Page 7 of 8

Re:Longstreet vs. Lee

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:29 pm
by Flanyboy
Has anyone read Longstreet’s book, From Manassas to Appomattox?

After the civil war Lee wanted to write a memoir of the Army of Northern Virginia but he gave up the effort after only a few months. He knew the task was beyond his ability.

Lee then wrote to Longstreet and asked him to take up the task and write one of the Second Corps of the army.

Personally I think Lee trusted Longstreet more with the army than Jackson. Jackson was a great lieutenant but Longstreet was less likely to throw it all away in a reckless charge. After all Longstreet was promoted one day before Jackson as to make him Jackson’s superior and second in command of the Army. Though I will admit this was done right after the peninsula campaign when Jackson was probably in his worst physical condition of the war.

Obviously Jackson was better in overall command as witnessed by his exploits but neither of Longstreet's campaigns either in Tennessee or the Carolina’s were exactly ideal situations. Especially Tennessee where he was fighting a well dug in and supplied foe definitely not what was typical of what major campaigning armies were use to facing in the east.

Anyway I do like Longstreet more but I think the two complimented each other perfectly.

Jackson was lightening and stunned the enemy.

Longstreet was an anvil that would crush the enemy.

Lee’s greatest strength was his two corps commanders. He could give broad orders and trust Longstreet and Jackson to interpret them correctly and accomplish great tasks. Lee wasn’t just being polite by leaving options open he was leaving options open because he wanted his corps commanders to be able to think how best to do tings not just become unimaginative and attack by the book.

Second Manassas Jackson was begging for a division from Longstreet. Lee told Longstreet this but left the option open. Longstreet decided he would organize his corps and set up a grand battery on the federal flank. Longstreet wanted all his boys for the attack and figured Jackson could hold on. Then when Longstreet sensed the moment was right his artillery shattered the federal flank and the attack went forward. Lee sent an order to attack but not until the attack was well underway. Longstreet acted on his own intuitive and timing and it worked to perfection. Lee gave Jackson the same latitude.

Personally I think Longstreet and Jackson’s greatness lie partially in their ability throughout 1862-1863 to rely on each other and yet still be able to think outside the limits of strict orders. You had arguably two of the best corps commanders of the war working together under the supervision of one of the greatest commanding generals of the war.

P.S. First Post!!! Found my way here from Mad Minute.

Re:Longstreet vs. Lee

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:36 pm
by norb
I like the idea that they were two halves of Lee. He needed them both. They were both extreme at what they did best, but neither had everything to succeed. Either one without the other, was only above average. But together they were exceptional.

Re:Longstreet vs. Lee

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:54 pm
by Gfran64
Well said Norb.

Greg B)

Re:Longstreet vs. Lee

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:28 pm
by Kerflumoxed
norb wrote:
I like the idea that they were two halves of Lee. He needed them both. They were both extreme at what they did best, but neither had everything to succeed. Either one without the other, was only above average. But together they were exceptional.
Whoa, Big Hoss! I'm not so sure I would agree with this statement, particularly regarding Jackson's tactical ability.

An interesting campaign to study is the 1862 Shenandoah Valley Campaign that resulted in the "cleaning of the Valley" of Federal troops and successive defeats of Banks, Fremont and Shields (with the understanding and knowledge that neither of these three were paragons of military ability). To quote James McPherson, "Jackson' Valley campaign won renown and is still studied in military schools as an example of how speed and use of terrain can compensate for inferiority of numbers. Jackson's army of 17,000 had outmaneuvered three separate enemy forces with a combined strength of 33,000 and had won five battles" (Battle Cry of Freedom Page 460)...all within a tad over 4 weeks!

Jack Hanger
Fremont, NE

Re:Longstreet vs. Lee

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:15 pm
by Flanyboy
Jackson also (in larger engagements against competent generals, not the valley campaign, that really that was the exact opposite) tended to attack and stun the enemy but take higher losses than Longstreet. Losses that the CSA could ill afford which is why I would say he was aggressive but to the extreme that in the long run it wasn’t always beneficial.

The valley campaign was exceptional but the geography of that area lends itself to concealed and quick movement. It had possibly the best road in the confederacy and terrain to shield advances. Though Jackson certainly did a remarkable job, I don’t think he would have had even remotely as successful a career as commander of the AONV.

Re:Longstreet vs. Lee

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:35 pm
by Joshua l.Chamberlain
I wonder what would happen if Jackson went up against some of the good commanders like Grant, Hancock, Sheridan, Griffin, and Chamberlain because none of these commanders never really if ever faced Jackson. Hancock and Griffin were only brigade commanders when they fought Jackson and when Hancock was commanding a division at Chancellorsville but he was facing Stuart not Jackson.

Re:Longstreet vs. Lee

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:21 pm
by Little Powell
Joshua l.Chamberlain wrote:
I wonder what would happen if Jackson went up against some of the good commanders like Grant, Hancock, Sheridan, Griffin, and Chamberlain because none of these commanders never really if ever faced Jackson. Hancock and Griffin were only brigade commanders when they fought Jackson and when Hancock was commanding a division at Chancellorsville but he was facing Stuart not Jackson.
Wow, Jackson Vs. Grant. That would be a brutal, bloody battle. They shared similar qualities when it came to generalship except Jackson never touched the bottle. :laugh:

Re:Longstreet vs. Lee

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:45 pm
by Armchair General
Joshua l.Chamberlain wrote:
I wonder what would happen if Jackson went up against some of the good commanders like....Chamberlain because none of
Chamberlain rose to only command a brigade, so I'm kind of confused why he's included in a list with a general commanding an army and a mix of very good corps commanders. Both Longstreet and Jackson could have destroyed him as an afternoon snack in 5 minutes and then go for bigger fish.

Re:Longstreet vs. Lee

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:48 pm
by norb
Kerflumoxed wrote:
Whoa, Big Hoss! I'm not so sure I would agree with this statement, particularly regarding Jackson's tactical ability.
Not that I have a ton of knowledge, but I'm talking more about the big picture. Not winning a battle here and there, winning a war.

Re:Longstreet vs. Lee

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:38 pm
by Kerflumoxed
norb wrote:
Kerflumoxed wrote:
Whoa, Big Hoss! I'm not so sure I would agree with this statement, particularly regarding Jackson's tactical ability.
Not that I have a ton of knowledge, but I'm talking more about the big picture. Not winning a battle here and there, winning a war.
Nor do I! I only know what I read in the newspapers...or books...or magazines! :unsure:

The famous quote of Frederick the Great, "L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace" (so famously used by Patton) is probably most applicable to both Lee and Jackson, and, perhaps, less so for Longstreet. Unfortunately, comparing the leadership qualities of Jackson versus Longstreet is the proverbial "apples and oranges" argument. . . .one that can never be satisfactorily resolved. We can only tilt at the proverbial windmill. . . .which in itself can be extremely joyful! :S

With that thought in mind, it is, at the very least, entertaining to read the following article from the Jan/Feb, 2004, issue of Infantry Journal titled A Survey of Leadership: Stonewall Jackson and George S. Patton ". . .examine(ing) the lives of Stonewall Jackson and George Patton to unravel the common qualities of America's two finest military tacticians." (The author's words...not mine!)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1

Print this out, place it on your night-stand, and enjoy!

Jack Hanger
Fremont, NE