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.
8th cav, compliments,
Jackson was a "Devil" down in the valley.But was even a little late at Chancelars[SP] ville.
Longstreet wouldn`t charge till all was in place--It rarely was [Getysburg, That horrible mess in Tenn.], But would strike with "Shock an Awe" when whole.
Find one General w/o fault[other than Forrest], and I`ll show the winner.
[quote=sean_harris]Longstreet understood that the Confederacy could not go on grandiose offensives. He was a better defender than Jackson, I think Jackson is overrated. Look at Kernstown. Look at the Peninsula. He had a good (not great) overall strategy for the Valley, but when it got time to fight, his armies generally were outfought (McDowell, Cedar Mtn., Port Republic) The casualties his corps suffered were often the highest in the field ( as in Chancellorsville, where his corps got a pounding.) He had one pretty good campaign (The Valley) and two excellently fought defensive battles (Antietam and 2nd Manassas)
Sean,
You said:
"The casualties his (Jackson's) corps suffered were often the highest in the field ( as in Chancellorsville, where his corps got a pounding.)"
If I recall correctly Gen. Jackson wasn't available for most of that battle, much to his dismay.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Well for starters who was feared more by the Union generals.The obvious answer there would seem to be Jackson.The opinion of opposing commanders would carry more weight with me than what anyone would say today.As far as in independent command again Jackson clearly seems to have a better record.Jackson has the valley campaign to his credit, while Longstreet has his bumbling attempt at capturing Knoxville.While they were alive Lee respected both, but again he seemed to hold Jackson in higher regard.Jackson had a few moments where he din't shine so great,but he seemed to me to be clearly superior to Longstreet in every regard.What casualty rates were so much higher for Jackson than they were for Longstreet?In the valley campaign Jackson suffered hardly any casualties.When he captured Harpers Ferry again he basically had no casualties.These were operations where he was in charge.Longstreet is reputed as a defensive general ,but when he was in command at Knoxville he hardly acted like a quote defensive general.Sure Jackson had more casualties at Chancelorseville but his troops were the ones attacking.Why didn't Lee send Longstreet to make that flank attack instead of Jackson?Or why didn't Lee send Longstreet to capture Harpers Ferry instead of Jackson?It seems pretty clear to me that Lee thought more of Jackson.To foreign observers of the war Lee and Jackson are generally considered the best officers in the war.While they're not necessarily any brighter than Americans,it should be noted that those with no vested interest in the war clearly think Jackson superior.Jackson was slow following orders occasionally,but my God not as many times as Longstreet was.Historians and the opinion of the majority aren't always correct but this time I would say that Jackson being more revered than Longstreet was dead on.Simply look at what each man accomplished independently and its a no-brainer.
Ashley
As far as in independent command again Jackson clearly seems to have a better record.Jackson has the valley campaign to his credit, while Longstreet has his bumbling attempt at capturing Knoxville.While they were alive Lee respected both, but again he seemed to hold Jackson in higher regard.Jackson had a few moments where he din't shine so great,but he seemed to me to be clearly superior to Longstreet in every regard.
Lee didn't think so. After Jackson's poor performance in the Seven Days, Lee transferred troops from Jackson's command and put them under Longstreet. You don't trust the lives of your men to inferior commanders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Why didn't Lee send Longstreet to make that flank attack instead of Jackson?
If you read a history of the battle you'll see that Longstreet was on detached duty and not present for Chancellorsville.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Or why didn't Lee send Longstreet to capture Harpers Ferry instead of Jackson?
Harpers Ferry was a sideshow. Sending Jackson to take Harpers Ferry was not a compliment. Lee kept Longstreet available for the main action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
It seems pretty clear to me that Lee thought more of Jackson.
Then why did Lee take troops away from Jackson and give them to Longstreet? Lee's actions contradict your belief. Lee's actions show that he wasn't pleased with Jackson's performance and was very well satisfied with his "Old Warhorse." Lee consistently had problems with Jackson's many arrests of his subordinate commanders, and was appealed to directly by A.P. Hill's troops during the Maryland Campaign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
To foreign observers of the war Lee and Jackson are generally considered the best officers in the war.
To some foreign observers, maybe. Not to the most knowledgeable ones.
In my opinion, Jackson is grossly overrated. To adapt a modern term, Jackson was good on the operational level but not on the tactical. His 62 Shenandoah campaign was brilliant in its maneuvers. But in battle Jackson was very poor. His actions were pretty much all uncoordinated and messy. He just lost control of his troops in battle but fortunately was redeemed by hard fighting by his men and some good subordiantes.
Longstreet, I think, was the best corps commander to emerge from the war. The idea of him being a defensively minded general is somewhat off base. He was very hard hitting on the offensive and did excellent work.
Jackson was very good at maneuvering his forces but when it came to fighting a battle he was a poor tactician. He was too judgmental and secretive.
Longstreet is not the defensive general he is generally regarded as. I think that idea has arisen from the Killer Angels. He could hit as hard as anyone and Lee submitted his name for promotion to lieutenant general before Jackson's. That says a lot in my book as to who Lee thought could best manage the army if he were incapacitated.
Longstreet hands down. Much more agressive than given credit for, and he hit hard. His independent command stints in Suffolk and East TN are greatly misunderstood...he did much better there than usually given credit for.
Jackson, I think, is grossly overrated. He could do great on the operational level (to adapt a more modern term) but was poor on the tactical level. His battles were always a mess, he lost control completely. His successes were set up by good maneuvering and carried out by hard fighting from his men and some good subordinates. Kernstown, McDowell, Port Republic, Cedar Mountain, etc. Not even to mention the Mechanicsville and White Oak Swamp fiascos. Even at Antietam and 2nd Manassas his performance was undistinguished.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
