Civil War History - Gettysburg ForumGettysburg! It's not just a National Park. It's a Civil War Battlefield. For some it's historic and storied past are almost an obsession! All related discussions are welcome here!
This is question that has been debated for a longtime.Many people still feel General Lee should have not launched the frontal attack at Gettysburg and apparently one of those was Longstreet.
However, there are many though who feel General Longstreet was hesitant and didn't act as quick as Lee wanted him to in the fighting on the 2nd day.I think it was Early whom especially criticized Longstreet in the years to follow about not executing Lee's plans fast enough.I have always liked Longstreet and thought he was one of the CSA's best Generals.The question is what do you guys think about this?Was Longstreet stubborn at Gettysburg and would it have made a difference had he acted different?
A friend has pointed out to me that Longstreet was a soldier. As such, he was obligated to obey the orders of his commander. Therefore, even though he did not believe a frontal attack would work, he should have launched it without hesitation.
That said, I'm inclined to agree with Longstreet that the frontal attack wasn't going to work, no matter when it was launched. The Union position was too strong. Had he attacked earlier, in strict obedience to Lee's orders, I feel the only difference would have been that more of the criticism for the attack's failure would have been directed elsewhere.
"it was Early whom especially criticized Longstreet in the years to follow"
Its very interesting that Early's attacks on Longstreet didn't really start until after Lee passed away. Why not before Lee died, when he could have put forth his imput on Longstreet??
Whew, this one of those what came first? The chicken or the egg routines. I doubt if there will ever be a satisfactory explanation. I will throw in my 2 cents then go ahead and fire away.
Let's start with a basic fact. While the Civil War was probably the most documented war ever up to that point, it is well to remember that most of the writings occurred in the 1880's and 1890's. Very few autobiographies were written in the 1860's or 1870's. As the soldier became older, his memory became more enfeebled. The mind is not crystal clear 30 years down the road, so a lot of what I read, I don't really believe unless there are independent corrabative sources. Longstreet and his detractors were not the most accurate writers as a result.
Secondly, Longstreet riled up a lot of people when he became a republican then served on Grant's team. So now we have another group of people who may throw darts at Ol' Pete.
Taking all that into consideration, I tend to believe that Longstreet sulked a bit on day 2 when Lee went ahead with his own plans. Had he been quicker or had he done a flanking attack around the right of Little Round Top, things may have been different.
I fault him tremendously for his lack of activity on the morning of the 3rd. It is documented that Lee wanted to attack both flanks again the next day. He tried to in the wee hours of the morning. Ewell actually listened and engaged the enemy. Longstreet was supposed to have engaged as well at the same time. It never happened. Consequently, Ewell broke off his attack in the early morning.
Now Lee was faced with another problem. What is left in his bag of tricks. Day 1 the rebs had many gains. Day 2 they had some gains. there is no way, he could up and leave, therefore, a frontal assault became the only option. I believe again that Longstreet erred here. He should have not held so many soldiers in reserve. This was do or die. A second assault wave may have carried the "angle". But Longstreet chose to keep back about 38 regiments in reserve "in case" of a counter attack.
As to Longstreet being a soldier, I agree with that assessment and he did do as he was told. I just think there is too much evidence incriminating him with regard to his lack of alacrity. He did it, he just didn't do it quick enough.
I was in the service myself. If you don't obey orders, you get in trouble. Often times though, you didn't exactly set the world on fire with speed if the orders didn't thrill you.
Bill, Thanks so much for the insight. Even though I knew all those facts, you have a great way of bringing it all together (you should think about writing a "Civil War for Dummies", I'd certainly take a copy!
Someone even wrote a article for Gettysburg Mag. concerning a 2nd wave, to follow closely behind the 1st one, to take advantage of any breakthru's.
And there were also letters and comments in diaries about men looking behind them when close to the stone wall and asking where the re-inforcements were.
As far as "Longstreet was supposed to have engaged" in the morning of the 3rd day, no orders were issued for this movement.
Chas,
Oh jeez, go ahead and make me look up where I read that about Longstreet and Ewell. I think it
was George Stewart's Microhistory of Pickett's Charge but I'll have to look it up in thr next few days.
Mike set out the guidelines in a post on the Campfire Chat board on May 5. According to those guidelines, you have to accumulate 500 posts before you get to be a sergeant.
The good news is, we get to be corporals at 250 posts - and I'm almost there.
Well, I've got a very long while to go to get
Corporal. Maybe make it next year at this rate.
George, will look forward to your posting, I don't have that book. But don't feel bad, about hunting up something in 1 book, I just finished going thru about 150 days of digests from getts discussion group and found 3 days worth that concern Day 3 and Longstreet in the am. Also finally remembered where I read the 'no orders' I stated. So will be reading thru all, and Coddington, and probably Bachelder's Papers and maybe breeze thru Longstreets memoirs also. Any idea if there is any more info in Battles and Leaders or Annals of the Civil War??
(Gonna help you get your Stripes here real fast {8-))
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
