Longstreet or Jackson

[nbforrest]

I'm sure that there were other generals that Jackson was fond of, but there were probably more that he wasn't so fond of.
A question I have is regarding his relationship with DH Hill. I wonder how they got along? They were brothers-in-law after all and shared their fervent religious beliefs. Added to the fact that Hill didn't serve with Jackson, they probably got on pretty well.

Respectfully

[lrd89]

Originally Posted by Highfly

From what I've read Jackson wasn't exactly on the best terms with quite a few people in the ANV. Excuse the rather stupid question, but aside from the soldiers of the Stonewall Brigade, Lee, and his own staff, did he get along with anyone?

The impression I get is Ole' Jack didn't get along with anybody very well.

[Highfly]

I'm always surprised at Jackson's relationship with JEB Stuart - they seem polar opposites yet manage to get along quite well.

Originally Posted by nbforrest

A question I have is regarding his relationship with DH Hill. I wonder how they got along? They were brothers-in-law after all and shared their fervent religious beliefs. Added to the fact that Hill didn't serve with Jackson, they probably got on pretty well.

From what I've read, they got along quite well. Before the war, Hill, as a professor at Washington College, recommended him for a teaching position at VMI. After the Seven Days Jackson writes that Hill "accomplished more than any other part of the Army," and even Hill doesn't seem to contrary. Perhaps knowing each other better than other officers know them had something to do with it.

~ Highfly

[Admiral_Porter]

Harvey Hill cracks me up. I definitely find him to be one of the more interesting characters on the confederate side.

"All good soldiers need a furlough to go home or else the next generation will be born to cowards and skulkers."

[SpartanGSG]

Originally Posted by sean_harris

Just wondering who you think was the better of the two and why. They both had strengths and weakness depending on what you wanted.

The one thing I due find surprising is how we claim Longstreet was a defensive man. Longstreet's Corps led several devastating assaults that sent Union forces reeling in both the East and West. He may have been a man who wanted a defensive fight however, He was on the offensive quite a bit.

A complete comparison/analysis of Longstreet and JAckson can only be inconclusive on account of TJ's death, also probably a case of apples and oranges as previous posts address so I wont repeat. I would offer that giving a consistent beat down to the likes of Banks, McDowell, Shields, Milroy, Pope, and finally Howard's illustrious 11th Corps might tend to inflate one's stature in revisionist circles. Thus, to put it gently, the book on old blue light must simply remain "inconclusive".

[nbforrest]

Too some extent yes, but some distinct observations can be gained from Jackson's time in the field. And tactically at least, I don't think those are very good observations.
I've been backing away from Longstreet a bit as I read about his strategic thinking and his post war writings (I used to see him as a sort of martyr, but not I realize that he was just as adept at mudslinging and fibbing). Still, tactically I think he was great.

Respectfully

[ole]

Lee, unless he was a trusting doofus, regarded both Longstreet and Jackson highly. To be sure, he would have carefully chosen the roles each would play according to their particular talents. (On the other hand, that faith didn't work out on numerous occasions ... does that make Lee a doofus?)

Both had their sterling moments. Both grievously screwed up on occasion. I suspect neither were great nor incompetent -- they just had their good and bad days.

Just a thought.
Ole

[nbforrest]

Some of the problems I've encountered trying to evaluate Jackson and Longstreet (or any general for that matter) is to divide the levels of command. I've continued along with the more modern ideas of strategic, operational, and tactical levels, but the application to the ACW is very imperfect. Makes it difficult to compare Jackson and Longstreet. Safe to say though that they were good at different things. Jackson (I think) was poor tactically but very strong on the operational level. Longstreet on the other hand was very good tactically but rather mediocre on the operational level. Neither figured into the strategic situation directly but Longstreet's ideas about Southern strategy have made me question his abilities in that regard.

Respectfully