An Unbiased Analysis of James Longstreet

SpartanGSG

Private
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Location
Houston, Tx
Hello all,
Has anyone uncovered an unbiased, fair appraisal of the military performance of Old Pete that takes into account the good(Second Manassas, Wilderness, etc) the mixed (Gettysburg) and the bad (Knoxville, etc) and roll all into a decent fair and balance overview. Thanks very much!
Respectfully, Spartan
 
General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier (Paperback)
by Jeffry D. Wert


Spartan, I've seen this book but haven't read it. I've heard it's a pretty well-balanced look at Longstreet. You might check it out. Here's a couple of reviews that I found on Amazon.



Amazon.com
This isn't the first biography to be written on Confederate General James Longstreet, but it's the best--and certainly the one that pays the most attention to Longstreet's performance as a military leader. Historian Jeffry D. Wert aims to rehabilitate Longstreet's reputation, which traditionally has suffered in comparison to those of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Some Southern partisans have blamed Longstreet unfairly for the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg; Wert corrects the record here. He is not uncritical of Longstreet's record, but he rightly suggests that if Lee had followed Longstreet's advice, the battle's outcome might have been different.


The facts of history cannot be changed, however, and Wert musters them on these pages to advance a bold claim: "Longstreet, not Jackson, was the finest corps commander in the Army of Northern Virginia; in fact, he was arguably the best corps commander in the conflict on either side." Wert describes his subject as strategically aggressive, but tactically reserved. The bulk of the book appropriately focuses on the Civil War, but Wert also briefly delves into Longstreet's life before and after it. Most interestingly, it was framed by a friendship with Ulysses S. Grant, formed at West Point and continuing into old age. Longstreet even served in the Grant administration--an act that called into question his loyalty to the Lost Cause, and explains in part why Wert's biography is a welcome antidote to much of what has been written about this controversial figure. --John J. Miller

From Publishers Weekly
This is the most comprehensive military biography to date of the man Robert E. Lee called "my war horse." Wert ( Mosby's Rangers ) makes a strong case for James Longstreet (1821-1904) as the best corps commander on either side of the Civil War. A superb battle captain and a masterful tactician, he clearly recognized the limitations of the offensive under mid-19th century conditions. For Longstreet, Gettyburg in particular was not an opportunity, but a mistake. Wert argues convincingly that events vindicated Longstreet's opposition to Lee's insistence on repeatedly attacking the strong Union positions. Longstreet also recognized more clearly than most of his Confederate contemporaries that war was not an absolute. He accepted the political consequences of military defeat; his reconciliation with the restored Union brought him the open contempt of irreconcilables like Jubal Early. The resulting controversies obscured Longstreet's military reputation. This work restores a balanced view of the career of one of America's great soldiers. Illustrations not seen by PW.

 
Poor Pete.

The Lost Causers did quite a job on him. Someone other than the Ivory Man had to bear the blame and he was elected. I'm not convinced that he was the "best" corps commander on either side, but Lee certainly kept him close almost throughout the war.

I have Wert's book, plus about two others. But a flurry of questions on another forum has me reading 4 books about Sherman. Longstreet is the next on the list, but there are about 20 obove Wert's book in the stack. Although when I get to it, I will certainly appreciate a balanced view.
Ole
 
Terry,
Thanks very much, I will take your advice also knowing that Wert is generally a pretty good read. From source material I have read I came to the conclusion that Ol Pete was a victim of some pretty heavy handed smear tactics by the legion of the Lost Cause. I hope this books helps put what was justified and what was not in better perspective.
 
Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant: James Longstreet and His Place in Southern History by William Garret Piston.

I own and have read this book (about ten years ago, so memory may be fuzzy!) and think it highly readable. It has received 9/10 star ratings on amazon (usually pretty good indicators).
I belong to the Longstreet Society, and both Piston and Wert are frequent speakers, so I don't know if they fall under your criteria of 'unbiased'. But if you are meaning authors who don't buy into the scapegoat of the lost cause theory, but still see the man's faults, I think these two are your best bet.

I also have Longstreet's memoirs :wink: ... a tad biased...but interesting...
 
Many thanks Miss Markie will explore this book on your advisement. I have Longstreet's book too, hard to fathom Old Pete offering an unbiased critique of himself isnt it?
 
August Civil War Times

Just got the August issue of CWT, and it has General Longstreets photo on the cover, in a big way. The story inside is "Lees Best General. No it wasn't Stonewall Jackson." Haven't read it yet.

Terry
 
Losing and the Confederacy

Confederates could not lose battles; someone had to take the fall. Except Lee. Lee could never lose a battle, nor lose a war. So much for historical fact!

The Army of Northern Virginia lost at Gettysburg because Lee asked too much of his army. He said so in a letter.

The Army of the Potomac had the advantages of intelligence, supply and the help of the hometown folks. Lee's overall plan failed. He left Stuart behind in Virginia, and expected him to arrive in time somewhere, that was not in the original plan.
Lee miscalculated the needs of his artillery and cavalry horses, and how much forage was necessary. Lee miscalculated that Stuart would not get delayed by the Union army. Lee miscalculated his cavalry needs, when he really needed cavalry, in moving from Chambersburg to Gettysburg. Lee miscalculated his artillery and their lack of ability to win on July 3rd.

No the Confederates blamed their other generals. Stuart, Ewell, Hill and Longstreet were all blamed for the Gettysburg loss to some degree.

Strange, that General Jubal Early was never seriously blamed for the Confederate loss at Gettysburg. Early had his division in Gettysburg and Adams County, days before the battle. One can easily surmise that Early never warned Lee of the pitfalls of moving to Gettysburg.

Ah, yes. Gettysburg was a wonderful place for the Army of Northern Virginia, so historians seem to tell us. I wonder if the civilian spies from Gettysburg told that to General Meade. That Gettysburg and Adams County was this wonderful place for the Confederate army to gather up forage for the thousands of horses with its three corps.

Why was Buford attempting to block Hill on the Chambersburg Pike? Maybe that was the simple key. Block and hold up the Confederate army in a bad place.
But in victory that was forgotten and Gettysburg was transformed into a great place for battle. But truth is often, as they say, the first casualty of war. And who would deign that Lee would find less forage and water than his army needed.

But Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia never made mistakes, some say, so how could that then be true?

Someone failed, but no one seems to ask why Lee really came to Gettysburg? And how much did Lee, really did not know about Adams County and Gettysburg?
 
A small aside, gentlemen. Tell me about Adams County. On the maps it would appear to be decent farming country, but I'm hearing that it provided very little in the way of sustenance for Lee's army. Was it the time of year? Was it generally poor in produce? I'd appreciate enlightenment. Thank you.
Ole
 
Hello all,
Has anyone uncovered an unbiased, fair appraisal of the military performance of Old Pete that takes into account the good(Second Manassas, Wilderness, etc) the mixed (Gettysburg) and the bad (Knoxville, etc) and roll all into a decent fair and balance overview. Thanks very much!
Respectfully, Spartan
Hi Spartan I would add my vote to those who recommend reading Piston and Wert's books on Longstreet. In addition, I'd add a third book: "James Longstreet: The Man, the Soldier, the Controversy" edited by R. L. DiNardo and Albert Nofi. It's a collection of 6 essay chapters dealing with topics ranging from Longstreet's place in history to his roles at Chickamauga and Gettysburg. There is also an essay dealing with whether he and his corps statf were more effective then Jackson's. Mr. Wert wrote the chapter on Gettsburg and Professor Piston wrote the one of the chapters on how Longstreet got his postwar reputation as well as another dealing with the possibility that family connections led to some of his prewar assignments. It was published in 1998 by Combined books. But since they folded, I suspect you'll have to go online to find it. I'd recommend the effort in getting it though.:smile:
 
Dear List Members;

It is my understanding, that there was a Board of Inquiry after the Civil War, where many of the Generals were called into; as to tell their versions and compare with the other side's information. General Longstreet was called into such an inquiry I believe.

It is from this, I believe that gathering evidence for this inquiry, as well as charges from the Confederate side; papers in support of General Longstreet gave weight to what he wanted to get off his chest--which was the besmirching of his reputation. Many of the supporting documents were supplied by General A. L. Long; Lee's Military Secretary and on Lee's personal staff. Unlike movies portraying that only Col. Marshall and Col. Taylor were the only ones on staff--many others indeed were.

I would also say, that it was very easy to forge documents after General Lee's death and seemingly, this may be when Col. Fairfax's admission to the files were set up as to appear Longstreet was given orders for a sunrise battle (Gettysburg) when it was proven by other documents by General A. L. Long; that there were no such orders.

I am sure if General Robert E. Lee would have survived beyond General Longstreet, although impossible due to the age differences in the very beginning--I am sure General Lee would have firmly squashed all negatives in regard to General Longstreet. Not even including supporting documents from the Union side, to which observed from their position such things.

Nobody seems to mention, that Longstreet was being attacked from the rear by Union Cavalry in a harassive manner--clearly a distraction. While others were engaged in the frontal assault towards the Union lines.

I still feel, General Longstreet was not politically savy--why should he have been? He was a professional soldier. That is why he had a target on him, just as big as targets were on Grant, other Generals and or veterans of the Civil War.

War doesn't suddenly end at the signature of surrender.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully,
M.E. Wolf
 
Longstreet's greatest sin was that, after the war, he became a (gasp) Republican!

p;r
 
I am no proponent of the Lost Cause, but I think that Longstreet was a mixed bag during the war. The best analysis of Longstreet's actions on the second day of Gettysburg that I have read is Harry Pfanz's Gettysburg: The Second Day -- and Pfanz raises serious questions about whether Longstreet could and should have gotten into position more quickly. His performance during Seven Pines is also hard to understand.

Longstreet's actions later in the war -- at Chattanooga and Knoxville -- are also subject to serious criticism. His treatment of Lafayette McLaws seems to have been particularly despicable. See Robert K. Krick's essay, "Longstreet Versus McLaws -- and Everyone Else -- About Knoxville," in The Smoothbore Volley that Doomed the Confederacy.

Don't take me wrong. In many ways Longstreet was magnificent, both as a general (Fredericksberg, Second Manassas, the Wilderness) and as a person (his actions after the war are only to his credit). But that should not blind us to his serious failings.
 
Since I'm a newbie, I'm a little late to this party, but here goes...

The Wert book is excellent! What I found particularly eye opening was his point that Longstreet accepted pay from the US and the CSA simultaneously.

On a related note, Desjardin points out in his excellent These honored Dead that part of the reason for the hero worship of Lee at the expense of Longstreet, et al. was because Jubal Early played such a prominent role in molding the Southern view of the war.

David
 
Dear Elektratig,

I am thinking that you might be thinking of General Laws.

There was a big issue between General Longstreet and General Laws who did not follow orders; to which Longstreet wished General Laws to be court-martial and General Lee was made aware of the issues and there were correspondences between Lee and President Davis--

The above is in The Official Reports of the Rebellion

It is very easy to be confused with General McLaws and General Laws.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
 
Dear Diddyriddick,

I would not be a bit surprised if others recieved pay from the US and CS, not just Longstreet.

Retirement pay or disability pay for those former US Soldiers that went to fight for the CSA; or those who collected from CSA and went to work for the US Government in one form or another.

Of course, those who have names that are easy to focus on and recognized universally, will have more critical inspection of their lives.

And, I do believe in addition to Early; Colonel Pendleton (the Colonel who was a reverand, that was Stonewall Jackson's artillery commander; who lost his son 'Sandy' Pendleton'/Jackson's aide; wasn't exactly nice to Longstreet either--.

Being associated with "Stonewall"--added much weight to anything they said.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
 
Excellent point, M. E, as usual. But I should clarify. According to Wert, he was getting his regular US Army salary, and regular CSA Army salary simultaneously. My copy of Wert is loaned out, so I'm just going by memory; but it seems like there was an overlap of 2 months or more before he resigned his US Army commission. Maybe somebody who has Wert handy can clarify.

Having said that, I completely agree that Longstreet's reputation was completely and unduly besmirched by Early et al after the war was over.
 
One must consider the Times

Well anyone who found some fault with Lee, joined the Republican party, worked for the U.S. government, and became a Catholic, could not find much constructive criticism from the unreconstructed Confederates of the late 19th Century South.
 
Back
Top