In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Civil War Movies, Gods and Generals, Etc...
boeboe
Member Posts: 3,331
Why is it, when I watch Civil War movies such as Gods and Generals, I want the South to win, even though my ancestors fought for the Union?
MEMBER SINCE 10/24/1999.
To err is human, to moo is bovine.
MEMBER SINCE 10/24/1999.
To err is human, to moo is bovine.
Comments
Gettysburg was MUCH better...
Molon Labe
Why is it, when I watch Civil War movies such as Gods and Generals, I want the South to win, even though my ancestors fought for the Union?
MEMBER SINCE 10/24/1999.
To err is human, to moo is bovine.
Traitor! [;)]
The only real guns are wheel guns!
Past life?
A cousin of mine has the same 'problem!'
We had countless family members who fought in the
PA, NJ and NY Rgts.
Mundy has devoted his life to the study of the CSA.
He's a reinactor and owns company that paints
little lead Confederate soldiers.
Trinity +++
"Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it."<BR>(Proverbs 22:6)
Sako Fan
PJ
If nobody seen you do it, how could you have done it. NRA BENEFACTOR-LIFE Member, AF&AM, Shriner Life Member, A.B.A.T.E. of Illinois "Chicago Chapter" Founding Member & Board Member
Don't worry. The ending has not changed for over 140 years.[:)]
If you want a Southern team to play Pen-State, winner atke all, I recommend the South send the Texas Long Horns, instead of the Georgia Bulldogs.[;)]
Trinity +++
"Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it."<BR>(Proverbs 22:6)
If there really was a God the war would have ended differently.
Neo-Jedi Council
Member
Why is it, when I watch Civil War movies such as Gods and Generals, I want the South to win, even though my ancestors fought for the Union?
Perhaps it had something to do with seeing the war through the eyes of Stonewall Jackson, who was portrayed in a noble light. The movie was really poor at times, mostly because of the script and lack of editing that could have been done. That said, one thing that made it interesting was the way religion was portrayed - probably more accurate than most Hollywood movies these days.
Neo-Jedi Council
Member
I'm not an expert, but i did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Gods and Generals was inferior to Gettysburg, but the Battle of Chancelorsville was arguably the biggest blow to the South as General Jackson bit the bullet. Jackson would have been in charge of defending Missionary Ridge and Longstreet would have assumed Ewell's position on the opposite flank. Jackson would have pressed Little Round Top until he took it by the bayonet, and his men would have fought to satisfy their general. Longstreet, though the more visionary tactician, did not have the instincts of Jackson nor the same level of adoration that Jackson commanded. Still, the Union soldiers at Little Round Top would have fought heroically to the last man. Jackson would have made Gettysburg bloodier than it was.....some 50,000 total casualties.
First, there was no position on the Gettysburg battlefield known as "Missionary Ridge", although I believe there was a battle by that name in the western theatre. Perhaps you are referring to seminary ridge?
Second...If Jackson were alive, he would have retained his corps command, which after his death was split into Ewell's and Hill's Corps. Neither of the round tops became a factor until the second day, when Lee, after failing to take Cemetery hill at the center of the Union lines, attempted to take Culp's Hill on the left (with Ewells corps) and Little Round top (with Longsteet) on the right.
Anyways....Jackson would have been instrumental in the FIRST day's fighting, on McPherson's ridge and Cemetery Hill. Whether he could have taken Cemetery hill is open to speculation, I think he could have, but at terrible cost. Splitting the Union line, at that point would have resulted in a Confederate victory, but not a major one. Lee would not have destroyed the Union army, since it's strongest fighting formations were still in the process of marching to Gettysburg.
Maybe a defeat of the Union army in the North would have forced the North to come to terms, but I doubt it. General Grant was gaining fame and would have been brought east to fight Lee eventually. He most certainly would have used the same tactics, and would have ground Lee and Jackson down until they could no longer fight.
Molon Labe
I'm not an expert, but i did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I did not say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you.
yes, but without a loss of pretty much a 3rd of his army at gettysburg, Lee was pretty well limited on what he was able to do. the next step after gettysburg would have been washington. so i doubt grant would have ever become commander in chief of all union forces. the world would be a lot different place. dumb@ss yankees had to ruin it for all of us.
I'm not an expert, but i did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Even after a Union defeat at Gettysburg.....Lee could not have taken Washington, he didn't have the men, or the siege engines necessary to do the job......the federal artillery based inside the Washington forts was heavier than anything Lee had. Lee's only option at that point would be to lay siege to the city.....but since the Union Navy controlled the seas, Washington could be resupplied by sea.
Not to mention the fact that if ANY of the Eastern Union armies remained intact, they would have been in a position to trap Lee between themselves an the Washington forts.
The South could not win the war after Vicksburgs fall.....Jackson, or no Jackson....
Molon Labe
You're dead on in the X-Ring with your assumptions. If Jackson was at Gettysburg the first day's battle would most likely had a different outcome. If the South would have taken Cemetery Hill the South could have kept rolling up the Army of the Potomac as they arrived on the scene. The Northern supplies that were being stored just over the hill would have been a treasure-trove for the South. The Cannons and supply trains that would have been captured would have assisted them in laying siege to DC. The Northern Forces (if caused to flee Gettysburg) would have just falling back to DC, and helped fortify the positions there. The South I don't think could have taken DC, but they could have forced Lincoln to agree to their terms. Especially if the British & French armies allied with the South. They never did, but it was assumed that if they saw the North caught in a trap they would join up with the South. Neither country wanted to grab that tiger's tail unless someone else already had its head in a trap.
However, I don't think Grant would have been much of a factor. If Grant got word he was needed up North, the Southern forces would have received the news too. The thing Grant had going for him was the fact that during the Gettysburg battle he was bringing Vicksburg to its knees. Any attempt to break off from the Vicksburg campaign sooner then he did would have caused the Southern army there to act as a blocking force, and use guerrilla tactics to try and delay Grants attempt to get his forces back North.
Historians, and even we amateurs can speculate all day long on the should-a could-a, and what ifs. But one thing for sure, Gettysburg was the South's high water mark. They were never to reach that level again, and could not muster a threat into Northern territory after that. The South had won almost every major battle up till Gettysburg, and then in one three day period they lose at Gettysburg, and surrender at Vicksburg. This was insurmountable, and the writing was on the wall.
If the South would have been successful at Gettysburg we most likely would have seen the USA split into two different countries. The historical ramifications of this are astounding. History as we know it would have been totally changed after 1863. Not only would we have had slaves in North America well into the 20th century, but WWI & WWII could have ended differently too. These are all reasons why some feel strongly that there was a spiritual intervention with Jackson (A born again evangelical Christian) being taken out of the equation. We will never know, but as a country we were better off with things having occurred as they did.
Trinity +++
"Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it."<BR>(Proverbs 22:6)
but as a country we were better off with things having occurred as they did.
I couldn't have said it any better.......I proud of my ancestors, but I'm glad the Union won
Molon Labe
I'm not an expert, but i did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I agree with most of your comments. But I also think that if the South would have won its newly established country status it would have been a lot like South Africa was. South Africa today would still be like it was thirty years ago. It would have had support from a CSA America. The phrase "Civil Rights" would not even be in our current vocabulary. Ms. Parks would never have been laid to rest in the Richmond capitol like she was in DC yesterday. You have to wonder if the North & South would have had to come together eventually. The world wars may have caused them to do so. Being divided and separate they could have been conquered easier. Canada could have been a stronger country then the North, and the South most likely would have started taken lands out West, and in Mexico. There may have been no problem with future illegal immigrants. Mexico would have been a sitting duck for a victorious South.
Trinity +++
"Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it."<BR>(Proverbs 22:6)
"What if" would mean that a few of us would not be here with the potential of our ancestors in uniform buying the farm in the battle turning the other way.[;)]
Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.
i say there would have been no need to take washington. the thrashing of the union army at gettysburg would have limited the north's ability to do anything militarily.
If the Union line had been pierced on the first day, the army would not have been "thrashed", only 2 Union Corps, I and XI were engaged on the first day. I Corps was badly mauled on the first day, XI almost broke but managed to hold. II Corps was the next to arrive, if I'm not mistaken, and in any event the majority of the federal army would have been untouched.
cutting off major avenues into washington would have done more than assaults on it.
'fraid not, as I said before, Washington could easily be supplied by sea. Not to mention the fact that any Confederate infantry or arty units would have been outgunned by the Union gunboats prowling the area
with stuarts cavalry running recon, any major attempts to engage in battle would have been spotted in time to consolidate the confederate army.
any consolodation of the confederate armies would have reopened Washington to land resupply. BTW Stuart's cavalry was not the force it had been the year before. Union Cav. proved that at the battle of Brandy Station, not to mention Buford's stand on the first day and the cavalry engagements on the third day of Gettysburg.
the british were looking for a major victory on northern soil to join the south.
Here is the great Wildcard of the whole war. I am not inclined to believe the British would have recognized the south unless the south destroyed a major federal army (which it had not done) or seriously threatened Washington, which it couldnot do with an in tact union army to it's rear
it would have taken a really long time to pull forces out of the west, which would have allowed the south to regain the positions lost along the mississippi.
There would be no need to pull troops east. Grant could come without his army, which he did in real life. Grant would have had more than 100,000 troops at his disposal. Even if Lee had countinued to beat him on the battlefields, Grant was a master of moving his army around Lee's
so even a failed seige on DC would have done enough damage for the south to get back on their feet in the west. i don't see vicksburg being the major defeat it was if the south would have won at gettysburg.
Vicksburg was much more disasterous than Gettysburg. No only did the garrison of 30,000 men surrender, the Mississippi river became a Union river. They controlled it's whole length, and cut the confederacy in two. Gettysburg was only a tactical defeat of Lee's Army
Molon Labe