Lee and Longstreet post war relationship

Cek3

Private
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
I wonder if anyone has any info on the Lee and Longstreet relationship post war, i.e. whether they ever met again. And what was their parting conversation like. I always felt that Lee was a bit more loyal to Longstreet than he was to Lee
 

ronzzo

Private
Annual Winner
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Location
Sadsburyville, PA
According to the American Battlefield Trust. Longstreet never saw Lee after the war. I agree that Longstreet may not have been as loyal to Lee because of his post-war criticism, but not certain how Lee felt.
 

Cek3

Private
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
According to the American Battlefield Trust. Longstreet never saw Lee after the war. I agree that Longstreet may not have been as loyal to Lee because of his post-war criticism, but not certain how Lee felt.

Yes I think in RE Lee by Freeman he mentions that they did not see each other after the war; but was not sure. I think they corresponded infrequently. Curious as to why.
 

Pete Longstreet

Sergeant Major
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Location
Hartford, CT
The last time Lee and Longstreet saw each other was April 12th. They shared a campsite, then Lee turned to one of his subordinates and said "Captain, I am going to put my old war-horse under your charge. I want you to take good care of him." Lee then rode off on Traveller. They never saw each other again.
 

GwilymT

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
The last time Lee and Longstreet saw each other was April 12th. They shared a campsite, then Lee turned to one of his subordinates and said "Captain, I am going to put my old war-horse under your charge. I want you to take good care of him." Lee then rode off on Traveller. They never saw each other again.
I hadn’t heard this story but it’s fitting. The two able old warriors after the unthinkable defeat.

It’s really too bad that Lost Cause mythology harmed perceptions of both. Instead of a noble general who did all he could we have some sort of Demi-god that never existed. Instead of the able bulldog subordinate of history, we’re treated to some sort of marplot.

Two great men have been done a disservice in the name of propaganda.
 

Pete Longstreet

Sergeant Major
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Location
Hartford, CT
I hadn’t heard this story but it’s fitting. The two able old warriors after the unthinkable defeat.

It’s really too bad that Lost Cause mythology harmed perceptions of both. Instead of a noble general who did all he could we have some sort of Demi-god that never existed. Instead of the able bulldog subordinate of history, we’re treated to some sort of marplot.

Two great men have been done a disservice in the name of propaganda.
This is true. That's why those of us who take the time to learn about them, can see the truth about who they were as soldiers in battle and men in civilian life. Thus, debunking some of the myth which has lasted for over 150 years.
 
Last edited:

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
I do not know too mch about Longstreet after te War, but, it always seemed to me that there was little litte in common between him and Lee, besides their professionalism as soldiers and adherence to the confederate cause.

I think Lee had an almost mystical view of the South in general and Virginia in particular., that defines easy explanation of his concept of the War itself. while Longstreet from Georgia, seems to me to to have had a more practical and pragmatice in his views of the war.

Mystics and pragmatists seldom have much in common. Certainly from the little that can be gleaned from his statments after the War, it seems to me that Lee was less reconciled to the outcome of the war, than many later writers assume. Longstreets seems t to me, to have been more willing to forgive and forget, while Lee, it seems, was a little less willing to do so.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
I do not know too mch about Longstreet after te War, but, it always seemed to me that there was little litte in common between him and Lee, besides their professionalism as soldiers and adherence to the confederate cause.

I think Lee had an almost mystical view of the South in general and Virginia in particular., that defines easy explanation of his concept of the War itself. while Longstreet from Georgia, seems to me to to have had a more practical and pragmatice in his views of the war.

Mystics and pragmatists seldom have much in common. Certainly from the little that can be gleaned from his statments after the War, it seems to me that Lee was less reconciled to the outcome of the war, than many later writers assume. Longstreets seems t to me, to have been more willing to forgive and forget, while Lee, it seems, was a little less willing to do so.
Yep. That forgive and forget dang near got him hung by some of those that fought with him. Then came his lying memoirs.
 

Pete Longstreet

Sergeant Major
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Location
Hartford, CT
On March 9th, 1866, Lee wrote to Longstreet: "My dear General, can you not occupy your leisure time in preparing your memoirs of the war? It is the only way in which we may hope that fragments of truth will reach posterity. "

There was a mutual respect between them.
 

jackt62

Captain
Member of the Month
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Location
New York City
It was not Lee, but his advocates such as Jubal Early and John Gordon, who took up the fight against Longstreet via newspaper and periodical articles. Much of that had to do with the desire to preserve and uphold Lee's reputation, particularly as it related to the Gettysburg campaign. Longstreet did not do himself any favors by taking the bait and responding harshly to attacks against him, which often made it seem as though Longstreet was attacking Lee himself.
 

GwilymT

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Yep. That forgive and forget dang near got him hung by some of those that fought with him. Then came his lying memoirs.
Hanged is the word you were looking for and he was nearly hanged because he sided with America against the openly white supremacist terrorist organization known as the “White League” whose only purpose was to deny black Americans the vote or the right to hold office. If that makes Longstreet a villain in your eyes, well...
 
Last edited:

GwilymT

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Terrorism? I presume you mean those disenfranchised Reb soldiers who took action against the unabated persecution by the Union occupying thugs
Could you possibly be referring to the traitors who waged a war against the US then wanting to plead victumhood and the protection of US law (which they freely disavowed) for their situation? Silly. US law didn’t allow those who hadn’t taken the oath of allegiance to vote. It allowed any other citizens, including (gasp) black Americans to vote as long as they hadn’t rebelled. It’s quite clear. No one was disenfranchised who hadn’t disenfranchised themselves. Anyone had ample opportunity to re-enfranchise themselves. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
 
Last edited:

Paul Yancey

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Location
Kentucky
I posted this a few months ago, but I think it merits repeating for this thread.

In 1867 Longstreet was living in New Orleans and in June of that year he announced his intention of working with the Republicans to restore Louisiana to the Union through their power. Longstreet wrote a letter to Lee asking for Lee's endorsement.

Lee responded by letter to Longstreet and I quote the response as it appears in Clifford Dowdey's book "Lee - A Biography".
"While I think we should act under the law and according to the law imposed upon us, I cannot think the course pursued by the dominant political party the best for the interests of the country, and therefore cannot say so, or give them my approval. This is the reason why I cannot comply with the request in your letter. I am of the opinion that all who can should vote for the most intelligent, honest, and conscientious man eligible for the office, irrespective of former party opinions, who will endeavor "to pass laws" as beneficial as possible to the interests, prosperity, and liberty of all classes and conditions of the people."

IMO, Lee was stating in a very nice way, his disapproval of the scalawags and carpetbaggers that infested much of the South in the post war years.
 

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
Could you possibly be referring to the traitors who waged a war against the US then wanting to plead victumhood and the protection of US law (which they freely disavowed) for their situation? Silly. US law didn’t allow those who hadn’t taken the oath of allegiance to vote. It allowed any other citizens, including (gasp) black Americans to vote as long as they hadn’t rebelled. It’s quite clear. No one was disenfranchised who hadn’t disenfranchised themselves. Anyone had ample opportunity to re-enfranchise themselves. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

I don't believe meaningful conversation is in the cards for you and I.
 

Similar threads

Top