Longstreet or Jackson

[nbforrest]

Longstreet's attack was organized with remarkable speed. Field and Kershaw pitched into the advancing Yanks immediately. The four brigades south of the Plank Road were quickly organized and slammed into Hancock, starting a mass panic. Field and Kershaw advanced, sweeping Getty and Wadsworth away along with Hancock. Once Longstreet was wounded, Lee organized a second flank attack but it took time to organize. He did not press the attack. A very wise thing to do. He realized that even if he swept Hancock out of the Brock Road entrenchments that he did not have the manpower to effectively alter the overall situation.

And yes, Hill certainly did screw up at Bristoe. It's understandable why he redirected the march of his lead units, but he certainly should not have blindly pitched in.

Respectfully

[milhistbuff1]

what units were flanking division, brigade? I thought Lee just sent sent the non engaged portion of first corp in hours later.

[nbforrest]

I'll have to dig out Rhea's book to get the exact units, but I'm pretty sure the abortive flanking attack was culled from all the units mixed up in Longstreet's attack. Hence why Lee wisely did not press the issue.

Respectfully

[Stoneyreb]

Nbforrest,

It has been up twicw about porter on the flank but seeing as he hit Jackson on the 30th and was driven quickly back Longstreet could have moved and dealt with Porter. i think he was much less of a worry also Longstreet had Cav on the far right Wing who could have caused Problems by hitting the rear of porters lines had he tried to hit Longstreets right wing! You bring up again how Lee said to hold he sure did like to have Longstreet hold or not go and do his thing.

[Admiral_Porter]

It has been up twicw about porter on the flank but seeing as he hit Jackson on the 30th and was driven quickly back Longstreet could have moved and dealt with Porter

If Longstreet attacked on the 29th he would have been moving south away from Jackson leaving his flank open.

Longstreet had Cav on the far right Wing who could have caused Problems by hitting the rear of porters lines had he tried to hit Longstreets right wing!

A Napoleonic cavalry charge against infantry was very rare in the CW. Plus, Stuart knew he didn't have enough men to effectively stop Porter which is why he resorted to trickery by dragging logs in the dirt road.

[nbforrest]

It has been up twicw about porter on the flank but seeing as he hit Jackson on the 30th and was driven quickly back Longstreet could have moved and dealt with Porter. i think he was much less of a worry also Longstreet had Cav on the far right Wing who could have caused Problems by hitting the rear of porters lines had he tried to hit Longstreets right wing! You bring up again how Lee said to hold he sure did like to have Longstreet hold or not go and do his thing.

Longstreet did move in after Porter was repulsed. I seriously doubt that Beverly Robertson's small cavalry brigade could do much of anything to the entire V Corps. Longstreet hit Pope at just the right time.

Respectfully

[pvt gauss]

nbforrest,compliments sir,
I don`t have full comprehention[sp] of your arguement but your last statement of "Longstreet did move in after porter was repulsed" seems to me to, to back the idea of his [longstreets] idea of defensive/offensive. As far as a small force of Cav. being able to harras[sp] a larger force I only point you to Maj. Gen. N.B.Forrest, Brig. John Hunt Morgan or even Wheeler{Perrysville}. Lee used Longstreet as his SHOCK troops not only because of the size of his command but because of their experience. This is not to say the Gen. liked it [Longstreet] but because it worked. Set them up, and then Hammer them, this is where longstreet came in, your flanking thing, then hammer em with Longstreet. As far as Thomas Jackson was concerned, a great leader whom made as many mistakes as any one. Yes chancellorsville was his greatest moment it would have been better if he had been there earlier than 4 o`clock. The famous foot cavalry was late! All I`m saying is in the eastern theatre mistakes happened on the butternut side, but nothing compared to the the inept handling of troops in the western theatre by Bragg, Johnston and PGT beauregard in the west of which I am a main student. In other words you guys in the east ain`t got no problems compared to what took place on the other side of the mountains.

Gauss

[nbforrest]

I think Longstreet's tactical and strategic ideas are being confused and run together...he supported a strategic defensive...but in a tactical sense there is no evidence to support the idea that he was a defensive general. Two different things.

Also, comparing Forrest/Morgan to Robertson at 2nd Manassas is not a great analogy. Forrest and Morgan were fast moving raiders...Robertson had to screen and delay an entire infantry corps. Two totally different situations.

Respectfully

[Jamieva]

Remember our views of these generals are from 140 years of books, magazines and tv shows that we have read and watched. Those can shape your opinion very early on in your research and once you have that first opinion it is hard to shake out of it.

Longstreet is seen as such because he had most of the ANV high command against him in the post war years when he wrote his book about the war and went on and on about Gettysburg after Lee's death. The other generals in ANV all ganged up to take up for Lee and they placed the blame on Longstreet as part of this.

Jackson is held in a higher regard partly because of his death. Look at rock n roll in the last 40 years. Who do we hold in highest regard in music? Those that died early..Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, Cobain etc

Jackson certainly had faults, and he had battles/campaigns where he made mistakes. The 7 days he was never where he was supposed to be when Lee expected him to be there. What I have read some authors excuse that away saying Jackson was not familiar with the ground but if that is true then it is his fault for not finding someone who was.

Overall I think Longstreet prefered the defense. He saw what happened in front of his lines at Fredericksburg and saw what the newer weapons were doing to the ability to attack in the Napoleonic style. This is not to say he could not attack, he could and often in his career he was very successful. He just was not as daring as Lee or Jackson so he didn't win the style points.

[nbforrest]

I would agree that first opinions are shaped by our initial preconceptions but, at least for me, I don't hold a lot of the same opinions now as I did when I first started studying the war. Case in point, Jackson and Longstreet. My views of them have pretty much reversed.

I just don't think Longstreet was tactically defensive. Lee was calling the shots. When he wanted Longstreet to attack, he did and vice versa. Now, I don't think that Longstreet had the right ideas about Confederate strategy and certainly (like many generals) his post war writings are self serving and often of questionable accuracy. But he was one of the finest corps commanders to emerge from the war. My opinion of Jackson has lowered as I read more about him. He was potentially a useful operational commander, but I don't think his rather brief association with the ANV warrants his stellar reputation.
As you say, his glorious death has a lot to do with how he is remembered. Had Longstreet not recovered from his wound at the Wilderness, I have little doubt he would have been in the post-war pantheon of Confederate heroes.

Respectfully