Longstreet Longstreet vs. Jackson

My feeling are similar about Jackson and Longstreet. Jackson mastered higher echelon maneuver, while Longstreet hit like a sledgehammer. Tell you the truth that is one reason that I am so critical of the division of the ANV into three corps after Chancellorsville, and not giving Jackson's Corps to Stuart. Operationally, when Jackson and Longstreet commanded those two corps, it was like watching a prizefighter jabbing with his left and reserving the knockout for his right. Stuart was the only man I can see, although he was very junior, that could have carried on that traditional approach. In addition they did not have the numbers with the required staff expertise to divide two into three.

Stuart won Chancellorsville for Lee, and I think most overlook the fact. How is that for stepping out on a limb!
Regards
David
 
My feeling are similar about Jackson and Longstreet. Jackson mastered higher echelon maneuver, while Longstreet hit like a sledgehammer. Tell you the truth that is one reason that I am so critical of the division of the ANV into three corps after Chancellorsville, and not giving Jackson's Corps to Stuart. Operationally, when Jackson and Longstreet commanded those two corps, it was like watching a prizefighter jabbing with his left and reserving the knockout for his right. Stuart was the only man I can see, although he was very junior, that could have carried on that traditional approach. In addition they did not have the numbers with the required staff expertise to divide two into three.

Stuart won Chancellorsville for Lee, and I think most overlook the fact. How is that for stepping out on a limb!
Regards
David
Well said. Longstreet also called the loss of Stuart a more detrimental blow to the Confederacy than the loss of Jackson. I think Stuart's performance at Chancellorsville is overshadowed by his performance at Gettysburg.
 
Stuart at times was a romantic fool playing at a deadly game called war. Flamboyant in dress and temperament and thought of himself as a gallant knight from the days of yore.
Edgar Allan Poe's Eldorado always reminded me of Stuart and would fit just as well:
"Gaily bedight,
A gallant knight,
In sunshine and in shadow,
Had journeyed long,
Singing a song,
In search of Eldorado..."


Yet he also understood artillery employment and did a great job commanding an infantry corps after Jackson's death at Chancellorsville. I have long believed he would have been a better choice to have succeeded command of Jackson's Corps. Imagine if Lee had left his army with 2 corps instead of 3?
Regards
David
 
If I marched with Jackson, I might avoid fighting altogether if we got to a position first. I would avoid fighting with Longstreet, because General Lee thought Longstreet's divisions could do anything. Good chance of dying in Longstreet's corp that reflected the assignments Lee gave Longstreet.
 
I shall assume I am a private in which case it would be Longstreet. A private is a cog. He has no input, no opinion, no choice. That being the reality, I would want a commander that would balance offensive attack that would win victories (so I can get out of the war alive and go home) —and would back off of useless strikes that would kill me and my comrades for no good purpose. That is Longstreet. Balanced. Measured. No soldier and no commander is perfect, yet Longstreet had prudential judgment and good insight. He was a war horse, but he knew when to avoid slaughter.
Jackson was a brilliant , bold, division commander. We’ll never know if he would have been a great Corp commander. Gary Galligher says maybe not.
If I’m a private, and I’m conflicted about Jackson's judgment for me and the troops I got a few unspoken worries. Also I might be more than a little concerned about his risk taking. I’m encouraged by his faith and morals, but I am alarmed about his odd version of Calvinistic Old Testament theology and how he applies it to war. I admire his audacity, but will he do something rash? I’m trying to think of a time when he decided to not advance, not attack, not stop pushing his men. ( Open to correction).

On balance, with my life at stake, perfectly willing die, I'm wanting a commander that I think is prudent, I go with Longstreet. But if you put me under Jackson I’d be very proud of his victories.
 
Stuart at times was a romantic fool playing at a deadly game called war. Flamboyant in dress and temperament and thought of himself as a gallant knight from the days of yore.
Edgar Allan Poe's Eldorado always reminded me of Stuart and would fit just as well:
"Gaily bedight,
A gallant knight,
In sunshine and in shadow,
Had journeyed long,
Singing a song,
In search of Eldorado..."


Yet he also understood artillery employment and did a great job commanding an infantry corps after Jackson's death at Chancellorsville. I have long believed he would have been a better choice to have succeeded command of Jackson's Corps. Imagine if Lee had left his army with 2 corps instead of 3?
Regards
David
Stuart's gallantry and playful attitude also seemed similar to something Sir Walter Scott wrote about
 
Something like this quote of Scott's from Ivanhoe?

Fight on, brave knights! Man dies, but glory lives! Fight on; death is better than defeat! Fight on brave knights! for bright eyes behold your deeds!

Could have served for both Stuart and Custer, don't you think?
Regards
David
 
I remember my first trip to Gettysburg and a Battlefield Guide there describing Jackson as Lee’s hammer and Longstreet as the anvil.
An idea that is in no way based on facts.

The only time Lee managed a Anvil and hammer battle (at 2nd Bull Run) it was Jackson who did the defensive fighting until Longstreet could come up and support him.
At all other battels both where defensive or both offensive... and at Chancellorsville Longstreet was not there.
 
Longstreet would be my choice. Jackson was very offensive in nature compared to Longstreet. Pete recognized the advantages of defensive warfare and that the Napoleanic tactics were not as valuable as before.
Longstreet commanded some of the most effective attacks of the entire war.
At 2nd Bull run he routed the federal army.
2nd day at Gettysburg almost won the battle.
At Chickamauga it was Longstreet who again broke the federal army.
His counterattack in the Wildness and then flanking attack where every effective.
 
I think Stuart was a better subordinate officer than Longstreet, and a better commanding officer than Jackson
Lee may have thought otherwise after Stuart's no-show at Gettysburg. As far as Jackson is concerned, I'm not sure I would rate one over the other. Stuart did effectively take over from Jackson at Chancellorsville, but otherwise, Stuart's cavalry actions, while often spectacular and flamboyant, did not have the same strategic significance of many of Jackson's operations.
 
Back
Top