
Incidentally I've been playing Sid Meier's Gettysburg! recently. Playing a random scenario I captured every Rebel regiment but one, and all the batteries but one. Admittedly I did outnumber the enemy two to one in infantry and something like four to one in artillery.
I'm thinking of digging AGEOD's Civil War out and playing the crackers. mew.
I gave that game a try, but quit in disgust. The tutorials are woefully inadequate. I spent hours trying to form my brigades into divisions, but apparently you can only do that at some arbitrary point in the war. It didn't help that the Confederate army inevitably ends up fighting on the border of Canada. They don't seem to care that I besiege Richmond. No, they are far to busy in raiding Buffalo. Because my generals can't organize into Divisions or Corps or anything they inevitable fight at about 1% efficiency. That got old fast. Also with so many retard generals in the Union camp I can really sympathize with Stalin.
Finally, my PC did not like the game at all. Vista is a bitch, and she hates AGEOD. The WWI game tired ran even worse, despite the fact it's suppose to be older.
Problem is, the Matrix Civil war games are shit. The Grisby game turns into forts across America and the other one makes my eyes bleed. So there isn't much to choose from.
Yeah, I feel ya. Everything I buy from Matrix they charge me for it twice. So I have to call the bank to get them to sort it out. After that happened twice, I gave up. Fuck Matrix.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2011, 06:15:17 PM
This makes me sad we never got our Languish Gettysburg game off the ground.
So many people to blame that aren't me...
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2011, 06:23:28 PM
Victory Games The Civil War. :)
:cool:
The Far West theatre was OSSUM. "I burn Dallas with the Comanche unit." :menace:
Quote from: Habbaku on April 12, 2011, 08:18:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2011, 06:15:17 PM
This makes me sad we never got our Languish Gettysburg game off the ground.
So many people to blame that aren't me...
Oh, you are pretty high on the list. We were supposed to start that Round Top scenario to work out the system. I don't think I ever got a setup back from you. Which did not bode well for a huge ass CG.
Although really, GB at the regimental scale is pretty silly. We need to use CWBS for it.
I've never liked the Civil War all that much. One side was obviously terrible and tremendously stupid, yet without the elan, aircraft carriers or really interestingly atrocities of an Imperial Japan.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2011, 10:47:38 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 12, 2011, 08:18:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2011, 06:15:17 PM
This makes me sad we never got our Languish Gettysburg game off the ground.
So many people to blame that aren't me...
Oh, you are pretty high on the list. We were supposed to start that Round Top scenario to work out the system. I don't think I ever got a setup back from you. Which did not bode well for a huge ass CG.
I think you have a very poor memory of what actually happened. We managed to snag Kleves, Delirium and a couple of other people into our game only to have me send out my setup, have you say you'd send your own setup "shortly", have three days pass, then have Del quit. After that, it was pretty much over.
Now that I recall, even Hortlund was there to take a dump in the Confederate HQ thread.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 12, 2011, 11:00:44 PM
I've never liked the Civil War all that much. One side was obviously terrible and tremendously stupid, yet without the elan, aircraft carriers or really interestingly atrocities of an Imperial Japan.
:huh: The Union had plenty of atrocities during the Reconstruction period. The rest of your charges against them hold up well, though.
I guess they're interesting in that they were likely all well-deserved.
And there was Sherman, he was cool; but burning cities just doesn't do it for me unless Lancasters are silhouetted against the flames. :P
Why is it that when I read any of our many ACW threads, I still see us around that miniature at the GB visitor center. Same arguments back then too. :)