is the battle of Gettysburg and the civil war the same thing?????
451887
The Battle of Gettsyburg was fought in 1863, (July 1-3) during the Civil War, which lasted from 1860-1865.  It was the turning point of the war and marked the 'high tide' of the Confederacy.  Ironically, the day after the battle was July 4th, the celebration of American indepedence.....
615246
The South had been launching an offensive into Northern territory, with the eventual goal to taking Washington D.C. (Back then, when you took the capital, you could win the war ... a pity it's not like that anymore). At Gettysburg, the Southern Army was defeated and it was forced to push back towards Confederate territory. It began the process by which the North began hammering the South into submission in the war.
313796
Well, if you want a real definition, A pitched battle is a battle where both sides choose to fight at a chosen location and time and where either side has the option to disengage either before the battle starts, or shortly after the first armed exchanges.\n\nA pitched battle is not a chance encounter such as a skirmish, or where one side is forced to fight at a time not of their choosing such as happens in a siege(this ia a "regular battle"). For example the Battle of Edgehill was the first pitched battle of the English Civil War and the Battle of Gettysburg started by chance as a skirmish, but as both generals chose to reinforce their positions instead of disengaging, they turned a skirmish into a pitched battle.\n\nI hope that answers your question or at minimum, gives you an idea on the meanings of both.
1084134
Can you give a little more info?  This is one theory from the right-wing attack poodles that I haven't heard yet.\n\nCan I play the game too then?  I want to pose a theory that the American Civil War started because of the supposition of the denial of the flat-world.  Abe Lincoln was a full believer in the heretic lie that the world is round, and so I think those good God-fearing Southerners made sure he knew just how wrong he was.
602003
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).\n\nUltimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage. The successful insurgency of the 1640s in England which led to the (temporary) overthrow of the monarchy became known as the English Civil War. The successful insurgency of the 1770s in British colonies in America, with organized armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution. In the United States, and in American-dominated sources, the term 'the civil war' almost always means the American Civil War, with other civil wars noted or inferred from context.\n\nWhat is generally agreed upon is that factors such as nationalism, religion, and ideology, played little role in pre-modern civil wars. While it is quite common for nationalists to read past revolts, such as those of Scotland against England as early stirrings of nationalism, this is a somewhat suspect notion. Religion is more contentious, there are some civil wars that can be seen as fueled by religion in early years, such as the Jewish Revolts against Rome, but these can also be seen as revolts by a servile people against their oppressors or uprisings by local notables in an attempt to gain independence.
746421
I have to agree with everyone else where have you been, I died there myself.  Everyday since I know the sins I committed and await my judgement.  The Republicans are willing to sacrifice another 58,000 in Iraqi for their oil.  But personally I hate to see anyone killed a soldier questions not but dies for their country.  What most of these right wingers do not realize is these "terrorist" as they call them are another person hero.  \n\nTo the Gettysburg Ghost you need to learn to read.  You Yankees can do that can't you? The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Total losses 258,000 .  The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, 360,222. \nI would suggest you listen to the song "I am a Good Rebel" he is right we did not kill enough of you!\nGod Bless You the Questioner and the SOUTHERN PEOPLE!
347556
Although I am bothered by rhetorical questions, let's consider.  Hmm...\n\nThey are both Republicans who led their nation through a war.  Unfortunately, Lincoln's war had a purpose, which was fulfilled.  Then all the surviving troops went home.
167017
Personally, I do not have a definition for a “Civil War,” because I believe that such a thing does not exist. Now grant  it that war is an unavoidable thing on this earth, and that will probably never change. Yet, to call the deaths, torture, bombing, massacring, and hurting and capturing of innocent people “civil” is beyond me. The same to can be said about the whole notion of a “Holy War.” There is nothing holy in war at all - even if it is for a particular belief.
773035
The American Civil War was worth fighting from all focal points. If it was not fought, African-Americans would still be under the evil of slavery. We also would not be the country that we are today; we would be split in two. North vs. South. Brother vs. Brother. Family vs. Family.\n\n   It has often been said that the Civil War was a turning point in America. In this great war, we Americans actually became Americans. We were not Northerners. We were not Southerners. We were Americans, and we still are today. And in the Civil War, people fought for what they believed, not because they were forced to, not for any reward, not for any kind of land, or money, or gain. They just fought for what they believed.\n\n\nP.S. Yoube72: LOL very funny! I'm a SW fan too.
90195
which democratic nation and civil war are you talking about??? \nedit your question and ill be more than happy to answer
1072065
Good job! Evidently, you've done your homework! \n\nMany aren't aware that the American Civil War was "NOT" about slavery. Nor are many aware that slaves were still being held as private property in the North during that time. Abraham Lincoln owned a slave during the war, and Union General U.S. Grant owned 4. \n\nThe war was, from the Southern standpoint, over States Rights, i.e., a state had authority over the federal government within it's own borders. And also, to defend against an illegal military invasion from the North. \n\nBut it's always the victors in war that write the history, isn't it?
110708
Aren't they the same thing?
260942
go to this site\nIt has all you need to know about the battle of Gettysburg.\nhttp://www.civilwarhome.com/gettysbu.htm
1060935
now aren't they really the same thing???
594095
After the fighting on July 1, 1863 Lee decided to stay at Gettysburg. Lee saw two hills on the Union left flank. If he could take these hills, the peach orchard and the gorge then he could attack the Union from behind. On the morning of July 2nd 1863 Colonel Vincent observed the upcoming flanking manuver and immediately sent the 20th Maine to Little Round Top to reinforce the artillery at the summet. General Hoode and McClaws's divisons went in to do battle with Union forces. General Hoode took the Peach Orchard and the gorge, now known as "Devils Den", but Colonel Chamberlain and the 20th Maine deprived the South of the high ground. Lee saw his troops go up the top of the hill and therefore, was convinced to attack again. He belived the North did not have resources nor the will to fight.\nJuly 3, 1863 Lee ordered Longstreet to assemble Pictett's Division because they were fresh, he also added units from General Trimble and General Pettigrew's Divisons to assemble as well. Since the other two divisons were from General Ewell's corps Longstreet tried to hand off the command to him. Lee refused. Next Longstreet gave instructions to the divison commanders about where to place their brigades and that the target was a clump of trees near the Union Center. This area now is known as the "Angle". It was General Garnett's responsiblity to make oblique turns with his brigade to deceive Union troops about the charge's direction and spread them out into a thin line. \nThe next thing was a huge artillery bombardment by the confederates, however no advantage was taken and the Union did not respond becasuse it wanted to save its ammo on the upcoming infantry attack. As soon as the rebels left their cover shells began to rain on them, but they went anyway. General Hancock, commanding the Union center was no fool, he read the confederate charge like a book. However he was wounded in the attack. Most rebels did not reach the stonewall of the Union center, those who did were captured quickly or killed. General Arimistead's Virgian brigade was the only one to penetrate the wall, but got no further. Arimistead a good friend of Hancock before the war was mortally wounded by Hancock's men. \nResults Pickett's Division 7 colonels dead, 6 wounded, 2 generals wounded, one dead, loss of 15,000 men plus horses, muskets, and supplies. On July 2nd 1863 Lee lost one of his best divison commanders when General Hood was wounded in Devil's Den.\nLee should have found some high ground, but instead fought fortified positions on rocky hills, gorges, and a ridge that had a stone wall and could eaily be reniforced. Lee beleived his army was invincible, but he was wrong. The Army of Northern Virginia was rebuilt after Gettysburg, the spirit of the arm hadn't been broken. The war would go on, but Lee wanted Gettysburg to be the final battle and the gamble did not payoff.
358974
Because the Victors (in the this case the Northern States) write the history books.  To that add another 146 years of revisioinist history ~ and the orgins etc get lost, to all but the true history buffs.\n\nBy definition it was NOT a civil war, for it to be a civil war, you would have to have one group trying to gain control of the government/nation from the other.  That is not what the South was attempting to do.  They did NOT want to seize control of the United States Government ~ they wanted to leave it ~ that is to say ~ succeed ~ and form a nation and a governmetn of their own.  \n\nAnoter mis-conception about the War Between The States is that it was fought over slawvery.  It wasn't.  It was fought over different opinoins about the Constitution and the interpetation of the same.  Its was fought over the same arguments that preceeded the actual war by decades, almost back to the foundation of the United States ~ which can be studied in the "Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers"  \n\nIf it had been at the time publically stated on either side, North or South, that the war was being fought over slavery, the average solider in the field on both sides would not have fought, this is evidenced in what historians refer to as "orginal documents" mainly lettters and such that were written by soliders on both sides of the conflict.  \n\nWhat the Northern solider was fighting for was to perserve the Union as it had exsisted prior to the succession of the Southern States, ~ they could care less about the slaves.  What the Southern solider was fighting for was to protect his "country" (The Confederate States of America) his home and family against a "foreign" invasion from another country.  They to, didn't care about the slaves ~ as you're average, typical Southerner didn't own slaves.  A very small percentage of the Southern population even owned a slave, with only about 1/10th of the Southern population owning 50 or more.\n\nWhat is left out of today's modern history books about the so-called "civil war" is that there were more than just a few "freed" Southern blacks, that owned other black slaves. And, they were not relatives ~ they were slaves, and were treated as slaves, and worked as slaves.  This is documented historial fact.
527282
if u go to www.unitedstreaming.com, then get an account, sign in,  then where it says "search" type in civil war and you'll get a bunch of stuff on the civil war \nits really helpful\ni just had a test on it