Longstreet General James Longstreet

[Lost Cause]

Recent discussions of Generals Lee and Jackson on their birthdays, General Longstreet seems to have been forgotten. He was born January 08, 1821.

 

[ole]

Birthdays. Pffft.

 

[Rebforever]

Birthdays. Pffft.

Me too on Longstreet.

 

[alexjack]

Me too on Longstreet.

You don't rate him Rebforever?

 

[Rebforever]

You don't rate him Rebforever?

No response.

 

[peteanddelmar]

Longstreet was a good general, but tardy at times. Was he born after his due date? LOL...im so funny.

 

[redbob]

He fell out of favor after the Civil War because he wasn't from Virginia and he became a Republican.

 

[southern blue]

I always admired him for not joining in with the chorus of the Lost Cause.

 

[BillO]

Longstreet is kind of a mixed bag to a lot of us that grew up in the south. He certainly had plenty of opportunities to become the "God of War" that Jackson was perceived to be then and even to this day but he never quite pulled it off. IMO Longstreet's biggest weakness was being overly concerned about internal politics. He was a good general who held himself back from becoming a great general.

 

[Lost Cause]

In terms of his generalship, IMO he was a good supporting general and a poor independent commander. Jackson was the opposite.

 

[CSA Today]

I have mixed emotions about Longstreet. Any dislike centers for the most part upon his role as a scalawag Republican during Reconstruction. On the other hand who am I to argue with my late paternal grandmother who once told me her father was proud of having been one of Longstreet's men during the war, she didn't tell what her father thought of him after the war.

 

[Warren]

I have mixed emotions about Longstreet. Any dislike centers for the most part upon his role as a scalawag Republican during Reconstruction. On the other hand who am I to argue with my late paternal grandmother who once told me her father was proud of having been one of Longstreet's men during the war, she didn't tell what her father thought of him after the war.

I have always wondered if much of the dislike of Longstreet really resulted from his joining the Republican party AFTER the war than anything he did during it, causing him to be seen as something of a 'turncoat' to the South. But, I do believe it might have been only natural for Longstreet to be seen in that light because the South's loss of the war was understandably a bitter pill to swallow-maybe more so for some than for others.

 

[screnshaw]

Longstreet did what was best for him after the war was over. Many of those who subscribed to dignity in defeat and poverty didn't cotton to someone who wasn't down for martyrdom.

Longstreet has been cited by a couple of sources as the best tactician on either side of the war, and I'll definitely say he was a power once the battle started, unless, as at Gettysburg, he was acting petulant.

Longstreet was loyal, and stalwart to the very end. To we who criticize his actions after the war as a betrayal, I would remind of his comment to Lee, when Grant insisted on surrender initially: "Not yet.", and his lambasting of that punk Custer when he had the audacity to ride into the rebel lines under a white flag and start making demands.

One of the best generals, but, as Lee said........"so slow".

 

[Northern Light]

He fell out of favor after the Civil War because he wasn't from Virginia and he became a Republican.

Yes, but so did Mosby and a couple of others and no one hates them. It seems mostly because he dared to criticize St. Robert of Lee.

 

[Northern Light]

Longstreet did what was best for him after the war was over. Many of those who subscribed to dignity in defeat and poverty didn't cotton to someone who wasn't down for martyrdom.

Longstreet has been cited by a couple of sources as the best tactician on either side of the war, and I'll definitely say he was a power once the battle started, unless, as at Gettysburg, he was acting petulant.

Longstreet was loyal, and stalwart to the very end. To we who criticize his actions after the war as a betrayal, I would remind of his comment to Lee, when Grant insisted on surrender initially: "Not yet.", and his lambasting of that punk Custer when he had the audacity to ride into the rebel lines under a white flag and start making demands.

One of the best generals, but, as Lee said........"so slow".

"That punk Custer"! hahahahahahaha! He might have been sitting on the horse, but he was still the horse's a**.

 

[redbob]

Yes, but so did Mosby and a couple of others and no one hates them. It seems mostly because he dared to criticize St. Robert of Lee.

And Mosby was from where? And yes, I agree that to criticize or even question Lee was a sure way to go up the creek without a paddle.

 

[OpnCoronet]

A talented officer and professional soldier to his fingertips. IMO, he is like Joe Johnston, in that his talents would have been a bit more comfortable(in line) with the Union armies, where shortages in manpower and supplies were usually less critical and time, was of relatively, less value, I.e., any setbacks by the loss of a little bit more time, could more easily be made good. He would have been an even more effective General and, I think, a successful and dynamic Army Commander.
When is all said and done, I think he was a little too professional and not quite revolutionary enough, in attitude, to be truly successful in fighting what was essentially a Revolutionary war.

 

[thomas aagaard]

He made the mistake of surviving getting shot in the Wilderness.

 

[Rebforever]

"Biographer Jeffry D. Wert wrote, "Longstreet deserves censure for his performance on the morning of July 2. He allowed his disagreement with Lee's decision to affect his conduct. Once the commanding general determined to assail the enemy, duty required Longstreet to comply with the vigor and thoroughness that had previously characterized his generalship. The concern for detail, the regard for timely information, and the need for preparation were absent."

 

[Northern Light]

"Biographer Jeffry D. Wert wrote, "Longstreet deserves censure for his performance on the morning of July 2. He allowed his disagreement with Lee's decision to affect his conduct. Once the commanding general determined to assail the enemy, duty required Longstreet to comply with the vigor and thoroughness that had previously characterized his generalship. The concern for detail, the regard for timely information, and the need for preparation were absent."

No disrespect to Mr. Wert's scholarship, But I am not sure that I would quote him on Longstreet.