Longstreet Interview: Longstreet on Jackson

I do also.
Although calling Jackson “a man of military ability“ is a of course huge understatement!
But Jackson was a strange guy, he did not drink and did not gamble , while early in the war before he lost three of his kids in one week, which changed him greatly, Longstreets HQ was a place where neither whiskey nor poker games were uncommon. I can imagine that Longstreet and Jackson did not harmonize too well on a personal level.
We had an interesting thread on the Longstreet/Jackson relationship a while ago:
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-relationship-of-jackson-and-longstreet.123881/
Are you kidding me, polar opposites would be more accurate. :smile:
 
There was certainly a distaste. On more than one occasion, Jackson was tardy to the ball. They were a great tandem which Lee recognized. Between the two of them the room was to small for the two of them. Lol

They were very different men and it would be difficult for them to be friendly. Of course, Jackson was friendly with very few people.

Ryan
 
Another very insightful assessment. Thanks for sharing.
I, too, had not heard (or have forgotten) that Longstreet suggested Jackson 'go west'. That might have been a 'game changer'!
 
View attachment 207727
Subsequently in the conversation, General Longstreet said:​
"I suggested to General Lee that Stonewall Jackson be sent to the Trans-Mississippi instead of Kirby Smith, as the best fitted among all the Confederate generals to make headway against the Federals in that region. The suggestion met with General Lee's approbation, but Lee wanted Jackson himself."​
This was new, and with considerable surprise I asked: "Why did you assume that Jackson was better equipped for command in the Western country, general, than any of your other officers?"​
"He was the very man to organize a great war over there. He would have marched all over Missouri, invaded Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa. In fact the very vastness of the theater was well calculated to sharpen his faculties and give scope to Jackson's peculiar military talents. His rapid style of campaigning, suddenly appearing at remote and unexpected points, would have demoralized the Federals."​

Source: Reprinted from the Washington Post of June 1893, this article appeared in The Times Dispatch. (Richmond, VA.), November 12, 1911, page 3.
ol pete was probably right. trans-miss. would have given Jackson plenty of room to operate in. in conjunction with forrest and Shelby as his cavalry officers, its no telling what he might have accomplished.
 
Jackson proved he could operate his Corp by himself.
Longstreet never could.

While he certainly wasn't as good as Jackson in independent command, Longstreet was capable. He did fine during the Suffolk Campaign but poorly during the Knoxville Campaign (although he was also working under extremely difficult circumstances).

Ryan
 
While he certainly wasn't as good as Jackson in independent command, Longstreet was capable. He did fine during the Suffolk Campaign but poorly during the Knoxville Campaign (although he was also working under extremely difficult circumstances).

Ryan
Nobody wants to recall those extremely difficult circumstances. Thank you for acknowledging them.
 
Comparing Jackson and Longstreet is not very enlightening. They were both top commanders, each bringing unique strengths and having particular weaknesses. Without either, Lee and the ANV would not have accomplished as much as they did. Jackson was a master at quick and penetrating movements but his tactical command of individual engagements was not especially noteworthy. Longstreet was a steady leader who understood how to organize and fight large formations but sometimes stumbled in independent command. Jackson was secretive and eccentric; Longstreet was a schemer and a malcontent. So take your pick, or choose both.
 
I always felt Longstreet was the best the Confederate Army had, I know I'm in the minority but I feel Lee was overrated. Lee and Jackson were outstanding in their own way, but I think Longstreet understood the situation in a much broader view.
 
I always felt Longstreet was the best the Confederate Army had, I know I'm in the minority but I feel Lee was overrated. Lee and Jackson were outstanding in their own way, but I think Longstreet understood the situation in a much broader view.
Lee as commander did a excellent job. He was great at handling problems, and dealing with Jeff Davis. Plus he had the respect of everybody in the ANV. I don't see Jackson being able to deal with Davis, as they already didn't get along well. Now Longstreet and Davis, I don't know. Jackson for sure saw the big picture from the very start. For one he saw that railroad stock was going to be a problem for the south. So in 1861 he hauled the heavy captured B&O engines, cars and other supplies south up the Valley Turnpike to Strasburg.
 
Lee as commander did a excellent job. He was great at handling problems, and dealing with Jeff Davis. Plus he had the respect of everybody in the ANV. I don't see Jackson being able to deal with Davis, as they already didn't get along well. Now Longstreet and Davis, I don't know. Jackson for sure saw the big picture from the very start. For one he saw that railroad stock was going to be a problem for the south. So in 1861 he hauled the heavy captured B&O engines, cars and other supplies south up the Valley Turnpike to Strasburg.
Jackson saw the big picture. He want to take 5000 men and go take Baltimore and Johnston wouldn’t let him.
 
View attachment 207727
Subsequently in the conversation, General Longstreet said:​
"I suggested to General Lee that Stonewall Jackson be sent to the Trans-Mississippi instead of Kirby Smith, as the best fitted among all the Confederate generals to make headway against the Federals in that region. The suggestion met with General Lee's approbation, but Lee wanted Jackson himself."​
This was new, and with considerable surprise I asked: "Why did you assume that Jackson was better equipped for command in the Western country, general, than any of your other officers?"​
"He was the very man to organize a great war over there. He would have marched all over Missouri, invaded Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa. In fact the very vastness of the theater was well calculated to sharpen his faculties and give scope to Jackson's peculiar military talents. His rapid style of campaigning, suddenly appearing at remote and unexpected points, would have demoralized the Federals."​

Source: Reprinted from the Washington Post of June 1893, this article appeared in The Times Dispatch. (Richmond, VA.), November 12, 1911, page 3.

THAT is an interesting possibility that I had not thought about before. I'm so used to thinking of Lee and Jackson as this great tag-team of generals, but Jackson running the war in the western theater is an intriguing "what if".
 
Back
Top