Longstreet or Jackson

To build on your point about Lee calling the shots. What corps commander did he look to after Jackson to make the big assaults? Longstreet until he was wounded because he trusted him the most and of course he was the most experienced corps leader that he had at that point. Lee never held Hill and Ewell in the same regard as Longstreet.

Lee felt more comfortable with Longstreet being the pivot and Jackson being the hammer of this offensive strikes. This was built on what he knew were the strengths and weaknesses of both commanders. Jackson on a couple of occasions showed the inability to be effective in a defensive posture on his own.
 
NBForrest,

You've convinced me on the tactical/strategic argument for Longstreet. However, much of his and Old Jack's value was in pressing the initiative. Move as many men, cavalry, and artillery to the typically weaker rear or flanks and roll it up.

Jamieva,
As far as calling the shots, Old Pete was his most experienced infantry commander even more than jackson, who served much of his federal army service in the artillery.
Respectfully,
Matt
 
Lee felt more comfortable with Longstreet being the pivot and Jackson being the hammer of this offensive strikes.

Really? I can't really think of an engagement that would support this idea. It certainly wasn't true during the Seven Days. The circumstances were quite the opposite at 2nd Manassas. Obviously, there was no such offensive by either general at Antietam or Fredericksburg. Longstreet wasn't at Chancellorsville, so there was no hammer/pivot there.

All of this brings me to something I've been wondering lately: Why did Lee truly hold Jackson in such high regard? Perhaps the military relationship has been exaggerated post war?

Jackson was a talented operational leader but I don't think that is reason enough for his high reputation.

Concerning post-Jackson corps leadership, I think Ewell and Hill both get a bad rap, the former less deserving of criticism than the latter. Hill never really was better than competent and perhaps closer to mediocre at times, but not entirely as bad as often portrayed. In his rather brief tenure Ewell had something of a checkered career but still solid. Gordon stepped up to the plate handsomely as well.

Respectfully
 
As per Gen. Gordon I agree, Shouldn't Hill's illness's have persuaded Lee that he couldnt handle the stress of corp command, of course the question of the replacement is a different matter entirely.
Respectfully,
Matt
 
It's very hard to get a good read on how well Hill could lead a Corps due to his illnesses the last 2 years of the war. With every major conflict he would get worse.
 
Jamieva,
thats precisely why he should have been relieved. Someone in good health such as Early could have been brought up to Lt Gen. rank and thus made Ewell effective as well, by removing Early's domineering presence from his portion of the chain of command
Respectfully,
Matt
 
Lee was in a tough spot...did Hill's periodic illness warrant shaking up the command structure? Perhaps. Overall, I think Hill did somewhat better as a corps commander than given credit for. Although a lot of III Corps successes seem to stem from good subordinates like Mahone.

Respectfully
 
Lee was in a tough spot with Hill. At his first major conflict in Corps command he is so sick that he can't relate to Lee what was going on with his troops.

The guy had such ability I think Lee hoped his health would come around.
 
But wouldnt his responsiblity lie with the ANV to preserve their lives from a possibly compromised commander? giving command to Anderson or or DH Hill would have been more militarily sound.
respectfully,
Matt
 
I think Lee was right in not promoting R H Anderson. He did consider him for corps command, but I think he correctly analyzed Anderson as a talented division commander but not really permanent corps command material (I think Anderson's performance leading his ad hoc corps at Petersburg confirmed this) Which is not to say that I don't think highly of Anderson...he was a very solid division commander and a modest man. My opinion of DH Hill is beginning to downgrade a bit...he had potential but I don't think he was unusually talented. Plus, he just couldn't get along with anyone.
So, given Lee's position...I think Hill was the best choice. In hindsight Gordon turned out to be a fine corps commander, but that was not apparant in 1863.

Respectfully
 
At least Lee was enabled to shuffle commanders in looking for the best he could get. Western commanders did not enjoy that freedom.
Ole
 
Yeah, the whole Western command structure was a mess. Makes the infighting within every other army look like child's play.

Respectfully
 
DH Hill's personality conflicts ruled him out.

Anderson like was previously said was a very adept division commander, but just didn't have the abilities to make the next step efficiently. McLaws fits in the same category.

Gordon was not an option in 63 as he just had been promoted to Brig General after Chancellorsville. In the latter stages of the war he showed the ability to lead a corps, although not what we would consider a full size corps from the 62-63 time frame.
 
When I first got back into the WBTS it was with Sears' To the Gates of Richmond. One of my clearest recollections of reaction to the book was Daniel Harvey Hill. Don't remember all that much about the 7 Days, but I do remember thinking, "What a jerk!" I wasn't surprised when he was transferred south, and I was surprised when he was brought back north.

Wouldn't it have been a kick to have him and Bragg together for the duration? Hoot.
Ole
 
D H Hill's career unquestionably was hurt by the fact that he couldn't get along with anyone.
He had some fine moments, but his Washington/New Bern operations really make one question his abilities. I think they proved that he was not material for an independent command. A decent division commander, but even that was screwed up by his unwillingness to cooperate with those he did not like.

Respectfully
 
....but even that was screwed up by his unwillingness to cooperate with those he did not like.
...which appears to have been darn near everybody. I'll bet he kicked other people's dogs, too.
Ole
 
From what I've read Jackson wasn't exactly on the best terms with quite a few people in the ANV. Excuse the rather stupid question, but aside from the soldiers of the Stonewall Brigade, Lee, and his own staff, did he get along with anyone?
 
Highfly said:
From what I've read Jackson wasn't exactly on the best terms with quite a few people in the ANV. Excuse the rather stupid question, but aside from the soldiers of the Stonewall Brigade, Lee, and his own staff, did he get along with anyone?
My analysis of Jackson (and I am far from a Jackson scholar) is that he had God on his side. He neither wanted nor needed further assistance.
Ole
 
Back
Top