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.

[stainlessbanner]

his briliant treatment of Sherman's army.

Does it cover Sherman's brilliant treatment of the good folks in Georgia?

[WhiskeyPapa]

Does it cover Sherman's brilliant treatment of the good folks in Georgia?

What are you talking about? Sherman said he'd share his last cracker with the people of Atlanta.

Walt

[Our man in washington]

The movie "Gettysburg" suggests that Longstreet's wanted to go south to a defensive position near Washington and force the north to attack. Is that a true account? Also, given that the confederacy had a lot of success with defensive stands, you think it would have worked?

[Dr. Scarpetta]

I met someone at a Memorial Day picnic who was an extra in "Gods & Generals," and he was impressed with the whole project. I saw the movie but barely remember Bruce Boxleiter's role.

[Radtechtravel]

The South had many opportunities to forestall the re-election of Lincoln, insuring a cease-fire and eventual recognition of the South.

Lincoln, until the fall of Atlanta, believed he would not be re-elected.

Grant's method of pouring thousands of union soldiers though a meat-grinder in order to grind up Lee eventually produced casualty lists so horrendous that the Union war Department and newspaper stopped printing them. Northern people were not willing to accept such losses.

The war was still not totally decided as late as John B. Hood's Army of Tennessee campaign against George Thomas in Middle Tennessee, November, 1864. Had Davis appointed Nathan Bedford Forrest to command that campaign instead of the opium fiend Hood, world history would have radically changed.

The Union won the War by winning it in the West.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Was Longstreet in the movie "Gods & Generals?"

The article says he died in 1904. ;-)

[arly]

"Hardly a sterling record, and one that doesn't come close to matching Sherman's."

Yeah thats for sure General Lee could not match shermans record of burning and pillfering the civilian population.

[Radtechtravel]

A Calvinist minister succinctly put Jackson's impact on the Civil War in a dedication ceremony for the unveiling of a New Orleans memorial to the inimitable General in the late 1860s with this prayer: "O Lord, when thou, in Thy Infinite Wisdom and Sovereign Power, didst decree that the South must loose its war for independence, thou first hadst to take to Thyself Stonewall Jackson."

[SamAdams76]

Someone phoned me - a stranger - and began blaming all our current woes on Lincoln.

That is bizarre. I never had a phone call like that. I'd get my phone number unlisted or change it if I were you.

I think Lincoln was a good man but people put him on too high a pedestal. He did have flaws. But he meant to keep the Union together at all costs. I can't think of many other presidents who would have made the sacrifices necessary to keep it so. He turned out to be the right president at the right time.

[KellyAdmirer]

Lee was a capable, gracious general who gave orders that were too vague and made bold, strategic plans that were unsupported by the tactical resources he commanded. As long as he had outstanding subordinates and gave them latitude to act as they saw fit, and while the South still had adequate economic resources, he did ok. After a while, the resources against him began to tell and mere generalship was insufficient to make a difference. The North had some brave, clever generals, too.

Whoever made up the Confederate plan at Gettysburg - or, should I say, lack of a plan - was not brilliant, and I leave it at that.

As for where the war was won, well, it was won at sea, and you can take that to bank.

[Core_Conservative]

it's interesting that Lee usually lost a higher % of his men than did any of his federal counterparts.

Considering Lee was the one to attack - as the attacker usually looses more men.

[Core_Conservative]

it's interesting that Lee usually lost a higher % of his men than did any of his federal counterparts.

Considering Lee was the one to attack - as the attacker usually looses more men.

[Core_Conservative]

Does it cover Sherman's brilliant treatment of the good folks in Georgia?

If I remember righly - Sherman just proceeded to finish what the Southerners had started. They (the southerners) were trying to destroy the supplies collected - so that the North would not get them and use/sell them.

[Radtechtravel]

Actually I surprised the North won.

They won because of the South's romantic notions about how war should be fought. Had Lee treated Pennsylvannia like Sherman treated Georgia and South Carolina things would have been a lot diferent. Sherman learned to burn civilian populations into submission from the example of the Indian fighting of Andrew Jackson, Architect of the Trail of Tears.

Sherman's division was defeated head to head at the Battle of Fallen Timbers by a few regiments of Calvary led by Nathan Bedford Forrest at the conclusion of the Battle of Shiloh in the spring of 1862. Forrest was the only man that truly scared Grant and Sherman every time his name was mentioned in connection with some military movement.

But Forrest was not a West Pointer, had been a slave trader and, as such, was ironically an embarassment to gentile Southern sensibilities and the southern Aristocracy that led the war. Consequently, he was never given command of any army greater than 12,000 despite his constant unmitigated successes against the best that the North had.

[Radtechtravel]

Shelby Foote in his three volume set "The Civil War" does a commendable job of laying out the entire war--East, West and Maritime. He attributes to the surrender of southern forces at Fort Donelson in Feb 1862, the losses of Nashville/Middle/Western Tennesse and Kentucky from which the Southern Confederacy could never recover.

The loss of Kentucky by the North would have doomed Lincoln's administration and granted European recognition of the Southern nation.

[sine_nomine]

Rhett Butler said the same thing "Gone with the Wind." I agree.

Stonewall was a great general, no?

[sine_nomine]

Lincoln was a complicated man. I wonder how long it will take to get a balanced view of him, flaws and virtues.

[LS]

1) He wasn't always on attack. Quite the contrary, he lost a higher percentage of his men at Antietam, where he had dominant defensive position.

2) One might argue that a great commander would not be "on attack" if he was constantly outnumbered, but would maneuver the federals into attacking him . . . just as Longstreet urged at Gettysburg.

[LS]

Exactly what someone should do against a slave-holding population that is supporting the war. Or, as Hanson points out, he treated them just like Patton treated the GERMAN population.

[LS]

Indeed. He compares it favorably with Patton's treatment of the "good folks" in Germany.