Hello everyone!

Monitor vs Merrimack

1. Name of Battle: Monitor vs. Merrimack. Also known as the battle of the ironclads.
2. Dates of Battle: March 8-9, 1862
3. Geography (location, terrain, weather): Location is at off Sewell's Point, near the mouth of Hampton Roads, Virginia. Terrain is at Hampton Roads and is at sea naval battle. Weather was fine in the beginning, but at 10 ‘o clock there were heavy storms and bad weather.

5.   Objective: The battle was taking place because the Confederacy wanted to break the Union blockade on their trade with the European countries. The south wanted Virginia to continue its international trade with other countries, and the North wanted to continue on its first part of the Anaconda plan.

7. Strategies: How did each side plan to the battle? The south’s strategy was to wreak havoc on the Union warships to shut down the blockade. They used the CSS Virginia, an ironclad warship, to do so. The North found out about the CSS Virginia and decided to ask for permission to create a similar ship (and ironclad ship). In March 9^th, one day after the battle had begun, the ship called Monitor approached and CSS Virginia in the end retreated.

8. This was the first battle in which two ironclad ships engaged in combat.  

United States of America/Union	Confederate States of America
Commanders: John L. Wordern	Franklin Buchanan and Catesby R. Jones
Ships: For the Union the ship was the Monitor.	Ship was the captured Merrimack and then converted into an ironclad and was renamed Virginia after being converted from the Merrimack.
Troop Strength: 1 ironclad, 5 wooden frigates.	1 ironclad, 2 wooden warships, 1 gunboat, 2 tenders.
Casualties and losses: 261 killed, 108 wounded, 1 frigate sunk, 1 sloop-of-war sunk, 1 frigate damaged.	77 killed, 17 wounded, 1 ironclad damaged.

First Battle of Bull Run

Basic Info:

· Date: July 21, 1861

· Location: Manassas, Virginia

Objectives:

·         Union:

o   Capture Richmond

o   Seize Manassas, a railway center

·         Confederacy:

o   Wanted to protect Richmond

o   Wanted to keep Manassas

Commanders:

·         Union:

o   General Irvin Mcdowell

·         Confederacy:

o   General Pierre Beaugard

Geography:

·         Climate: hot and humid

·         Terrain: hills, creek, and forests

Troop Strength:

·         Union: had 28,450 soldiers

·         Confederacy: had 32,230 soldiers

Advantages:

·         Union:

o   Had roads that connected northwest, west, southwest villages

o   Positioned next to a stream

·         Confederacy

o   Able to watch the movements of the Union army; on higher grounds

o   Location was near railroads that connected to supplies and other armies; had better communication

Disadvantages:

·         Union:

o   Confederacy had cannons

o   Plans were already known

·         Confederacy:

o   Losing in the beginning of the war and lost soldiers; around the same amount of soldiers with the Union army

Strategies:

·         Union

o   Attack the Confederate army

§  Face the Confederate Army with main army

§  Flank the left of the enemy’s army

o   Go for Richmond

o   End of war

·         Confederacy

o   Settle down and occupy Henry Hill

o   Protect Richmond

Confederates Won!

·         Keys to winning:

o   Reinforcements

o   Exhausted Union soldiers

o   Strategic location

Unique Info

·         “The Great Skedaddle”

·         Spectators

·         “Stonewall” Jackson

Casualties

·         Union:

o   Deaths: 460

o   Wounded: 1124

o   Missing and captured: 1312

·         Confederacy:

o   Deaths: 387

o   Wounded: 1582

o   Missing and captured: 13

Confederates Victory:

·         Union needs to try harder

·         Increased morale

·         “Poisoned” the Confederates minds

Battle of Atlanta: Presentation Summary

• Took place on July 22, 1864
• Confederate General John Hood, Union General William Sherman
• Hot and Humid day
• The battle was a Union offense, Atlanta was huge weapons depot and "backdoor" to the south
• Confederacy had 34,833 troops, Union had 40,438 troops
• South had home team advantage, weapons closer and more accesible, faster reinforcements, North had commanders with more experience
• occured just before election of 1864, led to lincoln's re-election.
• Howard accidentaly found hood's forces, secured union victory.
• Union deaths:3,641. Confederacy deaths:8,499

THIS IS IRRELEVANT BUT POKEMON ARE AWESOME

2nd Battle of Bull Run Info Hurrah!

The 2nd Battle of Bull Run happened about one year after the 1st Battle of Bull Run. The Battle lasted for 3 days, from August 28-30, 1862. The battle was also referred to as the Second Manassas.  

The battle took place in Prince William County, Virginia, and there weren’t many obstacles since the area where the battle was fought was just a big field. The objective of this battle for the Union was to hopefully protect the Shenandoah Valley and Washington D.C. For the Confederates, their main goal was to destroy Pope. The Union was led by Gen. John Pope, Major General Fitz John Porter, and Major General Irvin McDowell, and the Confederates were led by General Robert E. Lee, Major General James Longstreet, and Major General "Stonewall" Jackson. 

On the first day of the battle, August 28th, Stonewall Jackson attacked a Union column (a narrow military formation in which units follow behind each other) at Brawner’s Farm. After a lot of fighting, the battle ended on a stalemate and Jackson retreated to Stony Ridge. All the while though, Major General Longstreet from the South was approaching through Thoroughfare Gap with reinforcements. On August 29th, Union General John Pope decided to launch a series of attacks on Jackson’s position at Stony Ridge. Pope thought that Jackson was trapped on one side, and at the end of the day, both sides suffered many casualties. On the last day of the battle, Pope renewed his attempts to attack the Confederates, but he didn't know that on the noon of August 29th, Maj. General Longstreet and the reinforcements reached Jackson and were now on the battlefield. Confederate artillery destroyed Maj. General John Fitz Porter’s attempt at an assault. Then, Longstreet’s 25,000 men counterattacked the Union. This counterattack forced the Union to retreat back to Bull Run.

TOTAL LOSSES

Federal:

Killed – 1,724

Wounded – 8,372

Missing – 5,958

Total – 16,054

Confederate:

Killed – 1,481

Wounded – 7,627

Missing – 89

Total – 9,117

Antietam summary

So, basically, the battle of Antietam went like this: On September 17, 1862, Robert e. lee's and George b. mcClellan's forces clashed near sharpsburg, Maryland, near Antietam creek. In the morning, the union forces were able to capture a cornfield and the surrounding forests because of the large numbuer of soldiers they had. Later, the confederacy recaptured the west woods, the western section of the forested area. The fight then moved to the sunken road, where the confederate troops were hidden in the depression in the road. The union was only able to take the road because they just kept sending row after row of people when one row of soldiers was killed. The sunken road earned the title, "the bloody lane." later that day, the union 9th corps under general Ambrose burnside was able to capture a rohrbach bridge, now known as burnside's bridge, and pushed far into confederate territory to capture sharpsburg. However, confederate general a.p. hill's division came 17 miles from harpers ferry to rescue the confederates. Ther pushed back burnsides men all the way back to the bridge. This ended the battle of Antietam. A few weeks later, Lincoln came to Antietam to try to get McClellan to move his troops and pursue lee, but McClellan did not and was fired and replaced by Ambrose burnside. The battle of Antietam could have ended the civil war, but only ended Robert e. lee's invasion of the north.

Gettysburg

I think that the battle of Gettysburg was only significant because the Union won. If the Confederacy had won, I don't think the battle would be much different, compared to other Confederate wins. It would just be another battle. Since Britain and France hadn't rushed to the Confederate's side before, I don't think they would help after this win either.

However, in the long run, I think this battle would have mattered. The Union had gained morale from their win at Gettysburg - if this didn't happen, I'm pretty sure the rest of the war would have continued to tumble down hill. I think the outcome of previous battles affects the next battles, with both morale and strength.

I don't know what to say about Lincoln. It's plausible that it COULD'VE happened if the Confederacy won, with Lincoln wanting to give up the war. Or, Lincoln could have remained steadfast and continued to fight the war, hoping for a great comeback. However, I am indifferent to the possibilities of Lincoln making peace if the Confederacy winning Gettysburg.

Gettysburg.

I don't think a Confederacy at Gettysburg would change the outcome of the war. They didn't have a shot at getting Britain or France as their allies. If they actually did, it would have caused much controversy and people would start accusing the foreign Britain or France for being hypocritical of supporting slavery when they had already outlawed it a long time ago. They probably did not want that to happen. Both sides suffered major losses at Gettysburg, but the Confederacy suffered a lot more since Lee lost many of his commanding generals as well as men he couldn't replace who died/ were injured in the battle. Lincoln probably still would have still had some hope since at the time the Union won Gettysburg, there was also the surrender of Vicksburg, Mississippi, which was also a major victory which gave the Union complete control of the Mississippi River. Even if the Union did lose the Battle of Gettysburg, they still would have the better chance of winning the war.

thingy

If the confederacy won the battle of gettysburg, the Union would greatly lose morale for losing in their own land and would probaly lose battle after battle because the battle of gettysburg was a major turning point in the war and The South would probaly nagotiate a peace treaty.

The Differences

The battle of Gettysburg was a huge turning point for the Union and is remember for that turning point. If the Confederacy would have won the war would have ended and there would be two countries. Even though the South wouldn't have probably gotten support from France or Britain the war would have been won by the Confederacy. Lincoln knowing how many battle they had lost and how large of a battle Gettysburg was he would have made peace with the South since they showed that not only can they win on their territory, but on the Union's land too.

Gettysburg

If the Confederacy had won the Battle of Gettysburg, it would've had a huge impact on the Civil War. It was considered the turning point of the war because it was such an important battle. The Union had lost a lot of battles up until Gettysburg. If the Confederacy had won, the Union might have given up hope on winning the war. Though I doubt France and Britain would have supported the Confederacy because they are against slavery. There would be no point in them supporting a cause that they don't believe in. With no hope left for the Union, President Lincoln would most likely be forced to make peace with the South.

The Battle of Gettysburg

In my opinion, if the Confederacy had won the Battle of Gettysburg the Union would have still won the Civil War. The Battle of Gettysburg would not have mattered. The Union would not have just gave up after all they've been through. They would have kept trying. If the South had won the battle they probably wouldn't have gained the support of British or France for a number reasons. One may be that they don't accept the South's slavery. Another might be that they don't want to affect the ties they have with the Union. But one is never sure on how history could have been altered. It is possible that Lincoln would have called for peace with the South. But one may never know. It's still possible he could have kept fighting and then win the battles later on due to the North's advantages against the South. But in my opinion, the possibility of a continued fight seems to have more of a chance which would have prolonged the war even more.

Gettysburg

The outcome of the war might have drastically changed if the Confederacy had come out as the victors for the Battle of Gettysburg. The North had to face many losses before then, and since they did not have a lot of motivation to fight in the war, if they had lost the battle at Gettysburg, their drive to continue on with the war would have vanished immediately. This battle also weakened the South greatly, putting them on retreat as opposed to defensive mode, which gave the North more opprtunities to attack the Confederates and cause more damage to their army. Even if the Confederates won, and the Union still continued fighting, the Confederates may have still been able to overpower the Union since they would be focused on defending their land instead of running away for the rest of the war.

Battle of Gettysburg

I think that the Union and Confederacy both had a good chance of winning this battle. Even though one side did have better trained armies, what it lacked, the other side had. This three day battle was so significant to our history. It was very violent but it had a purpose. The strategies that both sides had were very effective and even though Meade was one step ahead, it was still a great plan. Without this battle, I don't think America would be how it is today.

i think if the confederacy won we wouldn't be the same as we are now. we could we separated into many different nations.

battle of gettysburg

well, what if pickets charge didn't happen... would there be a difference? to me i don't think there would be much of a difference, kind of like my thoughts on the first blog post we did.... that is unless it was a total 1 death inflicted to the confederates/1000 Union deaths. Unless the Union was completely annihilated, I don't think there would be much of a difference to the final outcome of the war.

B o G war changer

If the Confederacy had won and the union had lost the battle of Gettysburg then the confederacy would have easily won the war. Right off the bat the Battle of Gettysburg was a turning point in the war so if the turning point had never happened of course the Union would keep losing and eventually the Confederacy would win. Second of all most experts that this also could have been a turning point for the Confederacy because if they had won then they would have one foreign support. With foreign support the Union would be completely finished. The Union would also have had less morale then they already had whereas when they won they gained morale. I think that being the president, Abraham Lincoln would look for a treaty and because that was what the Confederacy wanted from the start, they would accept.

Union loses Gettysburg?

If the Union had lost the Battle of Gettysburg, the whole course of the Civil War would have changed. Robert E. Lee and his army would be able to capture large areas of Northern land, as there would be no armies to oppose him. Southern morale would be skyrocketing as they accomplished the goal of winning a battle on Northern land. Britain and France still probably wouldn't have helped the South because they were honorable countries, and they wouldn't go join the cause of fighting to keep slavery. However, the South would still have a good chance of winning. Robert E. Lee would have gained confidence and gone even more on the attack. Even better for the South would be that President Lincoln, who didn't want many more men to die, would try to make peace. After all, the goal of the Confederacy was to be a separate nation, not to conquer the North. The Battle of Gettysburg would have changed the Civil War if the South had won.

Battle of Gettysburg

It depends on what happens later. If the Confederates had won the Battle of Gettysburg, they might have still won at heavy casualties. The Union might have pursued them and wiped out the remaining forces anyways. Or if they didn't win, the Confederates might have gotten cocky at another battle and lost then. There's a lot of ways the war could have turned out, and I don't think that the outcome depended on that one battle. Also, seeing as the France and Britain didn't support the Confederates before even though they were winning during the first year, the chances of them joining the Confederate cause isn't high. Lincoln, no matter the outcome, probably would have pursued his goal in defeating the South because of victories elsewhere. It would not look good for him to spend so much money, resources, and manpower on a war in which he later just surrenders because of a single battle. So even if the Confederates did win the Battle of Gettysburg, the outcome would've been still weighed against them.

What if What if the Confederacy won

I think that if the Confederacy had won the battle of Gettysburg the union would have attempted to make peace with them. If the Confederacy had won I don't think it would have changed the mind of Britain or France to support the south. That's because Britain and France had already abolished slavery and helping the south in the war to continue slavery would have criticism on the countries for helping a cause they had already said wasn't right. A win for the Confederacy would have severely dropped the Union morale causing more losses for them and eventually ending with the Confederacy winning the war. 

Gettysburg Reply (Jason Kong)

The Battle of Gettysburg was inevitably going to be a major battle because of the amount of soldiers fighting. Luckily, the union won and there was, finally, hope of winning, because a battle win of this caliber for the Confederates would have easily sealed the victory for the South. With the win, in Gettysburg, the would probably be a big morale drop for the North and a big morale boost for the South. Basically, the South winning the battle would be like a kind of final wake up call to the North that there was no hope of winning. Also, if the South came out on top, the armies of the North would have been heavily damaged, making a second battle meaningless. European countries like Britain and France would be "wow"ed by the battle win and choose to support the South in fighting because it would show that the South were really motivated and will stand there ground above all costs for there beliefs. The battle would change Lincoln's mind even. Lincoln would've seen that there was no way to win because the North was already losing a lot of big battles and winning in the West was just not going to cut it. In the end, Lincoln would have looked for a treaty to cease the fighting and let the Union fall.

If the Confederacy had won the Battle of Gettysburg, it would have mattered because then the Confederacy would have invaded the North, and the Civil War could have taken place in both the North and the South. Also, this would have been another victory for the Confederacy, so their confidence would have been very high, wherease the Union would still have low confidence. The Confederacy still would not have gained the support of England and France because they would have still been seen as hypocrites for helping the South, which had slavery. Lincoln would have probably made peace because if the war continued, the battles could take place in the North, and eventually cause so much damage that he would have had to make peace anyways.

What Would Happen if the Confederates Won?

If the Confederate won the Battle of Gettysburg, the turning point that happened because of it would not have happened. Also, the Gettysburg Address would not exist. In fact the Confederates could have won the war if they had won Gettysburg, forcing Lincoln to make peace with them. However, they would still be unable to get support from foreign countries because they were against slavery, while the Confederates were with slavery.

Gettysburg

If the Confederacy won the battle, the Gettysburg address would've never spoken by President Lincoln. It wouldn't effect the outcome of the war because the Confederacy wouldn't get foreign support because of the Emancipation Proclamation. Even if foreign countries considered helping the Confederacy, I think that winning the battle of Gettysburg would tell other countries that they could win the war without help. In my opinion, President Lincoln would never live in peace with the Confederate even if they won Gettysburg.

Confederacy's chance will increase, but Union will still have more chance.

Even though the Confederacy won, Union will still have higher chance of winning the Civil War. Confederacy wouldn't gain support from Britain or France, because for foreign countries, long war is better for them. If the war last long, that means there will be more trading during the war and foreign countries get more help. The war will also weaken the Americans, which means that there wouldn't be any attacks from America to other country or it will be easier for other countries to attack America. Even though they don't have foreign help, chance of South's victory will increase because it was first time that they won a war from North. That will greatly discourage North, and it will greatly encourage South. The reason that Gettysburg was turning point was because the North won two major battles in similar time, and if one of them turn out to be a lose, then it wouldn't encourage North as much as they did. Vicksburg, however, was a success part of Anaconda Plan, which was to divide the South into east and west. The loose of Vicksburg will also cause the South to have harder time trading or transporting their resources, since they used Mississippi River for transportation and trading. The war will last longer, and South has less people, less transportation, and less resources, which will cause South to have less chance of winning than North.

I think that the Union still would've won the war even with a loss in Gettysburg. Yes it wouldve hurt them but i think that it would have drove them to believe in themselfs and hate the south even more. I think that more wouldve joined the army and with that great increase the Union wouldve won. They would have foght even more harder and even encourage them to fight with passion.

Battle of Gettysburg... altered?

The Battle of Gettyburg is considered the second turning point of the war- ending with an incredible Union victory. However if the Confederacy had won the outcome would have been completely different. Had the Confederacy win, the Union would have been crushed not only from the outer conflict but from within. Northerners would have lost their morale in fighting following already many defaeats from the South. As well as push President Lincoln to question his motives in whether war was really the answer. On the other hand, a Confederate victory at Gettysburg would have fed the South's morale even more. And after his defeat in Antietam, General Robert E. Lee would have pushed his campaign further towards Union territory. However, I don't think that even winning the Battle of Gettysburg could have gotten them foreign allies. With the passing of the Emancipation Proclamation, the war wasn't just about "preserving the Union." It was also about slavery- an issue that Britian & France already banished. It would have hurt their repuatation & be seen hypocritical if they aided the Confederacy. The Battle of Gettysburg is seen to be so significant because had the Confederacy win the tides of the war itself would have completely altered.

Gettysburg

Gettysburg was a really big deal, because it pretty much decided the outcome of the Civil War. It mattered a lot since it was the Unions first major victory, it was able to get their spirits back up. This gave them hope, so they were more enthusiastic in fighting now. 

If the South HAD won, the Union would have probably given up. Even if they wanted this with all their life, it wasn't going anywhere up to then, so you kinda get tired of trying knowing its not really going anywhere. And it would've been ok to stop their and give up, because there is that point where you've just had enough. Up until Gettysburg their fighting had been pointless, just a waste of time and effort. But Gettysburg was able to stop them from quiting, and they came back stronger.

Mmmmmmmhhhmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Mmhmm!! It was a significant turning point. If the Confederacy had won, Union morale go down to almost zero because then South would have finally suceeded in winning a battle in the Northern side. The South would have over crazy morale and win the war. Maybe even this battle the North would sign a treaty and Confederacy were a country. Some of you might say the South might get over cocky, but I don't think so. They are fighting for independence not trying to show off to some girl or something. This battle would definitely have affected the outcome by a lot. South would have won and more ammunition, supplies, and morale would increase. I think the South though, would never receive the foreing support they needed. That is because the fight will be for slavery, not for independence anymore after a little while. Lincoln might have looked to make peace if the casualties were higher and the difference bigger. With this battle, I think the North will keep on trying until the end! Forever and ever guys! Let's do this!

Confederacy wins Gettysburg.. hmmmm

If the Confederacy had won at Gettysburg then the Union would have stopped fighting and retreat. The Union did not have much luck before and the soldiers had no reason to fight; they did not have something to keep them going. Lincoln would have probably need to come up with another plan to make peace with the South. The Confederates would have gained land and maybe a little more after their confidence in winning a major battle. The Union would have probably stopped fighting. After winning, the Confederates wouldn't have gotten the help from France and Britain. Not only because they won that major battle, but also France and Britain opposed slavery unlike the South.

The United Conferderate States of America

The Battle of Gettysburg turned out to be one of the most important battles of the Civil War. But what if the unthinkable happens.... the South wins the Battle of Gettysburg, things might have never been the same. If the South did win, the North would have to seriously consider the possibility of two separate nations, or worse, one Confederate nation. The war wasn't in the Union's favor, and the thoughts that went through every one's mind is,"Is this war worth it?" With these thoughts, Lincoln will also have to reconsider the fate of the "preservation" of the Union and seek out peace.
After the days of fighting, it seemed like the attention was on Gettysburg. It was now a very important battle to be won. Important battles like these were those of the possibility that could have ended the war.It was battles like these that really mattered.
I don't think that the South would have gained foreign support from Britain or France because they supported slavery which Britain and France outlawed. To support the South was like supporting for more homework and projects. Supporting something that you oppose.
The Battle of Gettysburg was a major battle that changed the course of the war and American history.

What If

If the Confederacy had won the battle of Gettysburg, I think that President Lincoln would have started to try and make peace with the south. Up until the battle of Gettysburg, the Union hadn't been doing so well in the war. Most of the soldiers didn't even know why they were fighting, which just proves that maybe the Union wasn't all that ecstatic about "preserving the union." They were just fighting. After another loss, and on their on land,  the Union probably would have just left it alone and negotiated a peace treaty because it wasn't much of a big deal anyways. The Civil War would have ended right after Gettyburg if the Confederates had won.
However, I don't think that the Confederates would have gained the foreign support of Britain and France. The South supported slavery and since slavery is morally wrong and those countries have already abolished slavery,  Britain and France probably didn't want to get their hands dirty with the whole slavery issue.

Not much would change

Had the Confederacy won the Battle of Gettysburg, Union morale would have decreased and Lincoln would not have persistently  fought against the South.  Yet, even if the South won that battle, European countries would not have supported them because they had banned slavery and it would ruin their reputations if they supported a side with slavery.  Lincoln would not have given up and the South would keep on fighting.  The war would drag longer and more people would die, a huge waste of men.

If the Confederacy had won...

If the Confederacy had won at Gettysburg, the Confederacy would have won.  Since General Robert E. Lee knew about a letter ready to give to Lincoln asking for peace, that letter would have been sent right away.  Lincoln may have been able to say no, but the loss in the North would weaken the North and weaken the spirit in the North.  A win on the east also encouraged the North, which was the kind of encouragement the South needed and the kind of discouragement the North needed for the South to maybe win.  I think it would have mattered if the South won because the South was at a great disadvantage and both sides lost ALOT of men so it would have made the North look bad and discourage the North from possibly even going on in the war.  I don't think the South would have gained support from Britain or France because of the South's slavery, but I also don't think that the South would have needed it by then.  Lincoln may have asked for peace, but I doubt he would do that soon after the battle.  If the South had won at Gettysburg, Lincoln probably would have looked to make peace with the South after a couple losing battles after Gettysburg.  All in all, the Confederate winning at Gettysburg could have led to the downfall of the Union and the stronger creation of the Confederacy.

The Confocalypse winning?!

If the Confederacy had won, they could have pushed on, and if the number of casualties became to great, Lincoln would have to surrender and try to make peace. By that time the Confederacy would have not needed France or Britain, (and even if they did, France and Britain wouldn't come because they'd look like hypocrites), and they would have won the war. Also, it would show the Confederacy was able to leave so therefore whenever a state didn't like something they would leave, until there was nothing left of the Union. The CSA, however, would remain for about a year until people realized it wouldn't work and everyone there fell into poverty and the CSA broke apart.

Gettysburg's significance

I think the union army's morale would have been greatly lessened, and the forces of both sides would have been weakened due to the large numbers of casualties. Had the south won that battle, the northrners would have felt defeated because they lost a major battle on their own land. The south probably would have then negotiated peace, and maybe even captured the part of Pennsylvania that Gettysburg was in. The border states also would have felt like outcasts because they were slave states on the losing side of a war over slavery, and were on the side of those against slavery. Had the confederacy won at Gettysburg, the Border states would have joined the confederacy and brought a quick end to the civil war if it had not already ended. The union would have been further weakened because states would have thought that if they disagree with the union's governing, they can simply secede. Eventually the union would have fallen apart into individual nations made up ofe one or a few states.

What If?...

    The last couple of days we have looked at the Battle of gettysburg which was a significant turning point for the Union in the Civil War.

     My question is this...what if the Confederacy had won at Gettysburg? How would that have affected the outcome of the Civil War? Would it have not mattered? Would the South have gained support from Britain or France even with the existence of slavery? Would Lincoln have looked to make peace with the South?

     Obviously, there's no right answer here...I'm interested in your opinion. But you can still use what we've learned as a guide to inform your opinion. Remember to create your own post and comment at least one other post.

Glory was quite a nice movie to watch. I really liked the transition with Shaw as he progressed through the movie. His past seemed irrelevant (Antietam) mid-way through the film, as he began to seek the interest of his regiment, whilst they become strong with him. He knew that the regiment wanted to fight, they wanted to win their freedom, and so he did his best to discipline them and show them that even interest and their strive for freedom is not going to win a war. Shaw's act with the "equal pay" was true, but I don't think that the colored men had it so that they were given respect from the white's. The "holywood aspect" of this comes to play here but, I don't think anywhere else. (I only have 1 more minute so yeah i'll end it here.

Glory

The movie Glory accurately portrayed the life of an African-American soldier during the Civil War.  It's no real surprise that many white soldiers were racist towards the African-American soldiers.  Though what I did find shocking, is the punishment given to African-American soldiers.  I highly doubt that white soldiers received the same type of treatment.  I find it interesting that African-Americans still served in the army despite the fact that they were still treated like slaves.  This movie was fairly accurate in terms of history along with a touch of drama to keep things interesting.

Glory

the thing that suprised me was that even though the african americans volenteered to be in the army, the white people were still racist to them even though they were fighting for their country. I think this is a realistic movie because in hollywood movies the good guys always win but everyone died and they lost in this movie.

"Glory" a true-to-life story

Given the opportunity to watch Glory, gave me a true look into the soldiers fighting in the Civil War. We discussed about the daily hardships & dangers soldiers. Much more the discrimination colored soldiers had to bear. Glory allowed me to experience the actual physical & emotional challenges that the 54th Massachusetts Regiment had to face. I definitely think that most aspects of the movie were historically accurate, such as the dialogue of Robert Shaw’s letters. I find his profound feelings towards his colored regiment were truly genuine & sincere. Although, some I found rather hard to believe. Of course, I expect some tweaks from what really happened because it makes the story all the more dramatic. On the instance I was surprised when nobody left after the 54th were informed of what the Confederate Congress have passed. I later realized that colored soldiers had more to fight for in the Civil War. They fought for their country, their freedom, and for their equality. The movie stayed very true-to-life, even though I know some parts were a bit exaggerated. Overall, “Glory” was amazing. It was due to how the characters were brought to life as well as how they conveyed the content of true-to-life story, very inspiring & very poignant.

"Glory"

What surprised me was the fact that Shaw actually went through great lengths to help his men get the supplies they need such as shoes and socks. He was even outraged at the fact that his men would only do manual labor. It was true that African-Americans were discriminated against in America, but not to that extent. At the time of the movie, the Emancipation Proclamation was most likely already passed, so the war was about slavery, yet the white soldiers still despised them greatly. I learned that African-Americans during the war still kept to their traditions and sang around the camp fire. Just because they were colored, they received lower pay than a white soldier, and they had the least supplies. I thought they would get to fight, but then they were only going to be used for manual labor. The movie does have a realistic feel to it, but there always seems to be a Hollywood aspect to it. When the 54th Regiment was going to attack the fort, their white comrades cheered them on when just a while ago the two groups were showing obvious racism towards each other.

Glory

The movie "Glory" was quite an enjoyable way to peer into the perspective of someone who had been in the Civil War. By taking on the point of view of Robert Shaw, we were able to see in more detail how the colored soldiers were treated in comparison to the whites. It was shocking to see that the army initially had no intention of using the colored regiment, and only opted to use them when Shaw intervened. However, the lack of respect and provisions given to the colored soldiers did little to surprise me based on that time period. Some aspects that seemed to be "Hollywood-ified" were the moments when Shaw had to use force to get the shoes for his soldiers, and when he wanted them to be included in the war. Wouldn't he have been punished for taking the actions he did? Regardless, the movie overall seemed accurate.

Glory

Glory is a movie that depicts the hardships of war quite well, but it was, to me, a "Hollywood interpretation". It was too smooth, for the (pardon if this sounds a little objectifying and/or racist please) white soldiers seemed to accept the black soldiers rather quickly. Aside from the quick acceptance, the black soldiers' jubilance during their spare time seemed odd - although I'm not sure if this was a fault on the movie, or a fault on my understanding. It also startled me, that the soldiers were overall unfazed about their companions falling dead. Again, I'm unsure if this was simply how the movie depicted battle, or if it was just me.

Personally, the movie did not help my understanding of the blacks' experience in the war. Not that it wasn't accurate, but I felt as though it was very... vanilla. Nothing new, really - it was already clear to me that the blacks were on a 'tighter leash', had less supplies, and were paid less.

i REALLY liked the movie. to me it wasn't another one of those "Hollywood" movies because it was different. it showed what African-Americans did during the civil war. they actually were one of the reasons the union won! who knew African-Americans were so loyal to America that they accepted no pay. that literally shocked me.

Glory Reflection

        

Glory. The film was not to over dramatic on key points of information, but some other parts even though not so important still was a bit overdramatic. The Africans I thought would be more Tribe Like but then I remembered that they have now been more used to american culture. They take in more stuff personally and they are all different. Each african character portrayed an interesting role not to harsh so we can understand how each one is different. The movie was not to hollywoodistic and gave lots of info.

Glory

I liked the movie Glory, and I believe it was accurate instead being made up for Hollywood purposes. There was still very little that surprised me (except for several things). This included Shaw's treatment of the soldiers. I would have expected harsher treatment since there was still a lot of discrimination at the time. Another example was when Shaw refused his pay when his soldiers refused a lower pay.However, it was obvious that white soldiers did not like them since they were "colored". Everything else did not surprise me at all.

GLOOORY

The movie Glory was very interesting to watch. I think it had good detail about how it was to be an African-American soldier then. Pretty much everyone has mentioned about how it's surprising that so many blacks actually joined and volunteered. It's possible that they did it for their good will or maybe so they would have somewhat honor towards them from whites. All might of had different reasons. Life as a soldier was very well characterized. Their conditions weren't so good and their treatment were harsh. It was not too "Hollywood" or perfect. Realistic parts of the movie were like when they showed training, the hospital, some battle scenes, and how Generals treated ones who were lowered ranked. "Hollywood", exaggerated parts were parts where like Trip was getting whipped and didn't show emotion. That part of the movie was both fake & real to me. Fake because it would be obvious that he should show some kind of pain knowing he was getting whipped and real because it was a punishment that was common for a black soldier. Battle scenes were also both real & fake to me. Fake because it was pretty intense how there was so much going on at once, but afterwards it made sense that every minute a person would be getting shot & blown up. And maybe it was interpreted well in the movie. Overall, the movie left me wondering and thinking about why Shaw was so kind to all the soldiers. Or maybe he was just that kind of a guy. (:

Glory Reflection JASON KONG

Surprisingly, the movie was adequately historically correct. I searched up that the soldiers were enraged about their pay and Shaw did support them. Also, the scene in the war hospital was really accurate. At that time, the hospitals at that time had very dirty conditions and there were many participating in amputation. The movie portrayed this perfectly. Also, I found out that the reactions that we wrote down for answers, between the colored and white soldiers were genuine because, at the time of the war, I still would have expected the white soldiers to still be racist towards the colored. The way the movie depicted the improvement of the regiment through out the time they were trained was accurate because, factually, they were not prepared at first, but they improved after hard training.
JASON KONG

Glory

The movie Glory was a great movie, but gave me only one surprise. The fact that Colonel  Shaw blackmailed  General David Hunter to send his regiment into the battle field was very surprising considering the fact that he thought that he was better than everyone else since he was in charge. The movie taught me that colored soldiers were treated harshly and were laughed at. The movie showed that white officers sometimes shot colored soldiers because they thought that the colored were like animal that needed to be controlled or gone. I think that this movie was realistic and accurate because Mr. Harp said that the Hollywood producers tried to be as accurate as possible in the movie.

Oh my Lord Lord lord lord MMMMhmmmm

          What really suprised me was how even death on the line? They basically said screw you Confederacy. I'm gonna kill you!!! They didn't care about the threat. They wanted revenge. I also agree with them. Whatever risk or disease is there, slavery is worse. I thought about how Shaw went down from his horse and went to battle as an equal even lower. His gun was worse, his sword was better, but from long range it sucked. That reminds me of the (NO OFFENSE) world's dictators, Texans, Kim-Jung-Yoon or however you spell it, the Queen even like the President. I believe that no one is above someone else in real life. I mean yes there is social status, respecting-your-elders-status, rankings status, etc. If the "you better than me" because you are a better person or as in your deeds, I accept it. That is fine. However, when it is "I am better than you," because I am white or black or "Texan," That is what we commonly call a person or you know the card game, BS. Hitler thought of the "higher race" slave masters thought of them selves as the "higher race" What I'm trying to circle in on is racism. I think that the Actor, in real life long ago, that Shaw guy really did do that? (Comments) So, he stepped down. I really respect that. Racism is very stupid in my opinion. There is it long ago, and today too! Chinese/any Asian? You blind bro? And there are more racism. It made me think alot. I think it was realistic. There was no AHHH and slow mo death 3 hours for a hot blonde girl who isn't even scratched, in high heels in a battle then falling to the ground and a guy without his shirt (girls seeing his six-pack) In other words maybe Jacob/Taylor Lautner/Thor/Justin Bieber and then he kisses her and she's a live again. I think the movie wasn't too gory and too non gory I loved the movie!!!

I was surprised at several scenes that showed how some people were not racised to blacks or to whites. Those scenes include the scene where Shaw goes into general's room to get shoes, Shaw ripping off his check, and when Morgan Freedom said "this war is for you" to Trip. I thought this movie was very good in terms of expressing truth. This was very realistic movie in sence of how much racism there were, how harsh their training was, how cruel the battles were, and the relationship between generals and soldiers. The proof of that will be the losing of battle. If the director wanted to make this as Hollywood movie, then they would've made the Union win the war and put narration later that the Confederate actually won or something like that. They also used Shaw's real letter word by word, so it can focus more on telling the truth rather than Hollywood actions. It also expressed how the African-Americans were treated badly because of their color. They were actually called "color regiment," and they had other racism factors in several ways. Those rasicm factors include getting $10 per month when whites get $13 per month, not getting enough resources when they request and not having chances to perform their ability. The African-Americans were still very unified even though there were some conflicts. The movie showed how strong their unification(?) by showing how they worship their god before they go to the battle. That was something that represent their culture, and they were coming together by their culture and their belief. That was something unique about the African-American soldiers.

MMMMMHHHHmmmm...

Glory was a movie that surprised me from the beginning. I was surprised of how many African-Americans wanted to join the army. You just see a large mass of people. It made me realize how many blacks wanted to redeem themselves in a way to seek the honor of the US Army. I was also surprised of the African-Americans' will to stay from the harshness of the army. But I also realized the African-Americans' life in the army was not a joyride. Harsh treatment and racism still existed. They were not given army like jobs, but more of labor (and even the raiding of towns and the eradication of townspeople. But when given the job of battle, their eyes sparkle. Glory did seem like a Hollywood exaggeration at times like the last battle. When Lieutenant Shaw ran towards the fort and he wasn't blown by the cannons, completely unscathed.  But for overall accuracy, the movie is based on Shaw's letters home. It seemed pretty accurate.

glory the movie

I thought the movie Glory was great but some scenes in the movie suprised me. One scene that suprised me was when the black soldiers actually wanted to risk their lives in battle. I thought that they would be scared to fight. They were so pumped up to fight. The black soldiers back then were ready to die for slave freedom. Another thing that suprised me was when the black soldiers in the movie stayed in the army to fight, they had heart and were not ready to give up. Another thing that i thought was wierd was when the soldiers to no pay. I think this movie was a great portrayal of black soldiers in the civil war.

Glory minus the 'l'

Overall the movie was great, but what really surprised me was the way the fought. I knew in the Civil War that the soldiers just stood and fired at each other straight on, but I thought that there would actually be tactics like flanking or taking the enemy from behind. In the scene at James Island, South Carolina where 54th Massachusetts fought their first battle, the South charged the Union soldiers straight on. That's not a smart thing to do if you're trying not to get shot. Also, didn't the 54th Massachusetts think of crouching? I know in the first part of the battle the first line was crouching, but later they all stood up. If they were crouching or laying down, there'd be much less of a chance of getting shot. What made me think was the way Robert Shaw collaborated with his soldiers as well as his officers to lead the regiment. For example, he asked Rawlings for advice on the soldiers. Rawlings replied by tell him that they needed shoes. Many people in that time, I think, would probably treat the soldiers poorly and not care about their opinions. Shaw worked with them to get the best results, and it was definitely a better outcome. I thought that the story was accurate, for the most part. They made the characters very accurate to the real thing. I went online and searched up a picture of the real Robert Shaw and compared it to the actor, and they had the same droopy moustache and the same small goatee. The soldiers and the 54th Massachusetts were treated lowly, the way black people were treated back then. The battles were graphic and censored no gore whatsoever. In all, I'd say the movie is as close as realistic as it can get.

In the movie, "Glory", what surprised me was when the soldiers agreed to burn down houses, destroyed homes, and attack innocent people. I was also surprised when all the soldiers stayed to fight when they were given a second chance to rethink whether they should stay or leave. I thought about whether the friendship of Shaw and Thomas existed during the actual war. I wondered how much the soldiers were willing to fight when Thomas was treated so horribly, but yet he stayed and fought on. I also thought about if the soldiers actually bonded and sang next to the fire, all grouped together as one. I learned that the black soldiers weren't treated like the white soldiers. When the white soldiers didn't get along with the black soldiers surprised me because why would they fight if they were fighting for the same reason. In my opinion, the movie, is pretty accurate to the actual war.

GLORY

The movie "Glory" to me seemed to be accurate as of what really did occur when there was a regiment of African-Americans. What surprised me was the racism used when the regiment was learning how to go into battle. It also surprised me that they would punish people in the regiment by whipping them. It was the same treatment they received as slaves so why would they do something that they don't want happening anymore.Things that I felt were not realistic was how none of the men left the army when they were told what could happen if they stayed. I also didn't feel like the part when everyone in the regiment tear their money for obtaining less than the normal and how Shaw said no one would receive pay. The movie was very accurate when it came to showing all the hardships African-American soldiers went through like not obtaining the same supplies as a white soldier and how they were treated by other regiments. 

A Little Shocking

When the African American soldiers were going to be paid less, I thought that was pretty believable considering that racism was fairly popular back then. However, when Shaw ripped up his bank note (or whatever that piece of paper was) so that he could be on equal pay terms like his troops, it was unrealistic. I don't think the white people back then really cared enough about "equality" to not receive $13 which was a lot of money back then.
I do believe that the whole harsh training routine that the African American soldiers had to go through was accurate though. I also think that when they sang spirituals and whatnot after the hard days, it was actually a part of history. It was a little sad when Shaw learned that the white soldiers were receiving more and better provisions than the African American soldiers but that was probably also true.
Another part of the movie that was probably Hollywood treatment was when the 54th Massachusetts regiment was just about to enter Fort Wagner. The white soldiers showed respect and cheered for them, as if they respected them or actually cared that these men were going to die. I don't think that the whites back then would have really cared or respected the African American soldiers- they probably just thought of the Africans American soldiers as extra manpower instead of respectable and equal human beings.

"Glory"

"Glory" seemed to display some accurate aspects in the movie. Although I was surprised that all of the soldiers stayed. Then I realized that they wanted to fight for their country and for freedom. But there were still some parts that seemed unbelievable like how Shaw was taking charge in the front dodging all the cannon shots while someone right next to him was hit. Of course this movie would have some "Hollywood" changes to it since most movies based on history need a little tweak of the past to make it more interesting to make some more money. For example, when Robert Shaw got shoes for the 54th it seemed like he was over doing it and he didn't even get in some trouble for it. Another example is when Trip was being whipped and he stayed completely silent. Later, I learned that the whites were separated from the blacks in the military. Although, in my opinion the whites and blacks should be side by side in war with equality since they are both fighting for the same reason, their country.

Glory too realistic?

What surprised me right from the start of the movie was the treatment of the black soldiers. I couldn't really imagine racism to that extent because today we have very few racist people and usually not in the United States. For example Kernel Robert Shaw had known Thomas for so long and yet when their friendship came to the test he treated Thomas like another dirty dog that had to learn manners. Also what surprised me was that white Kernels could be so cruel. In the scene where they burned the village, the kernel with Shaw shot his own soldier without even giving orders or directions. What made me think was when at the end They buried Trip and Shaw together. That was the last question, but i never really understood it so my feelings on it were that there was no significance. I thought it might have been a coincidence even though Robert and Trip had talked about their futures together. Also what made me think was how Trip got along with Robert even after staring into the eyes of cruelty while getting whipped. I learned that the African Americans endured many hardships in the army; more so then today at least. This movie showed not telled (I did that on purpose) me how the lives of colored soldiers were so it helped me grasp the concept more. I think this movie was realistic with more of a Hollywood twist to it then Mr. Harp described because in the battle scenes none of the stars died only the random colored actors. Other than that the storyline looked pretty accurate to me, but that could just be because I have never heard of the 54th Massachusetts regiment in my life.

I was very surprised when Shaw announced to the regiment what the Confederate Congress had proclaimed, and yet the African soldiers still stayed in the regiment. Although they could have gone back to slavery, or have died, they stayed in order to help the slaves in the South experience freedom. What made me think was when Trip said that the regiment was his only family that he ever had, while they were singing the spiritual. Trip had gone through a lot of hardships in his life, and he had grown from a heartless man to a more compassionate person. I learned that the African soldiers had to go through a lot during their time in the war. They wanted to fight and help free the slaves in the South, but instead they were used for manual labor. They were also deprived of basic necessities like shoes and socks. The most hardest part for the Africans was the prejudice they faced, and all the name calling that they were called. This movie was realistic because they portrayed the harsh life for the African soldiers in the 54th Regiment. It doesn't seem as if any scenes were overly exaggerated, but had actually happened.

Glory

Glory was a very good movie, and I think that it portrayed life back then and the battle pretty accurately. A lot of the movie was very shocking to me. The way the colored soldiers were treated was very harsh and even though I knew they were treated badly back during the war time, I didn't know what they went through exactly. The contrabands especially surprised me because they were the ones who had to pick up the dead bodies of the soldiers who died in battle. Also, the hospital they were taken care of in was very different from hospitals today. They didn't have the proper tools to clean their instruments so they just had them sitting in tubs of bloody water. The nurses would have to reuse the tools and if someone had a disease, it could be easily transferred to the other soldiers. I think the main reason that blacks joined the army back then was because they wanted to get freedom in reward. They could have joined with no idea how to be a soldier but they were intensely trained to march correctly and to shoot a gun correctly. Robert Shaw accepts the job of Col. of the 54th Colored Regiment and I think that was a huge statement to make especially because he is a white man and the Union did not accept colored regiment. Shaw did a great job of training them and making them ready for war. African-Americans were treated horribly during the Civil War and no one deserves to be treated that way.Their punishments (like Trip) were severe and they didn't get to protest against it. I think the battle scene at Fort Wagner was very scary and hard to watch. Soldiers who choose to join the army must know how terrifying being at war is, where everyone is counting on you to win.