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.
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.
Sean, wasn't Longstreet always on the offensive because his senior officers wanted that from him? If Longstreet had been in charge of the ANV, he probably would have been conducting a defensive war, because that was what he preached. But he had orders, and many a time, those orders were to be on the offensive, probably because defense did not sit well with many men at the time.
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)
For what it's worth, Bee's famous "There he stands like a stonewall" was probably meant as an insult, since at the time Jackson's brigade was positioned safely behind the crest of Henry House Hill, not moving at all, while Bee's brigade was being torn to pieces.
Longstreet was consistant. He was a splendid defender, was questionable at best in independent command and was an underrated attacker (2nd Mannassas and Gettysburg were both well managed attacks on his part. The problems at Gettysburg were out of his control.) I would take steady Longstreet over Jackson in a heart beat.
While Jackson could appreciate the strategic value of a campaign, he required a great deal of study to get there? Without mapmaker Jed Hotchkiss, ( the 8 foot map) there would have been no Valley Campaign. When placed in a position where he didn't grasp the terrain, he perfomed poorly. The Peninsula Campaign is evidence enough for that. While Jackson showed flashes of brilliance, Longstreet was rock solid and absolutely dependable. The two Generals can be likened to Lee's sword and shield. Longstreet was right at Gettysburg about the Grand Advance. Lee had entirely to much confidence in the invincibility of his infantry. Longstreet wanted to retire to fight on a field that would give the rebs the tactical defensive. He recognized that the South couldn't afford to go toe to toe in losses with the Union.
Lee needed both of them. My opinion of Longstreet from everything I've read over the years is that he was a fighter. He was exactly what Lee called him, "My Old Warhorse". He was on the offensive, not the defensive, for a majority of the war. He seems to have gotten stereotyped somewhere throughout the years as some sort of defensive wizard in battle that wouldn't dare go on the offensive if it cost lives. He attacked at Seven Pines. He attacked on the Peninsula. He attacked at 2nd Manassas and rolled up the federals. He defended brilliantly at Antietam. He defended masterfully at Fredricksburg. He attacked at Gettysburg. He attacked at Chickamauga and sent the federals pell-mell into Chattanooga. He defended and attacked while anchoring the rebel left at Chattanooga, and in the end lost control of Brown's Ferry and Lookout Valley. He attacked at Campbell's Station and forced Burnside into Knoxville. He attacked at Knoxville(Fort Sanders) and lost 800 men to 15 for Burnside. He attacked at Bean's Station. He attacked and rolled up Hancock's flank in the Wilderness. In the fall of 1864 he was in charge north of the James and defended against Butler and lost 100 men to 1500 for Butler. So to sum it up, he was very, very offensive orientated. The movie "Gettysburg" seems to have given a different picture of him.
Sean: What an excellent and well constructed analysis. It's definitely a keeper. I am certain that there are debatable points that will be thrown out, but overall I'd give it an A-.
The minus from me comes from your rendition of the Bee quote. According to James Robertson, who wrote the definitive biography of Stonewall, your observation is slightly skewed, and IMO inaccurate.
First of all throughout the day, Jackson continually exposed himself to a shower of cannister and bullets so he wasn't safely standing behind a fortification. In addition he was responsible for field artillery which by definition requires a stationary position behind some kind of protective barrier. Therefore, to have been standing like a stonewall in the open would have been tactically stupid.
As to the quote, Robertson explains the meeting of Jackson and Bee, who were West Point friends. This meeting led to the famous shout by Bee. <font color="0000ff">"The South Carolinian saluted quickly and with understandable agitation, gave a quick report of the collapse of his lines. He suddenly exclaimed, 'General they are driving us!' Jackson looked to the northwest with brutal determination etched in his face. His reply was just as stern: 'Sir, we will give them the bayonet."
Now occurred one of those dramatic moments in history when legend is born. Bee had no high regard for the bayonet, but Jackson's resolve filled him with new confidence. The Carolinian galloped back to the ravine where officers were trying to untangle bits and pieces of units and establish a defensive line. Bee rode into the middle of the throng; pointing his sword toward the crest of Henry Hill, he shouted in a booming voice: 'Look, men, there is Jackson standing like a stone wall! Let us determine to die here, and we will conquer! Follow me!' Bee would die there later in the day. He gave to the Southern cause not only his life but also the most famous nickname in American military history.</font>[Stonewall by Robertson pgs 262-263]
I suppose my point is that I think that Bee did indeed mean his words not only as a compliment to Jackson, but Bee also meant to use Jackson's determination, purpose and attitude as a motivational tool for spurring both himself and his men further. He pointed to Jackson as a positive example to be emulated not "as an insult."
With the exception of your Bee comment, I definitely agree with your post. Jackson died too soon to properly evaluate what he could have or would have done in either an independent command or at a place such as Gettysburg. After all if Hood had died after Antietam or McClellan after organizing the AoP, we would probably engage in the same "if only" comparisons and speculations with many saying Mac would have won the war long before Grant came East and Hood would have gone on to great achievements as an independent commander.
MY feeling about Jackson and Longstreet is that actually overall Langstreet was the better overall commander. Jackson was better then anyone on the attack but did have some problems on the defensive. (Most noted at Fredericksburg). Longstreet was much better at making the terrain best suit him for defense and could be effective on the offensive when the situation was suitable for him to attack and often made the most of it.
Longstreets performances in several battles border on brillance and
Many historians give him and his troops the greater benefit for their actions at Chickamauga and were I believe the difference tactically and morally in that battle. This is also true about 2nd Manassas as well as his aggresive attack there proved decisive in the battles outcome. In some respects I find like others here that Longstreet is a much unfairly maligned commander when it came to not being an aggresive offense minded commander. Gettysburg was not all his fault, It was Lee's ultimate responsibility and in those days in July 1863, the Union Army was superior.
Tom, I'm interested in the comment about Longstreet's troops being the difference "tactically and morally" in the battle of Chickamauga. Do you care to expand on that, especially the "morally" part? Were they of a higher moral fiber than the Army of Tennessee?
On the second day of Chickamauga, Longstreet's men were in the right place at the right time, when Wood opened up the gap in the Federal line. The battle didn't end then and there, however.
And do you have any comments on Longstreet's actions at Knoxville?
I was wondering (Respectively) what your deal was with Knoxville? I have read the reports and like most battles limited intelligence, ego, and innacurate maps led to disaster. Longsteet's actions seem no different than most men of the time. The loss of men was certainly lopsided. (856-35)(Most of them made some real "bone head" moves)
However, was there something more to Knoxville you wanted to discuss? You may have read something I have not and I would like to see what you may have learned.
Sean, I had heard so much heaping of praise and boasting of achievements, just needed to hear somebody say something like "Longstreet didn't do well at all at Knoxville against Burnside." And you did, sort of. I won't butt in again.
No problem. I agree Longstreet's Corps was in the right place and time at Chickamauga. It's not to difficult to drive through an opening in the line that size!!! He and "Stone Wall" both made their fair share of mistakes. I think Jackson gets more credit than he deserves.
Needless to say, Longstreet was far from perfect. I think his ego got the best of him several times. And Lee made his fair share of costly mistakes. However, they were better than most of the Northern leaders.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
