Longstreet or Jackson - Page 11

Jamieva · #**101** 02-07-2006, 03:56 PM

To build on your point about Lee calling the shots. What corps commander did he look to after Jackson to make the big assaults? Longstreet until he was wounded because he trusted him the most and of course he was the most experienced corps leader that he had at that point. Lee never held Hill and Ewell in the same regard as Longstreet.

Lee felt more comfortable with Longstreet being the pivot and Jackson being the hammer of this offensive strikes. This was built on what he knew were the strengths and weaknesses of both commanders. Jackson on a couple of occasions showed the inability to be effective in a defensive posture on his own.

milhistbuff1 · #**102** 02-07-2006, 06:48 PM

NBForrest,

You've convinced me on the tactical/strategic argument for Longstreet. However, much of his and Old Jack's value was in pressing the initiative. Move as many men, cavalry, and artillery to the typically weaker rear or flanks and roll it up.

Jamieva,
As far as calling the shots, Old Pete was his most experienced infantry commander even more than jackson, who served much of his federal army service in the artillery.
Respectfully,
Matt

nbforrest · #**103** 02-07-2006, 08:10 PM

Lee felt more comfortable with Longstreet being the pivot and Jackson being the hammer of this offensive strikes.

Really? I can't really think of an engagement that would support this idea. It certainly wasn't true during the Seven Days. The circumstances were quite the opposite at 2nd Manassas. Obviously, there was no such offensive by either general at Antietam or Fredericksburg. Longstreet wasn't at Chancellorsville, so there was no hammer/pivot there.

All of this brings me to something I've been wondering lately: Why did Lee truly hold Jackson in such high regard? Perhaps the military relationship has been exaggerated post war?

Jackson was a talented operational leader but I don't think that is reason enough for his high reputation.

Concerning post-Jackson corps leadership, I think Ewell and Hill both get a bad rap, the former less deserving of criticism than the latter. Hill never really was better than competent and perhaps closer to mediocre at times, but not entirely as bad as often portrayed. In his rather brief tenure Ewell had something of a checkered career but still solid. Gordon stepped up to the plate handsomely as well.

Respectfully

milhistbuff1 · #**104** 02-07-2006, 08:31 PM

As per Gen. Gordon I agree, Shouldn't Hill's illness's have persuaded Lee that he couldnt handle the stress of corp command, of course the question of the replacement is a different matter entirely.
Respectfully,
Matt

Jamieva · #**105** 02-07-2006, 10:19 PM

It's very hard to get a good read on how well Hill could lead a Corps due to his illnesses the last 2 years of the war. With every major conflict he would get worse.

milhistbuff1 · #**106** 02-07-2006, 10:25 PM

Jamieva,
thats precisely why he should have been relieved. Someone in good health such as Early could have been brought up to Lt Gen. rank and thus made Ewell effective as well, by removing Early's domineering presence from his portion of the chain of command
Respectfully,
Matt

nbforrest · #**107** 02-08-2006, 03:09 PM

Lee was in a tough spot...did Hill's periodic illness warrant shaking up the command structure? Perhaps. Overall, I think Hill did somewhat better as a corps commander than given credit for. Although a lot of III Corps successes seem to stem from good subordinates like Mahone.

Respectfully

Jamieva · #**108** 02-08-2006, 04:47 PM

Lee was in a tough spot with Hill. At his first major conflict in Corps command he is so sick that he can't relate to Lee what was going on with his troops.

The guy had such ability I think Lee hoped his health would come around.

milhistbuff1 · #**109** 02-10-2006, 12:17 AM

But wouldnt his responsiblity lie with the ANV to preserve their lives from a possibly compromised commander? giving command to Anderson or or DH Hill would have been more militarily sound.
respectfully,
Matt

nbforrest · #**110** 02-10-2006, 02:17 PM

I think Lee was right in not promoting R H Anderson. He did consider him for corps command, but I think he correctly analyzed Anderson as a talented division commander but not really permanent corps command material (I think Anderson's performance leading his ad hoc corps at Petersburg confirmed this) Which is not to say that I don't think highly of Anderson...he was a very solid division commander and a modest man. My opinion of DH Hill is beginning to downgrade a bit...he had potential but I don't think he was unusually talented. Plus, he just couldn't get along with anyone.
So, given Lee's position...I think Hill was the best choice. In hindsight Gordon turned out to be a fine corps commander, but that was not apparant in 1863.

Respectfully