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.

[strela]

I freely admit that the beards/facial hair appliances were better in G&G than they were in Gettysburg.

[jordan8]

If Lee et al. had the manpower and resources of the North how long would the war have lasted? Sherman, a great General, bwahahaha! I've always known Hanson is an ass, but the scope of his stupidity is stunning.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Had Lee treated Pennsylvannia like Sherman treated Georgia and South Carolina things would have been a lot diferent.

Lee was ejected from Pennsylvania. Had he been able he would have been just as destructive as Sherman ever was.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Stonewall was a great general, no?

Stonewall was a man who would take chances. I don't know that he ever faced a competent opponent.

Walt

[Ohioan]

What are you writing about? Patton treated the German population with respect. That was why he was removed from Command of the occupation, by those who wanted to punish Germany for the War.

I do not want to attack my fellow Ohioan, Sherman. But his method of waging war was far less chivalric than Patton's.

That said, I am really posting on this thread, not because I want to get into the debate over Longstreet; but to point out that Longstreet's Uncle, who was one of the leading educators in the Old South--President, I believe of four of her leading Universities--wrote a book Georgia Scenes, which Edgar Allan Poe highly recommended. One of the stories, The Debating Society, will prove a rewarding little interlude for anyone who enjoys dry traditional American humor. A good way to "lighten up," with a bit of traditional Americana.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[labard1]

Best general had to be Nathan Bedford Forrest. Even Sherman probably thought so.

[LS]

I think that one distinguishes between ARMY commanders and brigade commanders. Forrest was great. So was Stuart, at times. So was Custer, and Buford.

[LS]

William, Patton treated the Germans with respect AFTER the war; while he was marching, he didn't hesitate to level anything in his path. Of course, there is an important difference here, and that is that Patton did not have to deal with the new "personhood" of hundreds of thousands of people who the indigineous population wanted to either kill or re-enslave, and who, quite often, wanted to do the same to the Rebels. That made it more difficult to treat the defeated Southerners "with respect."

Imagine Patton's situation, for example, if he inherited large numbers of Jews and at the same time still had thousands of armed, hostile Germans, each willing to kill the other.

[XRdsRev]

I would hardly characterize the assault on July 3rd as being moronic. Frontal assaults over open terrain were nothing new and "Pickett's Charge" was not a tactical abberation. You might wish to consider that Grant utilized a direct frontal assault against entrenchments no less, in 1864 at Cold Harbor, suffering horrendous losses and igniting a mini mutiny in the 2nd Corps.

The action on Cemetary Ridge on July 3rd has been studied in tremendous detail and only a poor historian simplifies it. Be reminded that Barkdales men had attacked Cemetary Ridge on July 2nd, just to south of the route of Pickett's assault and had come very close to breaking the Federal Line (read about the suicidal charge of the 1st Minnesota Infantry). The failure of the assault on the 3rd can be chalked up to several factors 1) a planned attack (Johnson) on the Federal right wing at Culp's Hill early on the morning of July 3rd didn't take place as dictated (this attack would have drawn off troops from the Federal center prior to Pickett's assault). 2) the Confederate artillery under E.P. Alexander was poorly handled during the pre-assault bombardment. Alexander himself admitted that his artillery fire was off the mark and didn't have the desired effect (much of the Confederate artillery fire impacted several hundred yards to the rear of the Federal line, causing damage in reserve units and among the reserve ammunition trains but very little damage to the front line infantry or the artillery batteries supporting them. Some of this poor fire was attributed to faulty ammunition.). 3) Confederate artillery was short of ammunition (the supply trains being far in the rear) and didn't have an adequate supply to correct and maintain their fire once it was discovered that they were not having the desired effect. Nor was there enough ammunition to properly prepare the lane of assault by destroying fences along the Emmitsburg Road which slowed the advancing troops greatly while they were in canister range from Federal artillery) 4) during the Cemetary Hill assault, a number of howitzers had been designated to follow up the infantry and provide some close artillery fire support. Longstreet had orders to do this but neglected to follow through once the assault began. 5) Kudos to Meade (the Federal commander). On the evening of July 2nd he made a guess as to where the next assault would be and ordered reinforcements to that area. He guessed right. 6) The Confederate Cavalry flanking movement on July 3rd ended at East Cavalry Field, never achieving it's objectives.

As Gordon said in his memoirs, there never should have been a July 3rd at Gettysburg, nor even a July 2nd. He blamed Early for not pushing the tremendous success of July 1 late in the afternoon when the Confederates were on the verge of victory. This is where the presence of Jackson could have made a big difference. Gordon felt that Early stopped fighting when Jackson would have kept pushing.

The events of July 2nd don't make Longstreet or Johnson look good. Longstreet's attack on the Federal left was mishandled (they lost several hours marching on the wrong road and then countermarching). Even with the very late start time, the Confederates came within minutes of securing the tactically important ground of the Round Tops. Johnson's attack on the Federal right at Culp's Hill was very successful but fate intervened and Johnson unknowingly halted his victorious troops within 200 yards of cutting of the important Baltimore Pike. If his troops had cut this road, they would have totally compromised and made untenable the Federal Cemetary Hill position.

Finally, much has been said about Lee being a fool for fighting on the offensive at Gettysburg. I feel that he really had no choice. He did not pick Gettysburg for a battle, it just worked out that way. He was deep in enemy territory and in that position, you simply don't go on the defensive. In enemy territory, every hour you stall, gives the enemy time to concentrate their forces against you. We can see that happenening at Gettysburg where the Federal strength increases as the battle evolves (some Federal troops still arriving on July 4 when the battle was essentially over) while the Confederate strength peaks on July 2 and then remains constant. When you are in enemy territory, it is very difficult to withdraw in the face of a hostile foe without fighting. I think Lee recognized that once the major fighting at Gettysburg started, he had to try to defeat the enemy in front of him while he had the chance. In his defense, he was unaware of the positions of the entire Federal Army until the battle was completely under way. If he had known what Federal units were moving toward the battlefield, he might have declined to fight there.

[XRdsRev]

Yes he was the guy wearing a squirrel for a beard.

[XRdsRev]

I agree. Forrest was a decent commander of relatively small forces. That doesn't automatically translate into him making a great leader to 80,000 men. A General like Forrest was a good "tactical" officer. A General like Lee or Grant was a good "strategic" officer. There is a big difference.

I like Forrest, he was an interesting fellow. I think however that his crappy performance (or non performance, since he basically sat around and did nothing while Hood's men were being destroyed) at Franklin Tennessee in 1864 eliminates him from contention for being the greatest CS General of the war.

[labard1]

I don't know where you read your history of Franklin, but I've never seen any historian who tagged that disaster to anyone but Hood. Forrest expressed his utter contempt for the way Hood threw away the lives of men who could not be replaced, and whose absence led to the total destruction of the army at Nashville (saying that if Hood were not a cripple, he'd thrash him). It is true that Forrest never had a large command, having raised his own several times from scratch. But for ratios of enemy casualties to his own, or for accomplishing ambitious goals when operating with his own (small) forces it's hard to think of anyone else in his league.

[stainlessbanner]

Where is that Sherman-boy?

[The KG9 Kid]

The whole stupid bloody war would have never need been fought had that scoundrel Edward Rutledge -- the youngest signer of the Declaration of Independence -- not protested against Jefferson's language in freeing black slaves.

[XRdsRev]

I am not blaming Forrest for the debacle at Franklin but what I am saying (and I am not alone in this) is that Forrest's cavalry didn't perform in concert on this occasion. It seems that Forrest allowed one of his brigades to chase after Schofield's wagon trains while 2 of his other brigades pretty much just milled around east of the Harpeth making very little attempt to seriously threaten the Federal river crossing just to the north or to divert attention of the Federal guns in Fort Granger or to attack some of the Federal enfilading artillery east of the Harpeth. It was claimed later that his troops were short of ammunition which may be a credible defense but it seems like Forrest might have been able to do something more substantive during the infantry attack than trying to capture a few wagons (which he wasn't able to do anyway).

Forrest was a good commander but I certainly don't rank him as the greatest General of the Civil War. He was clever, a good fighter and an interesting guy but realistically, his impact on the overall war is too minor to bestow upon him top honors. Sure he effected some Union strategy and tied up thousands of Union troops because of his actions but so did John Mosby who was just a Colonel and who did so with far fewer men.

[4CJ]

Lee was ejected from Pennsylvania. Had he been able he would have been just as destructive as Sherman ever was.

He would? What, you can read minds? We bow in deference, o great Karnak! </sarcasm>

[Ohioan]

There is a manifest difference between blasting the cover of a defending army and deliberately torching people's farms.

As for the rest of your comments. You have bought the post 1950 Hollywood fantasy of the Old South. Hollywood productions, notwithstanding, the vast majority of the slaves remained loyal throughout the War. On the other hand, if your fancy is suggesting that Sherman had to deal with suddenly freed slaves, who immediately turned on their Masters, that would imply a failed duty to restore order. The excuse for the War was to restore the Union, and destroying the homes of those whom you are trying to reunite with is, to say the least, counter-productive.

It is one of the great lies the Left has promoted in recent decades, that suggests hatred between master and servant in ante-bellum Dixie. Booker T. Washington's whole appeal to his White neighbors for preference in employment, as against the new White immigrants, was based upon the loyalty of the Negro to the Old South. But, of course, Hollywood and the Leftists in Academia pretend to know more than the leader who lived through the era, and sought to build on that good will.

But to return to Sherman, I really do not want to knock him. He was doing what he thought was right, to bring the bloodshed to an early conclusion. I just do not agree with the tactic, in the context of a strife between American States.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Calvin Locke]

Who did Sheets Byrd play? (or was that another movie I didn't see?)

[4CJ]

Stonewall was a man who would take chances. I don't know that he ever faced a competent opponent.

Off your meds today? Remember how "Stonewall" got his nickname? It wasn't from hiding.

A Confederate chaplain, was asked to offer a prayer at the unveiling of a monument to General Jackson prayed thusly, "And when Thou didst decree, in Thy almighty wisdom, that the Southern Confederacy should fail, Thou hadst first to take out of the world the soul of thy servant, General Stonewall Jackson."

[LS]

It ain't no Hollywood myth. Let's get a clue, please. I'm a history professor, I've read the hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of slave narratives and studies on this, and it is pure BS, barbara streisand that the "slaves remained loyal to the masters."

Just for ONE reference, try reading "Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees," a look at blacks in Virginia (which had, on the whole, some of the better treatment of slaves in the slavocracy). If it was even remotely true that such "loyalty" was the case, the South wouldn't have needed extensive travel laws, restrictions on the movement of slaves, and held countless "slave revolt" trials because there would have been no need. The slaves, as Sherman well knew, couldn't wait to join his army---which was a problem; he had trained professionals, and neither the food nor the guns for such "irregular" forces. Please, read something before you post such utter nonsense.