Dear Dred,
In looking at the correspondences of General Robert E. Lee and the recollections of his son, to whom first served as a private in the artillery; Lee's son in a summary, mentioned that General Lee's favorite general was "John Bell Hood" aka "Sam." According to Lee's son -- Lee trusted Hood.
That said, these little 'tags' General Lee applied to various generals; General Jackson might have been his 'arm' or 'muscle' but, Stuart was his 'eyes' and "Longstreet" his support and carrier (My Old War Horse).
Being an equestrian--this term in our circles is the highest compliment of a horse--as they are steady, reliable, carry long hours, cool under fire, in the excitement of battle they're just involved yet, with horse sense--great caution for their safety and it is their rider's safety as well.
Each general had mistakes in their commands--nobody is perfect but, I think General Lee got too confident in his own mind and perhaps felt pressured to make choices without the 'eyes' of his army, the total impact of Jackson's absent from the field and or command, wasn't really felt or tested yet--so; he wasn't accustom to the new 'rank' and 'leadership' structure as to use it wisely. I think Jackson umbrella leadership hid the flaws of Early, AP Hill and Ewell. It wasn't important when Jackson was alive as he was so 'large' in a great many aspects of command--Jackson didn't rely on Ewell, Hill or Early--they depended on him. They weren't the caliber of a corps commander Jackson was--and Jackson didn't train them or share his battle plans. Jackson was sly in that regard--as not to be called on his mistakes as Jackson could excuse it on contingencies. Whereas, Longstreet seemingly, in his style--had the commanders be more responsible for their own brigades and regiments and their reports on their status, inspections and their own experiences--he drew from that and made his decisions and tactical plans based on what General Lee had planned. When General Longstreet was so seriously wounded in the neck, not that far from where Jackson was shot by his own men; Longstreet being shot by his own CSA forces--like Jackson had to be a 'flash back' for Lee. His two arms--Jackson and Longstreet--can loose one but two? Ouch --But, with Longstreet's commanders--they carried the fight without Longstreet and didn't digress in their performance; as they were not so dependent on the man-Longstreet--just Longstreet's training.
But, regardless of how Lee's men and supporters think of 'the General'--Lee admitted his error in judgment and perhaps that alone--taking responsibility like a man does--was more endearing to the common soldier than anything else; with a magical quality about him. Remember, in the beginning Lee was dubbed 'Old Granny.' I think Lee lived through Jackson--perhaps the flaw, when you personally and emotionally invest in someone and when they're dead or gone--it is hard to switch into a new 'body' to live through, especially when they have always been there from the start.
Now, that said -- I think General Longstreet had more affection than he may have manifested. Being close to Lee's camp; its my belief, supported by reading the official correspondences between them; verses Jackson's --
Longstreet seemed to have a 'son' relationship with Lee. I believe Lee was fatherly to Longstreet. Both were quiet like--few words but, when they did speak--it was volumes. Lee was the 'father' of the Confederate Army. The many recollections of Lee doing little 'touching' things--like putting his raincoat over a sleeping staff officer, asleep on his horse when, in truth--he should have been awake. He had a way of making soldiers and officers feel that they really mattered and he really cared--and I believe it was his nature to be so. I think nobody wanted to disappoint General Lee but, it had a flaw--and that is, often other generals would not tell the truth of how bad things were as to spare Lee's feelings--when Lee should have been told the truth as to have a honest assessment of his troop strength and the positions held at Gettysburg. General Lee is ultimately responsible. Just as Grant was, and all the ones who proceeded him in commanding the entire army. I am constantly reminded of the parallel to the affections of General Lee of both armies really, is as much of an impact on the affections of HRH Princess Diana "The People's Princess" -- that affection world wide; is the impact of the affections for General Lee--flaws overlooked but, it was the 'person' that was the power behind the admiration.
I do believe General Lee was very aware about General Longstreet's loss of hearing but, it wasn't until the death of Longstreet's children and the need for General Pickett, to bury his children as he, Longstreet was required to be with Lee. Perhaps Lee felt guilty, sorrowful and--maybe shared a common misery of loosing dearones--bonded them. The loss of able commanders I'm sure cause Lee concern--he cared about people and those under him cared about Lee. The Union Army didn't have a wide swatch of admiration for any one General, other than their division, corps, regiment and or battalion commanders; as there were so many chiefs and not enough consistancy.
In addition, I proffer this -- General T. Jackson was not in the position of great failures as he was assigned to the eastern theater for the most part and in Virginia. Should "Stonewall" have been in other theaters, I am not so sure he would have had the many successes. But, that is a 'what if.'
Longstreet, despite Bragg--was successful which to me; gives me thoughts that no matter who was chief in the army; Longstreet could survive and thrive off of Lee's coat tails. It was Lee who summoned Longstreet back. Perhaps this break was much needed--to see clearly without the shadow of Longstreet's command/fighting abilities to see how wretched his commanders were. Although the relationships were strained after Gettysburg; the reports reflect that Lee valued Longstreet that much more.
Once General Grant understood, the threat wasn't the CSA, Jeff Davis and such--it was General Lee the man, who was the power/force behind the life of the CSA army; then everything developed into what took place. I'm sure the CSA recognized that for the Union, the power/force behind it was Lincoln--not so much because he was a President--it was the 'man' that touched lives and made them feel that they mattered.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf