Longstreet vs. Lee

[Little Powell]

Gfran64 wrote:

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.

I know I'm kind of veering off topic now, but one thing I've always admired about Grant is; he was given the task of destroying the Confederate armies, and he accomplished this task with a ruthless vengeance. He waged total war on the confederacy, something that no other Union general had the cajones to do before him. Yeah, he had the assets, but so did Mclellan, Pope, Burnside, and even Meade.. But they never took full advantage of it like Grant did. He would throw his entire force at once, take horrible casualties, and this is why some referred to him as a butcher.. But in the end, it is what destroyed the confederacy.

I would hope to see myself as a Grant kind of player in MP.. Ruthless and assertive.. Maybe this could lead to a new topic?? :laugh:

[JC Edwards]

I must be quick to point out that Jackson's poor performance during the Seven Day's can easily be broken down....

1. He may have been a General and Military man, but he was also human.(Please see General Lee at Gettysburg).

2. I believe the man was both physically and mentally exhausted. He had gone from VMI Professor to Brigade Command to Corps Command in less than 6 month's and then through the entire Valley Campaign before the Seven Day's. Who wouldn't be exhausted and at their wits end after that?!

3. )This is for Hancock)........If Longstreet was Lee's FAVORITE General then why is it that when Jackson fell Lee was heard to say "Jackson has lost his left arm; and I have lost my right"........?

It is well known that Lee was a very fatherly type figure and he loved Jackson and Longstreet as one would family. This would include Stuart as well. As we know that, even though it was done privately, Lee reprimanded, admonished and scolded Stuart for his tardiness during the Gettysburg campaign not only from the Military leader to a subordinate standpoint, but as a father would a son.

And yes LP, Hill was indeed a much finer Division commander than Corps.

Too bad his "socially contracted illness" distorted his mind.

[estabu2]

JC Edwards wrote:

I must be quick to point out that Jackson's poor performance during the Seven Day's can easily be broken down....


3. )This is for Hancock)........If Longstreet was Lee's FAVORITE General then why is it that when Jackson fell Lee was heard to say "Jackson has lost his left arm; and I have lost my right"........?

Too bad his "socially contracted illness" distorted his mind.

My dear JC, I offer a question for you. What is better, "The Old War Horse" that gets you too and fro and allows you to see and understand the battle or "The Right Arm" that writes the orders that directs the battle...haha :laugh:

[JC Edwards]

The Right Arm! Ya whipper snapper!:P

[dale]

In terms of best Union general I would go with Sherman. His march to the sea was the boldest campaign of any general in the war. His army was marching up from Georgia through the Carolinas at a pace thought impossible.

Most generals, Union and Confederate had good concepts at the beginning of campaigns. What separates them is nerve. Once things go away from the plan the poor ones panic or go turtle. The good ones steady themselves and their men. The bad ones (Burnside) stick with the plan in spite of all the strategic conditions that turn against it. McClellan never had nerve at all in battle, Hooker lost it, Meade was over his head in command, Grant never panicked.

What made Jackson great was his understanding of the use of force as a blunt instrument.
He moved his men forcefully, he obtained his objectives forcefully. When he failed at Seven Days he was physically exhausted and lost the ability to move with the force a flanking attack needed. (Plus he was just lost with bad directions.) At Antietam he counterattacked with whatever he could muster to hold the line.

Did Longstreet ever have that special quality? His attack at Second Manassas was one that was set up by Lee as a brilliant maneuver and hit a retreating army. Did he ever wage the daring attack? Was he capable of forcing an attack like Jackson could? Could he will his way through a well defended position?

Lee is the best general for this reason. He was constantly looking for ways to defeat his enemy in ways to win the war. He came frustratingly close to smashing McClellan at the Seven Days battles. He turned around an offensive thrust by Hooker at Chancellorsville and came close to pinning the army on the Rappahannock. He knew that attacking at Gettysburg was the one way to crush an enemy army on its own ground.
To give the initiative to the enemy on its home grounds would have risked far more-
Lee could have been pinned and held, cut off from the Potomac. If Meade had Lee's or Jackson's initiative the role could have been reversed and the war ended sooner.

To judge Lee as being ineffective in 1864 and 1865 is to judge an army that had no offensive capability but still managed to counterattack and to bind up not just one Union Army but three. Who could have done a better job? Even in late 1864 he was still able to rout Hancock by counterattacking at Globe Tavern.

[Armchair General]

I think people tend to forget that early in the fighting at Chancellorsville Hooker was knocked out of his senses when an artillery shell hit the porch he was standing on. I'm definitely not saying Hooker was one of the best generals in the war, I'm just trying to see the battle through the eyes of a hazy, stunned commander with a major flank being turned up on its ass.

[Hancock the Superb]

My line about Jackson not being the best general is really because he only faced terrrible opponents. A Grant would very likely not care about some oddball flanking him, he would push right forward and massacre the other portion of Lee's army.

In addition, at Fredericksburg, Jackson didn't tell AP Hill to close the gap in his lines, allowing for some 2 thousand extra casualties.

I don't believe that Jackson would have influenced a win for Lee at Gettysburg. My best guess is that he might do better on day one, overrun Cemetary Hill, but at a frightful cost (Union artillery). Then, Meade would retire to Pipe Creek and Lee would have no options but to either attack, or retreat. Either way, a Union victory happens.

[norb]

I disagree with that. I think that any capable commander on that day would have taken that hill before the arty set up. Maybe blame Stuart for no recon, but it seems that someone capable would have seen the hill and taken it. Lee saw it. I think Jackson or Longstreet would have taken it. And IMO that would have completely changed things there.

[estabu2]

I believe, no matter if Jackson would have lived, the South still loses. Say Jackson lives and he is sent out west, instead of Longstreet. Sherman is a match for Jackson, Grant comes east and does the same thing to Lee. Still I love this lively debate!!

[norb]

You can't just change the topic to a win of the war when we're discussing GB!

We are doing a good job of micro managing and over analizing personel decisions on that day. We need a depth chart!