Longstreet General Longstreet's opinion

[bankerpapaw]

In General Longstreet's book, "From Manassas to Appomattox" he stated that he thought J.E.B Stewart's death had a greater impact than did Stonewall Jackson's death. Your thoughts.

 

[James N.]

The only way I can think it might have is that when Jackson died it was during a lull: Chancellorsville was over, Longstreet and his command were returning to Lee's army, and Gettysburg was in the (near) future. Stuart's death on the other hand (and Longstreet's own wounding as well) ocurred in the midst of the Overland Campaign when replacements had to be made on-the-spot with little-if-any time for reflection. Luckily for Lee he had a satisfactory replacement for Longstreet in Richard Anderson and an excellent one for Stuart in Wade Hampton. Other than those circumstances, I respectfully disagree.

 

[civilken]

I don't know about this one Jackson was a darn good general and I personally believe better than Stewart. My biggest problem with long street is this man never got or received the credit he should have by a certain group of generals early and others try their best to discredit him. If you ever read my threats you know I usually hard on Confederate generals for the parts they play in the Civil War. General long street however I personally believe was a good general and yes a good American when the war was over he was ready to swallow his pride and work with others and for that he was vilified throughout the South. And when I say American I mean just that.

 

[kevikens]

I don't know about that analysis but I think that it was E. Porter Alexander's opinion that Jeb Stuart should have been given Jackson's corps after Chancellorsville. He had handled it well during the battle and Alexander thought he deserved it. Of course this leads to two interesting speculations affecting the coming battle of Gettysburg. Lee's cavalry, under somebody else, does its proper job and Stuart aggressively occupies Culps Hill.

 

[ivanj05]

It's hard to quantify the loss of any single combat leader to his cause. The only truly indispensible Confederate general was possibly Lee himself. That said, Lee quickly found an able replacement for Stuart in the person of Wade Hampton. Lee struggled to find a corps commander that was the equal of Jackson. Hill and Ewell certainly were not, although late war one could argue for the merits of Early and Gordon.

 

[W. Richardson]

On this I am not sure. Jackson was a great general and he fit well with Lee, after all he was Lee's right arm ! Lee told Jackson what he wanted done and left it to Jackson to do it, and Lee didn't have to explain his orders.

Respectfully,
William

 

[civilken]

I don't know about that analysis but I think that it was E. Porter Alexander's opinion that Jeb Stuart should have been given Jackson's corps after Chancellorsville. He had handled it well during the battle and Alexander thought he deserved it. Of course this leads to two interesting speculations affecting the coming battle of Gettysburg. Lee's cavalry, under somebody else, does its proper job and Stuart aggressively occupies Culps Hill.

I know this is been going on for a long time but how do you attack with the orders Lee gave I don't care who you are.

 

[kevikens]

I know this is been going on for a long time but how do you attack with the orders Lee gave I don't care who you are.

If you are referring to Ewell interpreting Lee's "if practicable" orders, I think, had Stuart been the on scene commander, he would more likely have interpreted the same orders as the equivalent of attacking unless it looked impossible for an attack to be successful. And in the late afternoon of July 1 an attack did not look impossible at all. Thus Jackson's old corps in the hands of Stuart might have made a very big difference in what happened on July 2.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Stuart was replaced by an outstanding cavalry commander in the form of Wade Hampton. Jackson was replaced by . . . Ewell.

How is this even a question?

 

[jackt62]

I haven't read Longstreet's book so I'm not quite sure what he actually meant that Stuart's death "had a greater impact than did Stonewall Jackson's death." On face value, I would have to disagree. Outside of Lee himself, Jackson was the most formidable commander the south had. Had he survived, the battle of Gettysburg may have played out differently, given Jackson's uncanny ability to readily move in tandem with General Lee's wishes. Had Jackson commanded at the Wilderness instead of Ewell, he might have more aggressively advocated and pushed General Gordon's half-hearted flank attack that was initially turned down by Ewell and Early.

Without disparging J.E.B. Stuart's qualifications, the team of Jackson and Lee was the most successful command relationship, equaled only by the relationship of Grant and Sherman for the north.

 

[Dave Wilma]

Was the ANV that bereft of talent that the loss of one or two men, even commanders, had a great impact? So much for the Lost Cause premise that Southern males had a better aptitude for command than Northern men. Was the issue not their individual losses but who was available to step in for them?

 

[jackt62]

Of course, the premise that Southern males had a better aptitude for command than Northern men is but a myth. But I do believe that the probably larger percentage of ineffective "political" generals in the federal armies contributed to the belief that the south had commanders with greater leadership skills. But the huge battle losses of southern commanders throughout the war years also meant that by 1864-1865, that talent pool was shrinking.

 

[War Horse]

In General Longstreet's book, "From Manassas to Appomattox" he stated that he thought J.E.B Stewart's death had a greater impact than did Stonewall Jackson's death. Your thoughts.

It was natural for Longstreet to feel this way, He, Jackson and Stuart were all encompassing. Longstreet had just fallen, Stuart fell a year after Jackson and just after Longstreet. The roundtable was broken. In Longstreet's eyes Stuarts fall was the end of the realm. Jackson was the beginning of the end, Stuart was the last of the Mohicans.

 

[theoldman]

It was natural for Longstreet to feel this way, He, Jackson and Stuart were all encompassing. Longstreet had just fallen, Stuart fell a year after Jackson and just after Longstreet. The roundtable was broken. In Longstreet's eyes Stuarts fall was the end of the realm. Jackson was the beginning of the end, Stuart was the last of the Mohicans.

Good job War Horse! You managed to get Camelot and James Fenimore Cooper into one answer about the Civil War.

 

[War Horse]

Without disparging J.E.B. Stuart's qualifications, the team of Jackson and Lee was the most successful command relationship, equaled only by the relationship of Grant and Sherman for the north

There were three, and Longstreet was as valuable to Lee as Jackson and Stuart. At the point Longstreet is referring to Stuart was the last. The replacements were good, just not as good.

 

[War Horse]

Good job War Horse! You managed to get Camelot and James Fenimore Cooper into one answer about the Civil War.

Just saying

 

[Alaskazimm]

It was natural for Longstreet to feel this way, He, Jackson and Stuart were all encompassing. Longstreet had just fallen, Stuart fell a year after Jackson and just after Longstreet. The roundtable was broken. In Longstreet's eyes Stuarts fall was the end of the realm. Jackson was the beginning of the end, Stuart was the last of the Mohicans.

I agree with this. In fact it was the first thing I thought of when reading the OP.

With Jackson's death, the sun began to go down on the Confederacy; the ANV especially was still a dangerous foe with a still strong General staff, now diminished. Longstreet's wounding and Stuart's death showed the sun had now set from which there was to be no return.

 

[leftyhunter]

In General Longstreet's book, "From Manassas to Appomattox" he stated that he thought J.E.B Stewart's death had a greater impact than did Stonewall Jackson's death. Your thoughts.

Would it not be fair to say that by midsummer 1864 the Confederacy was in a bad way and it didn't matter who was commanding CSA forces they where doomed to loose? Even of Stewart was not killed at Yellow Tavern by 1864 the Union Cavalry was much better trained and led then in 1862 and they had repeating rifles and there was no way they could loose as long as they had semi competent leadership. Even Forrest lost to the US Cavalry towards the end of the war. With mass desertion and the blockade getting tighter and tighter the CSA was bound to loose. Add to that that the Union can replace its manpower loss's with CSA deserters, blacks and immigrants vs the CSA which cannot its just a matter of time for the CSA to loose. Nothing wrong with having great leadership but good leadership can only go so far in order to win a war.
Leftyhunter

 

[thomas aagaard]

Stuart aggressively occupies Culps Hill.

Please, this have been debated. And attempt to take Culps Hill on the evening of the 1st would have failed with a union corp flanking the attack from the East. And with no space to deploy a division between the town and the hills. Not attacking was the correct decision.

Had the CSA cavalry done their job there would have been no fight at Gettysburg.

Longstreet outrankede Jackson... because he was seen as the better of the two. Sure Jackson did great in the valley, but horrible at 7days.
Longstreet did great offensive work at 2nd Bull run. Jackson did good defensive work.

Jackson did brilliant work of Chancellorsville... but that was in a huge part thanks to local guides and knowledge of the area.

Had we seen a Jackson at Gettysburg, it is just as likely that he would have had a bad day and been inactive. And since he was operating in enemy territory with no local guides and no propper maps... he was just as likely to end up with delays and countermarches... like the problems Longstreet had.

 

[BillO]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even Longstreet.