Longstreet vs. Lee

[Little Powell]

JC Edwards wrote:

Hancock the Superb wrote:

(By the way - Lee choosing A.P. Hill to replace Jackson as a Corps Commander instead of J.E.B. Stuart was another blundering worst case scenario! Hill made BURNSIDE look like a tactical genius!)

Yeah, Hill made a much better division commander than a corps commander. His record of performance as a div commander was unmatched by any other commander, but he just couldn't handle a Corps (just like Ewell couldn't). But a lot of this had to do with Hill's "unidentified illness" right around the start of the Gettysburg campaign, and this illness continued until his death. He actually should have been relieved of command after Gettysburg. Why Lee left a very sick A.P. Hill in command, I'll never know. It could be because by that point, experienced generals were few and far between..

But still, he must have been doing something right because both Lee and Jackson regarded him as one of their best generals, and even called out to him on their death beds.

And yes, I'll never understand the hate for Jackson either. He was THE greatest Corps commander on both sides (Longstreet a close second). Not just because of Chancellorsville, but the Valley Campaign, 2nd Bull Run, the list goes on and on.

[Ephrum]

Lee always considered Longstreet his best general, especially later in the war when he realized that Jackson couldn't stop Grant.

Where are you drawing this conclusion from?

Grant simply had more men, and better equipment, and far more resources. Not to mention a Commander in Chief, who was willing to back him all the way.
I would like to point out that, even after Seven Days Battle, Lee thought very well of Jackson. Whenever he needed to move a large force, quickly, he turned to Jackson, not Longstreet.

Amazing how all these things that everyone mentions have nothing to do with the fighting. It seems that his legacy is based on his actions after the war was over. Then history labeled him, not based on the war, but based on the perception of him after the war.

Norb, your initial question was based on public opinion towards Longstreet and Lee, in regards to Picketts charge. The unfair blame Longstreet got for G-burg, started in the Confederate ranks, before they left G-burg. Especially among the Officers staffs. But his legacy, be it fair or unfair, was being formed during the war. As for what he did after the war, those things didn't help. And public perception is always subjective.
I think Longstreet was a victim of, being ahead of his time, in regards to his military ability.

[norb]

Ephrum wrote:

Lee always considered Longstreet his best general, especially later in the war when he realized that Jackson couldn't stop Grant.

Is this a quiz? Hancock should be the one to tell us what's wrong with that statement.

[norb]

I agree with the regards to Jackson. I think that it can be very well argued that if Jackson had still been in charge, then Pickett's charge might have never been necessary. I really like the honor of those days, but some of the stuff was just ridiculous. Like keeping Hill in charge after he had shown that he didn't have what it takes to lead the corp. They could have easily made an excuse for him, his sickness whatever, to put him back down to division. If that had happened, Stuart was still not around, who would you have put in charge of the corp? Say you make the move right after they messed up the first day by not taking the hill. At that point you make an excuse for Hill, put him back down to div, who do you put in as corp?

[estabu2]

Little Powell wrote:

JC Edwards wrote:

Hancock the Superb wrote:

(By the way - Lee choosing A.P. Hill to replace Jackson as a Corps Commander instead of J.E.B. Stuart was another blundering worst case scenario! Hill made BURNSIDE look like a tactical genius!)

Yeah, Hill made a much better division commander than a corps commander. His record of performance as a div commander was unmatched by any other commander, but he just couldn't handle a Corps (just like Ewell couldn't). But a lot of this had to do with Hill's "unidentified illness" right around the start of the Gettysburg campaign, and this illness continued until his death. He actually should have been relieved of command after Gettysburg. Why Lee left a very sick A.P. Hill in command, I'll never know. It could be because by that point, experienced generals were few and far between..

But still, he must have been doing something right because both Lee and Jackson regarded him as one of their best generals, and even called out to him on their death beds.

And yes, I'll never understand the hate for Jackson either. He was THE greatest Corps commander on both sides (Longstreet a close second). Not just because of Chancellorsville, but the Valley Campaign, 2nd Bull Run, the list goes on and on.

I guess, I must agree to disagree with my fellow testers. I just do not see Jackson as being that great. I see good results against abismal opponents. Jackson was not good during the Seven Days, good in the Valley, 2nd Manassas, Antietam, and Chancellorsville. Could have been broken at Fredericksburg, if Meade would have been supported and could have been rolled up at Chancellorville, if Hooker would have listened to anyone.

Longstreet was not very good during independent command. This can be seen during his Tennessee expedition, but was ok during the Seven Days. Good at 2nd Manassas, Antietam, Fredericksburg(not sure if you can really say this was good but easy). His ideas about Gettysburg have been justified, but his performance was still good. If he would have had Pickett on the 2nd day the Union left would have been broken. Good at the Wilderness until he was shot.

I guess it is an excercise in futility to try and say which one was better/best, both had good and bad days. My personal preference is for Longstreet, my fellow testers liek Jackson. But in Corps command I see Longstreet as the better commander, in independent command, it would be Jackson.

[PieRat]

They should have pulled Forrest up to take over Stuarts old command and let stuart command Jacksons corp. I don't know...So many things that would have been interesting to see how they might have played out. I love pondering "what ifs".

One thing I want to put out there and see what people have to say about it as I am not sure if it is 100% accurate or not, is that I thought I remembered reading somewhere that it was noted that Longstreet did not support Picketts charge fully. What I thought I remembered reading is that he held back some brigades. Has anyone else ever heard of this? Not saying that would have changed the result of the charge one way or another, just curious if what I remember is accurate or not.

[Ephrum]

I just do not see Jackson as being that great. I see good results against abismal opponents.

Wouldn't that comparison apply to other Confederate Commanders as well? I mean didn't some of them face the same Union Commanders? I don't understand how Jackson is criticized for that, more than the other Confederate Commanders.

I think all Commanders, north and south, had their fair share of screw-ups. It's just to easy to focus on either, all the negative, or positive, actions of a given Commander. Especially in hindsight. If we wanted to, we could make most of them look either good or bad, from our perspective.

[estabu2]

Very true Ephrum, that is why I said it was an exercise in futility to try and truely say which one is better. It is all opinion and I think Jackson looks better to some because of how bad the Union generals were that he faced. The same form of logic could be applied to Longstreet, he looked better because of how dumb Burnside was. It is just my opinion that Longstreet was better.

[norb]

We'll just have to do what they do in sports. We'll set up the scenario and auto play it 1000 times with Jackson, then with Longstreet and see who ends up with the better stats!

[Gfran64]

I tend to weigh a commander's total value in my decision as to who was the best or the most effective at accomplishing their task. Lincoln offered the best governmental support but he had the most to offer. Grant was the most effective but he had the most assets. Lee was the boldest, accomplishing the most with the least. Longstreet was the best tactically with a corp. Jackson the best at maneuver. McCellan perhaps was the best at organization. Hill/Hood/Kearny perhaps had the best fighting spirits. Given all this, all had their good and bad days in the field, some more than others. What I have come to believe is that they were all much better men than I. Who was the best overall, I think depends entirely on your personal perspective and the task being discussed. Was Meade better than Lee at Gettysburg? Meade was still there on the 4th day so I suppose he was.

Another way to look at this is who was missed the most. It seems to me that after the ANV lost Jackson at Chancellorsville it was never the same. I personally don't tend to offer much criticism of 80% of the generalship of the ACV because given the circumstances, most did a remarkable job in extremely difficult situations.

Just my thoughts.