Longstreet Longstreet was right.

[Pete Longstreet]

While perusing the Longstreet Museum website, at the bottom of the page it referenced how Longstreet made 3 mistakes that denied him his place in Southern Posterity. I'm just focusing on numbers 1 & 2.

Number 1: "He argued with Lee at Gettysburg".

Number 2 (which I found most interesting): "He was right".

The article makes a valid point.

Was Longstreet right? And Lee wrong?

 

[dlofting]

I think hindsight shows that Longstreet was right about the unlikelyhood of the Pickett/Pettigrew/Trimble charge succeeding. I think that Lee was poorly informed about the positioing of the AOP and that had a bearing on his judgment. I don't think the road system to the south and east of Gettysburg would support Longstreet's suggestion of a flanking move that way. The result....both were wrong.

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

I think his post-war leanings had more to do with his being denied into the "pantheon" of Confederate heroes more than anything.

As for him arguing with Lee, that may have contributed.

And was he right? I'd say in hindsight he probably was. But he wasn't a Virginian and a Deep South bumpkin, plus things like the Suffolk Campaign may have hurt his credibility at the time Gettysburg. Also his apparent little temper tantrum with the Pettigrew/Pickett/Trimble assault.

 

[GwilymT]

I think his post-war leanings had more to do with his being denied into the "pantheon" of Confederate heroes more than anything.

As for him arguing with Lee, that may have contributed.

And was he right? I'd say in hindsight he probably was. But he wasn't a Virginian and a Deep South bumpkin, plus things like the Suffolk Campaign may have hurt his credibility at the time Gettysburg. Also his apparent little temper tantrum with the Pettigrew/Pickett/Trimble assault.

I have to agree. It was Longstreet's efforts to support civil rights for freed slaves that truly condemned him in the post war Rebel Pantheon. Working to allow former slaves some rights was the unforgivable sin.

 

[jackt62]

Both of those "mistakes" implicitly criticize Lee's leadership, so it's no wonder that Lee's post-war personality cult was offended by Longstreet's views. As a senior Corps commander, Longstreet had every right to "argue" (or more properly "advocate"), his military opinion to his chief during the decision making phase. Indeed, Lee was used to Longstreet's counsel, regardless as to whether Lee accepted Longstreet's views in the end. I'm surprised that the website did not actually consider the mistake to have been Longstreet's alleged reluctance in carrying out Lee's orders for the 2nd day assault rather than in actually arguing with Lee. Anyway, as far as No. 2 is concerned, I would say that Longstreet was "right" in a general sense in that he advised fighting a defensive battle from a fixed position, similar to that at Fredericksburg. Longstreet's plan to flank the Union left probably falls into the category of wishful thinking, rather than a rational military plan based on circumstances and logistics. But no matter what, from an historical view, Lee botched the battle of Gettysburg but has never suffered a serious hit to his reputation, in part because folks like Longstreet (and Stuart, Ewell, Hill) were around to take the fall.

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

I have to agree. It was Longstreet's efforts to support civil rights for freed slaves that truly condemned him in the post war Rebel Pantheon. Working to allow former slaves some rights was the unforgivable sin.

Yeah I highly doubt it was the former slaves, he really didn't too much for them and there were Confederates who did who didn't get near as much attacks and spoke on behalf of former slaves, (like Forrest).

Longstreet's sin was to join the Republican Party and uphold some very unpopular people, like the Radical Republicans in Louisiana. Him also renewing his friendship with Grant, who wasn't popular either. Events like the Battle of Liberty Place, where he led ex-slave US Louisiana Militia against an Ex-Confederate one would make you think slave status was a big issue, but there were so many more pressing ones that get ignored.

Longstreet's work for former slaves probably fell near the bottom of a long list of grievances, (a lot of them unreasonable), and probably didn't enter into Ex-Confederate thinking. He committed treason in many's eyes, and that was a far greater crime than speaking for former slaves.

 

[Lubliner]

Well, I contend that Lee so much as admitted the mistake of the failed attack, by blaming himself. In hindsight, I see this admittance as justifying Longstreet's argument. Longstreet was right! On further ideas, if Lee had refused attack on the 3rd day, and quietly redirected his army toward Pipe Creek, he maybe could have cut the Union army in half.
Lubliner.

 

[Carronade]

As I always say when this comes up, a defensive strategy assumes that the enemy will do what you want, helpfully beat himself up against your position. Lee himself said "General Meade will make no mistake in my front."

Nor is a defensive stance likely to be decisive. It may inflict more casualties on the day, as at Fredericksburg, but it is unlikely to totally destroy the enemy army, let alone turn the tide of the war, as the Confederates needed in July 1863.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Nor is a defensive stance likely to be decisive. It may inflict more casualties on the day, as at Fredericksburg, but it is unlikely to totally destroy the enemy army, let alone turn the tide of the war, as the Confederates needed in July 1863.

I don't think Lee needed to destroy the Union army to win the war (no Civil War general achieved a Cannae-level victory of annihilation in the entire war). But if Lee had won a Fredericksburg-type victory on Northern soil, then kept himself busy in Pennsylvania for a month or two gathering supplies and wrecking logistical havoc, before getting back to Virginia while the getting was good, it could very well have won the war for the South. The Lincoln administration would have been utterly discredited, the victory at Vicksburg would have been pretty much ignored by the Northern people, and a Democratic administration more disposed to peace would have been much more likely to win the 1864 election.

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

As I always say when this comes up, a defensive strategy assumes that the enemy will do what you want, helpfully beat himself up against your position. Lee himself said "General Meade will make no mistake in my front."

Nor is a defensive stance likely to be decisive. It may inflict more casualties on the day, as at Fredericksburg, but it is unlikely to totally destroy the enemy army, let alone turn the tide of the war, as the Confederates needed in July 1863.

A defensive strategy is only good if you want to do a decisive counter attack. Let the enemy beat themselves up, then hit them at the appropriate time. I think Longstreet understood that, and how far the ANV was from they're supply base and home turf.

 

[GwilymT]

Yeah I highly doubt it was the former slaves, he really didn't too much for them and there were Confederates who did who didn't get near as much attacks and spoke on behalf of former slaves, (like Forrest).

Longstreet's sin was to join the Republican Party and uphold some very unpopular people, like the Radical Republicans in Louisiana. Him also renewing his friendship with Grant, who wasn't popular either. Events like the Battle of Liberty Place, where he led ex-slave US Louisiana Militia against an Ex-Confederate one would make you think slave status was a big issue, but there were so many more pressing ones that get ignored.

Longstreet's work for former slaves probably fell near the bottom of a long list of grievances, (a lot of them unreasonable), and probably didn't enter into Ex-Confederate thinking. He committed treason in many's eyes, and that was a far greater crime than speaking for former slaves.

Treason from treason, lol. Again, I agree... the radical republicans in Louisiana were not liked by ex-rebels. After all, they thought African Americans should have the vote and other basic civil rights. Longstreet wasn't liked because he held these views and also acted on them, as in Liberty Place. Longstreet had the personal honor to actually abide by his parole and obey the laws of the government. He went further by helping to enforce those new laws. This is his unforgivable sin.

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

Treason from treason, lol. Again, I agree... the radical republicans in Louisiana were not liked by ex-rebels. After all, they thought African Americans should have the vote and other basic civil rights. Longstreet wasn't liked because he held these views and also acted on them, as in Liberty Place. Longstreet had the personal honor to actually abide by his parole and obey the laws of the government. He went further by helping to enforce those new laws. This is his unforgivable sin.

Eh, there's a LOT more to unpack on why Radical Rep. government was hated than just slavery.

No conflict ever started over one issue, no debate either. It takes a multitude of issues to inflame any human being. Especially in the South.

 

[wausaubob]

By the time the Army of No. Virginia made it to Pennsylvania, General Lee knew the situation in Mississippi was critical. He also knew that another political initiative was under way in London to gain recognition from Great Britain for the Confederacy. By July 1 General Lee was probably already behind schedule, and he was not telling his corp commanders.
As for the likelihood of the Confederates achieving a crushing victory over the Army of the Potomac, it was small.
If the Confederates had taken a defensive position, the US could take its time to get into position, since the US army was surrounded by the Pennsylvania RR system.
General Lee's army was never going to have a better chance to win a battle and win recognition, even if the odds were not that good in July 1863.
The thing had to be tried.
General Lee's mistake, having taken the chance, and lost, was not to insist that his part in the war was over, and that younger and more dedicated men should take over for him.

 

[Irishtom29]

I don't think Lee needed to destroy the Union army to win the war (no Civil War general achieved a Cannae-level victory of annihilation in the entire war). But if Lee had won a Fredericksburg-type victory on Northern soil, then kept himself busy in Pennsylvania for a month or two gathering supplies and wrecking logistical havoc, before getting back to Virginia while the getting was good, it could very well have won the war for the South. The Lincoln administration would have been utterly discredited, the victory at Vicksburg would have been pretty much ignored by the Northern people, and a Democratic administration more disposed to peace would have been much more likely to win the 1864 election.

I think the American people had more resolution and nationalistic fervor than to throw in the towel so easily. After all, the rebellion was still going after far worse defeats and great loss of territory.

 

[Cornpone and Molasses]

While perusing the Longstreet Museum website, at the bottom of the page it referenced how Longstreet made 3 mistakes that denied him his place in Southern Posterity. I'm just focusing on numbers 1 & 2.

Number 1: "He argued with Lee at Gettysburg".

Number 2 (which I found most interesting): "He was right".

The article makes a valid point.

Was Longstreet right? And Lee wrong?

Longstreet was definitely right to argue with R.E. Lee at Gettysburg and Pickett was well within his rights to never forgive Lee for ordering the assault.

 

[Lubliner]

Both men were trapped by the events that surrounded them, and morally could make no other choice.
Lubliner.

 

[Cornpone and Molasses]

As students of history we like to think we have an idea about what was going through their minds at the time, but the truth is that we will never really know. We sometimes forget that these were men were put in extraordinary and uncontrollable situations and that their decisions were not always infallible.

 

[damYankee]

Longstreet was right, and Lee and his other generals were over confident,.
But beyond rejecting Longstreet's plan, Lee's plan was IMO, a terrible one.

 

[Piedone]

By the time the Army of No. Virginia made it to Pennsylvania, General Lee knew the situation in Mississippi was critical. He also knew that another political initiative was under way in London to gain recognition from Great Britain for the Confederacy. By July 1 General Lee was probably already behind schedule, and he was not telling his corp commanders.
As for the likelihood of the Confederates achieving a crushing victory over the Army of the Potomac, it was small.
If the Confederates had taken a defensive position, the US could take its time to get into position, since the US army was surrounded by the Pennsylvania RR system.
General Lee's army was never going to have a better chance to win a battle and win recognition, even if the odds were not that good in July 1863.
The thing had to be tried.
General Lee's mistake, having taken the chance, and lost, was not to insist that his part in the war was over, and that younger and more dedicated men should take over for him.

That´s very convincing - albeit... who were that younger and more dedicated men?
And how much would it have damaged the fighting spirit of the ANV if Lee really would have resigned?
IIRC he even proposed resigning ("as I am too old to command this army") but I don´t recall at what time he wrote this to Davis.

 

[Piedone]

Longstreet was right, and Lee and his other generals were over confident,.
But beyond rejecting Longstreet's plan, Lee's plan was IMO, a terrible one.

Observing Lee´s acting at Gettysburg I always got the impression that he lost a lot of his confidence in this confrontation - which may explain some of the mistakes that were made?