Conference smurf::civil_war

    Now he wants the re-enactors to starve for authenticity's sake!  :-)
    
    I don't have cable, but all the talk is setting my expectations high!

    Originally planned as a made-for-TV movie, "Gettysburg" was deemed
    "too big for TV" by Ted Turner so it will be released theatrically.
    It runs about 4 hours. From the "Making of" special, it looks very
    authentic (using thousands of reenactors and as much of the actual
    battlefield locations as possible). I was sceptical of Sheen as
    Lee as well, but he started to grow on me as time passed. Berenger
    as Longstreet seemed stiff and his makeup looked fake. The actor who
    plays Pickett looks like he brings a lot of passion to the role.
    
    The interviews with the reenactors (who scheduled vacation time to
    take part) was the best part. Several who manned artillery made the
    point that this is the first time they'd ever experienced mass
    artillery firings and that the ground literally shook as the guns
    fired down the line. Most of the reenactors seemed seriously moved
    by the experience of participating on what they deemed "hallowed
    ground".
    
    The film is based on the novel "The Killer Angels", BTW.
    
    I doubt the film will make much money due to its length and the
    subject matter, but I for one will check it out on the big screen.
    I applaud Turner for backing the production.
    
    -- Bill

    
    
    I know a lot off guys from the 36th Alabama who fought in the movie and
    they had the time of their life during the recording. From their
    stories I know they are very proud on their performance and actually
    beliefe ther'ain't no movie so good made on the Civil war as this one.
    They won't agree with your remarks at all, I think.
    The one time experience I had with them in reenactment gives me the 
    feeling that they do a very well job in showing the average Southern
    soldier to the people of our time. 
    What I've seen of them looks very much like the discriptions of the 
    history books and pictures. 
    I believe that the use off those guys in the movie gives you the best
    picture off the War thats possible. There will be a lot off people who
    won't agree with your remarks, that's for sure.
    
                                     Pvt Williamson
                                     36th Alabama, Co. A.
    				     Sumter County warriors
    				     Army of Tennessee
    				     "alias" Jean-G�rard Fifis
    				     The Netherlands.																					
    

    
     Ted Turner praised all the renacters and said that the movie could not
    and would not have been made without them. He went on to praise their
    attention to all detail.
    
     In an article in yesterday's Boston Sunday Globe, Turner mentioned how
    he would like to do more movies like this one, with historical
    signifigance. He mentioned with disgust how the major networks rush
    to put out movies on Amy Fisher and Waco (even before it ended).
    
     Turner also mentioned his bit part as an officer taking part in
    Pickett's charge, and how he always wished he could have really been
    in that charge. He also mentioned that Gone with the Wind was one of
    the first movies he saw that inspired him, and this movie (Gettysburg)
    is important to him, having grown up in a conquered country (the South)
    
     Bob

 Does anyone know if TNT plans on rebroadcasting "The Making of Gettysburg"?
 
-rick

  Checked the local TV guide, and "The Making of Gettysburg" will be shown
  again on Thursday night 8-9pm  TNT.

-rick

    re-106.5   
    
    I taped the "Making of Gettysburg"; missed the forst 10 minutes, but
    got the rest of it. Let me know if you want to borrow it.
    
    

  Thanks. If my attempt at taping the special on Thursday night fails, I will
  take you up on your offer!

  I neglected to mention that the Thursday night rebroadcast is for the 
  Boston Ma. area.  Consult your local listings!

-rick

    Under a 7x10 color photo of Lee (Martin Sheen) and his staff, the
    Boston Globe printed this review today on the first page of its
    Living/Arts section.
    
    ======================================================================
    
    Triumphant 'Gettysburg'
    
    In stunning detail, epic captures the heroics and horrors of war
    
    -----------
    By Jay Carr
    GLOBE STAFF
    -----------
    
    Ronald Maxwell's "Gettysburg" is the film against whIch all subsequent
    films about the Civil War's decisive battle will now be measured. 
    Frankly, though, after sitting through this handsome and involving
    epic, it's difficuit to imagine another film wanting to take on
    Gettysburg anytime soon or needing to. Complete, comprehensive and
    stirring, this is the first large-scale film treatment of a collision
    so central to our history, and it's gratifying to see it done so well. 
    Lavish and meticulously detailed, a lot of it actually was filmed at
    Gettysburg, Pa., with a cast of 5,O00 "re-enactors" - Civil War buffs
    who outfit themselves authentically, bring their own cannon, and may be
    relied upon to know Civil War history.  The scope and span of the film
    make it a natural for the big gcreen.  If you wait for its inevitable
    passage to TV, you'll lose something.
    
    Effortlessly mustering the you-are-there quality it's after, it draws
    you into the thick of the fighting spread over four fateful July days
    in l863, and into both camps, admiring the bravery and nobility even as
    it questions by implication the massive carnage - 53,000 dead, more
    lives lost than in Vietnam - in the name of honor.  Llke "Glory" and
    Ken Burns' "The Civil War" for TV, "Gettysburg" makes you realize how
    ruled the combatants were by codes of honor and morality.  But the film
    is a lot more than historically accurate uniforms and firearms.  Battle
    scenes and logistics tend to overwhelm charactorizations in large-scale
    war movies, but two of the performances here, Martin Sheen's
    mesmerizing Robert E . Lee and Jeff Daniels' extraordinary Union
    colonel, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain of Maine, are Oscar-worthy.
    
    Chamberlain, a college professor whose wartime heroism was followed by
    terms as Maine's governor and president of Bowdoin College, is embodied
    by Daniels with a touchingly stiff mix of sensitivity and bravery. 
    Words do not fall loosely from his lips, but what he does say has a
    powerful force of sincerity, and he doesn't make much of the fact that
    he s a modern man, scientifilc in his outlook, who listens to his
    troops before he acts.  Sheen takes Lee, the aristocratic Virginian, to
    places few actors ever venture - let alone actors playing famous
    personages.  He makes us feel why Lee - simultaneously chivalrous and
    remote - was a virtual god to his men.  In his inability to think in
    terms of retreat and his conviction that his army was invincible and
    ought to shoot the works after initial gains, he seems a little mad, a
    monster of hubris beneath his impeccable rectitude.  But you're drawn
    into his madness, empathize with his weariness.
    
    Sam Elliott is affecting, too, as Union Gen. John Buford, whose early
    heroics keep the South at bay, and Kevin Conway adds color as an Irish
    sergeant on the Union side, but the Confederates have slightly meatier
    roles, especially the late Richard Jordan as the honorable Virginian
    Gen. Lewis Armistead, wondering about his West Point friend fighting on
    the other side, and Stephen Lang's Gen. George Pickett, the gallant
    hotdog willing to stake his life and the lives of others on a
    last-ditch attack.  Pickett's Charge, that pinnacle of doomed
    romanticism, is made to epitomize the Confederate need to do the
    honorable thing even though it spelled almost certain defeat.  Tom
    Berenger grapples manfully with the ungrateful role of Lee's clear-eyed
    chief subordinate, Gen. James Longstreet, reviled for counseling
    retreat, but nonetheless right.
    
    The film also conveys the idea of an outmoded chivalric code giving way
    to a new pragmatism.  But the war wasn't fought by abstractions; it was
    fought by men, and the brutal realities of the day-to-day life of the
    soldiers, bolstered by the re-enactors' sense of what it really was
    like, is what makes "Gettysburg," not the star turns.  This is the kind
    of film where seriousness of purpose counts for a lot.  You can feel
    everybody really trying to get it right, and it matters.  At four hours
    plus, "Gettysburg," frankly, is longer than it needs to be. 
    lnevitably, some of its character sketches are merely functional.  But
    I wouldn't want to cut the cameos by Ted Turner leading a Confederate
    charge and Ken Burns telling a Union general to dismount and not be a
    target.  "Gettysburg" is an obvious labor of love, and there's quality
    up there onscreen beyond those definitive battle scenes.  Civil War
    buffs and devotees of war movies Will find it Iindispensable, but
    "Gettysburg" has much to offer anybody.

Reviews here in Atlanta were as favorable, as could be expected
in Turner's home town, but they did not like Sheen's version of
Lee.  Said he was too small and too contemplative.

Lew

    I didn't read the AJ&C review, but I bet it was done by someone
    who didn't bother to read Killer Angels.  The author didn't exactly
    deify R.E. Lee.
    
    Incidentally, I caught a five minute review of the production side of
    the movie on entertainment tonite.  They showed a clip of Ted Turner
    "buying it" in his cameo!  
    
    Robert 

    	I saw "Gettysburg" this weekend.  Overall, it was a _very_ well
    done film (I have not read Shaara's book, so I can't comment on how
    well it tracked to that, but I _have_ read enough about the battle to
    make some educated comments there).  Obviously there will be lots of
    little things people can find to comment on, but the total effect gives
    the viewer an excellent "feel" for the people, issues, and fighting.
    
    	I was particularly impressed by some of the craftsmanship and
    attention to small historical detail.  (I'm not commenting here about
    the reenactors themselves; I _expected_ them to get detail right.)  In
    the opening credits, for example, the showed historical photos of each
    major character, then dissolved into a photo of the actor portraying
    that character (still in black & white!).  A nice touch for getting you
    "into" the film.  In the closing credits, they did a brief "where did
    they go from here" on the major characters, dissoliving from a photo of
    the actor back to one of the individual he portrayed.  Other points I
    was pleased to note were that Reynold's infantry deploying on the first
    day wore the correct black hats for the Iron Brigade,  that Lee's
    crucial order to Ewell on the first day was correctly worded, and that
    Lieutenant Cushing of the Federal artillery was shown, and shown
    getting killed with the right kind of wound, at the defense of Cemetary
    Ridge.
    
    	The directors also staged one beautiful tableau (that I caught -
    there may have been others) by taking the famous painting "Prisoners
    From the Front" and literally bringing it to life in one scene where a
    Union officer interviews three Confederate prisoners.  If you've ever
    seen the painting, you'll recognize the moment.  A nice touch!
    
    	The likenesses ranged from uncanny (Colonel Chamberlin, who was
    hard to distinguish from the photo) through very good to so-so (like
    Pickett, who simply did not have the right hairstyle).  Most of the
    performances were excellent.  I was impressed by both the screenplay
    and the actors in that they managed to capture the style of language of
    19th Century America, rather than "transposing" 20th Century speech
    backwards.
    
    	I do have some quarrel with the portrayal of Lee.  The actor did a
    good job, but with R. E. Lee "good" is not quite good enough to render
    a complex man.  He was a little too short, and looked much too worried
    throughout the film.  I think it may have been that the actor had some
    pronounced creases between his eyebrows (giving him a perpetual
    "worried" expression) which Lee most definitely did _not_ have.  I did
    not get the feeling that Lee really believed in the attack he was
    ordering; there would have been a better, more credible change in
    emotion between the ordering of Pickett's charge and the reaction that
    led Lee to say both "my fault" (included in the film) and "too bad, oh
    TO BAD" (not shown).  It was also disturbing that Lee received the
    adulation of his troops with that same "worried" look - I could have
    accepted a dignified calm.  However, none of this detracts seriously
    from the overall film.
    
    	The battle scenes were well done, both panorama and in detail. 
    They avoided an excessive focus on gore, while still portraying
    extensive casualties, including dead horses.  I think that is appropriate 
    for an historical epic (which this film is).  Trying to shock the viewer 
    by lingering on brains and bowels gets in the way of telling a story.
    There was no glamour in the battles, and there was a clear portrayal of
    waste and loss, but it was subtley done rather than grossly done. 
    They did, however, capture the pagentry of Pickett's charge.  Those
    long grey lines moving out across open fields were a moving sight!
    
    	Even in four hours, it would be impossible to capture _everything_
    that went on at Gettysburg, and the film doesn't try to "make the
    battle".  They cover most of the major events, at least in dialog, but
    focus a lot on a few scenes that give an overall sense of the flow and
    feel.  For example, a long scene dealing with the 20th Maine's defense
    of the Union left on Little Round Top (with a few quick shots of other
    fighting before it) serves to "show" the fierce battle that took place
    over the Wheat Field, Peach Orchard, and Devil's Den on the second day
    while still letting you deal with _people_ rather than little figures
    moving across a map.  The battle on the Union right, on both the first
    day and after, is not shown at all.  If the film had tried to cover
    everything, it would have been confusing - maybe better if you were
    looking for a video history text, but much less effective at
    communicating to the average audience.
    
    	All in all, this film is worth seeing, and gives a good sense of
    the importance of individuals in "making history".
    
    MikeR
    

I had hoped to see the movie this weekend, but it is playing in very, very 
few theaters here in Central/SE Mass so far.

I was curious, did they have an intermission?  4:08 is a LONG time to sit still
without a break!

    
    Does anybody know of the fact that the movie is coming to Europe too?
    
    Or will there be an video tape version?
    
    Is there someone with "the making of Gettysburg" on tape who can give
    me a copie of it.
    Here in the Netherlands we're so far away from the action!
    
      
    
    Greetings    Jean-G�rard Fifis
                 Nijmegen
    

	Did they cover the Cavalry Battle intending to break the Union center
	from the rear in coordination with Pickett's Charge ?

	Was there a sceen depicting the Wisconsin (forgot the number) brigade's
	suicide charge to check the breakthough of Breckinridge's brigade on
	the left of Cemetary Ridge on the 2nd day ?  

	I thought there was some scenes from the 1st day regarding the defense
	by Buford's Cavalry of Seminary Ridge.

	Regards,

	Chuck

    RE .13:
    
    	Yes, there was an intermission.  It was right after the 20th Maine
    defense of Little Round Top - i.e. after Day 2 and before Day 3.
    
    
    RE .15:
    
    	The cavalry fights were not covered at all (mounted reenactors are
    scarce, and those fights had zero impact on the battle anyway).  They
    did show a fair amount of Buford's dismounted engagement with Hill's
    Corps on Day 1.
    
    	The filming of Pickett's charge was staged to look almost like the
    real thing - the initial advance of the Confederates was clear and
    orderly (and an amazing piece of pagentry), and you could follow the
    major characters along; then the Union artillery started to hit, and
    the scene gradually came down to a confused, smokey melee at the grove
    of trees, with no particular unit identity or focus.  There was a short
    scene where Hancock orders out the brigade to flank Pickett on the
    south, a short scene of Hancock getting shot, and a pretty clear
    thread following Armistead, with his hat down on his sword hilt,
    resting his hand on a Union cannon, then getting shot.  There were a
    few short cuts back to Pickett, Longstreet, and Lee.  There was, if I
    recall, a charge at one point in the mess by a Union line, but the unit
    was not identified.
    
    	An interesting technique note: on the Confederate side, the film
    focused on a handful of officers, with almost no "speaking" by enlisted
    characters.  On the Union side, most of the screen time was on
    Chamberlin and the 20th Maine, including an enlisted character or two
    and Chamberlin's brother.  Union top officers, except Buford, were
    almost cameos (I think Meade had two lines!).  The Union calvary on Day
    1 got a fair amount of screen time, and as I described there were a lot
    of "battle" scenes during Pickett's charge.  They had Chamberlin's
    brother take Armistead's dying message (saved a speaking part!).  We
    saw a lot of Lee, Longstreet, Armistead; less of Pickett, his other
    brigadiers, Hood; one scene where Stuart got chewed out by Lee for
    being late; and a fair bit about one of Longstreet's scouts.
    
    	The scout was an ex-actor from Mississippi named Harrison, who was
    shown spotting and reporting the Union advance to Longstreet.  (Best
    ironic line in the film: Longstreet reports to Lee, who has to be
    convinced about the report since nothing has been heard from Stuart. 
    Lee finally says "An actor?  We are moving on the word of an actor?")
    Harrison later gets another scouting mission, and then volunteers to
    join in Pickett's charge (he survived).  He is about the only
    Confederate below general officer that we see anything of, as an
    individual.
    
    
    MikeR

    MikeR,
    
    Haven't seen the movie yet but did read The Killer Angels again this
    summer. Your description of the movie's depiction of the characters
    is mostly consistent with Shaara's book. Most of the Confederacy's
    "sub-plots" revolve around Lee, Longstreet, other Confederate generals
    and the foreign observers. In the book, when Lee questions Longstreet
    around the veracity of Harrison's reports, Lee asks " Do you trust
    the words of a.... paid spy?". A little different from the movie as
    you described, but the reaction is the important thing.
    
    On the Union side, Shaara concentrates mostly on Chamberlain, his
    brother, and his master sergeant, Buster Kilrain. There's some
    attention to Buford, and the relationship between Hancock and
    Armistead is brought out.
    
    Can't wait to see the film!!
    
    Mike
    
    PS. Are you from the NE area, Mike? If so, where did you see the movie
    and how were the crowds?
    
    Thanks.
    

    RE .15:
    
    	I just noticed I did not really answer one of your questions:
    
    "Was there a sceen [sic] depicting the Wisconsin (forgot the number)
    brigade's suicide charge to check the breakthough of Breckinridge's
    brigade on the left of Cemetary Ridge on the 2nd day?"
    
    	I think you might be talking about the incident when the 1st
    Minnesota regiment charged down the ridge in response to an order from
    Hancock, stopping a Confederate attack and taking 82% casualties.  That
    did happen on the Union left on the 2nd day, but, nope, the film did
    not show it.  (It might have been anti-climactic after the 20th Maine's
    bayonet charge when they were out of ammunition.)
    
    MikeR
    

	Yes .... that was the incident I was trying to refer to.  

	I guess your assessment was correct regarding palling in comparison
	to the defense of Little Round Top.  

	

    RE .19:
    
    	Only in terms of making a movie - there was so much heroism and
    hard fighting at Gettysburg, by both sides, that you would lose some of
    the impact trying to catch all of them in a film.  Certainly what the
    1st Minnesota did was equally admirable with the 20th Maine's
    performance, from a military/historical point of view... and with a
    looong list of other units.
    
    	One of my personal "favorite incidents" from the battle is the
    group of Union file closers on Cemetary Ridge who joined hands behind
    the battle line to "hold" a regiment in place.  But, you can't have
    everything in a film!
    
    MikeR
    

    
    Has anyone in the Mass area seen this yet and so where??  I only show 
    2 movie theaters in this area showing it both in Boston ?? 
    I want to see this but, don't really want to go to Boston.  Hopefully
    either Framingham or Natick will get it but, I have a feeling they 
    won't...  Why show something of value when you can show Sly Stallone 
    blowing up buildings AGAIN...
    
        Dan

    
    
     I'd be interested in finding a place in Central Ma.  showing it too.
    
    Even the movie sections don't have ads for it.
    
    Bob

    This past weekend my wife and I caught the afternoon showing of
    "Gettysburg" in Syracuse - it appears as if the number of theatres
    showing the film has increased measurably.  All of you that responded
    regarding your impressions of the film were on the money. 
    Specifically:
    
    1. The acting.  Jeff Daniels was outstanding as Chamberlain (but if he
    is Oscar material, so also should be the role of his Irish sergeant). 
    I also had a problem with Martin Sheen's portrayal of Lee - something
    tells me that Lee was much more in command of himself.
    
    2. Pickett's charge was outstanding cinematography.  Anyone who waits
    to see the film on TV will be disappointed.  You need the wide-screen
    to get the full impact of the reenactors.
    
    3. Tom Berenger's portrayal of Longstreet was also excellent, but the
    role of his scout could be put in the same category (just a little bit
    of madness in that role, it seemed.)
    
    If anyone wonders if a non-Civil War buff would like to sit 4-1/2 hours
    to view the movie, use my wife as an example.  At the end she turned to
    me and said she could sit through it again, on the spot, she was that
    moved by it.  
    
    Chuck

	My son works in a camera store in the Lancaster, PA. area.  Some of 
his customers were reenactors at Gettysburg and have been bringing in 
pictures of the filming at Gettysburg, they have also been telling him 
of experiences at the filming that may seem a bit of tall tales but 
are quite interesting.  See what you think....

exp 1.  During the filming there was a scene that required the actors to
	start off with a Rebel Yell and then proceed out into a field
	for the action.  The scene was shot, the director yelled cut.
	The scene took eight minutes to shoot and after the "cut", the 
	loud rebel yell was echoed from the trees behind the field. 
	No one was there!

exp 2.  One night after filming was complete, a security guard noticed
	a confederate officer mounted and riding on the battlefield.
	Walking up to the officer, he inquired what he was doing there.
	The officer merely rode away, the guard went to check the corral
	where the horses were kept. They were all there.

exp 3.  During filming of a battle near devils den, the director cut the 
	scene.  The battle stopped but the firing in Devil's Den went on 
	for five minutes.  No actors were in Devil's Den.

exp 4.  One of the reenactors was on the phone calling home after 
	filming all evening.  He heard a noise behind him and turned to
	see who it was.  There were three Union soldiers walking toward
	him.  He told his wife that he had to go, somebody else wanted
	to use the phone.  When he hung up, there was nobody there.

exp 5.  One of the people who had been contracted to shuttle reenactors
	between motels and the film site was using a pickup truck. She 
	picked up a load of actors and drove them out to their shoot.
	After dropping them off she headed back to the motel for another 
	load.  On the way back she heard someone banging on the back of 
	the pickup cab, she turned around to see two union soldiers in 
	the back of the truck.  She figured they could just ride back 
	and go out with the next group.  When she turned to look again,
	they were gone.  Another person, who had the truck in view, saw
	noone the whole time.


	

    I think these people should check in with the nearest UFO's medical
    team for observation.  And bring their Blue Cross cards.

    I visited Gettysberg about ten years ago.   I am not much of a civil
    war buff, at least as far as the land campaigns go, and up to that time
    had ready very little about the battle.  The trip to Gettysburg was a
    last minute, might as well see it since I'm in the neighborhood, sort of
    thing.

    I parked the car and my host, a local, was telling me about the action
    when I began to feel uncomfortable.  It was sort of an undefined
    uneasiness such as I had felt back in nam when on patrol and things 
    just didn't seem quite right, but you could not point to anything
    specific.   Most times these feelings were quite unfounded and would
    soon pass.  This time, the feeling only got stronger.  I neither saw or
    heard anything out of the ordinary but cut short the tour which
    surprised my host.

    Over a beer later that evening I explained my weird behavior.  She said 
    that she had heard of people being affected by the site.  At the time I 
    just chalked it up to being near a battlefield again and maybe that 
    stirred up some of the old nam ghosts and was prepared for a restless 
    night with the old nightmares.  To my relief I slept quite peacefully.

    Now, I don't know if the experiences recounted a few notes back are real
    or not, but I do know that, at least for me, Gettysburg is not a place I
    ever want to visit again.

    Joe P.     

     

    I saw the movie last Sunday, and was quite moved, expecially by
    the Pickett's Charge sequence.
    
    The theater I saw it at had a wide screen with 70mm film, and
    after seeing it this way, I think it is worth finding a wide
    screen place to see it at.  The large scenes with all of the
    re-enactors really help.
    
    I agree with the earlier comments on Lee; the expression on
    his face definitely gave me the impression of a perennially
    worried man.
    
    One question: a Confederate sharpshooter was shown using some
    kind of what looked like an optical scope on his rifle.  I
    think this was when the Union General Reynolds (if I remember
    his name right) was killed.  Did they really have optical
    scopes back then, or was this something else I saw?
    
       Jay

    RE .27:
    
    	I'm not sure of all the varieties or details, but, yes, there were
    optical sights available in the ACW.  (They did have telescopes, after
    all, so an optical sight is not too surprising.)  There were also special
    rifles for sharpshooters, but not all sharpshooters used them - some
    were just good shots with an issue rifle.  In the Union Army, there
    were a few special units composed entirely of sharpshooters who wore
    green uniforms instead of blue.
    
    MikeR
    

I saw the film last week, and greatly enjoyed it.  The acting and
cinematography were superb.  My only problem with the movie was the music - it
was too loud and too contrived.  For the most part, it lessened the
effectiveness of many scenes.  Of course, it is a made for TV movie, most of 
which suffer a similar malady.  I'll see it again, however.  Wish I could have
seen the filming.

/Mike

    re .27
    
    Where did you see the movie in 70mm?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Marv
    

    re .30
    
    Marv,
    
       I don't remember for sure the name of the place, but it
    probably won't do you much good.  It's a theater in Downtown
    Seattle, Cinerama, I think; the only one that's showing
    _Gettysburg_ in 70mm in the Seattle area.
    
       Jay

    RE: .30, .31  "Where in 70mm"
    
    You can see it at The Charles in Boston in 70mm and if you go to the
    weekend matinee at 2:00 you can get in for $4.00.
    

	Re. .27 & .28

	One such unit in the Union Army was Hiram Berdan's (a New Hampshire
	native) special sharpshooters.  The Army of the Potomac held shooting
	contests to fill Berdan's ranks.  They wore green uniforms and were
	issued special rifles. 

	Usually their targets were enemy officers or artillery gunners.

	Regards,

	Chuck

  I saw the film here last week, overall I thought it was very good, a must see 
for any Civil war buff. I believe it could have been better, though. Sometimes 
the continuity was off, some scenes had a windy, dark stormy background, 
while the same scene from another angle was in calm daylight. And, didn't Lee 
have a black slave that traveled with him in camp, or am I mistaken here? 
Anyone notice that the only Black (I saw) in the film had no lines at all? 
Also the scene with the confederate prisoners was a little stereotypical, or 
maybe being from Tennessee, I'm a little sensitive. I'm not convinced that 
every Reb was "...Fahtin for our rats" nor that every union soldier fought to 
"...free the slaves, of course."  IMHO, they probably weren't sure of what 
they were fighting for.  Lee also seemed to be portrayed a bit weakly, but 
perhaps this is closer to the truth anyway. Also, as noted before, some Rebs
were very well fed, maybe a better editing job could have made this less 
noticeable.  

  On the bright side, the re-enactments were awsome, the cannons going down the 
line made the hair on my neck stand up, and at one point, the rifle fire was 
one continuous long crackle. The battle scenes with men falling everywhere, 
and the hopital scene with wagons of severed limbs...makes one realize how 
truly terrible war is. Very moving. I'll see it again if possible. Everyone 
should see it at least once. 

  The acting was good, Chamberlaine and Pickett especially so, but I thought 
Sheen was probably not the best choice for Lee. Chamberlaines' range of emotion
from obvious fear to grim determination to grief was excellent, and Picketts'
enthusiasm was a great touch. 

RM, who is not an expert by any means...

BTW, I recently found out that my GGGgrandfather was wounded at Gettysburg, 
He was in the 148th Pa. infantry. Made it more personal for me.  

Re. -.1

>while the same scene from another angle was in calm daylight. And, didn't Lee 
>have a black slave that traveled with him in camp, or am I mistaken here? 
>Anyone notice that the only Black (I saw) in the film had no lines at all? 

FWIW, the slave was never mentioned in the book, which probably explains
the absence in the movie.

Lew

    RE: .34  by TNKVS3::RMUMFORD 
    
>Also the scene with the confederate prisoners was a little stereotypical, or 
    
    I don't know about "stereotypical", but it sure looked familiar.  ;-)
    

    
    	***  Attention  ***
    
    	All So. NH and No. Mass. readers .....
    
    	WANTED 
    
    	All able bodied men (& women)
    
     	To join with me in seeing ......
    
    	GETTYSBURG !!! 
    
    
    	I contacted the proprietor of the Wilton Town Hall Theater and he
    	has been awarded a contract to show GETTYSBURG.  The timing has not 
    	been solidified yet but he's hoping to get it in before the end of 
    	December.
    
    	I wil keep you posted as to when exactly he'll have the film.
    
    	Chuck

    Just a few impressions/questions, in no real order, prompted by seeing 
    Gettysburg at my local theater yesterday.  I have very mixed emotions
    about this picture and was deeply moved by the sacrifice depicted on 
    both sides.  I found it fascinating but very sad and wonder if I 
    will view the 6 hour TV version.

    I wonder what would have happened if Lee acted on Longdtreet's advice
    to move east, and hold a position between the AOP and Washington?  Does
    anyone have any idea how long the ANV could have held such a position?
    Would they have been able to take Washington?   Would the occupation of
    Washington have ended the war?

    I guess, at the least, it would have been the AOP that took the beating
    if forced to attack the ANV?   Would the AOP be able to recover from
    another defeat so soon after Fredericksberg?

    Given the fact that Buford's cavalry was decimated during the first day,
    would a counter attack by the AOP, if successful, have been able to be
    followed up?   I think cavalry was the arm used to turn a defeated
    enemy's retreat into a route which would really destroy an army?
    The movie left the impressions that the ANV was so badly decimated that
    they could not mount an effective defense.   Sturat's Cavalry must have
    been largely intact and could have covered the retreat?   

    One thing was crystal clear and that is that the technology, particularly 
    the rifled musket, was well in advance of the lineal tactics practiced.   
    The defense was inherently stronger that the offense.

    As someone commented earlier, there seemed to be an awful lot of very
    well fed rebs in Lee's army.

    The artillery barrage scenes were one beautiful bit of cinematogrpahy.

      Joe

  Reg: .38

>    I wonder what would have happened if Lee acted on Longdtreet's advice
>    to move east, and hold a position between the AOP and Washington?  Does
>    anyone have any idea how long the ANV could have held such a position?
>    Would they have been able to take Washington?   Would the occupation of
>    Washington have ended the war?

	I think it would not have worked.  Lee *had* to soundly defeat the 
	Union's main army in the field and defeat it soundly so that it could
	not retake the field in any way,shape or form for an extended 
	period of time.  That had never been the case before.  The AOP had 
	always been able to escape anahilation, reform and reorganize to fight
	again.  The importance of the two Capitols were greatly exagerated.
	The occupation of Washington would not in and of itself ended the War.
	I would assume that the government would've moved to Philly, Boston or
	New York.  If the Confederates captured Washington they would've had to
	start looking at the Revolutionary War scheme of the British in which 
	they would have to control the Waterway of the Hudson River through 
	Champlain to Canada thus cutting the economic ties in the North.  The
	South's downfall was it dependency on an society based on agriculture
	and Sherman's TOTAL WAR tactics are what eventually defeated the South
	by taking away the South's strength (the land & people).  The North's
	strength was in money and industry.  Occupation and destruction of armies
	would not have defeated the North. The South needed to cut the supply of
	money and ability to produce weapons of war.


>    I guess, at the least, it would have been the AOP that took the beating
>    if forced to attack the ANV?   Would the AOP be able to recover from
>    another defeat so soon after Fredericksberg?

	See my first nstatement above .... the AOP *always* bounced back because
	they had the resources to do it.  The AOP took a beating far worse than
	the previous 2 years of war when they subsequently started the Campaigns
	of 1864 (ie. Wilderness, Cold Harbor, etc.) and it did not matter.

>    Given the fact that Buford's cavalry was decimated during the first day,
>    would a counter attack by the AOP, if successful, have been able to be
>    followed up?   I think cavalry was the arm used to turn a defeated
>    enemy's retreat into a route which would really destroy an army?
>    The movie left the impressions that the ANV was so badly decimated that
>    they could not mount an effective defense.   Sturat's Cavalry must have
>    been largely intact and could have covered the retreat?   

	Tactically speaking, Cavalry during the Civil War was used for recon
	work and raiding.  For the most part, Cavalry stood aside once the ground
	armies got into it and they served as rear guard and Provost Marshalls.
	Cavalry could be used to pin an enemy down in a retreat by making an
	army stand and fight but the enemy also had Cavalry (Stuarts) and the
	Cavalry would be assigned the Rear Guard action.   

>    One thing was crystal clear and that is that the technology, particularly 
>    the rifled musket, was well in advance of the lineal tactics practiced.   
>    The defense was inherently stronger that the offense.
	
	Yes !  And if the Union Army was not headed by incompetants and 'old
	school' generals they would've employed even higher caliber weapons
	than they wound up with.  The Gatling Gun was never mass produced for
	use in the field and mines were "uncivilized".  Can you imagine what a
	couple of batterys of Gatling Guns could've accomplished at Gettysburg ?
	The rifled musket was far-and-away the greatest extender of the 'kill
	zone' and had the most influence of any weapon of the 19th Century on
	Warfare.  If you thought the Civil war was a diacotomy of tactics and
	weaponry .... read some of the accounts of the GREAT WAR (WWI) !  
	The loss figures for some of the battles in France were on the order of
	Hundreds of Thousands measured by the hour !  Here is where the impact
	of the machine gun and Lee's pioneering work in trench warfare and 
	crossfire zones with impediments to 'hold' an enemy in place for massed
	firepower (see Lee's tactics at Cold Harbor) were played out to the MAX !


	Regards,

	Chuck

    RE .38:
    
    	As an added note on cavalry, Buford's force was only one of several
    Union cavalry divisions on hand at Gettysburg.  Most of the Union (and
    Confederate) cavalry units were not seriously engaged during the
    battle, so they would have been available for pursuit.  Also, Buford's
    units were not _really_ hit very hard; they were relieved by infantry
    before the fighting got too serious.  However, Reynolds' I Corps and
    Howard's XI Corps who relieved them _were_ decimated; one regiment of
    the Iron Brigade took 80% casualties on Seminary Ridge.
    
    	I agree with .42 about Longstreet's idea, though not for exactly
    the same reasons.  It is very important to remember that Lee was
    "blind" at Gettysburg - he did not know where the AOP was, except the
    piece he ran into, because Stuart and the cavalry were not around to
    tell him.  Meade was closer to Washington than Lee was, and for Lee to
    try and disengage after the first day and slide around Meade's flank
    would have been next to impossible.  The ANV was operating in hostile
    country, with a long wagon train that needed protecting, and that would
    have greatly hampered manuever.
    
    	Also remember that Washington was heavily fortified.  Even one
    corps of the AOP could have made a stiff defense against Lee's whole
    army.
    
    	Actually, you can make a good case that the Confederates lost the
    battle of Gettysburg when Stonewall Jackson was shot at
    Chancellorsville two months earlier.  Lee lost his most
    offensively-minded corps commander, and Ewell did not measure up as a
    replacement.
    
    MikeR
    

	After thinking about this subject last night (I know ... get a life !)
	I came up with a few more possibilities;

	I believe that we need to look back at the objective of the AONV.
	The forey into Union territory was in essence a large scale raid and
	not one of occupation.  Therefor, although Lee was an offensive-minded
	general he also (I believe) was a general who kept one-step ahead of
	his enemy.  In moving his army around Meade to get between him and 
	Washington would mean he would be giving up his best line of retreat
	through the Shenendoah Valley.  His path of retreat would have to take
	him through the lower fords of the Potomac and expose his army to the
	possibility of attack from reinforcements ushered up the Potomac.

	I think a better tactical decision would've been to move *WEST* and draw
	the AOP *AWAY* from Washington and then beat it in segments as it moved
	since Lee was a much better mobile general and the AONV much more savvy
	in flanking manouvers.

	Chuck

    RE:106.43
    
    After reading as much as I have, and visiting so many of the
    battlefields here in the Eastern theatre, I agree with Mike in note
    106.43.  Stonewall Jackson was a terror whose name alone was worth a
    certain number of men when he went up against the AOP.  His continual
    offensive-mindedness would have served Lee extremely well not only at
    Gettysburg, but the battles to come thereafter.  I'm not saying I would
    be speaking with a drawl today, but two distinct nations would have
    been the result if Jackson had not been tragically killed.  Fortunately
    for the nation as a whole, he was.
    
    I know there are many that disagree with how much Jackson was worth.  I
    look forward to hearing from you.
    
    Chuck

    Jackson was for Lee what Sherman was for Grant.  He could always be
    counted on to carry the fight to the enemy unflinchingly, with fire in
    his eye, and he was savvy enough to win even against odds.

 When ever I get into a discussion of Gettysburg I always bring up the point of
 what would have happened if Jackson had still been alive.  I really think there
 are 2 points of discussion.  

 1) would have Jackson even commited his troops at the outset of the battle or
    would he have disengaged and waited for further orders from Lee.  It was 
    not Lee's intention to fight at Gettysburg per se,  he wanted to choose the
    field of battle of his choice.  Geographically the South never had the 
    advantage for the entire battle.

 2) If he did commit his troops would he have blundered in command as bad as
    Ewell did?  Highly doubtful.  I think the attack would have been pushed on 
    the first day by the confederates and they may have forced the Union of 
    the field of battle in retreat.  

  I wish there was a computer simulation that had Jackson's fighting skills and
  leadership skills programmed, thus enabling this argument to be at least 
  partially tested.   Personally I think Jackson would have commited his troops
  on the first day, and not backed off until the field was his.  Gettysburg as
  we know it wouldn't have happened...   

                       Dan

    RE .47:
    
    	Well, I'm not sure about a _computer_ simulation, but there exists
    a game - Terrible Swift Sword - which is a very realistic simulation of
    the Gettysburg battle at a regimental level.  If you have around 15-20
    hours of free time, you can re-fight the first day, starting from the
    initial encounter between Heth's division and Buford's cavalry west of
    town.  Since we know what Ewell _didn't_ do, we could see whether a late
    afternoon attack on Cemetary Hill was feasible.
    
    	With a bit of research, you might even be able to recreate the
    approximate casualties by unit up until the time of the "disputed
    action" by Ewell, so as to be even more accurate.
    
    	(I haven't had the time to try it yet.  Maneuvering several hundred
    regiments ain't easy!  :^} )
    
    MikeR
    

    Boy, if "The Killer Angles" was as accurate as they say it is (I read
    it on vacation last week), Jeb Stuart should have been hanged.

    He really let them down.

    Bufford and Chamberlan seemed to be the heros of the day(s).  Good
    thing Ewell was indecisive with the high ground or the battle would
    have been fought elsewhere.  (IMO)
    
    Great book.
    
    Chip

    RE .49:
    
    	Gettysburg had many crises, and many "heros of the day" (on both
    sides); "The Killer Angels" was a novel, and therefor selective in what
    it treated.  There's nothing wrong with a focus on Buford and
    Chamberlain, but there are many other people and regiments with equally
    good claims to prominence.  You might add one of the more "complete"
    historical accounts to your reading, like Catton, McPherson, or Foote.
    
    	J.E.B. Stuart certainly has a major place in the "what went wrong
    with the ANV" story, but Ewell and Longstreet are also major players,
    and perhaps Lee, too.  Ewell and Longstreet's failures were probably
    more directly responsible for the ANV's defeat than Stuart's, but
    there's enough blame for everybody.  ;^)   (Of course, whether Ewell's
    indecision was a "good" thing depends on your point of view... 8^} )
    
    MikeR
    

    The film will be playing in early February at Keene (NH) State
    University's theatre, in 70mm widescreen with 6-channel Dolby surround
    sound.  I think the dates are Feb 3-7.  Showtime is early, like 7 or
    7:15, I think.  This is a world class theatre, well worth the visit. 
    Call Keene State for more information - sorry, I don't have the number,
    but 1-603-555-1212 will have it.
    
    -dick

    RE: .50

    In TKA Longstreet wasn't a mistake-maker, and it was clear Lee was.

    While it was a novel, given certain perspectives, every quote and
    action was researched.  (Although the author admitted to toning down
    the "flowery language" to make it more read-able.)  

    It seems impossible not to have given Lee the brunt of the criticisms as
    he knew the limitations of his recon (non-recon) and the usual method
    of the AOP to keep "fat" in the middle.

    I did read Footes version of the battle as well and could find no real
    disparity between that and the book.

    RE .52:
    
    Before making any "decisions" about what happened in the ANV command
    structure at Gettysburg, it is worth reading the appropriate section of
    "Lee's Lieutenants" by Douglas Freeman.  While Freeman has his
    limitations as a writer, that book is probably the most complete
    account of what went on in the ANV.  The issue around Longstreet is not
    so much with his _advice_ (which seems to be adequately presented in
    "The Killer Angels"), but with his failure to respond promptly and
    energetically to Lee's direct orders.  In particular, his delay in
    attacking the Union left on the second day gave us one of the two most
    interesting "what ifs" of the battle to discuss.  :^)  (Ewell's failure
    to attack Cemetary Hill on the evening of the first day is the other
    one.)
    
    The two main questions in "the Longstreet controversy" are whether he
    could have attacked earlier, and what Union forces would have been at
    hand if he had.  Remember that several key Union reenforcements in the
    fighting for the Round Tops arrived on the field "just in time".  An
    earlier attack - and Longstreet could have gotten started much earlier
    than 4:00 in the afternoon - would certainly have led to a different
    fight, and perhaps a different result.
    
    MikeR
    

	Re -1

	Ewell's not pushing to conclusion the fight at Cemetary Hill on the
	1st day .....

		This section of the ANV though flushed with victory was in 
		almost complete disarray at the end of the 1st day's fighting.
		In addition, Ewell recieved scouting reports indicating a
		large Union force decending upon his left flank and was hesitant
		to extend his line to the left.  Lee met with Ewell that night
		to discuss plans for the next day.  Lee asked Ewell what could
		be done in his front.  What happened next was almost incredulous.
		Jubal Early took the opportunity to dominate the conversation,
		almost superceded Ewell's authority to command.  Early was the
		one who did not think an attack on Cemetary Hill would yield
		anything because he pointed out the dominant feature of the
		terrain (the Rounds Tops) as the key to the battle.  He shifted
		Lee's perspective to the Union Left.  Ewell just nodded approval
		as Lee looked into his eyes for response .... while listening to
		Early's tactical analysis that HE KNEW should be coming from 
		Ewell's mouth !  Not a confidence builder at any rate.  
	
		In essence Early was correct.  The Round Tops were the key, but
		he did not know the position of the the remainder of the ANV
		(that Longstreet's Corps was strung out as much as 15 miles along
		the roads leading to Gettysburg) and the relative position of the
		Union army in the vicinity of the Round Tops.  What Lee knew was
		that in this sector his Generals (Ewell & Early) did not favor
		an assault and that Ewell's immeadiate subordinate (Early) was
		grandstanding in his commanding officer's presence.  Not good.
		Also, because of the terrain and the position of Ewells Corps
		Lee could not take Ewell's men (the only complete Confederate
		Corps on hand) and shift them to the Confederate right (this 
		would expose the town of Gettysburg to capture and Lee would
		lose all his captured ordinance and his wounded).  So Lee was
		left with the option of having Longstreet's Corps make the 
		assault on the right. 

		At that point the decision was made and he left Ewell to attack
		Cemetary Hill WHEN HE HEARD LONGSTREETS GUNS open the attack 
		on the right.  Lee told Ewell (before he discussed this with
		Longstreet) that the attack would be made "at mid-morning".  
		Logistics prevented Longstreet from being ready in time and 
		'mid-morning' dragged into late afternoon.  By that time Ewell
		had already tentatively made his assaults and would do no more
		when the time came for Longstreet to launch his attack on the
		Round Tops.  Thus the union army was able to shift forces (just
		in time) from their positions on Cemetary Hill to counter 
		Longstreet's assault at the other end of the line.  

		Lee's original plan of battle for the second day was a 
		simultaneous attack on both ends of the Union line.  Longstreet
		carried out his end of the bargain (albeit late) but Ewell
		failed to support.  

		Regards,

		Chuck

    Was Lee hopelessly projecting some of his "6th sense" he seemed to have
    with Stonewall Jackson onto other subordinates 'expecting them to be
    resourceful like SJ and have accurate and reliable reports and
    suggestions for Lee?

    RE .55:
    
    	Lee tended to give his subordinates lots of discretion in action. 
    Once he trusted someone, he gave general orders, and his subordinates
    were supposed to figure out the detailed execution of them.  Given the
    difficulty of communications on ACW battlefields, this made sense, but
    it meant that Lee rarely, if ever, gave preremptory orders.  His
    instructions to Ewell on the first day at Gettysburg, to attack
    Cemetary Hill "if practicable", are an excellent example.
    
    	Lee also ran the ANV with an absurdly small staff (commented on by
    contemporaries), even by the standards of that day.  Action orders were
    rarely very long - it took too much time to write out a lot of detail. 
    This, too, gave subordinates a lot of leeway in execution.
    
    	Jackson's great virtue was a driving combativeness, linked with a
    bunch of other skills.  He believed in fighting, and in total victory,
    and would rarely stop pursuing until it became impossible.  Longstreet
    was a defensive fighter - he preferred to be attacked, though he showed
    at 2nd Manassas that he could hit and hit hard (_if_ he was allowed to
    choose his own time for attack).  Ewell, as a corps commander, never
    achieved the same agressiveness that Stonewall had, nor did A.P. Hill. 
    It wasn't so much that Lee had some special "sixth sense" link with
    Jackson, rather that Lee could count on Jackson to drive as hard as
    possible.
    
    MikeR
    

	Good points Mike !  You bring up the 'personalities & peculiarities'
	of the individual commanders of the ANV.  I think this has a *LOT* to
	do with the success/failure inherent in the Army of Northern Virginia
	and their charisma as opposed to their Northern counterparts.  

	Along your thought process I will also bring out this point; Lee used 
	his Corps in very specified roles from the time he took command at
	the Seven Days until he had no choice but to use all resources in a
	strictly defensive posture (after 'The Wilderness').  

	In short, Lee's preference for tactical manouvers as assigned to his
	Corps were the following;  For Offensive operations (flank attacks, 
	seperate command) he used Jackson and his 1st Corps (ie. Jackson's 
	"Foot Cavalry"),  For Defensive fighting and holding the enemy in 
	position he used Longstreet's 2nd Corps (Lee *always* liked Longstreet
	to be at hand ... probably because Lee weighed Longstreet advice so
	heavily),  and for backup and manouverability in battle Lee prefered
	A.P. Hill's undersized 3rd Corps (ie. The "Lightning" Corps).  

	Each Corps took on the personality of their commanders and their 
	individual strengths (and weaknesses).  Lee knew what to expect from 
	each of his commanders and their men and Lee knew better than to ask 
	them to go against their strengths.  When Lee was forced to adjust
	with Ewell it took time.  He did not lose AP Hill until nearly the
	end of the war and, of course, Longstreet was with him (except for the
	the Chicamauga Campaign) until the end.  

	Chuck

    RE .57:
    
    	A minor nit - Longstreet's corps of the ANV was officially the I
    Corps; Jackson commanded the II Corps.  From just after the Seven Days
    until after Chancellorsville the ANV had only two corps, of about four
    divisions each.  (Contrast the AOP, where the corps had between two and
    four divisions, usually three.)  With Jackson gone, Lee reorganized
    into three corps:  Longstreet kept I Corps, Ewell got II Corps, and
    A.P. Hill got the new III Corps.
    
    	You are correct that Lee employed Jackson as his "mobile strike
    force", and that Longstreet often "held" while others "hit".  I would
    say, though, that personalities were equally important in the Union
    Army - we just don't hear about them as much.  It is interesting, for
    example, that Joe Hooker made an excellent division commander and a
    reasonable corps commander in the AOP, failed when put in command of
    the army, but afterwards was a very competent corps commander in the
    west.
    
    MikeR
    

    Mike,
    What is your opinion of Sedgwick and Hancock as Corps commanders
    in the AOP under Grant( realizing that Sedgwick bought it in the
    Wilderness)?
    
    Thanks,
    Mike
    
    
                                                

    RE .60:
    
    	This may be getting off the track of this topic (and why you want
    _my_ opinion is a mystery ;^} ), but, briefly:
    
    	All I have read suggests that "Uncle John" Sedgwick was one of the
    best corps commanders on either side.  His men admired and respomded to
    him.  Hancock had an excellent reputation up through Gettysburg (he was
    called "Hancock the Superb"), both for fighting and cursing.  The wound
    he received at Gettysburg seems to have caused him trouble, for in the
    '64 campaign he did not particularly shine.  There is a biography of
    him which I have not read, so that might be a better detail source than
    I am.
    
    	BTW, the AOP was _still_ commanded by Meade during '64 (and '65);
    Grant was in command of ALL the Union armies at that point, but he was
    the main architect of the strategy (and sometimes the tactics) of the
    AOP - though he did route all orders through Meade.
    
    MikeR
    

    Thanks Mike,
    
    I knew Meade was commander of the AoP, but I always thought of him
    as Grant's errand boy and pit bull during the '64 and '64 campaign.
    
    Back to Gettysburg..
    
    Mike
    

  while watching the tube yesterday saw an add announcing that "Gettysburg"
  would be released for VCR rental purchase on March 16th...

       Dan

    Gettysburg is one of the films that you can watch in your (first class)
    seat if you happen to be flying from NY to LAX on United.  (They have
    individual tape players in first class and, as of this month, this
    movie is one of the options.)

    Did Gettysburg get any Academy awards, or is the subject not PC enough
    for that bunch of liberals?
    
    Joe

    I don't even think it was nominated for anything. Maybe some obscure
    technical category.
    
    I rented the video over the weekend. Still plays well on the small
    screen. It's in letterbox format so little is lost except the
    overwhelming scope of Pickett's Charge. Still a very powerful
    film which I intend to buy some day.
    
    I concentrated more this time on the acting and the characterizations.
    Very good stuff, particularly Longstreet and Pickett.
    
    -- Bill

    Bill I get the feeling the "Happy go lucky" George Pickett was a
    devastated man for the rest of his life with that tremendous zest for
    life all but extinguished.   Is that the case?   Did he ever recover or
    forgive Lee for the decimation of his division?

    Joe 

    I've never read anything detailed about Pickett's life but the
    "postscript" on the end of the film does say that he survived the
    war and was "haunted" for the rest of his life by what happened to
    his men that day.
    
    One of the most touching scenes in the film is after Pickett's
    Charge has been repulsed. Lee encounters Pickett walking in a dazed
    manner about the field as his men trickle back. Lee says, "General,
    you must look after your division". Pickett gazes mournfully up at
    Lee and says, "Sir, I have no division". Lee looks stunned.
    
    You can see the devastation in Pickett's eyes. Very compelling scene.
    
    -- Bill

    I may be wrong but I believe Pickett continued to serve with
    the ANV until the end of the war. He remained a valued commander.
    
    He never forgave Lee for the Charge. When asked about Lee after the
    War, Pickett said and I paraphrase, "That old man destroyed my
    division.".
    
    Mike
    
    

    I thought George Pickett died in a battle shortly after GB.  Or was
    that the Calvary Officer...
    
    Anyway, I rented Gettysburg today at Blockbuster...  Its going to be a
    long night...

    After Gettysburg, Pickett commanded in southern Virginia and North
    Carolina.  He was at Cold Harbor and Five Forks.  After the war he
    declined a commission in the Turkish army and the position of Marshal
    of Virginia (offered by Grant).  He went into the insurance business
    and died in 1875.
    Virgin

    RE .70:
    
    	George Pickett survived the war.  During the retreat from
    Petersburg, his division was attacked and defeated at Five Forks while
    he and his staff were having dinner - most embarassing.  I believe he
    did not hold a command after that, since the ANV at that point had very
    few divisions left.
    
    	If by "the cavalry officer" you mean J.E.B. Stuart, he was killed
    later in the war, but well after Gettysburg, at a place called Yellow
    Tavern, near Richmond.
    
    MikeR
    

    Yep, Jeb, sorry, braincramp.

    The preceding comments about George Pickett are accurate (i.e. his
    comments around R.E. Lee, his final defeat, etc.).  The only other
    point I will make is that he became a somewhat vilified man among
    die-hard Southerners after the war.  It appears that not too many
    appreciated his ongoing attacks on General Lee's handling of the
    Gettsysburg battles, in particular the last day (it should be noted,
    though, that Pickett was all for the charge - just didn't want to share
    in the blame, I guess).  His verbal attacks appear to have continued
    until he was virtually in his grave.
    Chuck

    Somewhere someone commented on the fact that Longstreet tried to "get
    out of Pickets charge" and when unable to dissuade Lee, tried to have
    another Corps selected for the "honor".  In my estimation his stature
    is increased not diminished.  As one who has actually "Seen the
    elephant" up close and personal, I would be proud to serve under a
    commander who tried to spare the lives of his troops.   

    Glory hunting egotists that make their reputation on the broken bodies 
    of their butchered troops, like George Armstrong Custer, Marshall
    Foche, Field Marshall Hague as en nauseam, are all to common in 
    military history.   IMHO, a good commander is one who is committed to 
    winning with a minimum losses of life to his own troops.  Any butcher
    can order a "Frontal Assault" but a great commander will find a way to
    avoid it and still accomplish his goals.

    IMHO opinion Longstreet understood that the rifled musket made
    offensive operations sheer suicide and that Lee lost sight of that 
    fact.   How could the man who commanded at Fredericksburg not
    understand that fundamental truth?   Lee was not a god, regardless of 
    what the die hards in the south believed.  I think the south would 
    have been better served by Longstreet of commander of the ANV than Lee.  

    Let us say that Lee was thrown by Traveler or was shot and killed on 
    the way to Gettysburg and Longstreet inherited the AVN, what would 
    have happened?
    
    Joe 

    RE .75:
    
    	While I won't disagree with your statement that a "good" commander
    tries to win with minimum loss, I am not at all sure you can use that
    yardstick to distinguish between Longstreet and Lee.
    
    	To one of your points, there is no evidence whatever that
    Longstreet understood that the rifled musket made frontal assaults
    "suicide".  He clearly preferred to fight on the defensive, at least
    tactically, but nothing that survives indicates that that preference
    was anything more than a general military understanding that the
    tactical defensive is stronger - regardless of weapons.  In fact, the
    rifled musket had _not_ made frontal assaults "suicide"; at Missionary
    Ridge, an impossible Union frontal assault succeeded with minimal loss
    of life (rather by accident, but it worked), and at Spotsylvania,
    Colonel Emory Upton proved that even entrenched troops could be
    successfully attacked, given the right tactics.  What the rifled musket
    _did_ do was make the current _method_ of attack almost useless against
    protected defenders - the idea of exchanging volleys at 100 yards until
    somebody broke was not going to work with the longer range of the
    rifle, if one side was standing out in the open.  "Old Pete" can't
    claim any marks for foresight - his troops used the same attacking
    method everyone else did.
    
    	There is actually a basis for discussing your "what if" question,
    since Longstreet had an independent command for a while after
    Chickamauga.  He did not do well.  He got into disputes with
    subordinates, and poorly coordinated the one attack his command made. 
    Even if you ignore the incalcuable blow to morale from Lee's death
    (which might have made numbers of ANV soldiers leave the ranks),
    Longstreet would have tried to get on good terrain somewhere in
    Pennsylvania and wait for Meade to attack.  Meade was not likely to
    oblige, unless the AoP was concentrated, and even then he might have
    had sense enough to realize that if the AoP sat tight between the ANV
    and Washington, the Confederates would soon have to retreat - they had
    no real supply line back to Virginia, and you can't forage in one spot
    for long.  Longstreet was a good corps commander, mostly, but he never
    really demonstrated the ability to handle an army.
    
    	As a final point, I think it is stretching things to take Pickett's
    Charge as evidence that Lee did not care about the lives of his men. 
    He certainly made mistakes at Gettysburg (and elsewhere), but his
    record during the rest of the war shows excellent tactical sense, and
    an ability to find the other side's weak points.  Malvern Hill might
    actually be a bigger blunder than Pickett's Charge, in terms of the
    ability to forsee a bloody failure.  (By the way, it is an interesting
    comment on the "uncertainty" of battles that some Confederates were
    worried before the Union attack on Mayre's Heights at Fredricksburg
    about their ability to hold the position - and that that same stone
    wall _was_ taken, by assault, a few months later during the
    Chancellorsville campaign, though against far fewer defenders than in
    December.)
    
    MikeR
    

    
    For those of you interested in a "what if Longstreet was given
    the OK to push around Meade's flank and head for Washington" scenario,
    this year's weekend reenactment at Gettysburg  July 1-2-3 will
    feature this exact "What If" scenario as part of a tactical,
    in addition to the 'Gettysburg - the Second Day' battles
    of the Wheatfield and Sickle's advance.
    
    Tom
    

	After just finishing reading "Killer Angels" I went out and rented 
	"Gettysburg" last night.  It was, in my eyes, a major disappointment.

	Someone earlier asked about Acadamy Awards.  You've got to be kidding!
	The acting was poor at best.  The only exceptions would be Longstreet,
	and to a lesser degree, Pickett.  It must have been the first acting
	job ever for the person portraying J.E.B. Stuart.  Probably the last.

	Each and every one of the ANV officers' drawls came and went depending 
	on the scene.  Not a whole lot of work must have gone into that.

	The field scenes were another story.  For the most part, I was impressed.
	The thing that I noticed to be most disturbing was the apparent use
	of manicans, mixed in with 'real' men.  The manicans weren't even placed
	in believable poses.

	To someone who has walked the battlefield several times, last time
	being two summers ago, I was hoping for something much better than
	the two-bit attempt I spent >4 hours watching last night.


	Bill 

    RE: .78  by MKFSA::LONG 
    
	>Someone earlier asked about Acadamy Awards.  You've got to be kidding!
	>The acting was poor at best.  The only exceptions would be Longstreet,
	>and to a lesser degree, Pickett.  ...
    
    I thought Jeff Daniels did a good job portraying Joshua Chamberlain,
    but I was disappointed with Martin Sheen's Lee.
    

            RE:78

    To someone who has actually "seen the elephant" it was a moving
    experience.  I guess art, like beauty, is in the eye of the 
    beholder and ones perspective is based on one's experience.   

    Chamberlain and Buster's discussion of the worth of man was superb.

    I for one felt that the portrayal of Pickett was great.

    Ewell's talk with the Brit prior to Pickett's charge was extremely
    moving.   

    Joe

	Don't get me wrong.  There were parts of the movie that struck
	a chord deep in my soul, but the movie on a "whole" was poorly
	put together. 

	Chamberlain and Buster's "worth of man" discussion and the Brit
	and Armstead's talk before the charge were two of those "too few"
	good parts.


	bill

    Scheduled to be on TNT (I think) Sunday and Monday, June 26 & 27.
    
    -- Bill