Longstreet

[klongstreet]

Yes I know I am putting myself up to be shot down, but I happen to think Longstreet got a lot of bad press.
"Defense, Defense, Defense" Yet the man knew what future warfare would bring, trench warfare. I can't believe that his politics was the sole reason for his fall out with Lee, rather his truthfulness in what Lee should have done at Gettysburg. I am sure to be corrected but I hope we can have a Longstreet thread.

 

[rhp6033]

Well, this subject has come up quite a few times before. Despite allegations that Longstreet was too slow on Day Two at Gettysburg, Lee still considered him his old "War Horse". Although the Chattanooga/Knoxville campaign didn't end very well, Lee still relied upon Longstreet to rally the right flank and create the path through which the Union flank was turned. His subsequent wounding made him sorely missed during the Overland Campaign.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Longstreet was neglected and underrated for a century due to the nasty writings of Jubal Early and his alignment with the Republican Party after the war. He's gone through something of a renaissance in the last twenty years or so, though I sometimes wonder if we're now praising him a bit too highly.

 

[GABoy]

The thing that I appreciate about Longstreet is that he seemed to recognize that the prevailing methods for fighting battles were outdated. To simply throw as many bodies as possible at an enemy and expect a positive outcome could no longer win the day. The problem he had was in convincing others, including Lee, that those methods had to change, and is why he knew "Pickett's Charge" would fail. General Hood also seemed to be of the same mind as Longstreet, at least as far as action on the second day of Gettysburg. Colonel Chamberlain (of Little Round Top fame) and Greene (up on Culp's Hill) would have probably loved to serve under Longstreet. And I dare say that if Grant had Longstreet, the war would have probably been over in 1863.

 

[dlofting]

I think Longstreet was the best corp commander in the Confederate army.......even better than Jackson. Jackson, however, was much better at independent command, where Longstreet struggled.

Longstreet's assaults at Second Manassas and Chickamauga were well organized, well executed and overwhelmingly successful. He came close on July 2 at Gettysburg.

The mistakes he made during the war were mostly of a non-military nature such as involving himself with the group of officers from the Army of Tennessee who were trying to undermine Bragg. In things like this he was his own worst enemy......but still a great corp commander.

 

[M E Wolf]

Yes I know I am putting myself up to be shot down, but I happen to think Longstreet got a lot of bad press.
"Defense, Defense, Defense" Yet the man knew what future warfare would bring, trench warfare. I can't believe that his politics was the sole reason for his fall out with Lee, rather his truthfulness in what Lee should have done at Gettysburg. I am sure to be corrected but I hope we can have a Longstreet thread.

Please do look in our "Advance Search" engine on Longstreet.

I'm a Longstreet fan myself, as he was wrongly blamed and, I am a sort for championing the underdog when justified and justice requires it.

M. E. Wolf

 

[JEB]

Here is my two cents :

I believe the death of Longstreets children took him out of the game . Its safe to assume he was not himself during the campaign . Observers called him " a humbug " or " sullen " , " bitter ", " obstinate and irritated " . I believe his emotional and mental state interfered with his ability to deal effectively with Gen Lee . His 'will ' to carry out the attacks was drained .

Its well documented that he disagreed with Lee's offensive plan . Longstreet was too drained to convince Lee his plan would end in disaster . Longstreet should have done a better job in informing Lee about the true state of affairs ...the faulty intelligence , lack of artillery ammo , the disposition of the Union line etc etc . Longstreet could have called off the attack(s) .

Instead of diligently coordinating the July 3rd offensive he allowed 1/3 of Lee's Army to remain relatively idle . I believe Longstreet KNEW the charge would fail and tried to save what troops he could . There was no communication/coordination with AP Hill's Corp . How could a commander let that happen? I don't believe Longstreet utilized all the strength available . He did not commit 100% .

If he knew failure was the outcome why didn't he simply refuse to carry out Lee's orders and resign on the spot ? Instead he turned in a half assed effort and backed down to Gen Lee . Was his sense of duty to Lee more important than the lives of his men ? He didn't want to sacrifice his career and be labled a coward .

If Lee had replaced Longstreet...and still failed...Longstreet would have been in the " I told you so " position and history would have a totally different take on his performance . Instead he gave a half assed effort which ultimatley reflected poorly upon his record .

The question is did Longstreet purposely undermine Lee's orders ? Was his lack of coordination/communication indicative of his belief that failure would be the ultimate result ? OR was it a shortcoming of his command/leadership/administrative skills ?

 

[Jamieva]

But there was nobody Lee could've replaced for Longstreet at that point and have any confidence to be the leader of such an assault. Even a half hearted Longstreet was a better option then what he had in the "bullpen"

 

[Rebforever]

Yes I know I am putting myself up to be shot down, but I happen to think Longstreet got a lot of bad press.
"Defense, Defense, Defense" Yet the man knew what future warfare would bring, trench warfare. I can't believe that his politics was the sole reason for his fall out with Lee, rather his truthfulness in what Lee should have done at Gettysburg. I am sure to be corrected but I hope we can have a Longstreet thread.

He hesitated to follow Lee's orders, pure and simple. After thought can make him right but he couldn't operate pouting as he was for whatever reason.

 

[Rebforever]

Please do look in our "Advance Search" engine on Longstreet.

I'm a Longstreet fan myself, as he was wrongly blamed and, I am a sort for championing the underdog when justified and justice requires it.

M. E. Wolf

Longstreet an underdog? Surely you jest?

 

[JEB]

Nobody could replace Longstreet .....agreed .

There just seems to be a spiteful element in Longstreet's actions . Why didn't he allow Hood to make any adjustments to the plan ? ( Hood probably would have anyway ) His insistence on following Lee's orders to a " T " on July 2nd doesn't make sense . Lee was no where near the the front . Perhaps if Lee was there to witness what was going on events may have transpired differently . Regardless Longstreet should have wiped the III Corps off the face of the earth July 2nd without sustaining the damage suffered .

Longstreet lost his edge .

A fully functioning Longstreet should have been able to influence Gen Lee accordingly. At the very least he should have been capable of coordinating a better attack against Sickles advanced line .

 

[ErnieMac]

Instead of diligently coordinating the July 3rd offensive he allowed 1/3 of Lee's Army to remain relatively idle . I believe Longstreet KNEW the charge would fail and tried to save what troops he could . There was no communication/coordination with AP Hill's Corp . How could a commander let that happen? I don't believe Longstreet utilized all the strength available . He did not commit 100% .

It is my understanding that in addition to Pickett's Division already under Longstreet's command, Lee assigned Heth's Division (Pettigrew commanding) and Pender's Division (Trimble commanding) to Longstreet for the purposes of the assault. If other units of Lee's Army remained idle how was that Longstreet's responsibility?

There just seems to be a spiteful element in Longstreet's actions . Why didn't he allow Hood to make any adjustments to the plan ? ( Hood probably would have anyway ) His insistence on following Lee's orders to a " T " on July 2nd doesn't make sense . Lee was no where near the the front . Perhaps if Lee was there to witness what was going on events may have transpired differently.

This is a suggestion on my part with no documentation to back it up, but what if it was Lee, not Longstreet, who was off his game. It is known that Lee was in a battle he hadn't wanted and the cavalry he had available to him for reconnaissance was not to his liking. He was also physically ailing. Imagine that Longstreet arrives mid-morning with objections to the plan Lee has developed and alternate suggestions ranging from finding a defensive position to await attack to moving around the right. An exasperated Lee finally responds with "Just do what I ordered". This isn't the type of thing that's going to make it into the Official Records and when Hood says "Hey, lets go to the right." Longstreet has little option but to say no.

Regardless Longstreet should have wiped the III Corps off the face of the earth July 2nd without sustaining the damage suffered .

Why do you say this? Longstreet's attack, when it came, was powerfully delivered. Longstreet wasn't just facing the III Corps, but substantial portions of the II Corps and V Corps that came to the assistance of the III Corps. He probably did as well as possible under the circumstances.

 

[GELongstreet]

...A fully functioning Longstreet should have been able to influence Gen Lee accordingly...

Remember that to influence someone you need the respective person's (conscious or unconscious) cooperation. The mouth can't achieve victory when the ear refuses to hear and the brain refuses to process!

 

[JEB]

In reference to Longstreet's command of Heth & Pettigrews troops : Its my understanding that Lee recruited these troops himself . Although they were as battered and bloody as Mclaws & Laws men they happened to be at the right place at the right time . Other than that I would imagine Longstreet had a blank check to use whatever and whom ever he needed . (?)

I've yet to be convinced that Longstreet ordered Hills Corps to do anything other than arrrange for Lang and Wilcox to shield Pickett's right flank and tell Lane where to post his two brigades . It seems that minimal information was exchanged . McLaws claims Longstreet kept him in the dark and never even issued formal instructions ?!? I have no idea what Longstreet's instructions to AP Hill were . Other Third Corps troops were in better shape and Longstreet didn't use them .

Longstreet made no arrangements for support troops . His failure to do so was the basis of the controversy blaming him for not deploying large numbers of troops and screwing up Lee's plan . If there was to be a second wave in Pickett's charge Trimble was it ! Longstreet knew the attack would fail and didn't bother calling for supports .

 

[JEB]

I agree that Lee was off his game . Thats the subject of a different thread !

I don't understand why Longstreet was so inflexable July 2nd .

 

[JEB]

In reference to Longstreet's attack on The Peach Orchard : The attack was being initiated under a misapprehension of the strength , length , shape and position of the Union left flank .

Longstreet decided to delay the attack until Hood's division was moved to McLaws' right and placed in position to drive in Sickles extended left . Then an artillery bombardment was ordered . Any chane of a Jackson-like surprise was ruined .

The Confederates had a clear advantage as they had about 50 guns in place when the first shots were fired . They did however intially fail to exploit the advantages of the exterior lines. No guns were placed directly west of the Peach Orchard until the action was well underway ,depriving the batteries of the ability to converge their fire against the bulging salient and the weakest part of the Union line . I believe they missed a superb opprotunity to blast the Union line into submission before any infantry stepped off .

The best way to use Sickles salient against him was to hit it from two sides . I believe it took about 30 minutes before Huger's battery was placed directly west of The Peach Orchard resulting in demoralizing fire from close range . By then additional reinforcements were on their way .

Sickles salient at the Peach Orchard offered the Confederates the ability to pound it with converging and enfilade fire . The heavy target density SHOULD have increased the potential for more Federal guns to be hit by enfilade , ricochet, and overshoots . Despite these advantages the Confederates lost at least 12...maybe 14 guns . The Union did not report the loss of a single gun during the artillery duel. (?) The Union successfully engaged several rebel batteries with a smothering fire . IMHO Longstreet was outgunned .

The failure to destroy OR disperse the Union artillery meant that Longstreet's infantry had to advance under fire .

McLaws' advance doesn't make sense .Why did Kershaw move and Barksdale not follow ? Kershaw was exposed to enfilade fire from troops that Barksdale would have easily driven off . How is this not BAD tactics ?The primary weakness of Sickles' position was the ability to be attacked from TWO sides . Why didn't Longstreet do so ??

What happened to a concentrated massive attack ? His attack degenerated into a series of uncoordinated frontal assaults across open fields , under fire in the broiling sun and without supports .In exchange for heavy casualities in the fighting for DD [ Moderator's edit Devils Den aka DD] and The WF [Moderator's edit Wheat Field aka WF] Longstreet captured ground that offered little in the way of tactical value . It was a bloody mess .

[MODERATOR EDIT DUE TO READERSHIP MAY NOT BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE ABBREVIATED FORM, IDENTIFYING SPOTS ON OR ABOUT THE BATTLEFIELD, ESPECIALLY NEW STUDENTS OF THE CIVIL WAR. M. E. WOLF ]
July 31, 2014 3:39 p.m.]

 

[M E Wolf]

Longstreet an underdog? Surely you jest?

No, not jesting -- the post-Civil War years created a cloud over Longstreet's reputation which to me makes him an underdog when it comes right down to it.

M. E. Wolf

 

[Rebforever]

No, not jesting -- the post-Civil War years created a cloud over Longstreet's reputation which to me makes him an underdog when it comes right down to it.

M. E. Wolf

I never figured him to be an underdog. I have been accused of that very thing but I haven't read anything but recent books

 

[Nathanb1]

Yes I know I am putting myself up to be shot down, but I happen to think Longstreet got a lot of bad press.
"Defense, Defense, Defense" Yet the man knew what future warfare would bring, trench warfare. I can't believe that his politics was the sole reason for his fall out with Lee, rather his truthfulness in what Lee should have done at Gettysburg. I am sure to be corrected but I hope we can have a Longstreet thread.

He didn't write his book and bring that out until after Lee was dead, so I doubt that. I understand he wanted to get his story on paper before he died....but darn, why didn't he do it sooner?

 

[M E Wolf]

MODERATOR'S MENTION:

Folks, please remember that there are some folks brand new to the interests and studies of the American Civil War. It is easy for those who have some time into the studies of the War, as to use abbreviations to refer to places, things and actions. Yet, to be fair to those new, the youths that come here to study and ask questions (as we've had 6 year olds through 90 year olds here, and every age in between); please take the time to spell it out.

M. E. Wolf
POSTED IN THE CAPACITY OF MODERATOR
July 31, 2014 3:46 p.m.