Longstreet vs. Lee

[norb]

After reading the Killer Angels, I was left with an interesting impression. It seems that from the author's point of view, that Longstreet was against Pickett's charge the entire time and voiced his discontent on multiple occassions. Even after the war, he stayed true to his initial ideals, that Lee was the one that screwed up Gettysburg. But no one wanted to hear it, he wasn't even invited to the reunion. Even though Monday Morning QB showed that the attack was doomed to fail (though I guess you could argue this), he was still ostracized for ever criticizing Lee. It seems that people loved Lee so much that they never wanted to ever hear anything negative about him, no matter how true it was. And even though maybe Longstreet might have convinced him and saved the day at GB, all people remembered about him was that he was the one that dissed Lee, so they hated him. It seems that even after the war, only a few that were actually there blamed Lee, the rest of the South kept him as their hero. It seems that at some point he reached diety status and could do no wrong ever again.

[Ephrum]

The fact that Longstreet joined the Republican Party, after the war, added to the bad feelings some Southerners had towards him. And the fact that Longstreet's opinion of Lee's command at G-burg, was not well recieved.
Twenty yrs after the war, in Porter Alexander's book, Alexander criticized Lee's strategy at G-burg. But he was also upset that Longstreet tried to leave the order for Pickett to advance, up to Porter Alexander.
I'm guessing things like that, didn't help Longstreet.
And yes, Longstreet, unfairly, became the scapgoat for Gettysburg. And I agree, Lee was to blame for a number of things in that battle, that Longstreet took the rap for.

That Lee could do no wrong, in the eyes of the Southern population, is plainly evidenced in the history books. He was a great army commander. But he was human.

There'a book called "God and General Longstreet", the first chapter deals with this very subject, in relation to the Southern mind and The Cause.

[louie raider]

as the war wore on, the fact that ole Pete was U.S. Grant's best man at his wedding probably didn't help his reputation much either...

[estabu2]

There were other factors that went into the south's infatuating love affair with Lee, and it still goes on today. But the problem with G-burg is that Longstreet was against the battle and afterwards people thought that he was "slow" on the 2nd and 3rd day. This coupled with his criticizm of Lee, changing to the Repubs as Ephrum said, and his conversion to Catholicism(which is usually overlooked) had a detrimental affect on his standing in southern Lore.

There have been a few historians that have tried to take on the "diety"(good on norb) and usually they get the dogs unleashed on them. IMO, Lee was a gambler and it worked initially, but after Chancellorsville he was nothing but an ordinary commander, who responded to each crisis. He was to short sighted and never helped the Confederacy in the west and could not look past the Virginia theatre.


Longstreet was the best Corp commander on either side, IMO.

[bedbug]

Another factor to consider was Longstreets attitude after the war which can be summed up basically as: "Hey, we lost. Get over it".
Not a prevalent attitude at a time when his old army was busy forming secret societies.

[norb]

Amazing how all these things that everyone mentions have nothing to do with the fighting. It seems that his legacy is based on his actions after the war was over. Then history labeled him, not based on the war, but based on the perception of him after the war.

It must have made him furious. Might be the reason he distanced himself from the South. There he was, knowing that his advice was ignored, figuring that the the south might have won, massive "I told you so". But the only way to point this out, the only way to promote his cause, was to criticize Lee. Put him in a bad situation of which there was no escape. A catch-22, damned if you do, damned if you don't. I could see that situation alone driving him to join forces with the north after the war.

[Armchair General]

I think Longstreet was a little quicker to realize the futility of head-on assaults. He had seen them fail at Malvern Hill, Fredericksburg, and he was just trying to stress that point to Lee, whom I believe hadn't quite adjusted to fighting someone who stuck with it unlike McClellan, Pope, or Burnside, who made some attacks and when they failed, retreated back to Washington.

As for Lee, I don't think he is the greatest general America has produced. He is without a doubt, one of the best, but I think as generals go, Washington or Eisenhower may rank above.

[7th Wisconsin]

Look how long it took to dedicate a Longstreet statue at G.B. 1998. More than a bit sad.

[Hancock the Superb]

My 2 cents:

Well first off, I sympathise with Longstreet a lot more. He always had that side that is similar to me - if there is a VERY good oppurtunity, attack! However, a defensive strategy works most of the time (Fredericksburg, eg).

Late in the war, Longstreet was less valuable, due to the fact that they were fighting in trenches and he was injured. But, at the Wilderness, he performed amazingly - forcemarching his troops into line, then realizing that he needed to attack, and consequently not only halted the 2nd Corps, but briefly gained their defensive line.

Lee always considered Longstreet his best general, especially later in the war when he realized that Jackson couldn't stop Grant.

(That is one of the things I hate, people lording over how Jackson was an amazing general.)

I hope that will bring light to the situation.

[JC Edwards]

Hancock the Superb wrote:

.......(That is one of the things I hate, people lording over how Jackson was an amazing general.)

Probably because he WAS. I tire of how people lambast Jackson all the time.
And feed into the myth that he was an overbearing, lemon sucking eccentric. (Pick up a copy of STONEWALL by Byron Farwell).

I too admire Longstreet and feel he unrighteously got the short end of the stick because of LEE'S failure at Gettysburg......(The Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble charge should never have happened).

But Longstreet could NOT have pulled off Chancellorsville!

(By the way - Lee choosing A.P. Hill to replace Jackson as a Corps Commander instead of J.E.B. Stuart was another blundering worst case scenario! Hill made BURNSIDE look like a tactical genius!)