GLORY (1989) Reaction | First Time Watching 

It generally was though there some exceptions for slaves before the laws against it came into effect. Many northern states instituted gradual emancipation instead of immediate emancipation. I would recommend watching Atun-Shei Films’ videos where they point out how many slaves were still in the north when the Civil war started.

And Andre goes toe-to-toe with him in every scene. In his first film role ever

​@@dpw140Absolutely!!

Freeman shaking the men into a firing line during the assault gets me. He didn't want the job but he was very good at it.

Word

❤

The word racism didn't exist in the 1800's. It wasn't invented until 1910.

@@jcarlovitch And that means bigotry based on race didn't exist? Or what's your point?

@@heavycritic9554 Nope. If you are bigoted based on race you are the same as anyone who hates people. Evil, and that is what the Christian movement trying to end slavery referred to them as.

@@jcarlovitch Words evolve or are invented to provide a means to discuss and examine concepts. There is no word for a concept until it is a common enough condition to merit discussion. Even when it is becoming common, the word for the concept tends to lag behind the concept it is developed to identify. Antebellum slavers and Victorians were already working with a term coined in 1883: eugenics. Just because the term 'racism' wasn't developed until later does not mean there weren't attempts to come up with a term for a recognized condition. 'Eugenics' was just not a detailed enough term to properly describe the concept. Oh, and nearly concurrent with 'eugenics' was 'xenophobia', coined in about 1880. Seems like reactions to people 'different from [white] us' was a growing concern during that time; same period that Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, though preceded by the Chinese Immigration Act in 1855. Note that Congress passed separately the Immigration Act of 1882, used to block entry by the Irish.

I had suggested GLORY to a dozen or so reaction channels for over a year before it picked up traction. I'd like to think I had a tiny part of getting the ball rolling.

I'm 74 years old and so much has changed in my lifetime. It's not always focused on..

❤

"We're both great at this!"

One of the finest modern film score composers.

@lucy-texasgal9435. There is a reactor that goes by Irish Guy Reacts that watched & tried to post his reaction to the movie "Shenandoah" a movie I love 4 different times. Even though he had the movie heavily blurred & with his name super imposed over the movie NBC/Universal blocked it every time for copyright infringement. Check out his channel. He reacts to movies no one else does. Sunday is Silent Sunday when he reacts to the old silent movies. Wednesday is for westerns many of them overlooked forgotten gems of which his favorite one so far is The Ox-Bow Incident. That channel is a treasure trove of forgotten movies that no one else has reacted to

❤

The fort isn't under water. It's a common misconception. What has happened is that wind and rain have weathered the fort's walls so that they are barely visible. You can see the outline of the fort on Google Maps.

Basically, they fought in the Napoleonic style. Ranks of musketeers; front line kneels and shoots, second rank stands and shoots, any ranks behind load their muskets; after that they switch. Then they advance to ultimately end up in melee range to save ammo. The officers were trained by conservative teachers - both sides often taught by exactly the same teachers. "It worked for Napoleon", so to speak. Part of it was also that it was seen as brave and honourable; all officers were "Gentlemen".

@@heavycritic9554 Nice. Thanks for the info!

There was indeed a disconnect between the Napoleonic tactics that were still used in the large battles, and the new tech that was becoming available...but there was a wide range of tactics used over the course of the war. It was largely the same as in the Revolutionary War, and there were many guerilla units on both sides of the Civil War, with the more conservative Napoleonic paradigm being used sparingly. The reason we think more about guerilla warfare in the Revolution is because we LOST most of the major battles using similar tactics to the Napoleonic ones of the Civil War...so we tend to de-emphasize those battles in the teaching of the Revolutionary War. But there were also a lot of new tactics being used in the Civil War, especially sieges and trench warfare...both of them heavily influenced by things that had been done in the Crimean War in the 1850s...not to mention the way the railroads and steam power influenced how armies were moved and supplied.

It depended on the battlefield, natrual terrain like rivers, hills, and mountains made maneuvering hard , that and its hard for regiments to communicate if too far apart so thats another reason they tended to keep the men in lines and together because without radios how do you communicate? So you need to keep men together (the movie gettysburg 1993 shows how hard it was for generals to communicate and how it could get mixed up with runners going back and forth) and finally finish up you had old tactics mixing in with new technology, rifled barreled guns that could shoot straighter and further mixed with a new bullet that did more damage caused many to die. P.S. Another reason for these tactics is unlike the revolution or war of 1812 the battles their had no more 10k men fighting at a time wheres as the civil war major battle had 30k-80k men fighting with Calvary numbering thousands with hundreds of cannons so this tended to lead to stalemate formation and tactics to keep armies together

The first thing a person feels about a loved one's recruitment in the early days of a fresh new war is optimism and pride. They have not seen casualties yet. They have not yet received the 'regret to inform you' telegrams/notices yet. All they see is proud, confident young men dressed in clean, pressed uniforms and carrying gleaming weaponry marching in peppy, crisp formations. It's all very pretty at first. And, especially if there's been a generation of peace or the war is hundreds of miles or more out of sight, they have no clue about the impact of war on soldiers. The folks at home expect a quick victory, a short war; this was the belief when the Civil War began, that in a few months it would all be over. The population of the US in 1860 was about 31 million. Casualties during the Civil War (killed/wounded/captured/missing) was 1.5 million; that's one in a group of about 30. But this is not top of mind when the last war (War of 1812) happened in your grandfather's or great-grandfather's day. Both sides of the Civil War drew from proud heritage of fighting the British during the War of 1812 and the War of Independence for our nation's existence, and both sides wanted a piece of that celebrated glory. The reason veterans come back not wanting to speak of their experience is that the expectations are traumatically out of step with the realities of war. But you don't recruit using informed consent.

@@chris...9497 I totally disagree.

We actually saw it before we started the channel. Fantastic movie!!

@@Flix2Us I would also recommend the 9 part documentary "The Civil War" by Ken Burns. Its a great general/overall view of the American Civil War from Beginning to End.

It's on our channel! 😊

No.😊

Great info! 😊❤

As a fellow lifelong student of history (with an actual history degree from a highly respected university), I commend you on your eloquence in propagating the Lost Cause apologist mythology. Unfortunately your claims are made without any pertinent citations or documentation and thus come across mostly as opinion asserted as fact. I think you got some things correct, such as your claims about the racial attitudes of both southern and northern white soldiers. However your claim that "There were also roughly between 3000 to 10.000 black soldiers who fought for the Confederacy. The total number has been lost to history." contradicts the historical lack of evidence and logic. If you claim that "the total number has been lost to history", how do you know that the number is between 3000 to 10,000 "soldiers"? Where are you getting these numbers? Can you cite any sources? If you could provide this evidence, you would be doing the field of Civil War scholarship a great service, as one of the foremost American Civil War PhD historians explains in this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fYFIWlGJhjM.html In addition, Confederate Genaral Howell Cobb reinforces why Black soldiers would have been anathema to the Confederate cause. jubiloemancipationcentury.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/if-slaves-will-make-good-soldiers-our-whole-theory-of-slavery-is-wrong-confederate-howell-cobb-on-black-enlistment/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIf%20slaves%20will%20make%20good,The%20Emancipation%20Century Also you assert that, "Many of them were willing to do so because, as with white solders, their homes were under attack also. So, they deemed it necessary to fight" without any evidence. Do you have any documented proof of the motivations of these "black soldiers who fought for the Confederacy" or is this just supposition and opinion? Or is this maybe just 160 year old mind reading to reinforce a preconceived narrative? I also have to point out that your depiction of "a British Lieutenant Colonel who was ordered by the King of England at the time to follow the Confederate Military and report back" isn't accurate. The British man referred to was named General Sir Arthur James Lyon Fremantle. However his trip to America was not ordered by the King because at the time Queen Victoria was the sovereign ruler. In fact, her husband Prince Albert died at the end of 1861, a year and a half before Fremantle's trip and she never remarried. Fremantle was not in America in any official capacity. He was essentially a "war tourist." He only became famous after the war because of the book he wrote. Sometimes movies aren't historically accurate. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Lyon_Fremantle I'll make one final point for now as this response has quickly gotten very lengthy. You claim "Another thing that many people might not know about the Civil War is the oddly enough, the Confederacy actually dominated the Union throughout most of the war." This claim is just bizarre and counter to all historians barring the Lost Cause mythologists. The Confederate generals in the east were very successful at using the terrain features of Virginia (especially the west-east flowing rivers) to fight a defensive war. However, this completely ignores the almost immediate success of the Union armies in the western theater, where the rivers generally flow north-south. New Orleans and Nashville were taken very quickly and occupied for the duration of the war. The Confederates considered themselves the natural descendants of the Revolutionary generation and thought they could win their independence from the union by fighting a defensive war and exhausting the northerners until they got tired of the war, sued for peace and allowed the South to create their own country, just as Gen Washington had done during the Revolutionary War. The two times that the eastern Confederate army launched offensive operations into Maryland and Pennsylvania they were defeated at the first major battle. The tactics, logistics and weaponry of the time tended to significantly advantage the army fighting a defensive battle on home turf. Washington was never seriously threatened and the confederacy had no strategy to conquer and occupy the North. The Confederate incursion into Kentucky lasted a bit longer and succeeded in winning a few small battles but shortly retreated back into Tennessee. Except for far western Missouri, the Confederacy never really held Union territory for a significant amount of time. Heck, the Confederacy couldn't even hold their own territory together. Western Virginia successfully seceded and eastern Tennessee (among many other locales) were in rebellion against the rebels. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Unionist

I believe Britain's interest in the Confederacy was economic in nature. Britain was dependent on the South's production of affordable cotton. The Civil War had a huge impact on the stability of US cotton sources. Eventually, Britain had to turn to India to source this commodity. For your consideration: www.english.uga.edu/sites/default/files/2009-2010_Barnett_Mays_John.pdf And, speaking as a Southerner, just how good was 'home field advantage' when there was very little in the way of excursions into the Northern states? The War was fought on the same continent, on the same coast, on both sides of the same mountain range. If the Confederacy had military superiority, why was so much fought in the South? No offence meant, just asking about the obvious evidence.

Absolutely! 😊

Spoiler: it's not that great. 🤪

Also add Philadelphia with Denzel and Tom Hanks

We already did that one for the channel!

Great I have to watch it. Another great Denzel performance is the hurricane. Another true story or American Gangster also a true story