Longstreet Was Longstreet Made a Scapegoat?

So, as I am reading this Longstreet received an at-large appointment from the Sec. of War
you should re-read it.
he was nominated or recommended by chapman for his [chapman's] congressional slot. the nomination was accepted by Poinsett. that is how it works. if it was an at large pick it would have been by poinsett, the vp, or the potus without a nomination and would have been acknowledged and approved as such by west point. here is the record. page 70 cadet number 1164. not at large but applied thru
Alabama. now check cadet 1165 james abert. applied "at large". y'all just make it up as you go , tell me i provide no evidence, that my research stinks, and write it off as SOP.

https://archive.org/details/biographicalregi02cull

http://genealogytrails.com/ny/orange/westpointbios1842class.html

no Alabama citizen was deprived
nobody has provided proof of that.
One could find something similar happening today.
yes as in fibbing about your child's true domicile to get them into a better school. happens all of the time but is not SOP and if you get caught there are consequences.
i would love to let this go but i refuse to let you or anyone else have the last word misrepresenting my posts.

edited to add links
 
as to SOP, normal procedure, acceptable practice, and normal occurance, it certainly was not in longstreet's class. however if it is true please provide one example of a cadet who did not apply at large but via a vacant district slot, nominated by that district's congressman but said applicant never lived in that district or state.
to clear up post #266...
appointments are all made by the secretary of war, vp, or potus. nominations or recommendations are made by a congressman, and recommendations for nomination or appointment are made by private citizens . when post #266 referred to "promiscuously throughout the Union", it was refering to appointments, not nominations, which are made by secretary of war.
barbour said he would appoint one cadet from every district and two from every state and he said he would "treat with respect" the recommendations of members of congress and private citizens. he would also make appointments "promiscuously throughout the Union" for the "extraordinary cases" needed to maintain sufficient cadet levels. these "extraordinary cases" can only be "at large" appointments and do not require a congressional nomination.
James Longstreet applied through the 1st congressional district of alabama with a nomination or recommendation from that district's congressman, reuben chapman. His appointment was not by way of a "at large" application.
to clear up my position on longstreet's application.
longstreet was only seventeen. although he expressed a desire to pursue a military career from an early age i believe it was his uncle augustus's ambitions for his nephew that was mostly behind this episode.
i believe there was a certain amount of intrigue involved because of the circumstances of the execution of his father's will. most of the players in the case are the same as those involved in longstreet's nomination to west point. it is a good story. this is a small thing but establishes a pattern for the future. i believe that longstreet was a great general, highly ambitious, who cared for his men, but with some flawed character traits . i believe he was in fact made a scapegoat but contributed to his southern unpopularity because he was a scalawag. i also believe his treason was different than every other confederate or was in addition to that same treason, and so was not eligible for pardon but was overlooked or undiscovered.
now i'm done and my rant is over. i find this forum very cliquey and will try to refrain from returning, but i have many forms of OCD. if you don't like me here don't bait me and i will not have a reason to comeback. i just do not like folks to twist my words.
 
James Longstreet applied through the 1st congressional district of alabama with a nomination or recommendation from that district's congressman, reuben chapman. His appointment was not by way of a "at large" application.
to clear up my position on longstreet's application.
longstreet was only seventeen. although he expressed a desire to pursue a military career from an early age i believe it was his uncle augustus's ambitions for his nephew that was mostly behind this episode.
i believe there was a certain amount of intrigue involved because of the circumstances of the execution of his father's will. most of the players in the case are the same as those involved in longstreet's nomination to west point. it is a good story. this is a small thing but establishes a pattern for the future. i believe that longstreet was a great general, highly ambitious, who cared for his men, but with some flawed character traits . i believe he was in fact made a scapegoat but contributed to his southern unpopularity because he was a scalawag. i also believe his treason was different than every other confederate or was in addition to that same treason, and so was not eligible for pardon but was overlooked or undiscovered.
now i'm done and my rant is over. i find this forum very cliquey and will try to refrain from returning, but i have many forms of OCD. if you don't like me here don't bait me and i will not have a reason to comeback. i just do not like folks to twist my words.


Henry, after looking at the West Point biographical link that you provided in post#301 and reviewing the thread I now consider what you have posted about Longstreet's appointment to be correct. I admit that I was confused about the appointment process, that link caused me to reevaluate and things fell into place. You were consistently challenged to provide evidence and have done so. Good work.

As to the Longstreet forum be "cliquey", you have a point in that most here believe that "Old Pete" was shortchanged. First by Early & Co. and then by the historians who followed their biased lead and there are a few remaining adherents to the Early school. Due to your challenging the "legitimacy" of Longstreet's appointment some here, I'm sure, knee jerked into the mind set of "Here we go again" and others were simply expecting solid evidence of your initial claim. This portion of Longstreet's life has, as far as I know, been unexplored on the forum, unknown and thus the resistance to it. Although there may have been some brusque responses to you, and in this format it is many times unintended, I hope you stick around.
 
The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History, Gary W. Gallagher and Alan T. Nolan, Indiana University Press 2000.
This is addressed in Chapter 6 which was written by Jeffrey D. Wert.
The problem is that the mythology of the Lost Cause had to justify the initial decision to secede, facing the overwhelming advantages of the United States, and deified Robert E. Lee as part of the effort to claim that since old Virginia planter society joined the Confederacy it was therefore a justified rebellion, that a mythological reason the Confederacy failed had to be invented.
If the Confederates had a real contingent chance to win, and had the best general, by a large margin, then how did they lose?
If the overwhelming resources were available to the United States, wasn't there some responsibility among the Confederate leadership for inflicting the war on the southern population?
More over if the mythology was that Grant was a bum, then Lee's generalship could not have been that good, which is an observation sometimes attributed to General Lee himself.
 
That’s interesting. I own the series and have not read them. Please share more.

How did I miss this?!? In case you never got around to reading Freeman (yuck!), this is likely what was being alluded to in an earlier post. In Lee’s Lieutenants (1942-44), Freeman somewhat softened his previous ridiculous attack on General Longstreet and spread the blame for Gettysburg more widely. He wrote, “Longstreet’s behavior on the 2nd was that of a man who sulked because his plan was rejected by his chief. ... He should have obeyed orders, but the orders should not have been given.” Freeman also admitted that at Gettysburg Longstreet “does not warrant the traditional accusation that he was the villain of the piece.”
 
Last edited:
I don’t blame Longstreet for the loss at Gettysburg. But his obedience to General Lee and some other Generals leave a lot to be desired.
Would you have gone against Lee ,would you have not given Picket the orders? Longstreet had suggested that Lee and the army leave the field ,that would be closest he question his COMMANDING general. My duty is not to question but to do or die,or something to that effect.
 
Would you have gone against Lee ,would you have not given Picket the orders? Longstreet had suggested that Lee and the army leave the field ,that would be closest he question his COMMANDING general. My duty is not to question but to do or die,or something to that effect.
At Gettysburg Longstreet refused 2 tmes to give a direct order to Pickett. Longstreet was bull headed to General Lee’s orders for two days worth of fighting. That was very unusual for one so 'great'. Longstreet don't take the blame for anything. Particularly, at Seven Pines where he made mistakes he blamed on 2 other Generals. McLaws came to Longstreet at the battle of Knoxville trying to explain how dangerous attacking this fort. There was frozen rain snow and ice and the soldiers couldn't make it up the sides of the Fort. Longstreets answer was "go back and do as you are told". That is my problem. I have not read Early's book so you don't have to make any free observation. What Early said is on him not me. :smile coffee:
 
How did I miss this?!? In case you never got around to reading Freeman (yuck!), this is likely what was being alluded to in an earlier post. In Lee’s Lieutenants (1942-44), Freeman somewhat softened his previous ridiculous attack on General Longstreet and spread the blame for Gettysburg more widely. He wrote, “Longstreet’s behavior on the 2nd was that of a man who sulked because his plan was rejected by his chief. ... He should have obeyed orders, but the orders should not have been given.” Freeman also admitted that at Gettysburg Longstreet “does not warrant the traditional accusation that he was the villain of the piece.”
Interestingly, in a recent book Receding Tide which I reviewed here in the forums recently https://civilwartalk.com/threads/re...by-edwin-c-bearss-with-j-parker-hills.156481/ , none other than Ed Bearss also criticizes Longstreet for his Gettysburg performance - not because he deliberately dragged his feet or failed to follow instructions as Early and company insist, but because he knew that Lee had intentions for July 2 and he failed to bring Hood and McLaws closer to the battlefield so they would be ready to do whatever Lee decided. Instead, he allowed them to go into camp miles from the battlefield where they had long marches before they could possibly arrive.
 
Last edited:
Would you have gone against Lee ,would you have not given Picket the orders? Longstreet had suggested that Lee and the army leave the field ,that would be closest he question his COMMANDING general. My duty is not to question but to do or die,or something to that effect.
At Gettysburg Longstreet for 2 days refused to give a direct order to Pickett. Longstreet was bull headed to General Lee’s orders for two days worth of fighting.
 
Un-biased source please?

I'd have a very hard time naming a single unbiased contemporary primary Confederate source, if not for the whole battle of Gettysburg, for sure for Pickett's charge.

If anyone know of any unbiased primary contemporary Confederate sources on the subject, I would certainly love to hear them.
 
I'd have a very hard time naming a single unbiased contemporary primary Confederate source, if not for the whole battle of Gettysburg, for sure for Pickett's charge.

If anyone know of any unbiased primary contemporary Confederate sources on the subject, I would certainly love to hear them.

I think @O' Be Joyful is more likely looking for a source for the assertion that Longstreet would not give a direct order to Pickett for 2 days. I have read a lot of books about Gettysburg, and never seen any such item mentioned and never seen it mentioned on this board except by the user that posted that
 
I think @O' Be Joyful is more likely looking for a source for the assertion that Longstreet would not give a direct order to Pickett for 2 days. I have read a lot of books about Gettysburg, and never seen any such item mentioned and never seen it mentioned on this board except by the user that posted that

2 Days is a long time. Alexander's 1907 memoir might be the basis for some of the confusion there as far as Pickett's charge goes, but I suspect that Longstreet gave a direct order to Pickett the previous day to come to Gettysburg from Chambersburg... Someone had to do it...
 
The problem is that the mythology of the Lost Cause had to justify the initial decision to secede, facing the overwhelming advantages of the United States, and deified Robert E. Lee as part of the effort to claim that since old Virginia planter society joined the Confederacy it was therefore a justified rebellion, that a mythological reason the Confederacy failed had to be invented.
I apologize if this is off topic and I may be sorry I asked. Im always interested in your posts wausaubob and I'm particularly interested in this quote from Wert (whom I admire very much). This may seem like a silly question, but its genuine and not intended to be argumentative. Since I'm not as well-versed on "Lost cause mythology" as perhaps I should be, is Lost Cause mythology supposed to justify why the southern states voted to secede? or why the Confederate army lost the war? or is it just supposed to deify Lee? Or all of these? It seems that Wert here is saying all three? Or maybe Im just not clear on what he is saying? Maybe this would be better discussed elsewhere? If so, I am happy to ask a moderator to move it.
If anyone know of any unbiased primary contemporary Confederate sources on the subject, I would certainly love to hear them.
Well, not exactly contemporary, but from someone who was there, involved, and I'd think knew the particulars....McLaws post-war recollections seem to be pretty neutral to both Lee and Longstreet. He certainly didn't claim or even imply that Longstreet's actions were in any way an attempt to undermine Lee's orders, his authority, or his strategy. Maybe its a biased source though; you know I'm a fan of McLaws, Longstreet, Lee and tact, so it makes sense that I'd latch onto McLaws diplomatic and judicious account. :D
 
Back
Top