Battle of Gettysburg 160th Anniversary Special- July 2, 1863 

Glad you enjoyed it!

Awesome! Thanks for listening

Mine also, Company A

Lol Glad you enjoyed it

Robert Duvall portrayed Lee better. Jmo. Possibly because he is actually related to Robert E.

Nobody would have went across that field for Martin Sheen

Good point. In the state Hollywood is in today, I think you’d be gravely disappointed if Hollywood took a stab at telling the civilian story.

Glad you enjoy it!

They are a problem for many reasons. Dead and mortally wounded have the same result. But mortally wound might take a few days to get there. Yet they’re not counted as battle dead because they didn’t die outright on the field. It’s a mess.

Thanks very much for that much appreciated@@addressinggettysburg

We all know this. But it’s iconic.

The 1st definitely saved the moment. The Confederates might have done some damage had they gotten through. But they had no reinforcements ready to exploit the breach. The union did and their reinforcements were much closer. Luckily that didn’t have to happen because of the first.

@@addressinggettysburg I think had the rebs breached that gap, they would have poured in reinforcements themselves behind barksdales Alabama brigades. And the Union reinforcements were arriving, but not in established defense formations. I think that breach would have been curtains for the union. On a side note. That was the 1st of 2 charges the 1st Minnesota had to make. What was left of the 1st Minnesota was relocated to the union center right smack dap in the path of picketts charge. And elements of the Virginia brigades breached the union lines during that. The 1st Minnesota again had to counterattack into that breach to once again close it.

No “Garlachs”

@@addressinggettysburg absolutely

Also not an LBG (I wish) I'm a Gettysburg Licensed Town Guide.

Lol I know. What a sin!

What, specifically, are you referring to? We don’t remember what we say the second after we say it lol

@addressinggettysburg your Mentioned how the South was stubborn, did what they wanted. I should put the time the comment was made in the post. I will watch again and do so

@@addressinggettysburg That statement at 22:10 though 25:30 about the South being like petulant children driven by pride, honor, and ego. That is exactly how the rural areas still act. In today's lingo, their emotional intelligence is low.

@@addressinggettysburg When you mention petulant children. It is exactly like that here. The emotional IQ is around. 12.

​@@bryanhoffman9255l too moved to Alabama. Specifically Northern Alabama/Middle Tennessee. Huntsville,Al.-Fayetteville,TN.in October of2018. Definitely quite different from Southeast Texas.

Very well said.

I would only say the reason South Carolina succeeds in the first place is because they feel the right to the institution of slavery is threatened in their mind with the election of Lincoln. It’s there in their declaration of succession. So the root cause of succession is slavery and once they decide to defend succession with force, in my mind it comes back to the root. I fought in Iraq and didn’t think we should have been there, but my thoughts on the subject didn’t change the fact that we were there regardless of the government’s official reasons. Soldiers in the Civil War had a variety of thoughts of what they were fighting for, but in the end it doesn’t change the reason why the two sections of the country were at war as determined by the respective governments. Soldiers with their opinions were just the instruments the governments used to try and achieve their goals, and I think it’s clear the goal of the South was to create a separate country with the institution of slavery intact. Although not everyone may agree with my opinions, and let me make clear they are mine and mine alone, I do appreciate the discussion and continued study of our past. It never bores, and always enlightens.

What was all the suspicion and fighting about in the lead-up to the war, then? Whether to call it soda or pop? Read the very words of the confederate leaders and many soldiers. Slavery is certainly at the forefront. Yes, Lincoln used emancipation against the south as a weapon. He wanted win the war. The South, who supposedly wanted European intervention, was so stubborn that they couldn’t see that keeping slavery guaranteed that they would never get that help. Also, if it wasn’t about slavery, then why didn’t they just set them free instead of drag the youth of the country under in a sea of blood? I’d love to know what it was really about, if not slavery, and I’d love to know why, if it wasn’t, southern politicians put it in writing that it was. I won’t hold my breath for an answer

For similar reasons that the colonists declared their independence from England, they felt they were a part of a government that no longer represented or benefited them. For example, taxes and tariffs were being levied on the South, to build railroads in the North that don't even go down South. Was Slavery a major issue for some Southerners? Absolutely, there were a few very rich plantation owners that had a lot of money to lose with the ending of slavery. But the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves. They would absolutely not go to war to protect rich people (and vice versa, Northerners at the time were not going to go to war to free black people- hence what happened to innocent black people in New York after Lincoln emancipation proclamation). The Civil War was about money and political power, although us Northerners like to pretend that we had more noble intentions and were clearly the "Good guys". By the way, how many slaves did Lee own compared to Grant? 😉

@@datru82a better question to ask oneself and one that actually pertains to the campaign is how many free African Americans were sent South into slavery during the Gettysburg campaign as opposed to the number of free African Americans the Army of the Potomac sent into slavery.