Stonewall Longstreet, Jackson, offense, defense

[mattros]

I am wondering why it is said that Jackson was better at attack and Longstreet better at defense. Longstreet led 3 of most devastating tactical attacks of the war: 2nd Manassas, Wilderness, and Chickamauga. Also, Jackson's best tactical contribution (except may Chancellorsville) was his defensive work at 2 Manassas. Longstreet also performed better at Fredericksburg with both of them on defense. Jackson's shining moment was the Shenandoah campaign, where he always gave himself tactical numerical superiority. This was a brilliant demonstration of maneuver and strategy not necessarily tactics. I am wondering why this stereotype of these two has persisted.

 

[brass napoleon]

Interesting question. I guess I never thought of Longstreet being good on defense and not good on offense, but it's possible some people do. My feeling has always been that Jackson was better at fleet and nimble offense while Longstreet was better at the slow, deliberate, roll right over the top of them offense.

I think Longstreet probably favored the defense more than Jackson did, but as long as they were given free reign to operate the way they felt comfortable with, I don't think either was better at the offense than the other. Or at least it's too much of an apples to oranges comparison to say so definitively.

 

[dlofting]

Good question....and I agree with your assessment of Longstreet given his hard hitting, offensive performance at 2nd Manassas, Gettysburg, Chickamauga and the Wilderness.

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

Longstreet was certainly better on the attack then jubal early and others would have us believe

 

[PatW]

Actually, Longstreet presided over 5 large scale attacks: second Manassas, Chickamauga, Wilderness, Peach Orchard/Little Round Top and Picketts Charge. The first three were successful, the fourth was a partial success and the last a disaster. Interestingly enough, Longstreet supported the first three, he was ambivalent about the fourth and accurately predicted the outcome of the fifth. I think that shows that Longstreet was a more knowledgeable tactician than Lee. Obviously, Lee was the better army commander.

But if you compare Jackson, he made only one large scale attack at Chancellorsville. I think Jackson's reputation for aggressiveness comes from the Valley Campaign.

I think that Longstreet over saw more large scale attacks than any other civil war general and his record of success was quite good.

 

[ole]

PatW: Did you forget Chicamauga? Or did you not count it because it was a lucky break?

 

[Rebforever]

Longstreet was certainly better on the attack then jubal early and others would have us believe

His failures exceed his wins.

Suffolk
Continuous failures in East Tennessee after Chickamauga.
Lookout Valley
7 Pines.
3rd day Gettysburg.

 

[rpkennedy]

His failures exceed his wins.

On that we disagree.

Manassas: very successful.
Gettysburg: July 2 was very successful and he can hardly be blamed for the lack of success on July 3.
Chickamauga: very successful.
Knoxville Campaign: unsuccessful.
Wilderness: very successful.

By the time he returns to the front, major offensives can no longer be undertake. I'd say that he was a very successful offensive general.

R

 

[Rebforever]

On that we disagree.

Manassas: very successful.
Gettysburg: July 2 was very successful and he can hardly be blamed for the lack of success on July 3.
Chickamauga: very successful.
Knoxville Campaign: unsuccessful.
Wilderness: very successful.

By the time he returns to the front, major offensives can no longer be undertake. I'd say that he was a very successful offensive general.

R

You left off quite a few.

Like Suffolk
The battles he led in Tennessee which were more than just Knoxville.
Lookout Valley which was as important as any of his battles. This failure gave Rosie the Cracker Line.

7 pines
You can disagree but you can't over come with so few wins.
And his action on the 3rd day was unusual for Longstreet and was not himself according to Alexander, Wert, etc.

 

[rpkennedy]

You left off quite a few.

Like Suffolk
The battles he led in Tennessee which were more than just Knoxville.
Lookout Valley which was as important as any of his battles. This failure gave Rosie the Cracker Line.

7 pines
You can disagree but you can't over come with so few wins.
And his action on the 3rd day was unusual for Longstreet and was not himself according to Alexander, Wert, etc.

I won't deny that he had a mixed bag but every general during the war did. I would argue, however, that his successes were far more important than his failures.

R

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

Jackson was far from successful everytime as well but of course he was a Virginian. That helps to spared from much criticism

 

[BillO]

IMO Longstreet and Thomas were similar in style. Ponderously slow but professional and very competent at their job. To compare Jackson and Longstreet is not really fair to either but Jackson wasn't as experienced in dealing with the nuances of command but was an inspiring leader and he was learning on the job. I suspect Jackson would have followed Lee into top command had he survived longer.
In short Longstreet was very good but worried too much but Jackson was great and probably would have become even greater.

 

[damYankee]

I can't really hold Longstreet responsible for Picketts Charge, that rest solely on the head of R.E. Lee!
Longstreet opposed the entire plan to invade Maryland and Pennsylvania, and he protested Lee's order for Picketts Charge, but in the end, he followed orders.
The man who issued those orders is solely responsible for them.

 

[dlofting]

I suspect Jackson would have followed Lee into top command had he survived longer.

Not sure about this....given Jackson's problems with his subordinates like Garnett & Hill I think Longstreet would have been the better choice. Not perfect, given his performance in independent command in Eastern Tennessee , but better than Jackson.

 

[ivanj05]

Not sure about this....given Jackson's problems with his subordinates like Garnett & Hill I think Longstreet would have been the better choice. Not perfect, given his performance in independent command in Eastern Tennessee , but better than Jackson.

I mean, given the comparison between Jackson in the Valley and Longstreet in East TN, how does Longstreet look better?

 

[Lost Cause]

Jackson and Longstreet have often been characterized as Lee's "Hammer and Anvil." Moreover, Jackson excelled as an independent leader, lesser as a subordinate general. Longstreet excelled as a subordinate general, lesser as an independent leader.

 

[Scott Bowden]

Longstreet opposed the entire plan to invade Maryland and Pennsylvania....

Hi,

That statement is categorically untrue. Contemporary comments and letters by Longstreet run counter to his subsequent writings penned many years afterwards (which was always a problem for Longstreet when it came to his writings decades after the conflict). For one such example, read L's letter of May 13,'63 to Louis T. Wigfall, quoted and cited in my book, Last Chance for Victory: Robert E. Lee and the Gettysburg Campaign. Bottom line is that L was totaly onboard with the operational concept of taking the war onto Northern soil.

Regards,

 

[rpkennedy]

IMO Longstreet and Thomas were similar in style. Ponderously slow but professional and very competent at their job. To compare Jackson and Longstreet is not really fair to either but Jackson wasn't as experienced in dealing with the nuances of command but was an inspiring leader and he was learning on the job. I suspect Jackson would have followed Lee into top command had he survived longer.
In short Longstreet was very good but worried too much but Jackson was great and probably would have become even greater.

If Jackson was to follow Lee, why would Lee specifically request that Longstreet rank Jackson and that if anything happened to Lee, Longstreet was to take command?

R

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think this summarizes Jackson quite well:

Frankly, Jackson's talents could be best described as inconsistent. With a compact, fast-moving, smaller command that had freedom to maneuver, he could work tactical wonders, but his aggression was rarely tempered with pragmatism, and there were points (like, for example, just before the Seven Days) when he became lackadaisical, almost to the point of insubordination. Longstreet, by contrast, was the superior strategic and logistical thinker of the pair.

"... aggression rarely tempered with pragmatism.." is a lovely phrase.

At First Kernstown, Port Republic and Cedar Mountain he made poor decisions and was careless of his men. He displayed little ability to adjust his thinking to battlefield circumstance once engaged - he just kept banging away. That was a virtue at times and at others a detriment. In the Seven Days it appears to me that his effort was not as bad as it is often portrayed but that his biggest failure was to promise more than he or his men could perform. There is no doubt that at Second Manassas, Antietam, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville he did all that was asked and more.

What places him lower than Longstreet, among other things, is his propensity to attack his own officers and a blind stubborn pit bull righteousness that mitigated against command of an entire major army in Virginia. A fascinating man

 

[Jamieva]

His failures exceed his wins.

Suffolk
Continuous failures in East Tennessee after Chickamauga.
Lookout Valley
7 Pines.
3rd day Gettysburg.

There's no way to put July 3 on him. Zero.