Civil War History - The Eastern TheaterDiscuss any and all battles, movements, and events occuring in the Eastern Theater here! This includes any actions in tha area east of the Appalachian Mountains in the vicinity of the river capitals of Richmond and Washington D.C.
I feel that Jackson was more of an innovator. He was capable of thinking up, and then implementing, strategies that his Union opponents didn't imagine were possible. This enabled him to mount attacks at totally unexpected times from totally unexpected directions, with Chancellorsville being a prime example.
The Union generals respected Longstreet - they knew he was a tough campaigner and not likely to make many mistakes. But of the two, I believe that Jackson was the one they feared more.
It would be hard to say if one was better, than the other. If Longstreet, was a Calvary Officer, he may have been so far out of place, that he wouldn't have been effective, same could be said if Jackson, had to lead an entire army. Being a good officer in one area, doesn't make one great, in all areas.
Actually, i think that you hit the nail on the head. Of the two, Jackson was by far more aggressive than Longstreet was. Longstreet was unwilling to fight a battle where he might incur heavy casualties. Still, Longstreet had a good eye for terrain and Lee valued his opinion. Jackson, on the other hand, was no less than a bulldog cut loose. All Lee had to do with him was tell him where the enemy was and what he wanted Jackson to do and Jackson then did it. Longstreet was also a more political general of the two and his behavior during his tenure with the Army of the Tennessee is an example of it. While both generals have merits, I would have to give the slight edge to Jackson. Jackson would fight the enemy where he was.
What if the positions had been reversed and Longstreet had instead died at the time of Jacksons death, and Jackson had lived on to fight in Gettysburg. This is a question often raised and I say he would have seized Little Round Top before the yanks knew what was what. But you never know, chances are he would not have even been posted at the far Confederate right. Even still I would say whatever endeavor was assigned to Jackson at Gettysburg by Lee, Jackson would have been the man to get it done, over Longstreet. As it has been said before, Longstreet was a defensive general. On the other hand, Jackson always preformed his best when he was off by himself doing what he wanted. He sometimes lagged when involved in a fight planned out by some other general. I would have loved to see the outcome if Jackson had taken 40,000 up for a Northern campaign, BY HIMSELF.
I would agree. Many Believe that Jackson would have taken Culp's Hill on the First, thus changing everything. But in general, Jackson would have agreed with Lee's plans more than Longstreet did, and cooperation was something that Lee desperatly needed/ lacked at Gettysburg. I think i have a quote from Lee about this subject and ill see if i can dig it up
Taken from a Letter from Mr. Cazenove Lee, son of Mr. Cassius Lee, Robert E Lee's cousin, childhood friend, and business advisor. Mr. Cazenove Lee is refering to a three day visit that Robert E Lee spent with his family.
He startes out talking about Lee talking about Jackson's delay in getting on McClellans flank during hte Seven Day's, then goes on to say "he thought that if Jackson had been at Gettysburg they would have gained victory, for Jackson would have held the heights which Ewell took on the first day (Culps hill)."
I'm still getting my feet wet here and want to thank all for the excellent and informative discussion.
I'll chime in on one discrete point: William Davis, in his "Battle at Bull Run", agrees with Sean Harris's suggestion, above, that General Bee may have made his statement about General Jackson "standing like a stone wall" in frustration and even anger, rather than as a complement. See pages 196-197.
May I ask a question while I'm at it? Based on what I've read, it seems that the "rap" on Jackson is that occasionally he just sort of "zoned out" (in modern parlance). His action (or inaction) during the Seven Days seems to be the primary example, but his failure to make a more active demonstration on the left while Longstreet attacked on the right during Second Manassas seems to be another.
Is this correct, or are there other negatives about Jackson that people would cite in describing his limitations?
How about fatigue? Douglas Freeman's books, "Lee's Lieutenants" discusses the issue and mentions how Jackson was fatigued from so many days of activity without much sleep.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
