Longstreet becomes target of Lee's admirers

WashTimes ^ | July 12, 2003 | Ken Kryvoruka

[stainlessbanner]

He was, at the war's end, the senior lieutenant general in the Confederate Army, Lee's trusted friend and second-in-command of the Army of Northern Virginia --- yet it was not until 1998 that a statue was erected anywhere to honor James Longstreet. This slight can be traced to his membership in the Republican Party during Reconstruction, but even more damaging to his reputation was the image created by his postwar enemies: He became a villain in Southern eyes, a scapegoat for the Confederate defeat, and one of the South's most controversial figures.

[labard1]

And it's why all of the historians interviewed in "North and South" magazine recently, all voted Grant #1 in the "Top Ten Generals" of the Civil War.

There are fashions in history as well as clothing. Historians of other periods would have reached different conclusions, and in the future they may do so again. Although a Southern partisan and despite the fact that Sherman burned the family home during his Meridian campaign, I believe Sherman was head and shoulders above Grant as a military commander. Of course my grandfather would have washed out my mouth with soap for expressing anything good about either.

[Im Your Huckleberry]

No way was Sherman head and shoulders above Grant as a military commander, in fact, Sherman wasn't all that great, and he commited many tacitcal and strategic blunders. He only ranks #3 on the "Top Ten Generals" list with three out of six historians and even lower for others.

Sherman is overrated overall, though still next on my list next to Grant as far as the Union went. George Thomas is someone who is not often rated as highly as he should be, too.

Don't know what fashions may come down the road, but I'm a whole-hearted Grant adherent. I think he was head and shoulders above anyone on either side of the war, and in that, at least, I'm in good company with present day historians.

[Im Your Huckleberry]

None that I know of. I think Grant kept Burnside for both expediency, and because he liked Burnside personally. Burnside was a very likeable, affable, guy. Grant had the unfortunate character flaw of letting his personal likes cloud his judgement sometimes. In the case of Burnside, he liked him personally, so it made him keep Burnside on longer than he should have.

The Crater incident at Petersburg is what finally brought Grant to his senses in regards to Burnside.

[Im Your Huckleberry]

First, von Molkte commits the same flaw most "armchair Generals" do - that it sounds "nice" that one could shift troops back and forth along the railroad networks, but the reality of that is far more complex. He's ignoring dozens of issues that made that impractical or impossible. Too many to go into here.

Second, Grant could not have landed 50,000 men in the Carolinas for a number of reasons - one, the political ramifications, two, it would have left Washington too vulnerable with nothing to interpose between the capitol and Lee, three, Grant already had Butler on the peninsula for very much the same purpose - to push immediately against Richmond while the AOTP took on Lee and held them while Butler took the capitol.

This failed because Butler was a complete imbecile who got himself bottled up on the peninsula and essentially sat there doing nothing.

Keep in mind, it also shows von Moltke's failure to understand modern warfare. He was of the same mentality of his time that thought warfare consisted of maneuvering the enemy out of position and siezing territory.

That was outdated thinking. Grant was the first truly "modern" general in thinking. He knew that siezing territory meant nothing with enemy armies in the field. Grant's intent (and strategy) was to annhilate the Confederate armies in the field. Grant was after the Confederate armies, not "Richmond", though he knew an attack on Richmond would force them to fight him.

The Wilderness wasn't a battle, it was merely the opening engagment of a 30 day long battle. It was about getting hold of Lee's army and simply trying to annhilate it. Period.

That's what Sherman was about, and that's what Grant had in mind for all five armies that were supposed to move out on May 4th. Butler f-ed his part up, Banks f-ed his part up, and Franz Sigel f-ed up his part too. So it really ended up coming down to Grant and Sherman.

Appomattox is the testament to the fact that Grant's overall strategy was sound. It worked.

Grant is one of only two generals on either side to accept the surrender of an enemy army - and he accepted the surrender of three enemy armies in their entirety. That speaks to his record. Sherman is the other, who accepted the surrender of Joe Johnston's army shortly after Lee surrendered at Appomattox.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Thanks for the excellent analysis.

[GOPcapitalist]

Boy howdy, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. If not for Mr. Lincoln's "precedent", there would have been no government of the USA to expand, because the USA would have ceased to exist. Thats Mr. Lincoln's big crime, he didn't let a bunch of rabble rousing rebels destroy the greatest nation in the history of earth.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson

"In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary, patriotism is defined as the lst resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer, I beg to submit that it is the first." - Ambrose Bierce

[labard1]

As a result of Grant's willingness to suffer massive casualties to pin Lee in place before Richmond, Lincoln believed in early 1864 that an electoral disaster was in the making for November. It was only Sherman's capture of Atlanta (with trivial casualties, compared to Grant's) that gave electoral victory to the Lincoln administration. If the election had gone to the Democrats, the war might well have ended with the South achieving independence. It's hard for me to believe that Sherman didn't play his hand against Joe Johnston better than Grant played his against Lee, even acknowledging Lee to be a better general than Johnston.

[Ohioan]

Just for fun, show me how in any way any state (except for Texas and Hawaii) ever exercised soveriegnty prior to ratification of the Constitution. Was there ever a South Carolina foreign minister or a treaty between Massachusetts and a foreign country or any state law? Did any state under the Confederation or during the Revolution ever claim to be a country independent of the other states? Reasoned historical analysis shows that the Continental Congress preceded the formation of state governments independent of the British Crown, which was done actually in response from an appeal by Congress.

From the time of the Declaration, every State exercised sovereignty. You are confusing acting in consort, followed by the adoption of a Confederation, to continue to act is consort, for strength in their foreign policy dealings, with acting as sovereign. The Federal Government, even after the Constitution, exercised almost no sovereign rights, except in the territories. The States, themselves, retained virtually complete rights of self-government, in all areas, not specifically delegated to the Federal Agency.

You can try to rationalize away both the explicit letter of the formulating documents, and the practical history, but the truth is there, for all to see.

Do you think that Britain gave up her soverignty, by working in concert with us during World War II--she did put her forces under Eisenhower in Europe. Do we give up sovereignty by entering into a mutual defense treaty with other Nations? Surely the gravamen to the question, is who exercises direct power over the people of the State or Nation, not what agencies they set up with other States or Nations to accomplish common purposes.

Again, there was virtually no direct control by the Federal Government, over the ordinary affairs of the citizens of the respective States, prior to the War in 1861 - 1865. The States agreed, by ratifying the Constitution, that they would respect each other's laws, and abstain from certain actions; but they retained the right to define what was legal in the day to day activities of their peoples--i.e. the Police Power, which is the basic foundation of soverignty.

Just in defining themselves as States, not as provinces, they claimed the status of sovereign Nations. (The only difference between the concept of a state and nation, is that you basically need to have sovereignty over a particular geographic domain, to be a State, whereas you can be a Nation, without a permanent domain, as witness some of the Indian Nations.)

My earlier post but gave some of the more obvious documentry references, which absolutely negate your silly argument. The Constitution is full of others--as is the Bill of Rights, as are the XIth & XIIth Amendments.

Simply refusing to acknowledge the plain meaning of legal terms, does not give you an argument. Nor does your fanatical pursuit of the denial of self-Government to your fellow Americans, recommend you for your "tolerance" of other viewpoints.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[GOPcapitalist]

Republicans -- true Republicans -- revere the United States of America, then and now.

But what if I want to revere God instead? Does that mean I can't be a "true Republican"?

[carton253]

My friend, who went to Gettysburg, says that the land between Seminary Ridge and Cemetary Ridge was flat. That Pickett's men did not have to climb a "ridge"... that if anything they climbed a gentle slope.

When watching the movie, I was trying to determine if that was true. (My confusion may lay in my definition of a ridge)

I noticed that when the Pickett's men came out from the trees, they were climbing (how high, I can't tell) until they reached the artillery. Once they did, they walked on rather flat land.

Where it gets deceptive is after they climb the fence (what a turkey shoot that was) and reach the stone wall. Is there a swell there? (The camera is high to get the shot and may be misleading)

When the Union Reserve came up to support the stone wall, it came up and over a hill. How high?

I watched Pickett's charge again last night.

What men were these!!!!!

Thanks for answering my questions.

I am seriously considering going to Gettysburg next year to see the re-enactment. It is something I have always wanted to do.

[LS]

If you are at all interested in the Civil War, you must see Gettysburg. I was there three years ago, so this is from memory. I did NOT walk across, but stopped at Seminary ridge where the huge tower is, then drove to Little Round Top, then stopped at the "high tide" line.

I wouldn't call anything there a ridge. It is a very gentle slope, nothing like what Burnside's men had to face at Fredricksburg. The fence was murder, because, until the Union cannister (they had discarded grapeshot in the 1850s) tore the fence apart, the men had to stop, climb, then reassemble as sitting ducks.

Worse, the Union was able to move brigades in on the Confederate right and provide and enfilade. I recall something of a swell before the stone wall (which is barely 2 feet high, if that. Had it been larger, the Union no doubt would have used the "reloading" techniques that the Rebels employed at Fred. Instead, they had to have a kneeling row, standing row, then, after a volley, they all had to stand to reload. The hill where the reserves were was sufficient that you could deploy, as I recall, a whole army back there and have them hidden from anyone using a spyglass from a tree on Seminary ridge.

Bottom line, Lee didn't have a clue as to what size force he faced, or where.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Instead of saying "Confederate" and "Union" forces, I prefer "rebels" amd "United States Army". Getting this straight in our minds shows just how ghastly, not glorious, it is for insurgents -- be they Iraqis, Viet Cong, or American -- to fire upon the United States Army.

[stainlessbanner]

Confederates are Americans - Congress recognized that in the United States Codes.

[Grand Old Partisan]

"be they Iraqis, Viet Cong, or American"

[stainlessbanner]

Blue and Grey will do just fine thank you.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Blue and Grey implies they were equivalent -- which is false. During the Civil War, American patriots enlisted in the United States Army and Navy, while American traitors joined the rebels.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Rebels works, as does Traitors. BTW I have finished your book and will be posting excerpts and reviews soon. Kudos, and salutations for your excellent work.

[hirn_man]

"Confederates are Americans - Congress recognized that in the United States Codes. "

There never were any "COnfederates". Rebels(from any country) don't get to be a REAL country till they win the war of rebellion. The American Rebels of the 18th centry won their war, got their country, and became known as patriots and heroes. American rebels(circa 1861-1865) lost their war and their chance to form a new country and were relegated to the dustbin of history.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Thank you very much! As you know, I wrote the book to flush out of the Republican Party veneration for Democrat rebels of the 1860s.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Interestingly enough the ancestors of the South Carolinans were ready to surrender Charleston to the British, withdraw from the Confederation and the war if the British agreed to leave South Carolina alone. Georgia and South Carolina were in British control most of the war.

Traitors in 1781, 1830 and 1860. Nothing like consistency.