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.
Virginians after the war had to make their fellow Virginians infallible saints so instead of blaming Lee for Gettysburg they blamed Longstreet while at the same time totally ignoring Jackson's major blunder at Glendale.
Ever notice how the more famous confederate generals, the ones best known to the public, are Virginian? I don't think that is a mere coincidence.
The more I read about the war the more I come to understand how irrational and invalid the ideas of the Lost Cause are.
Virginians did certainly have a clique both during and after the war. It's no coincidence that the Lost Cause myths stem from Virginia sources. Lee rose above the mythmaking, though. I would say a majority of the equally nonsensical Northern myths also arose in the more publicized East.
When Jackson is criticized, his poor performance during the Seven Days is usually mentioned. It was bad, but it was also uncharacteristic. Whatever his faults, the sluggishness of that time wasn't repeated. I wonder if he was ill or something of the sort not recognized at the time. This makes Lee the all the more perceptive not to lose Jackson.
Here's an interesting contrast between Jackson and Longstreet. Longstreet was pleased by his position at Fredericksburg, but Jackson was not. While the ANV could, and did inflict a terrible defeat on Burnside, Jackson correctly noted that positioned behind the river, the Confederates could only damage the AoP, not destroy it, which was what was needed to win the war.
When we get to command levels below Lee and Grant (both of whom had some warts), we find that this general was good at this and that general was good at that, but none had the wide range of skills required of a top general. Longstreet may have been the closest to replacing Lee, had it been necessary. Sherman (shudder) may have been the closest to replacing Grant.
His ways are indeed mysterious. In a time of crises there are two men of arms with the extreme capabilities necessary to wage war successfully -- and at least one other with the convictions and strength to hold it all together.
Longstreet was pleased by his position at Fredericksburg, but Jackson was not. While the ANV could, and did inflict a terrible defeat on Burnside, Jackson correctly noted that positioned behind the river, the Confederates could only damage the AoP, not destroy it, which was what was needed to win the war.
Longstreet realized the futility of launching a counterattack while Jackson almost caused a complete disaster when he attempted to launch an attack after Burnside was repulsed. Jackson underestimated the power of the Federal artillery and awoke to a big surprise when the arty smashed up his men.
If I remember correctly Lee initially was against allowing Jackson to launch an attack but gave in to his request.
Jackson's grasp of tactics were so lacking that he would not have been the man to destroy an army.
My first impression was that Jackson was bloodthirsty ~ he believed in winning at all costs. I would have liked to see what he would have done at Gettysburg and other later battles. Jackson also never seemed to have an actual plan, it was all chaos ~ as an example I will point out Wilderness when Stuart was given command on very short notice after his death, and no one had any idea what Jackson's plan had been.
Personally, I would say Longstreet was the better commander because he understood what he was supposed to do even if he didn't agree with it. Someone mentioned that he only went on the offensive because that's what was needed of him. He understood that the Confederates couldn't make an overpowering offense. I tend to agree that had he been given a choice, he would have fought an entirely defensive campaign.
Jackson may have been good, but Longstreet was better consistantly.
~ Highfly
__________________ ~ Highfly
If you want to catch the Devil, if you want to have fun, if you want to smell hell, jine the cavalry!
"Jackson also never seemed to have an actual plan, it was all chaos ~ as an example I will point out Wilderness when Stuart was given command on very short notice after his death, and no one had any idea what Jackson's plan had been."
I'd been given to believe that Jackson never told anyone his plans. That he perhaps didn't have any did not occur to me.
When Jackson is criticized, his poor performance during the Seven Days is usually mentioned. It was bad, but it was also uncharacteristic. Whatever his faults, the sluggishness of that time wasn't repeated. I wonder if he was ill or something of the sort not recognized at the time. This makes Lee the all the more perceptive not to lose Jackson.
Jackson certainly wasn't always "sluggish" but his propensity to dash in blindly was a great flaw. Certainly Jackson was exhausted by the Shenandoah, and I don't think the Seven Days fiasco should be what he is judged on...his tactical record otherwise is poor.
When Jackson is criticized, his poor performance during the Seven Days is usually mentioned. It was bad, but it was also uncharacteristic.
Cedar Mountain. Even though he outnumbered Banks by almost 2:1, he still almost lost. His performance here was mixed. He did rally his troops at the end and showed exemplary leadership, but he allowed himself to get into the position where he had to rally his troops to stave off defeat.
Stonewall was a terrific subordinate who would do his utmost to carry out orders to the best of his ability, and he was usually an aggressive commander who would do all he could to get at the enemy. But whether the confederacy needed its commanders to be aggressive is a question. They were the numerically inferior force and had to husband their resources, so the more aggressive a commander the more casualties they suffered, which put them further behind their adversaries and reduced the available manpower pool more than they could stand.
Cedar Mountain. Even though he outnumbered Banks by almost 2:1, he still almost lost. His performance here was mixed. He did rally his troops at the end and showed exemplary leadership, but he allowed himself to get into the position where he had to rally his troops to stave off defeat.
Jackson really screwed up at Cedar Mountain. He played gunner instead of paying attention to the deployment of his line. The result was that his line was rolled up by an inferior force. He was just lucky that Hill and Ewell pitched into Banks to restore the situation.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
