On this day 150 years ago in Gettysburg Pennsylvania

[DeRuyter]

Not exactly age of sail but certainly one of the best and most concise speeches ever made:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.

It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863

From: http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/...gettysburg.htm

[7eat51]

Truly worthy of remembrance.

[csadn]

Nice sentiment, but the *really* important battle isn't scheduled for another week: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Missionary_Ridge .

[David Manley]

Nah, that happened in April 1862
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_New_Orleans

The Civil War was won at sea.

[7eat51]

Sue and I just finished watching Gettysburg. There were many fine speeches in that film, one of the most moving being by Chamberlain to the Maine deserters.

[Gunner]

Great movie. I've watched it many times.

[Coog]

Sue and I just finished watching Gettysburg. There were many fine speeches in that film, one of the most moving being by Chamberlain to the Maine deserters.

There was a prequel, Gods and Generals. Not quite as good but still good. There was to be a third movie but it was decided that there was not enough interest, just like a sequel to Master and Commander, and it wasn't made.

[Comte de Brueys]

A shame that they didn't produce the third part...

I like both films Gods & Generals and Gettysburg.

[7eat51]

A shame the sequels weren't made, especially when the actors were available. When one considers some of the films that had several sequels, it makes me shudder.

When I watched Gettysburg some ten or so years ago, it was my first memorable introduction to the ACW. The recent return to gaming has sparked an interest in the War. I recently picked up Battle Cry of Freedom and Shelby Foote's 3-volume set, along with some books on Gettysburg and some on naval actions. I look forward to learning more about the ACW.

[Coog]

A shame the sequels weren't made, especially when the actors were available. When one considers some of the films that had several sequels, it makes me shudder.

When I watched Gettysburg some ten or so years ago, it was my first memorable introduction to the ACW. The recent return to gaming has sparked an interest in the War. I recently picked up Battle Cry of Freedom and Shelby Foote's 3-volume set, along with some books on Gettysburg and some on naval actions. I look forward to learning more about the ACW.

If you haven't seen it, Ken Burns' documentary series "The Civil War" is excellent and in my opinion the best video ever made on the Civil War.

[7eat51]

Yeah, I need to see that. I started it once, but didn't have the time to complete it, so I returned it to the library. That would be a worthwhile series over Christmas break.

I want to see his complete series on WWII as well. We saw the last couple of hours during Veterans Day weekend; it was very moving and very well done.

[Coog]

Yeah, I need to see that. I started it once, but didn't have the time to complete it, so I returned it to the library.

I got in VHS several years ago. I've been meaning to pick it up in DVD on eBay. I break it out every now and then and watch it over a few days.

[7eat51]

I hope Burns does one on the Korean War. My Dad was a combat engineer on the front. He has some great stories; it amazes me the stuff he did, knowing he wasn't much older than my students. He was in Korea the past two summers as part of the 60th anniversary of the War's end.

[Coog]

I hope Burns does one on the Korean War. My Dad was a combat engineer on the front. He has some great stories; it amazes me the stuff he did, knowing he wasn't much older than my students. He was in Korea the past two summers as part of the 60th anniversary of the War's end.

I've seen a few documentaries on the Korean War but I can't think of one that, to me, really stood out. There is one movie that I highly recommend, "Pork Chop Hill" with Gregory Peck.

[RichardPF]

If you haven't seen it, Ken Burns' documentary series "The Civil War" is excellent and in my opinion the best video ever made on the Civil War.

The thing I remember most about the series was the tune The Minstrel Boy.
IIRC, he also used it in his series on Baseball.

[Gunner]

The music reminded me of the movie, Rough Riders with Tom Berenger and Sam Elliott. One of the best war movies I've ever watched. Think I'll watch it again tonight.

[Coog]

I don't remember The Minstrel Boy, but then there were quite a few songs from the era. The song that was played during the intro to each episode, as well as throughout the series, was Ashokan Farewell.

Here's a video set to the song:

[Coog]

And here is a segment from the "The Civil War" on the Gettysburg Address. Ashokan Farewell is played in the background during the reading of the speech.

[RichardPF]

Sue and I just finished watching Gettysburg. There were many fine speeches in that film, one of the most moving being by Chamberlain to the Maine deserters.

Actually...
The song The Minstrel Boy also appears in the Gettysburg movie.
In the 4 1/2 hour extended version, it starts at the 1 hr. 59 min. mark.

[Berthier]

If you haven't seen it, Ken Burns' documentary series "The Civil War" is excellent and in my opinion the best video ever made on the Civil War.

Agree with you Bobby I thought it was a wonderful moving series that covered the war at mutliple levels. I also really enjoyed Shelby Foote's book series even if he did have a "slight" southern bias

[Coog]

Actually...
The song The Minstrel Boy also appears in the Gettysburg movie.
In the 4 1/2 hour extended version, it starts at the 1 hr. 59 min. mark.

I guess I couldn't remember it because I was trying to envision it being around a battle scene instead of during a Mass being held. Thanks for finding the movie and posting it.

[DeRuyter]

Actually the new museum and visitors center at the battlefield is quite good and worth a trip (in the off season). We used to have the HMGS Fall-In convention at an expo center just outside the park. I would always make a trip to a part of the battlefield on Sunday before leaving. Nothing like standing on top of Little Round Top looking down at Devil's Den. One year I parked at the Confederate artillery position and walked Pickett's Charge up to the Angle.


Unfortunately, IMO some of the acting in Gettysburg and Gods & Generals was over the top, except for Sam Elliot, wait was he acting or just being Sam Elliot!! Still I have both on DVD! I agree though that Ken Burns documentary is exemplary film making and a must for any ACW student.

Eric

[csadn]

Nah, that happened in April 1862
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_New_Orleans

The Civil War was won at sea.

The second statement is true, but NO wasn't the be- and end-all -- there were also Charleston, Wilmington, two Beauforts, Mobile, and (to a lesser extent) Galveston which also had to be taken/neutralized. That was the importance of taking Vicksburg, and the rest of "ol' Miss" -- cut four entire states out of the Confederacy at a lick.

Now, the Siege of Chattanooga was far more important, for one simple reason: It was the closest the Rebels ever came to destroying a Union army. Wipe out AoCumberland at Chattanooga, and the Tennessee front gets rolled all the way back to Nashville at least; worse, it would require pulling Grant and Sherman out of Mississippi, which allows the Rebs to retake and reopen the Mississippi (if not at Vicksburg, then somewhere). This means no taking of Atlanta, or "March to the Sea", in '64, and indeed no visible signs of progress on any front -- which gives the opposition a shot at forcing a negotiated settlement in '64 (if not by winning the White House, then by taking the Senate and/or House, and pitching Lincoln out on his ear).

To use a more-recent parallel: Chattanooga could have been the Union's Dien Bien Phu; instead, it became Khe Sanh. (Or perhaps Isandlhwana vs. Rorke's Drift. :) )

One factor is not in doubt: The version of the ACW taught in schools is nothing more than a rehash of Grant's POTUS campaign.

[Berthier]

I would have thought the Civil War was basically won by the North's higher industrial capacity and greater manpower. The dream of foreign intervention never seemed particularly realistic from my readings, the European powers who could intervene, Britain and France, each had reasons not to. Britain had little to gain for one thing, it was coming off the Crimean War, the Indian Mutiny and a rapidly expanding empire that required lots of ships and manpower and was no longer dependent on southern cotton for it's factories.

France was becoming embroiled in Africa and Mexico and had little to gain by taking on the North (not that that ever stopped them) but was possibly trhe most likely candidate. Even if they had come in, the war may have gone longer but would the result have changed?

With foreign intervention the war's character changes from a civil war to an international one, the interventionist power has less motivation than the principle participants and would likely limit their efforts to naval blockades and strikes with a small commitment of troops. It would be unlikely a European power would launch a huge land campaign in North America with the difficulties of distance, command and supply. Remember there was a lot still happening in Europe at this time, the long period of peace was about to end, the Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War, Wars of German Unification, further revolutionary episodes after 1848...this may have been the period of Pax Britannia across the globe but Europe was sliding into decades of small wars that would culminate in the big one in 1914.

[Cmmdre]

To use a more-recent parallel: Chattanooga could have been the Union's Dien Bien Phu;

I agree, sans bicycles.

[csadn]

I would have thought the Civil War was basically won by the North's higher industrial capacity and greater manpower.

Which is why I mentioned The South-East-Asian Unpleasantness.

Short version: There was no way for the South to win outright; the closest they could manage was "force the North to give up the effort" (which they nearly accomplished a couple times, thanks to the Northern Press ignoring repeated successes on the coasts, on the Miss, and in Tennessee; and instead focusing on the repeated failures on the DC-Richmond Axis -- what I call "the Great Eastern Myth"). To accomplish that, the South had to ensure the North never managed anything which looked like an outright victory; this is where Lee screwed up with his Northern Invasions.

The dream of foreign intervention never seemed particularly realistic from my readings, the European powers who could intervene, Britain and France, each had reasons not to. Britain had little to gain for one thing, it was coming off the Crimean War, the Indian Mutiny and a rapidly expanding empire that required lots of ships and manpower and was no longer dependent on southern cotton for it's factories.

France was becoming embroiled in Africa and Mexico and had little to gain by taking on the North (not that that ever stopped them) but was possibly trhe most likely candidate. Even if they had come in, the war may have gone longer but would the result have changed?

Britain's only real percentage in the ACW was: "If North and South are separated, there will be residual hatred and ill-will, such that they will not trade with each other directly. However, the South will need the manufactures the North creates, and the North will need the agricultural resources the South produces. Britain can then serve as middleman, making a fat pile of cash off the pair of them." (There was an additional possibility supported by the seriously-hardcore: "Done properly, both North and South can be economically crippled, and brought back under British aegis." Yup, some Brits actually saw the ACW as a chance to rebuild the Empire and reverse the verdict of Yorktown and the Great Lakes. Scary, huh?)

France was always a lesser concern -- they could barely control Mexico; getting sucked into the ACW was never going to happen.

Which leads us to...

With foreign intervention the war's character changes from a civil war to an international one, the interventionist power has less motivation than the principle participants and would likely limit their efforts to naval blockades and strikes with a small commitment of troops. It would be unlikely a European power would launch a huge land campaign in North America with the difficulties of distance, command and supply. Remember there was a lot still happening in Europe at this time, the long period of peace was about to end, the Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War, Wars of German Unification, further revolutionary episodes after 1848...this may have been the period of Pax Britannia across the globe but Europe was sliding into decades of small wars that would culminate in the big one in 1914.

...even if Britain and/or France got involved, that tripwires the Russians to come in as co-belligerents/allies (if they can get here) of the North. Picture WW1 kicking off in 1862....

[RichardPF]

Sue and I just finished watching Gettysburg. There were many fine speeches in that film, one of the most moving being by Chamberlain to the Maine deserters.

One other interesting bit of trivia about the Gettysburg movie is that Ken Burns had a tiny part as General Winfield Hancock's aide:


(3:23:40 of extended version)

[Coog]

Ted Turner was also in the film and appeared again in Gods and Generals.

[RichardPF]

Ted Turner was also in the film and appeared again in Gods and Generals.

Ted Turner as Colonel Waller T. Patton


(Ted Turner at 4:02:28 of extended version)



(40 seconds later...)

[csadn]

The sheer number of cameos in that flick is impressive. For some reason, everyone wanted a piece of it....