S2000 Vintage Owners Knowledge, age and life experiences represent the members of the Vintage Owners

The Killer Angels

Thread Tools
 
Old Sep 4, 2006 | 03:41 PM
  #301  
Vitito's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Lainey8484,Sep 4 2006, 05:10 PM
Did anyone besides me find the whole music thing while the war was going on surprising?

I don't know why, but that surprised me a bit.

Was it to keep up morale? Was it to entertain and pass the time while marching, sitting around the fire in the evening and in between battles? Was it to show pride? What do you all think?
Music makes marching more "tolerable." Many of these soldiers had no shoes, and had to march up to 20 miles a day. Blows my mind how music could have helped their spirits. I find it fascinating how high the morale was in the Army of Northern Virginia.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2006 | 03:46 PM
  #302  
raymo19's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,471
Likes: 0
From: Flintstone GA
Default

Originally Posted by Vitito,Sep 4 2006, 07:41 PM
Music makes marching more "tolerable." Many of these soldiers had no shoes, and had to march up to 20 miles a day. Blows my mind how music could have helped their spirits. I find it fascinating how high the morale was in the Army of Northern Virginia.
They were still pretty well shod for the most part in '63. I'm more amazed they still fought like they did in '64-'65.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2006 | 03:48 PM
  #303  
Wildncrazy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,771
Likes: 2
Default

One last comment and then I'll let you get back to the music thing cause I like the music, one thing that is so hard for us to understand in our present day is the attitudes they had back then about even the most basic of things.

I mean these people still thought it was bad to bathe weekly much less daily.

Balanced diet? Does that mean eat as much fat as you do meat?

The isolation is also difficult to imagine.

When you lived your whole life and probably didn't travel more than 50 miles from your home and except for those who lived in the "big" cities, probably didn't see more than 100 people in their whole life time - OF COURSE they had different notions of what was proper or how to resolve problems.

We simply cannot replicate or truly understand their ideas, we can only try to relate them to how things turned out and how it affects our present day lives. This makes it very hard for us to understand the Why behind some of their actions and beliefs.

Most people could not read and if they could, most of their reading probably came from the bible. That was the one constant on both sides. Both sides read the same bible. But just like today you can pull quotes out of the bible to justify almost any stance you want to take.

The founding fathers always meant for the United States to be a plural. They could not envision that a singular entity could effectively govern all the different people and their different needs fairly. Sometimes I still have the same concerns.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2006 | 04:00 PM
  #304  
Vitito's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Default

Lee: "If I had had Stonewall Jackson at Gettysburg, I would have won that fight, and a complete victory there would have given us Washington and Baltimore, if not Philadelphia, and would have established the independence of the Confederacy."

Once established, there was no going back.

I think Abraham Lincoln is one of the greatest men this nation ever produced.

"...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
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2006 | 04:02 PM
  #305  
S1997's Avatar
Former Moderator
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Former Moderator
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 17,122
Likes: 629
From: Houston/Durango
Default

[QUOTE=Vitito,Sep 4 2006, 06:00 PM]...

I think Abraham Lincoln is one of the greatest men this nation ever produced.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2006 | 04:09 PM
  #306  
Vitito's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by raymo19,Sep 4 2006, 07:46 PM
They were still pretty well shod for the most part in '63. I'm more amazed they still fought like they did in '64-'65.
Great leadership, great soldiers for the south, throughout the war.

What does everyone think about the Union leadership and soldiers, given where we are in the book? Still poor leadership? Infantry performance of the Union as compared to the Confederate infantry?
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2006 | 06:14 PM
  #307  
Legal Bill's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,131
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Default

So let's talk Northern leadership and marching then, Vito.

At the end of the first day the North breaks but regroups on the high ground. Remember, Reynolds is shot dead shortly after his troops arrive on the scene. Buford pulls his regiments out and heads North. But the two Union corps hold their ground for most of the day. What the book fails to tell us is the toll on the south. This "victory" is not a good thing in terms of attrition. The day long fight, followed by the retreat to the high ground is just about perfect for the Union. Lee's hope of destroying one or two of the Union Corps to even up the fight didn't really happen; maybe just the opposite. Later that evening, the balance of the Union Army arrives on the scene, with Chamberlain and his second Maine in the lead.

Day 1, Chapter 4 Chamberlain

We spend the chapter marching with a half asleep Chamberlain. Why? Did Shaara just need a chapter to tell us something about the man's background? About his views on slavery and Blacks? About the origin of Taps? I think not. What happened in this chapter? What do we really learn? Why should we be very impressed?
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2006 | 08:56 PM
  #308  
paS2K's Avatar
Gold Member (Premium)
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 18,885
Likes: 33
From: Philly (Narberth)
Default

Just back in town.....have finished Killer Angels....catching up. 4 of us drove the G-burg battlefield loop on Sunday....more meaningful than ever now.

For those who would like much more background on Joshua (call me Lawrence) Chamberlain and his boys, grab a copy of Stand Firm Ye Boys from Maine....the 20th Maine and the Gettysburg Campaign by Thos. Desjardins. It's as close to a 'first person' account that you're going to get. Amazon has it...probaby the other e-book stores as well. I'm about 1/2 way through it on a re-read.....fascinating if you like a lot of detail.
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2006 | 04:51 AM
  #309  
Legal Bill's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,131
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Default

I knew I misspelled Chamberlain.
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2006 | 06:11 AM
  #310  
Vitito's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Sep 4 2006, 10:14 PM
So let's talk Northern leadership and marching then, Vito.

At the end of the first day the North breaks but regroups on the high ground. Remember, Reynolds is shot dead shortly after his troops arrive on the scene. Buford pulls his regiments out and heads North. But the two Union corps hold their ground for most of the day. What the book fails to tell us is the toll on the south. This "victory" is not a good thing in terms of attrition. The day long fight, followed by the retreat to the high ground is just about perfect for the Union. Lee's hope of destroying one or two of the Union Corps to even up the fight didn't really happen; maybe just the opposite. Later that evening, the balance of the Union Army arrives on the scene, with Chamberlain and his second Maine in the lead.

Day 1, Chapter 4 Chamberlain

We spend the chapter marching with a half asleep Chamberlain. Why? Did Shaara just need a chapter to tell us something about the man's background? About his views on slavery and Blacks? About the origin of Taps? I think not. What happened in this chapter? What do we really learn? Why should we be very impressed?
At the start of hostilities (though tens of thousands are not yet at Gettysburg as of the afternoon of day 1), 90,000 soldiers for the Union, 75,000 for the Confederacy.

In the afternoon of day 1, 24,000 Confederates faced 19,000 Union troops. The fighting was fierce. At the end of the first day, the Union forces lost over 9000 troops (about 50% casualties of their fielded force, 10% of their overall force), killed, wounded, or missing, compared to 6000 in confederate losses (25% of their fielded forces).

Occupation of the high ground (Cemetery and Culp's Hill) seems to be the #1 objective for both forces. Buford, Reynolds, and other Union leaders are demonstrating superior leadership and tactical decision-making. Is this a change?
Why didn't Ewell attack to try to take the hgh ground in the early evening hours?

I'm impressed with the forced marches of both armies......100 miles covered in 5 days, in the heat of July. Troops are resting on the march. "Yet you learn to love it. "

Other astute Union leaders are emerging, Vincent, Chamberlain. "Proceed with all possible speed."

It's also interesting at the end of the chapter, "Colonel, tell your men. General McClellan has assumed command of the army." And the rumors within the Union camp..........200,000 Confederates, a terrible defeat, 11th corps had deserted, etc. Not exactly how a leader wants his men to go into battle. How do you inspire such men?

Which force was the day 1 victor?

What options are open to Lee? What options are open to Meade?

Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:56 AM.