Longstreet Longstreet venal?

[JerryD]

Just finished reading Hess' Picket Charge, and at the end he refers to Longstreet as being "venal" (p 372). Since venal means someone who is liable to be easily bribed, I was rather struck by the his use of the term. He offered no explanation or support for this characterization, which leads me to wonder if Hess doesn't know what venal means.

Does anyone have any support that Longstreet was a venal man? Or is Hess using words that he does not understand what they mean?

As an aside, Hess comes across in the book as rather tough on Longstreet, but I would not call him a hater or Lost Causer. He does blame him for the selection of units for the charge, which seems rather unfair since I think Lee chose the units, and blames him for not knowing they were fought out on the 1st, which seems like something AP Hill should have raised with Lee instead of expecting Longstreet to know this. He makes a few other comments that I thought were rather harsh as well, such as his supposed failure to make sure his instructions were communicated down the line of command, as if he should have watched as each brigade and regiment was told what was expected. It would seem he was entitled to think his orders would be followed.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Just finished reading Hess' Picket Charge, and at the end he refers to Longstreet as being "venal" (p 372). Since venal means someone who is liable to be easily bribed, I was rather struck by the his use of the term. He offered no explanation or support for this characterization, which leads me to wonder if Hess doesn't know what venal means.

Does anyone have any support that Longstreet was a venal man? Or is Hess using words that he does not understand what they mean?

As an aside, Hess comes across in the book as rather tough on Longstreet, but I would not call him a hater or Lost Causer. He does blame him for the selection of units for the charge, which seems rather unfair since I think Lee chose the units, and blames him for not knowing they were fought out on the 1st, which seems like something AP Hill should have raised with Lee instead of expecting Longstreet to know this. He makes a few other comments that I thought were rather harsh as well, such as his supposed failure to make sure his instructions were communicated down the line of command, as if he should have watched as each brigade and regiment was told what was expected. It would seem he was entitled to think his orders would be followed.

If it doesn't involve too much effort, can you reproduce the paragraph (if it's not too long) or at least the sentence where the word 'venal appears? Would like to consider the context in which that description was used.

 

[David Knight]

This seems to be very interesting. context is everything but from the little I know Longstreet is one of the least likely to be bought of senior Civil war officers.

 

[JerryD]

If it doesn't involve too much effort, can you reproduce the paragraph (if it's not too long) or at least the sentence where the word 'venal appears? Would like to consider the context in which that description was used.

Sure.

"James Longstreet inevitably attracted all the blame for the failure, and he expended a lot of energy for the rest of his life trying to explain and deflect as much of it as possible. It is ironic that the men who conducted the attack seldom blamed Longstreet; Lee's partisans were the ones who refused to let him off easily. Longstreet's post-Gettysburg career continued its ups and downs that had already begun to characterize this good but venal soldier's life. He took a good part of his corps to the Army of the Tennessee in September and played a leading role in achieving that army's only tactical victory at Chickamauga, an offensive triumph. But Longstreet argued viciously with its commander, Gen. Braxton Bragg, about the strategic follow up. ....." (The rest of the paragraph goes on to summarize his career up to Appomattox.)

I'm not sure what Hess thinks venal means, but I have never heard of any implication that Longstreet took bribes, or even what he could be bribed about. It really jumped off the page at me when I read it, since it seemed so out of place. I'm also not sure he correctly used the word "ironic" in this passage, although I guess that could be a matter of interpretation. I would argue its not ironic at all, but to be expected and is very telling. Nearly all of the personal accounts of soldiers in the attack that I have read (including those Hess used in his book) emphasized that the attack look like a very long shot, but they had faith in Gen. Lee, and if he ordered it, then it must be doable. Hess' own account emphasizes this, so not sure why he uses the term ironic either.

 

[Rebforever]

I don't believe that word fits Longstreet at all. Unless Hess knows more than he has shown.

 

[bayouace]

Venial would be more appropriate for the ups and downs in his life.

 

[JerryD]

Venial would be more appropriate for the ups and downs in his life.

I agree it would be more appropriate, but it seems rather obscure to bring in a religious concept in this context. I was wondering if he meant venomous, in regards to his efforts to deflect or avoid blame for the failure of the attack. That would be a rather harsh assessment of Longstreet's whole life, but in keeping with how I think Hess thinks of Longstreet.

 

[jackt62]

I rechecked the meaning of "venal" and it refers to being motivated or susceptible to bribery. Now I have never come across any inference that Longstreet was in any way corrupt in that fashion. His detractors have accused him of all sorts of things, in terms of military failures and his post-war allegiance to the Republican Party but nothing that I have ever read indicates him as being venal.

 

[RedRover]

Reads like fiction.

"already begun to characterize this good but venal soldier's life."

From Webster's 1828:

VE'NAL, adjective [Latin vena, a vein.] Pertaining to a vein or to veins; contained in the veins; as venal blood. [See Venous, which is generally used.]

VE'NAL, adjective [Latin venalis, from venco, to be sold.]
1. Mercenary; prostitute; that may be bought or obtained for money or other valuable consideration; as a venal muse; venal services.
2. That may be sold; set to sale; as, all offices are venal in a corrupt government.
3. Purchased; as a venal vote.

Modern dictionary:

"Open to bribery; mercenary.
Characterized by corrupt dealings, especially bribery.
Obtainable for a price."

The author calls the man's CAREER "Good but venal," as in "good but mercenary," as in Longstreet somehow sold-out...


"He took a good part of his corps to the Army of the Tennessee in September and played a leading role in achieving that army's only tactical victory at Chickamauga, an offensive triumph. But Longstreet argued viciously with its commander, Gen. Braxton Bragg, about the strategic follow up. ....."


I have never seen any account that Longstreet "argued" with General Bragg. He certainly disagreed with some of his decisions, as he claims in his memoirs, and attempted to share his opinions, etc. with his seniors.

Viciously, 1828 definition:
VI'CIOUSLY, adverb
1. Corruptly; in a manner contrary to rectitude, moral principles, propriety or purity.
2. Faultily; not correctly.

So Hess is stating that Longstreet's arguments against Bragg's strategy after Chickamauga were faulty and incorrect.

 

[jackt62]

"James Longstreet inevitably attracted all the blame for the failure, and he expended a lot of energy for the rest of his life trying to explain and deflect as much of it as possible. It is ironic that the men who conducted the attack seldom blamed Longstreet; Lee's partisans were the ones who refused to let him off easily. Longstreet's post-Gettysburg career continued its ups and downs that had already begun to characterize this good but venal soldier's life

Interesting that the Hess narrative more accurately reflects the animus towards Longstreet in a more fact-based manner. For some strange reason he decided to add that one word "venal" which does not seem to fit the prior description. If the word was removed from the Hess narrative, I would have no problem with the rest of the paragraph.

 

[JerryD]

Interesting that the Hess narrative more accurately reflects the animus towards Longstreet in a more fact-based manner. For some strange reason he decided to add that one word "venal" which does not seem to fit the prior description. If the word was removed from the Hess narrative, I would have no problem with the rest of the paragraph.

I agree. That is why the word really jumped off the page at me and I had to wonder if he knew what it meant. He provides no support for its usage in the rest of the book. But he does seem to have a negative view of Longstreet, but not to the extent I would call him a Lost Causer.

 

[jackt62]

Hess is certainly no "Lost Causer" and his view about Longstreet may simply reflect a retelling of the historical arguments that have been made against that officer.

 

[JerryD]

The author calls the man's CAREER "Good but venal," as in "good but mercenary," as in Longstreet somehow sold-out...

Your post made me wonder if Hess was referring to him becoming a Republican after the war, even though he makes no reference to it in his book. Again, that would be a harsh judgment, and in context in terms of the book, completely out of the blue. I still think Hess just doesn't know what venal means.

I do agree that its hard to reconcile "good but venal".

 

[A. Roy]

Longstreet's post-Gettysburg career continued its ups and downs that had already begun to characterize this good but venal soldier's life.

The more I look at this, the more I scratch my head over it. Longstreet was both "good" and "venal"? These are almost antonyms.

I looked up "venal" in the Oxford English Dictionary, and one of the definitions does depart somewhat from the idea that a venal person is subject to bribery per se:

c. Of support, favour, etc.: That may be bought or obtained for a price; ready to be given in return for some reward without regard for higher principles.

So, maybe Hess is suggesting that Longstreet was self-serving and unprincipled in some respect?

Another thing that occurred to me is that a line editor might have made a mistake and placed the wrong word here. I wouldn't expect that of UNC Press, but I guess it could happen...

Roy B.

 

[jackt62]

maybe Hess is suggesting that Longstreet was self-serving and unprincipled in some respect?

That argument might be made by many Longstreet detractors regarding his association with the post-war Republican administration, who would claim that Longstreet turned his back on his southern compatriots in order to gain economic favors from the hated Grant administration. But I find it hard to believe that a serious historian such as Hess would parrot that line of thought without considering all sides of the story.

 

[Peace Society]

I have heard people use "venal" as if it meant "prone to do wrong". Maybe he just misused the term.

 

[JeffFromSyracuse]

Venial would be more appropriate for the ups and downs in his life.

My first thought was something to do with vanity.

 

[JerryD]

I have heard people use "venal" as if it meant "prone to do wrong". Maybe he just misused the term.

That is my impression as well. But as someone pointed out above, it could be that the publisher made a mistake and used the wrong word. I certainly dont think the word applies to Longstreet. He can be faulted for other vices, but corruption is not one of them.

 

[Herbert Loveless]

Just finished reading Hess' Picket Charge, and at the end he refers to Longstreet as being "venal" (p 372). Since venal means someone who is liable to be easily bribed, I was rather struck by the his use of the term. He offered no explanation or support for this characterization, which leads me to wonder if Hess doesn't know what venal means.

Does anyone have any support that Longstreet was a venal man? Or is Hess using words that he does not understand what they mean?

As an aside, Hess comes across in the book as rather tough on Longstreet, but I would not call him a hater or Lost Causer. He does blame him for the selection of units for the charge, which seems rather unfair since I think Lee chose the units, and blames him for not knowing they were fought out on the 1st, which seems like something AP Hill should have raised with Lee instead of expecting Longstreet to know this. He makes a few other comments that I thought were rather harsh as well, such as his supposed failure to make sure his instructions were communicated down the line of command, as if he should have watched as each brigade and regiment was told what was expected. It would seem he was entitled to think his orders would be followed.

Longstreet's real sin was that he became a Republican after the war. In Lost Cause mythology, Lee's defeat at Gettysburg was therefore placed on Longstreet. The main reason the South lost according to this mythology was that the North had more of everything than the South and the South was doomed to lose from the outset. One would have thought they would have known this in 1860 and not started on the road to secession. But the Myth does not address this point.

 

[Irishtom29]

I think Hess simply misunderstands the meanings of both venal and ironic.