Gettysburg, the Extended Edition

E

Eoraptor1

SOH-CM-2022
Last year, I think it was, I was trying to locate the Extended version of Turner's Gettysburg and brought the issue to the SOH membership. I own the Theatrical cut on DVD, and the Director's cut on Blu-Ray, but I was looking for the four and a half hour cut that aired on TNT back in 1993. I found it this week on YouTube.


My little Circle is deeply divided on this movie. There's my camp, which loves it, and the other camp, who think it's a colossal bore and think I'm insane for wanting to see even more. I really continue to enjoy it, although I still think you get more from the book upon which it was based, Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels. Anyway, for all those so inclined, enjoy.

JAMES
 
I have a copy of it and it does get involved in a lot of minute detail of the 3 days of battle. But some people do not want to sit through how events developed in that detail.

If you would like to read a DETAILED book about the battle, I recommend Noah Andre Trudeau's "Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage". Probably tells you everything you ever wanted to know about what and why.

You might also like the NBC mini-series "Centennial", adapted from James Michener's book. It is on DVD also.
 
That seems to be the problem with teaching History. American history has become a BORE!...Even more serous,is now the alteration of the facts of history. for certain considerations they alter history.Facts get flavored,and colored to accommodate a currant mode. Factual re en actors ,with factual locales,,with historic accurate arms,armor do a great service.
One can almost pick a historical time,and its been re-enacted.This world over.Who would not want to march with the 12th legion invading Briton,or Crossing the Delaware ,with George Washington. Save for a relative small part of our overall population ,its not even known this exisits..Praise for those who do this,more so for those who adhere to the Facts and the truth.

When its on Film,and done honestly,carefully,it becomes a treasure to to have.Like our friends the books on our shelves! To re review share,educate. film and Pictures are worth a Million words....as A kid I was enthralled on Classic Comics...Those Paper Comic books brought me to appreciate history more than some old boring teacher ever could.

'Those who do Not Know history Are Doomed to Relieve it
 
I think I've opined on this before but certain really good books simply do not translate to screen without a significant amount of cutting. "The Killer Angels" which this movie is based upon, is one of those. Anyone approaching the subject would have to deal with the fact that a good chunk of the story most be unmercifully chopped to keep the movie going.

Also, "The Killer Angels" is a fictional account of the battle, not factual....so while the movie follows the general conduct of the battle and deals with certain factual events very well, always bear in mind that it's still fiction. There are scenes that are just out and out made up (one of my favorites is the confrontation between Lee and Stuart -- which did not occur).

There are other historical movies that have this problem of what to cut, and what to include....."A Bridge Too Far" (which is non-fiction) is one of these....just too long. We'd make it a mini-series on HBO now.

I also agree with beana51. History is presented very poorly in most schools. First off, we call it "Social Studies" now and dumb it down. Then we adjust our presentation to meet the standards of the day. As an example, George Custer is either a villain, a hero, a martyr, or an idiot depending on the political climate of the day you first hear his name in an historical context. In truth he was none of these things, and all of these things (being a human being).
 
Reply...

Hey guys,

Being a history teacher in the imperfect American public school system, I have paid careful attention to this thread.

Instead of dumping on your comments, I'd like to turn things around. Since all of you (beana51, TeaSea, and glh) have pretty definite opinions on history being taught in American classrooms, what type of specific improvements can you recommend to me as I design my curriculum for 2013-2014? Any specific focus, concept, or perspective I should build my lessons around?
 
Mr. Rami,I for one am not qualified for such an important endeavor as you ask.Nor would I ever try...However I have Children,History was important at home,We made games of it..The Sources for our History Games came from books.books written by Historians ,historians who relied on the truth and the facts.My kids now,middle aged,still carry those impressions.I get alarmed tho ,at my grand kids.What they came home with is not what I believed history to be. The same People and places the dates OK but with flavor and color.That reflecting our ever changing US make up....Its gets worse!..My two Great Grand sons now are getting not history but Social Studies.With not so subtle things like Columbus is a war criminal,Santa Anna was just protecting his country, 5th of may is like 4th of July,Tom Jefferson was a racist,so to George Washington..And On and On That American Indians were just simple,peaceful people like depicted in Dance With Wolves.. Gen Custer practicing genocide,.That John Wayne s West was Aggression and murder,..this along with some guilt feeling we are to have about all this!.This is reenforced from the top down...My son is a school teacher,we have four school teaches in the family.All are frustrated with the new revised history coming down. They walk the party line now,Restrained and follow orders Two already are training for better bucks,in the health industry..They leave with heavy heart ,they loved teaching!.Now you or others may not see it like this However,if so find out The US standing in the world in education today....All the money will not change it....America once had One Room School houses..From them came the Greatest of generations,who saved the world,and walked on the moon...OK my friend Just a few thoughts...Getting in Trouble again, This is not the place.But at my age ?HA! HA! HA!.Thanx..Vin

"TO DESTROY A NATION,DESTROY ITS MYTHS AND HERO'S"
 
This is one of my all time favorite movies. My favorite scene is when General Lee gives that most impressive butt-chewing to his cavalry general. I've had a couple of those... Usually they are delivered in a calm voice, but one filled with "weight", much like Mr. Sheen did, except for when he lost it for just a second ("I have told you there is no time!!") Which may not have occurred, after all (see above posts.) And Jeff Daniels as the 20th Maine CO is great too. Great movie.

As for the real history, has anyone here read anything by William W. Freehling? Specifically The Road to Disunion? It's pretty good...
 
I have read so many books about the American Civil War that I've long lost count. However, it was not until I personally went to Gettysburg with my father and two sons and walked all over that battlefield that it hit home so squarely. Standing on the face of Little Round Top and staring at the strewn boulders later named The Devil's Den, I immediately looked to my dad and said, "Lee was out of his mind to think any group of men could have taken this position."

For me, it wasn't that the assault on day two of the battle failed, it was how on earth could the CSA forces have gone so far. The thing is that the Army of the Potomac had reserve forces behind Little Round Top ready to deploy. In truth, despite the obvious heroism of Chamberlain's forces, there were other units behind them should the Confederates advanced beyond them. I have read so many books that tried to put the prime blame on Longstreet, all of them part of the Virginia "Lost Cause" cabal. However, in reading more objective narratives, I think this book "Killer Angels" and the movie made from it, got the essential facts very correct.

There was a scene in the movie that summed it all up so well. Longstreet said to Lee that the Union forces enjoyed tight interior lines with excellent lines of communication and vantage points that dominated the entire Confederate deployment. Lee's forces could not move without being observed even in the stage of assembly. By the time the Confederates could get a quarter of the way to their intended line of deployment, the Union could mass forces to resist them.

Day two relied upon one of the most complicated battle maneuver schemes ever attempted in this war. A simultaneous two-pronged offensive on both flanks. On day three, it was worse with a demonstration at Culp's Hill with a cavalry sortie into the enemy's rear designed to come at the center of the Union line from its rear, to oppose the center maneuver later called Pickett's Charge (which ignored the reality that Pickett's division only supplied a third of the forces!). To prove the hopelessness of trying to maneuver without observation, the best chance to do that on Culp's Hill was the first time that day the Union initiated offensive action to thwart a Confederate attack before it even began. The Union artillery initiated action that shocked and angered Lee, who initially concluded that Hill's forces failed to coordinate their attack on day three but in truth it was the Union shooting first based upon observations of Confederate force massing.

George Custer's cavalry was not asleep as presumably Lee must have thought they would be as they most certainly observed Stuart's sortie into the Union rear and attacked it, jamming it up magnificently, and ruining that part of day three's plan. The forces the reached the stone wall had no cavalry relief as long before then Stuart had to withdraw or else get surrounded and annihilated. For more proof that the Union was not incompetent as apparently Lee believed they were, the previous night, the Union commander placed his finger on the map where he anticipated Lee's day three action would take place and he pointed to a grove of trees precisely at the point Lee's plan called for the wide march to concentrate on! As you might guess, based upon that guess, the Union reinforced that area that very morning before the charge!

That doesn't even mention much the reliance upon artillery that never demonstrated the kinds of accuracy that Lee's plan hinged upon. Lee's plan was to take over 100 artillery pieces and mass fires on one spot of the Union front to annihilate it so that the frontal assault would succeed. Even if it had worked, it ignored the Union artillery on both flanks that had sufficient vantage points to mass fires on the frontal assault from both its flanks! It also ignored the known results of the smoke created by all those guns on a July battlefield where the heat acted as a temperature inversion to lock in what was one of the most dense smoke screens ever seen in the war. After only a few minutes of sustained fires, the Confederate gunners no longer could even ID where their volleys were impacting! For technical reasons, Confederate artillery never enjoyed the range accuracy of Union artillery -- their fuses were so much worse than Union fusings. Truth is most of the Confederate fires fell in the Union's rear, not touching the front line forces they were supposed to neutralize!

Longstreet warned Lee of all of this and was repeatedly rebuffed by his commander. How stupid was Lee's expectations? In recent times it was learned through forensic analysis of the battlefield that about half of all Confederate forces on the day three center assault went no further than the Emmitsburg Road! These veteran soldiers knew it was hopeless and when the time was deemed safe enough, emerged from a prone position and returned to their own lines. These men individually determined that the plan was foolish and they voted with their feet!

Like I said, it was not until I saw the place with my own eyes that I was able to appreciate all this. Reading in books and seeing movies just wasn't enough.

Ken
 
Rami said:
Hey guys,

Being a history teacher in the imperfect American public school system, I have paid careful attention to this thread.

Instead of dumping on your comments, I'd like to turn things around. Since all of you (beana51, TeaSea, and glh) have pretty definite opinions on history being taught in American classrooms, what type of specific improvements can you recommend to me as I design my curriculum for 2013-2014? Any specific focus, concept, or perspective I should build my lessons around?
Click to expand...

Teach kids to be civic minded! Teach them about how our government must function upon a bedrock of public duty and a sense of always holding government accountable. Teach them that they can destroy America by putting personal desires ahead of defense of the Constitution, liberty and balance of powers and checks and balances.

Ken
 
[h=3]<abbr data-timestamp="1375231913000" class="time recent_time" title="Tue Jul 30 2013 20:51:53 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time)"></abbr>OLD FRIENDS,my books![/h] Books are like that.Some I have are on shelves for many years!..finally finding time re acquainting my self with My Country's Early History.the Revolutionary War...In essence it was about British who lived in England and The New world.Same people,same culture ,same language.Family's on both side of the pond.Included were all British subjects,Irish Scots Welsh and all. The French were in the new world also.Before the Revolution,there was a World War...Way before WW1..French,English,Indians!
My ancestors ,were not involved,after all They found the Place,and even named it..but that's It!
wink.png
..If it got screwed up??not their fault!
wink.png


Yet All Americans who love our country identify with this..With these men..all were young guys,in their 20s,30s, then..So called Foundling Fathers were Young Men.The king was not crazy,he was a sharp guy.The British Generals,all honorable talented men.The Red Coats all professional Solders...the German Hessian s Highly Feared Mercenaries,..the greatest Power then meets ragga muffins,ill equipped,no discipline,losing battles, starving, dirty,drunk,deserting, and down and out. The Loyalists strong, the Summer of 1776,in NY, it was all over ,or was it?.Yet it Seems the Crown decides to leave, long years,lose of lots of men,money, Yorktown? Washington won no battles,but he lost none either Then and a new nation born.To me and most others ,George Washington,overcame his own short comings.This Son of England Lead all thru adversity...One quality he had, trumped all...his Judgment.....now like a school boy I pour over this story..and truly its inspiring! recommended reading for all,before it gets changed!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqMgjqViB5c


 
'Those who do Not Know history Are Doomed to Relieve it
Click to expand...
That may be the modern thinking amongst some....however I think the expression is 'Those who do Not Know history Are Doomed to Relive it'

Amazing the subtle change in meaning one letter can make.....
 
Rami said:
Hey guys,

Being a history teacher in the imperfect American public school system, I have paid careful attention to this thread.

Instead of dumping on your comments, I'd like to turn things around. Since all of you (beana51, TeaSea, and glh) have pretty definite opinions on history being taught in American classrooms, what type of specific improvements can you recommend to me as I design my curriculum for 2013-2014? Any specific focus, concept, or perspective I should build my lessons around?
Click to expand...

Rami,

Well I do have some thoughts...and the first of these is that I do not think the American public school system is imperfect. Actually, I think quite the opposite. I do think there are areas that get short shrift and need some additional reinforcement and believe History is one of these (First off, let's kill the lawyers....and eliminate any reference to "Social Studies"). Let me add that I do not know which grade levels you teach, but by High School there are things students should just know without thinking about. Yes, those good old fashioned, dry as sawdust, DATES....you have to know when things happened, and what your relationship in time and place is to those events. No more or less than which way you go to get to the Mississippi River (Yes, I happen to know a young lady here in Florida that doesn't know which way the Mississippi is from Tampa).

I would also prefer that we get away from the idea that people who actually witnessed events are somehow not good sources. There is a disturbing trend to mitigate the views of people who actually witnessed events on the ground because it may not fit into a particular popular narrative. Finally, history is PEOPLE and EVENTS....not one or the other. I think students generally respond well to thinking both in terms of the grand historical idea and the implication on the individual. You know, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia crossed the Potomac River to threaten Harrisburg and potentially draw the UK into the war on the side of the CSA. That's true, but a more basic motivation was to take the war OUT OF VIRGINIA....where it had been waged for the last two years. And once out of Virginia that same Army needed (wait for it) SHOES. So, take the big ideas and break them down to the personal. Kids understand no shoes.

My idea anyway.

Oh Skyhawk_310R, not to poke fun at you but your comment on the Devil's Den brought back something that actually occurred with me. During my last visit to Gettysburg I too stood on Little Round Top and looked down into the Devil's Den. A commissioned U.S. Army Officer of some repute (who will remain forever nameless) turned to me and said "I can't believe Lee thought they could make this assault. Just standing up here you can see how impossible it would be!" I looked at him and replied "No Confederate ever stood up here." Sort of shut him up.

If you go back down to the Emmittsburg Road, and stay on the West side of Plum Run, you will see that you cannot make out the Devil's Den, or the full approach to Little Round Top. That was the vantage point you would have started your approach to that objective and would have seen nothing more until well after they were committed to the assault. I know it's a popular thing to walk the field for Pickett's Charge....but you need to walk the distance and terrain from the Emmittsburg Road to the Devil's Den to understand why that assault was made. These were not stupid people....and by 1863 they knew their craft very, very well. I'm convinced that the Army of Northern
Virginia was perhaps the single hardest fighting force ever produced in the Western Hemisphere.

Eoraptor1 you may have free copyright to my quote...I was rather proud of it myself. Sometimes, I feel the muse.
 
I think this linked to battle map shows what I was conveying in writing. You are right, the line of advance on day three could not be observed from Little Round Top due primarily to the way the southern portion of the so-called "fish hook" bent slightly to the east. However, the area of Cemetery Ridge provided a southern flank from which artillery did fire on the advancing Confederate forces (on their right flank). Additionally, the northern portion of Cemetery Ridge as it looped at the top of the Union line to the east, provided an excellent sight line for Union artillery to fire from a position of height as that portion of the line wiggled some to the west just before it looped to the east. It was an excellent position from which artillery fired down the advancing Confederate's left flank.

http://www.wall-maps.com/Classroom/HISTORY/US-History/a15_CivilWar_Gettysburg-186.gif

Day one was the classic lost opportunity when Ewell's forces failed to occupy Culp's Hill as clearly in hindsight they could have done. Of all the risks taken on day two and three as a comparison, that risk not taken by Ewell on day one was cataclysmic. His most advanced forces actually maneuvered to within a few hundred yards of the road leading southeast out the town and with the entirety of Culp's Hill taken, would have placed Confederate forces on both sides of Meade's northern flank. It would have forced Meade to abandon the entire southern line down Cemetery Ridge through Little Round Top and Big Round Top. Or, Meade could have been easily attacked on two converging sides of tightly compacted Confederate corps on day two. But, the difference would have been that these two movements would have been connected vice split. It would have been a more compacted repeat of day one where the Confederates engaged from the west and then Ewell's corps slammed in from the north and sent the Union forces in retreat to the southeast. Unfortunately for Lee, the Union retreated to a vastly superior line with perhaps the finest ground the Army of the Potomac ever enjoyed.

Ken
 
Ken,

Please understand, I do not disagree with what you're saying. But that excellent map was not available to anyone on the field. Longstreet and Hood did not have the advantage of completely understanding the situation before they began their attack. They had a significant advantage that Ewell did not have on his approach to Culp's Hill the the previous day though....they at least understood their commander's intent.

Regards Ewell, he does get criticism for not taking Culps Hill the first day...justifiably so given the benefit of hindsight, however often overlooked is that the morning of 1 July 1863 day he was not supposed to be in Gettysburg. No one was supposed to be in Gettysburg. He literally marched his Corps to the sound of the guns, commited it to action, suffered 3000 casualties within 2 -3 hours, had almost no coordination with the rest of the AoNV, did not understand Lee's intent here (Lee was still not on the field) and as far as he knew he was fighting in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Further, his two lead divisions became badly disorganized in the pursuit of the Federals to Cemetery Ridge and needed time to re-organize. In hindsight perhaps, he should have pressed his pursuit, but at the time and place he was his decision to re consolidate was one that almost any commander would have made. Especially given that he really didn't have any other orders.

That was the point I was trying to make to my brother officer on Little Round Top. Everything is clear after the event. Nothing is clear when you're in it, and all you have to go by is what you know at that point in time....Rami....take a note...that's why you teach history.

For the Europeans on the forum....this is what Americans do....we re-fight "the" Civil War.....it's kind of our thing.

No roundheads or cavaliers though....so sorry.:guinness:
 
I agree.

One thing I take sharp exception to are the claims of the so-called Lost Cause historians that Lee was a "southern gentleman" predisposed to avoid telling his generals in plain terms what to do. This is in my view so much revisionist nonsense. Longstreet at the time reviewed the written order given to Ewell on that fateful late afternoon and he concluded that they were discretionary orders pure and simple. Ewell chose to not take Culp's Hill. Without question, had the hill already been occupied with an entrenched force, such an assault could have been a disaster.

My point behind saying that was to simply say that was the best chance, not that Ewell was incompetent.

Lee got plenty of cautionary inputs from his corps and division commanders. . Longstreet had his best division commander in Hood inspect the ground on day two prior to launching his assault and be compelled to issue a formal protest to the order to proceed. I actually think the generals had a good grasp of what lay before them. What they tended to lack was an idea of what was before them prior to them getting into position, and the prime reason is lack of opportunity to scout the ground on day one followed by the unrelenting truth that the Union had perfect interior lines where they could counter any Confederate move prior to the Confederates reaching their position.

Longstreet was criticized for taking presumably too long to maneuver to the southern Union flank on day two. But, he noticed that a rise on his route of march exposed his units to Union observation. He reversed march to another road behind him that was further west and out of observation. The ground was soft off the original road and his artillery would have gotten stuck had he used the lower field west of his first road. But, the same Lost Cause historians have always taken Longstreet to task laying the cause to loafing, which is really unfair.

I actually reserve my harsh criticism for Lee and I guess that makes me a southern pariah. I actually agree with Longstreet's book where he committed the cardinal sin among southerners saying that Lee was "off his balance." Which was a polite way at the time to say a man was insane. George Pickett visited Lee after the war ended and the atmosphere was tense and without much said. As he left Lee's home, Pickett remarked to his friend, "that man destroyed my division!" As a fellow Virginian even Pickett held Lee to blame. Lee's Lost Cause apologists say he could not have maneuvered his forces to a position of superior ground south of Gettysburg but in fact, that's precisely what he did on day four after his forces were mauled, but by the point it was to escape. Tragically, one of the division commanders to survive Pickett's charge, Johnston Pettigrew, was killed leading a delaying rear guard action during that withdrawal. Longstreet thought it could have been done on day two, and I think he was right.

Then, there is the avenue to blame Stuart, which even Killer Angels and this movie did. Longstreet wanted Stuart court martialed. And certainly the Lost Cause folks excoriated him. But, an objective read of Stuart's orders, issued by Lee, which as a fellow corps commander Longstreet never read, show Stuart did precisely what Lee ordered him to do while Lee took his forces north across the Potomac. Further, Lee had significant cavalry directly assigned to his unit on march. Stuart's purpose to chop these forces to Lee was to facilitate scouting. Yet, Lee chose not to use it for the very scouting duty that so many historians attempted to blame as Stuart's failure. I consider "Lee Reconsidered" a valuable work in this regard as I do Longstreet's autobiography.

Ken
 
I am DEEPLY skeptical of the idea that there was some golden age when people were absolutely and objectively factual about history. Take Das Boot, 20 Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, Run Silent Run Deep, Crimson Tide, The Enemy Below and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, add them all together, then go even deeper, and you'll still be no where near the depth of my skepticism. Feel free to throw in Journey to the Center of the Earth for flavor. Call it evolutionary heritage or Original Sin, human beings are flawed. I encounter people all the time who claim to have a great and abiding love of history, but the minute they hear something they don't like, they start revising like mad. In my personal experience, primary source research - that would be historical figures writing in their own words - does NOT dissuade them. I'm no deep ideologue. I'm more a Fear and Desire type of guy. IMO, people have certain things they like to believe about the world and their place in it, and are capable of visceral outrage when someone tells them the world may not be exactly what they say it is. In the case of Gettysburg especially, the revisionism began immediately. I'm talking before The Army of Northern Virginia got back across the Potomac; before the bodies were cold. Historian Carol Reardon did a lecture on this very topic on C-SPAN, but I don't have time just now to search C-SPAN.org for the video, but here's her video page there for anyone who's interested. Go HERE: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/search/?keywords=Carol+Reardon

JAMES
 
History is a never ending quest. Primary sources are invaluable, but even then one be cautious. Sometimes primary sources were too close to the events and may not have had the benefit of data revealed years later. That doesn't diminish the value of it, it's just an example of why researchers must be vigilante and thoughtful. If we are to take the position that anything asserted by anyone on history must be rejected on the grounds that all humans are biased, then that must logically include the assertion that everything asserted by anyone must be rejected, and that's irrational, at best. There is truth to be learned, both from primary sources, and from later research, and usually by a combination of both.
 
PRB said:
History is a never ending quest. Primary sources are invaluable, but even then one be cautious. Sometimes primary sources were too close to the events and may not have had the benefit of data revealed years later. That doesn't diminish the value of it, it's just an example of why researchers must be vigilante and thoughtful. If we are to take the position that anything asserted by anyone on history must be rejected on the grounds that all humans are biased, then that must logically include the assertion that everything asserted by anyone must be rejected, and that's irrational, at best. There is truth to be learned, both from primary sources, and from later research, and usually by a combination of both.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree with that statement, but there are two disturbing trends that bother me. The first is what I mentioned before, to take an eyewitness account and somehow discredit it in favor of a more "acceptable" account. We should reject that outright. The second is an increasing tendency to view past events through modern perceptions. The past through the prism of the now. That's more than just hindsight, that's applying your own more's and standards to people and events of the past. You see this all the time.

And Ken, I do not hold you as a pariah because of your views on Lee...I tend to agree with you. I've also felt that both Stuart and Longstreet get attacked unfairly for events at Gettysburg. Stuart was doing what he was told (Shelby Foote is the most recent historian who points that out) and Lee actually had the predominance of the Cavalry with him...Stuart had only a detachment. At least Stuart had the sense to get killed before the end of the war before his reputation could be permanently sullied. Longstreet had the temerity to survive and "gasp" BECOME A REPUBLICAN!!! He absorbs an awful lot of criticism for the rest of his life and I think a lot of it's because of his post war career. He shares that with Robert Mosby by the way....the last Confederate officer to surrender--eventually becomes Ambassador to China and is the motivating character in the revamping of the U.S. Civil Service system in the latter part of the 19th Century.

Goodness...we can go on forever can't we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top