Longstreet or Jackson

[matthew mckeon]

Admiral Porter,
Jackson's attack against the battered Union forces in Fredericksburg failed, but that does validate his original objection: The ANV could damage, but not cripple the Army of the Potomac in this setting.

Cash,
As far as the usefulness of aggressiveness in the Civil War is concerned, Cold Harbor, Pickett's Charge, and a score of others examples point to the futility of frontal charges against good troops. However aggressiveness isn't always the same as frontal assaults. It also means seizing the initiative from the enemy, rapid movements, and following up on successes. I believe that Lee's aggressiveness, and his use of aggressive subordinates like Jackson, was Lee's solution to the relative weakness of Southern arms.

[nbforrest]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

Admiral Porter,
Jackson's attack against the battered Union forces in Fredericksburg failed, but that does validate his original objection: The ANV could damage, but not cripple the Army of the Potomac in this setting.

Cash,
As far as the usefulness of aggressiveness in the Civil War is concerned, Cold Harbor, Pickett's Charge, and a score of others examples point to the futility of frontal charges against good troops. However aggressiveness isn't always the same as frontal assaults. It also means seizing the initiative from the enemy, rapid movements, and following up on successes. I believe that Lee's aggressiveness, and his use of aggressive subordinates like Jackson, was Lee's solution to the relative weakness of Southern arms.

First off, I'd love to see how what Jackson planned to "cripple" the Union army. He weak counter attack was foolish and unnecessary. His deployment of his corps was just awful and he lost control of the battle. Look at how Gregg's brigade got surprised.

Jackson did not have the tactical skills to brilliantly use agressiveness. He was agressive, but to a fault. He would just pitch in and hope for the best. It's amazing that he won as much as he did, which points out the talent of his subordinates and the will power of his men while Old Blue Light was messing things up. Longstreet had a bette sort of agressiveness. Look at the Petersburg campaign...Hill, Mahone and others knew how to be agressive and accomplish something.

Respectfully

[MobileBoy]

NB Forrest,
Yes please check out Jackson's record.He was usually outnumbered and he won time and time again.The army of Northern Virginia was never as effective after his death.That isn't merely coincidence.If you'll check out 2nd Manassas you'll see it was Jackson's battle plan.Had Longstreet attacked sooner(both he and Lee were hesitant)per Jackson's wishes most of the Union army may have been bagged.Jackson doesn't seem like a tactical dope there does he?What about when Jackson seized Harpers Ferry?Again he didn't simply run up and charge.He surrounded the garrison on three sides,pounded them with artillery, and took all those prisoners and supplies with hardly 10 casualties.He took over 12,000 prisoners.His valley campaign again on his own he suffered a ridiculously low amount of casualties and beat three separate armies.Jackson had plans that's completely innaccurate to state he wandered around clueless.He was paranoid about spies so he kept the information to himself.Mystery is the key I believe he said.Longstreet wasn't strictly a defensive general as some would have you believe.On his own command this defensive general managed to do what?Direct a foolish frontal assault at Knoxville.Poeple take his well known objection to Picket's charge and make his character out of it.If you'll check Longstreet made about as many charges as Jackson did.What was Jackson to do when Lee ordered him to attack? True Jackson struggled at the Seven Days Battles.Perhaps he didn't like the attack plan.Longstreet delayed in attacking on more than one occasion.Shouldn't he be held to the same standard for being slow instead of being excused because he was a defensive general who disagreed with the orders?
Respectfully,
Ashley

[nbforrest]

Yes please check out Jackson's record.He was usually outnumbered and he won time and time again.

He often wasn't as outnumbered as you think, if at all. His brilliant maneuvering in the Shenandoah allowed him to fight those battles on equal terms. He had superior numbers some times and still fought tactically poor battles. And again, he did win a lot...but because 1)he could maneuver before a battle well 2)had good subordinates 3)hard fighting by his men.

The army of Northern Virginia was never as effective after his death.

How so? Longstreet's attack at the Wilderness, Jerusalem Plank Road, Globe Tavern, Reams Station, etc. Rather effective I think. And those are just the offenseives.

That isn't merely coincidence.If you'll check out 2nd Manassas you'll see it was Jackson's battle plan.

I'd love to see the orders where Jackson set up the battle while Lee and Longstreet twiddled their thumbs. He screwed up at Brawner Farm and just had to sit there during 2nd Manassas.

Had Longstreet attacked sooner(both he and Lee were hesitant)per Jackson's wishes most of the Union army may have been bagged.

Not true. In fact, Longstreet's desire to delay was very wise. It allowed the final Union attacks to be spent and leave the Union army over extended. If he didn't wait, he would have run into fresh troops of the V Corps, not ones that had bloodied themselves.

Jackson doesn't seem like a tactical dope there does he?

A dope no, but it is totally false to say that 2nd Manassas was won by Jackson. And taking one example is equally disengenious.

What about when Jackson seized Harpers Ferry?Again he didn't simply run up and charge.He surrounded the garrison on three sides,pounded them with artillery, and took all those prisoners and supplies with hardly 10 casualties.

Like I've been saying, he could maneuver well. He closed up on Harpers Ferry quickly and did the job. Once an enemy offered battle though, he lost control.


His valley campaign again on his own he suffered a ridiculously low amount of casualties and beat three separate armies.

Look at the casualty lists for the 62 battles in the Shenandoah? Ridiculously low? Please. There weren't many men engaged. The casualties were heavy. And often unnecessary. Jackson's poor tactics jacked up casualties unnecessarily...Kernstown, McDowell, Port Republic

Jackson had plans that's completely innaccurate to state he wandered around clueless.

Again, he could maneuver well. But tactically, he was poor.

On his own command this defensive general managed to do what?Direct a foolish frontal assault at Knoxville.

Another inaccurate statement. He did all that was expected of him during the Suffolk campaign. The Ft. Sanders assault was forced upon him by Bragg. During the East TN campaign he gave the Army of the Ohio a good drubbing on more than one occasion.

What was Jackson to do when Lee ordered him to attack?

Jacksonw was on his own during the Shenandoah campaign, at Cedar Mountain, and Brawner Farm. He screwed those battles up by himself, only to be redeemed by his men. Lee didn't order him to attack at Fredericksburg. He did that himself, very foolishly. Lee did order him to attack twice during the Seven Days and he didn't. So, his reputation is thus lying rather tenuously on Chancellorsville.

True Jackson struggled at the Seven Days Battles.Perhaps he didn't like the attack plan.

Jackson was exhausted but that doesn't excuse his lack of action. Didn't like the plan? Well, it was a great plan, but Jackson never voiced any objections. He just screwed up, and why he did has never really been answered to anyone's satisfaction.

Longstreet delayed in attacking on more than one occasion.Shouldn't he be held to the same standard for being slow instead of being excused because he was a defensive general who disagreed with the orders?

When did Longstreet delay that had a negative effect on a battle?

Just review the battles that Jackson fought in...terrible, confused messes.

Respectfully

[Admiral_Porter]

I don't agree that Longstreet was a defensive minded general: Seven Pines, Seven Days, Second Manassas, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Wilderness were all offensive attacks.

In regards to 2nd Manassas, Longstreet was wise in advising a delay on the 29th because Porter's V corps was astride the reb right flank and if Longstreet had attacked straight ahead Porter could have slammed into his rear.

[samgrant]

From A Walk in the Woods by Bill Bryson:

* * * * *

"Now Stonewall Jackson is a man worth taking an interest in. Few people in
history have achieved greater fame in a shorter period with less useful
activity in the brainbox than Gen. Thomas J. Jackson. His idiocyncrasies were
legendary. He was hopelessly, but inventively, hypochondriacal. One of his
more engaging physiological beliefs was that one arm was bigger than the
other, and in consequence he always walked and rode with that arm raised, so
that his blood would drain into his body. He was a champion sleeper. More
than once, he fell asleep at the dinner table with food in his mouth. At the
Battle of White Oak Swamp, his lieutenants found it all but impossible to
rouse him and lifted him, insensible, on to his horse, where he continued to
slumber while shells exploded around him. He took obsessive zeal in recording
captured goods and would defend them at all costs. His list of materiel
liberated from the Union Army during the 1862 Shenandoah campaign included
"six handkerchiefs, two and three quarter doze
n neckties, and one bottle of red ink." He drove his superiors and fellow
officers to fury, partly by repeatedly disobeying instructions and partly by
his paranoid habit of refusing to divulge his strategies, such as they were,
to anyone. One officer under his command was ordered to withdraw from the
town of Gordonsville, where he was on the brink of a signal victory, and
march on the double to Staunton. Arriving in Staunton, he found fresh orders
to go at once to Mount Crawford. There he was told to return to Gordonsville."

"It was largely because of his habit of marching troops all over the
Shenendoah Valley in an illogical and inexplicable fashion that Jackson
earned a reputation among bewildered enemy officers for wiliness. His
ineradicable fame rests almost entirely on the fact that he had a couple of
small but inspiring victories when elsewhere Southern troops were being
slaughtered and routed and by dint of having the best nickname any soldier
has ever enjoyed. He was unquestionably brave, but in fact it is altogether
possible that he was given that nickname not for gallantry and daring, but
for standing inert, like a stone wall, when a charge was called for. General
Bernard Bee, who gave him the name at the First Battle of Manasasas, was
killed before the day was out, so the matter will remain forever unsolvable."

"His victory at Harper's Ferry, the greatest triumph for the Confederacy in
the Civil War, was almost entirely because for once he followed the
instructions of Robert E. Lee. It sealed his fame. A few months later he was
accidentally shot by his own troops at the Battle of Chancellorsville and
died eight days later. The war was barely half over. He was just thirty-nine."

* * * * *

[MobileBoy]

And this author I suppose was there in person Sam Grant?It really irks me how modern authors with an agenda pretend to be a better judge of a character and have more insight into a person than say Robert E. Lee who knew him well.If Jackson were that bad the Union commanders he faced must have been crack addicts because he sure beat their behinds didn't he?

The suggestion that his nickname came from Bernard Bee in a derrogatory manner is completely idiotic.Right someone trying to rally their troops to victory makes fun of another officer.Give me a break.

[nbforrest]

Although I think Jackson is greatly overrated, Bill Bryson's comments are just stupid. Jackson was not a buffoon. His whole passage just doesn't make any sense. Irresponsible and moronic.

Respectfully

[matthew mckeon]

Bryson is a travel writer who is often very funny. "Walk in the Woods" is hilarious. He's not much of a CW scholar, to be sure, but very entertaining.

[cash]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

Bryson is a travel writer who is often very funny. "Walk in the Woods" is hilarious. He's not much of a CW scholar, to be sure, but very entertaining.

I think you and I view this the same. It's not meant to be a serious piece of history. It's meant to be satire.

Regards,
Cash