Didn't he do enough?

That would go far to explain white Democratic opposition in Louisiana to the man leading "their own army" against them to keep in power that most radical of carpetbaggers William P. Kellogg.

I think, translating that from the obfuscate, you're about right. The white Democrats in Louisiana weren't too far off in orneriness from Kellogg - sort of pick your poison, I suppose. However, the established order needed to be kept as there wasn't an alternative except race war and anarchy. Chaos would result in more deaths and misery. Longstreet did his part to keep it down. He was following his loyalty oath, his duty as a citizen and a soldier, and his own conscience - do the right thing. You can't support a charge of treason. No treason can be committed against a country that was smooshed out of existence by the means it chose to establish itself - war.

I would guess them whipped Rebs felt about like them whipped Native Americans. :sneaky:

:rofl: Oh, I know you can do better than that with both barrels!
 
I think, translating that from the obfuscate, you're about right. The white Democrats in Louisiana weren't too far off in orneriness from Kellogg - sort of pick your poison, I suppose. However, the established order needed to be kept as there wasn't an alternative except race war and anarchy. Chaos would result in more deaths and misery. Longstreet did his part to keep it down. He was following his loyalty oath, his duty as a citizen and a soldier, and his own conscience - do the right thing. You can't support a charge of treason. No treason can be committed against a country that was smooshed out of existence by the means it chose to establish itself - war.



:rofl: Oh, I know you can do better than that with both barrels!

Very well said and very true. The alternative was worse, very simply put!!!

And treason against what, a country that never existed in the first place. Longstreet was simply a man doing his duty without prejudice.
 
Last edited:
Does that mean you agree with post #3?

"Longstreet led black militiamen against a terrorist uprising. For that he will never be forgiven by American ****s. For the rest of us, the reality of a United States that is one country in which racial inequality is no longer the law leaves Longstreet a proud post-war legacy."

I agree with that statement.
 
"Longstreet led black militiamen against a terrorist uprising. For that he will never be forgiven by American ****s. For the rest of us, the reality of a United States that is one country in which racial inequality is no longer the law leaves Longstreet a proud post-war legacy."

I agree with that statement.
Excellent
 
I guess to the US government and their carpetbagger and scalawag lackeys, too many of "them whipped rebs" resembled to much the warrior tribes of Native Americans and not enough the submissive "acorn eater good Indians." :wink:
No they were whipped just not smart enough to acknowledge and to admit it. Really!!!!! :banghead:
 
"Longstreet led black militiamen against a terrorist uprising. For that he will never be forgiven by American ****s. For the rest of us, the reality of a United States that is one country in which racial inequality is no longer the law leaves Longstreet a proud post-war legacy."

I agree with that statement.

But then again, had there been racial equality the white Democrats majority would have simply voted the white carpetbaggers, scalawags and the black P.B.S. Pinchback out of office.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-ame.../the-black-governor-who-was-almost-a-senator/
 
I guess to the US government and their carpetbagger and scalawag lackeys, too many of "them whipped rebs" resembled to much the warrior tribes of Native Americans and not enough the submissive "acorn eater good Indians." :wink:

:laugh: Now, now. You don't call me an acorn-eater and I won't call you Jubilation T Cornpone. :wink: The fact is, Longstreet's the subject not Indians. Perhaps, if he hadn't held back some, he would have won that fight. He believed, like many others, Southerners would soon stomp on these racist elements themselves. As it turned out, he was wrong. The OP is about how much Longstreet paid for doing what he believed to be right and how much hurt he received because of that. As he said in other unhappy circumstances, he had been a soldier all his life. There was no question about his dedication to the Confederacy but after the shooting stopped, he knew the best course was to accept the verdict of war and do his duty. That now lay in healing the wounds and helping others to accept defeat. Since you brought up Natives, he would be a peace chief. Those men help the people, especially the young men, accept reality and learn to live with it.
 
:laugh: Now, now. You don't call me an acorn-eater and I won't call you Jubilation T Cornpone. :wink: The fact is, Longstreet's the subject not Indians. Perhaps, if he hadn't held back some, he would have won that fight. He believed, like many others, Southerners would soon stomp on these racist elements themselves. As it turned out, he was wrong. The OP is about how much Longstreet paid for doing what he believed to be right and how much hurt he received because of that. As he said in other unhappy circumstances, he had been a soldier all his life. There was no question about his dedication to the Confederacy but after the shooting stopped, he knew the best course was to accept the verdict of war and do his duty. That now lay in healing the wounds and helping others to accept defeat. Since you brought up Natives, he would be a peace chief. Those men help the people, especially the young men, accept reality and learn to live with it.

In my opinion, he would never make a good Indian chief because he blamed his failures on others.
 
I think you're right on that. Longstreet wasn't very good at taking blame for his mistakes. Part of that was because he got a broadside from Early right out the gate, but it was indeed a failing.

To be fair, I certainly don't think he was alone in this. Being a general in the military is a blood-sport and someone's head has got to roll for mistakes- it's human nature to want to make sure that it's not yours.
 
To be fair, I certainly don't think he was alone in this. Being a general in the military is a blood-sport and someone's head have got to roll for mistakes- it's human nature to want to make sure that it's not yours.
And if you're already taking blame from other generals, common sense says don't give them any more ammo. If someone is dumping everything at my door, I'm dumping back. But hey...you don't dare criticize Lee, mess with the White League and take a job from your prewar friend either. ...No no's to racists south and likely north as well in some cases.
 
I have often wondered what it was that made him "the traitor" in the reconstruction period. Now I have found an account of General Samuel H. Moore, also in that same book:
"In 1866, when reconstruction hung over the South like a sword of Damocles, five lieutenant-generals of the Confederate
army held a meeting in New Orleans, in General Hood's room to discuss the situation and publish to the South the easiest way to bear the yoke sad fate had placed upon their necks. After discussing all the pros and cons, they unanimously
decided to accept the situation as it was, return to the Union like good and loyal citizens, and be the recipients of the offices of trust which were being given to carpet-baggers because the government could not find in the Southern States men willing to accept the offices that would have gladly been given them. In this caucus of generals, Longstreet was selected to write and publish a letter. He did it. There was a howl of protest from the uninformed people. The men who advised Longstreet to do this did not face this opposition, avoided this martyr, let him bear the odium alone. I ask Greneral Joseph Wheeler to say what he personally knows of this. I call upon Colonel W. W. Garth to say what he knows and the source of his information."

https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6945772M/Lee_and_Longstreet_at_high_tide

So it really was bad luck that Longstreet was chosen to write and publish that letter and bear the brunt of hatred of the "uninformed public". That sure was something he did without regarding if it was useful for his own good. He did it because he thought it should be done.

Thank you all for your knowledgeable comments. For some reason Longstreet is my favourite - he was a warrior, a fighter, but also a very sensitive man who was not afraid of his emotions. I'm really glad for him that in his last years he found a woman and made her his second wife, who was equally courageous and ready to fight for her beliefs!

The Irony here is that Longstreet shared this letter with his Uncle Augustus who had raised him since he was a young boy. Uncle Augustus was an attorney in Augusta, GA and had developed strong political ties. His Uncle Augustus pleaded with him not to send the letter. He foresaw the consequences that would have to be paid. James considered not sending it but in the end felt obligated to follow through. Imagine how things may have turned out had he have listened to Uncle Augustus.
 
Last edited:
The Irony here is that Longstreet shared this letter with his Uncle Augustus who had raised him since he was a young boy. Uncle Augustus was an attorney in Augusta, GA and had developed strong political ties. His Uncle Augustus pleaded with him not to send the letter. He foresaw the consequences that would have to be paid. James considered not sending it but in the end felt obligated to follow through. Imagine how things may have turned out had he have listened to Uncle Augustus.

Thank you @War Horse, that is most interesting! I did not know this. And now, knowing this I must say the ominous "one who loved him" from the OP was probably right. In this case James did not "what was good for him". But that does not diminish my admiration, right on the contrary. He put his own interest behind the greater good he saw in writing this letter. In a way one could even say that he sacrificed his own reputation. Although probably he did not foresee the amount of consequences. He did not expect to be tarnished that much, otherwise he would not have been so disappointed by his fellow Southerners who felt they could not support his concern to really "reconstruct" your nation after the war.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, I certainly don't think he was alone in this. Being a general in the military is a blood-sport and someone's head has got to roll for mistakes- it's human nature to want to make sure that it's not yours.
There is an exception to your opinion. The mans name is Robert E. Lee! He took the blame for one huge mistake!
Longstreet did take the blame one time AFTER laying it on someone else.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top