https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzZb6kfctEU&t=18s&index=1&list=LLmGNNyOgPLaT4C3wdHXwbuA

"If you heard the Rebel Yell and weren't scareed then you never heard it" --Some forgotten Union Soldier

Good stuff! Trump, Hillary, they are both traitors as far as I am concerned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Zd8cotWBs
If you are into political satire and star wars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APE7R0pDfbs
Made this video about "Living in America" hope you all like it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boRzFrmcM60&list=LLmGNNyOgPLaT4C3wdHXwbuA&index=15

Well said. Most people think that -every- person that supports the confederate flag finds common cause with Nazis and other morons that have co-opted the Confederate flag. Most people could not understand that I hate Nazis and pitiiful white supremecists as much, if not more so, than they do. I have educated myself (outside of school, using my own free time) about them and I know just how terrible and insidious the National Socialist Movement in Germany was. More than that, these stupid, pathetic sheep calling themselves Neo-Nazis have commited a crime against me: they used the Confederate Flag and sullied it, possibly beyond repair. it is sad that most people do not see things as they truly are, and instead see things as they have been told to see them.

Oh it gets worse my friend.....The Memphis city council ALL voted to remove Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife from the formerly named "Nathan Bedford Forrest Park". Forrest may have dealt in slaves and help found the kkk, but he was also a realist. When the kkk started getting violent he quit because he wanted nothing to do with that. By the standards of his day, which is how I view people, he was just as racist as everyone else. In fact I say we kick out General Shermin because he refused to help escaped slaves when they came to him for help during his march. If they want to end the hate, stop hating!! Confederate flag supporters are NOT racists!!

I cannot believe that...You can fly the Swastika but not the Stars and Bars? Christ. It looks like South Carolina is going to knuckle under and take down the flag. It is a shame that dumbasses and traitors have besmirched the Stars and Bars. To me it is a symbol of honnor and bravery and is as fundamentally American as the Stars and Stripes. I still honnor the flag that my ancestors marched into battle under just as I honnor Old Glory. Does that make me a Nazi and a bigot? Absolutely not, and to tell with popular media.

Further more, the confederate battle flag was a square shaped flag. The rectangle flag everyone flies is a misconception. That is the flag used by the kkk and is racist. Please fly the square one if you want to honor your forfathers.

The confederate flag is at risk. In the state of California it is leagal to fly a swastica but not a confederate flag. This however makes sense because Californians make no secret about being facists. The reason the government is pushing the banning of the flag is because it is a symbol of resistance to tyranny. I admit there were several among the southern ranks who were fighting to preseve the most cruel thing humanity can think of, however the war was fought over the 60% tarriff the federal government created that was killing the south's economy. Masses of people enlisted simply because when your country is at war, you do the patriotic thing back then. Compairing the stars and bars to slavery and oppression is insulting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMCOKNCwHmQ

I'd say General Longstreet was better then Jackson. When Longstreet needed back up at the 7 days battle, if Jackson were to have helped him the war would have been over in 2 more weeks. And thank for the invite to your group, its nice to have an intelligent conversation about the Civil War without someone bringing up slavery every 5 seconds....In other news, I am a documentery film maker and over the next 6 months my team and I will be making our first ever Civil War documentery. When we are done I will post an announcement showing how to find it on youtube ;)

've made a Group, CSA Today. Please take a look if you are interested in The Civil War and Civil War Alternate History.

Longstreet was an effective offensive General on the whole, though he was certainly no Stonewall (some would say to his credit) his attack at the battle of 2nd Manasas, where his entire corps rolled up the Feds was the largest such attack (for the south) of the war After Gettysburg his corps was detached to help Braxton Bragg in northwest Georgia. There his corps threw back Rosecrens army in confusion and if not for being wounded it is possible that Rosecrens would have been destroyed in detail regardless of the actions of "the rock of chickamauga" Yankee general Thomas

I have read the three concerning the civil war and I liked "the last full measure" the best. On another subject, while Longstreet failed to see Lee's vision of Pickett's charge to success I do not believe that it was his fault. The attack was a mistake from the beginning. Marse Lee's blood was up and when his blood was up only The Lord himself could move him. However, during the previous day's battle, the attack on the Federal right did not get started in anything near a prompt fashion and the attack was inexplicably badly coordinated. This could be laid at long streets feet but it is debatable. Longstreet was n

@Longstreet, thats awesome. When i was at Gettysburg i met Jeff Sharaa, author of "The Killer Angles". I highly recomend reading that book. I assume alot of people in this group have seen the movie "Gettysburg" this book is the book that movie is based off of! :)

I found a thrift store that was selling loads of civil war history books, hard back, for a buck a peice. I bought 8 including "Lee's Endangered Left" and a bio of Lonfstreet. I couldn't be happier!

Anyone going to be in Gettysburg for the 150th? I am XD

I dont know how many of you are religous, but have a happy holy Easter to you all ;)

This group looks sad...
no one talks much these days :'c
General lee is probibly up there now doing a galactic face palm.

whooaaa!!! what a group thank you for all southerns

Thank you all for 50 members!!

General Lee was a great general but he made a vital mistake when he was in Gettysburg.

So I'd say your reletive was THE BEST genreal in the Civil War.

But he broke the backbone of the South. He practically won the war.

I’m related to General Sherman but he is the second cruelest General of the civil war for the north, the first being General Sheridan. Sheridan burned Virginia and Sherman burned Georgia and south Carolina.

I do respect the north just as much as the south, but General Lee and
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlin were my two favorite generals.

I think lee was a great commander; he broke and beat back the Federals
at Richmond in the early days of the war. Now if you want to talk about terrible generals don’t get me started on Ambrose Burnside, Fighting Joe Hooker, and George B. McClellan.

There is alot more to be said but I will let you figure out why Lee wasn't a great general as the South should have had. View all comments to see the stuff that is below.

Lacked space on his flank to undertake it at Antietam the following month. On only one occasion did the strategy work in part---at Chancellorsville in May 1863---and there it failed to destroy the Union army because Jackson was mortally wounded.

Thereafter, Lee returned to his earlier practice of frontal assaults into the heart of enemy resistance. In nearly all cases, they failed.

This tendency to move to the direct confrontation, regardless of the prospects or the losses that would be sustained, guaranteed Lee's failure as an offensive commander.

Since the Minié-ball rifle also had a range four times that of the infantry smoothbore musket used in Napoleon's day, direct attacks were almost certain to fail against resolute troops, and, in fact, did fail five out of six times.

Lee never understood the revolution that the Minié ball had brought to battle tactics. However, two of his senior lieutenants, Stonewall Jackson and James Longstreet, did. They came up with an antidote to direct assaults---a defensive posture---and urged this policy upon Lee.

Jackson in addition saw that, since Union forces were likely to fail with great losses if they attacked Confederate positions, the South should induce the Union commanders to make such attacks. Confederate forces then might swing around the flanks of the demoralized Union soldiers, cut off their retreat and line of supply, and force them to surrender.

Although Lee accepted Jackson's argument in principle, he failed to carry it out at Second Manassas in August 1863.

If Lee had embarked on such a defensive strategy from the outset, while he still had strength to make temporary strikes to keep Federal armies from penetrating into Virginia, the North might have been stymied and might have agreed to a negotiated peace.

Although Lee thought in offensive terms, he did not truly understand offensive warfare. Like the majority of generals on both sides, Lee believed he could win by striking at the enemy directly in his path.

History had shown that this was not true, except in unusual cases. But the idea had gained doctrinal status because scholars studying Napoleon Bonaparte thought the great master had won his battles by bringing superior force against some decisive point of the enemy. While this was strictly true, it missed the subleties of Napoleon's genius. Napoleon in fact had succeeded in his earlier campaigns by maneuver and surprise, and had won his later battles by breaking a hole in the enemy's line with canister---or a lethal cloud of metal

Although Lee did not want to fight a defensive war, he was in fact far more gifted in conducting it than offensive war. His 1864 campaign in Virginia was one of the most brilliant holding actions in military history. Though he commanded an army with only a shadow of its former power, Lee neutralized the attacks of Ulysses S. Grant, destroyed half of Grant's army, forced the Federals into a stalemate in front of Petersburg, and permitted the Confederacy to survive into 1865.

Even without two huge armies guarding the portals, a defensive strategy would have exploited the South's advantages: its great size, its difficult mountains, forests, and swamps, and its inadequate railway system. These could have inhibited Northern movements into the South, and allowed the Confederacy to pursue a long war, preserving its resources, especially its limited manpower. In time the North might have become weary of its inability to end the war and stop losses. Ironically, this is how the Communists defeated the United States in Vietnam. The American people at last become so disillusioned that they demanded the withdrawal of their forces.

It was not the states Alexander and Hannibal represented or the armed men they led that made them great. It was the brilliance of the generals themselves that transformed their modest forces into conquering armies. These examples offer an argument that, if the Confederacy had indeed possessed a military genius in command of its principal army, he could have delivered a victory irrespective of the North's material superiority.

The key to understanding Lee as a commander is that he sought from first to last to fight an offensive war---that is, a war of battles and marches against the armies of the North. This offensive war, though it produced many spectacular clashes and campaigns which arouse fascination to this day, ultimately failed because Lee's methods and his strategy were insufficient to overcome the South's weakness in arms and manpower.

However, it was only after the war that Lee was acclaimed as a general without fault. The defeated South desperately sought to find some purpose for the enormous losses in lives and treasure it had suffered. It was natural to rationalize the Confederacy's defeat as the inevitable result of overwhelming odds, and to conclude that Lee, who had held off the North for so long, had to be a great general.

There are two errors in this reasoning. The years taken to defeat the South can just as well be ascribed to the missteps and blunders of Union commanders as to the genius of Robert E. Lee. And, most important, the North was not bound to win, whatever its strength. There is nothing preordained about military conquest. The size, power, and wealth of a state do not guarantee it success. Alexander the Great's Macedonia was poor and puny compared to the great Persian Empire it destroyed. Hannibal Barca's Carthaginian army was small and ill-
supplied, yet defeated Rome's legions.

Listen, Longstreet tried many times to get him to not fight and to choose ground but the anwser was still no.

The artillery would not have alot of effect anyway. Lee made many mistakes in his career but that wasn't ok because the mistakes he made were bad ones.

Lee's soldiers loved him because of his personal attributes and his wanting to work, but also because the Confederacy held out so long against a Union with three times the population and eleven times the industrial strength of the South. It was apparent to his soldiers that Lee was better then Union commanders he faced.