Hello all,
Has anyone uncovered an unbiased, fair appraisal of the military performance of Old Pete that takes into account the good(Second Manassas, Wilderness, etc) the mixed (Gettysburg) and the bad (Knoxville, etc) and roll all into a decent fair and balance overview. Thanks very much!
Respectfully, Spartan
General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier (Paperback) by Jeffry D. Wert
Spartan, I've seen this book but haven't read it. I've heard it's a pretty well-balanced look at Longstreet. You might check it out. Here's a couple of reviews that I found on Amazon.
Amazon.com This isn't the first biography to be written on Confederate General James Longstreet, but it's the best--and certainly the one that pays the most attention to Longstreet's performance as a military leader. Historian Jeffry D. Wert aims to rehabilitate Longstreet's reputation, which traditionally has suffered in comparison to those of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Some Southern partisans have blamed Longstreet unfairly for the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg; Wert corrects the record here. He is not uncritical of Longstreet's record, but he rightly suggests that if Lee had followed Longstreet's advice, the battle's outcome might have been different.
The facts of history cannot be changed, however, and Wert musters them on these pages to advance a bold claim: "Longstreet, not Jackson, was the finest corps commander in the Army of Northern Virginia; in fact, he was arguably the best corps commander in the conflict on either side." Wert describes his subject as strategically aggressive, but tactically reserved. The bulk of the book appropriately focuses on the Civil War, but Wert also briefly delves into Longstreet's life before and after it. Most interestingly, it was framed by a friendship with Ulysses S. Grant, formed at West Point and continuing into old age. Longstreet even served in the Grant administration--an act that called into question his loyalty to the Lost Cause, and explains in part why Wert's biography is a welcome antidote to much of what has been written about this controversial figure. --John J. Miller
From Publishers Weekly This is the most comprehensive military biography to date of the man Robert E. Lee called "my war horse." Wert ( Mosby's Rangers ) makes a strong case for James Longstreet (1821-1904) as the best corps commander on either side of the Civil War. A superb battle captain and a masterful tactician, he clearly recognized the limitations of the offensive under mid-19th century conditions. For Longstreet, Gettyburg in particular was not an opportunity, but a mistake. Wert argues convincingly that events vindicated Longstreet's opposition to Lee's insistence on repeatedly attacking the strong Union positions. Longstreet also recognized more clearly than most of his Confederate contemporaries that war was not an absolute. He accepted the political consequences of military defeat; his reconciliation with the restored Union brought him the open contempt of irreconcilables like Jubal Early. The resulting controversies obscured Longstreet's military reputation. This work restores a balanced view of the career of one of America's great soldiers. Illustrations not seen by PW.
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
The Lost Causers did quite a job on him. Someone other than the Ivory Man had to bear the blame and he was elected. I'm not convinced that he was the "best" corps commander on either side, but Lee certainly kept him close almost throughout the war.
I have Wert's book, plus about two others. But a flurry of questions on another forum has me reading 4 books about Sherman. Longstreet is the next on the list, but there are about 20 obove Wert's book in the stack. Although when I get to it, I will certainly appreciate a balanced view.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Terry,
Thanks very much, I will take your advice also knowing that Wert is generally a pretty good read. From source material I have read I came to the conclusion that Ol Pete was a victim of some pretty heavy handed smear tactics by the legion of the Lost Cause. I hope this books helps put what was justified and what was not in better perspective.
Last edited by SpartanGSG : 07-10-2006 at 10:07 AM.
Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant: James Longstreet and His Place in Southern History by William Garret Piston.
I own and have read this book (about ten years ago, so memory may be fuzzy!) and think it highly readable. It has received 9/10 star ratings on amazon (usually pretty good indicators).
I belong to the Longstreet Society, and both Piston and Wert are frequent speakers, so I don't know if they fall under your criteria of 'unbiased'. But if you are meaning authors who don't buy into the scapegoat of the lost cause theory, but still see the man's faults, I think these two are your best bet.
I also have Longstreet's memoirs ... a tad biased...but interesting...
__________________ "Live in the world you inhabit. Look upon things as they are. Take them as you find them. Make the best of them. Turn them to your advantage." - R. E. Lee
Many thanks Miss Markie will explore this book on your advisement. I have Longstreet's book too, hard to fathom Old Pete offering an unbiased critique of himself isnt it?
Just got the August issue of CWT, and it has General Longstreets photo on the cover, in a big way. The story inside is "Lees Best General. No it wasn't Stonewall Jackson." Haven't read it yet.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Confederates could not lose battles; someone had to take the fall. Except Lee. Lee could never lose a battle, nor lose a war. So much for historical fact!
The Army of Northern Virginia lost at Gettysburg because Lee asked too much of his army. He said so in a letter.
The Army of the Potomac had the advantages of intelligence, supply and the help of the hometown folks. Lee's overall plan failed. He left Stuart behind in Virginia, and expected him to arrive in time somewhere, that was not in the original plan.
Lee miscalculated the needs of his artillery and cavalry horses, and how much forage was necessary. Lee miscalculated that Stuart would not get delayed by the Union army. Lee miscalculated his cavalry needs, when he really needed cavalry, in moving from Chambersburg to Gettysburg. Lee miscalculated his artillery and their lack of ability to win on July 3rd.
No the Confederates blamed their other generals. Stuart, Ewell, Hill and Longstreet were all blamed for the Gettysburg loss to some degree.
Strange, that General Jubal Early was never seriously blamed for the Confederate loss at Gettysburg. Early had his division in Gettysburg and Adams County, days before the battle. One can easily surmise that Early never warned Lee of the pitfalls of moving to Gettysburg.
Ah, yes. Gettysburg was a wonderful place for the Army of Northern Virginia, so historians seem to tell us. I wonder if the civilian spies from Gettysburg told that to General Meade. That Gettysburg and Adams County was this wonderful place for the Confederate army to gather up forage for the thousands of horses with its three corps.
Why was Buford attempting to block Hill on the Chambersburg Pike? Maybe that was the simple key. Block and hold up the Confederate army in a bad place.
But in victory that was forgotten and Gettysburg was transformed into a great place for battle. But truth is often, as they say, the first casualty of war. And who would deign that Lee would find less forage and water than his army needed.
But Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia never made mistakes, some say, so how could that then be true?
Someone failed, but no one seems to ask why Lee really came to Gettysburg? And how much did Lee, really did not know about Adams County and Gettysburg?
A small aside, gentlemen. Tell me about Adams County. On the maps it would appear to be decent farming country, but I'm hearing that it provided very little in the way of sustenance for Lee's army. Was it the time of year? Was it generally poor in produce? I'd appreciate enlightenment. Thank you.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Hello all,
Has anyone uncovered an unbiased, fair appraisal of the military performance of Old Pete that takes into account the good(Second Manassas, Wilderness, etc) the mixed (Gettysburg) and the bad (Knoxville, etc) and roll all into a decent fair and balance overview. Thanks very much!
Respectfully, Spartan
Hi Spartan I would add my vote to those who recommend reading Piston and Wert's books on Longstreet. In addition, I'd add a third book: "James Longstreet: The Man, the Soldier, the Controversy" edited by R. L. DiNardo and Albert Nofi. It's a collection of 6 essay chapters dealing with topics ranging from Longstreet's place in history to his roles at Chickamauga and Gettysburg. There is also an essay dealing with whether he and his corps statf were more effective then Jackson's. Mr. Wert wrote the chapter on Gettsburg and Professor Piston wrote the one of the chapters on how Longstreet got his postwar reputation as well as another dealing with the possibility that family connections led to some of his prewar assignments. It was published in 1998 by Combined books. But since they folded, I suspect you'll have to go online to find it. I'd recommend the effort in getting it though.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
An Unbiased Analysis of James Longstreet 
... a tad biased...but interesting...
Linear Mode
