If Longstreet...Says So, It is Most Likely Not True
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2020
- Longstreet gained immense criticism after the war because of his political affiliations and comments about some of the war’s southern leaders. However, the attack on the Union left at Gettysburg remains one of the biggest controversies of the war and much of the blame falls on Longstreet. Is that criticism warranted? On July 2, 1863, Longstreet moved in a sluggish manner, more sluggish than normal because his battle plan and strategy was rejected by Robert E. Lee and instead ordered the corps commander to attack the Wheatfield, Peach Orchard, Devil’s Den, and Little Round Top. What resulted was Longstreet pouting and dragging his feet to display his disdain for Lee. This week, the anniversary of Gettysburg, stay tuned on this channel to hear amazing stories of the largest battle in North America.
#Gettysburg #CivilWar #Longstreet #GettysburgNMP #DevilsDen #Wheatfield #LittleRoundTop #JamesLongstreet #RobertELee #UnionArmy #Union #Confederacy #History #HaveHistoryWillTravel #HistoryChannel #Historynerd #Historygeek #HistoryCritique #historymemes #historyofart #historyinthemaking #historybuff #historylover #historylesson #historyfacts #historyinpictures #historymaker #historylovers #historyteacher #historymakers #historymeme #historytour #historymade #historytv18 #historymuseum
/ havehistorywilltravel
teespring.com/stores/have-his...
/ havehistorywt
/ have-history-will-trav...
After the war General Pickett was asked who was responsible for the defeat at Gettysburg, Lee or Longstreet. Pickett responded, "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."
LOL...funny but true.
Well said General, well said.
LOL, but he also pointed out to someone when he saw Lee, "That man destroyed my Division"
Rebel Yell on that one.
@@Future-Preps35 Don't know where you're getting your information but you may want to pick up a book someday.
The Union had the high ground, interior lines, plus an army of unknown strength. Yet Longstreet's the villain?
The Union left was not in a good defensive position. Almost in the air. A strong attack by the Confederate right on Little Round Top from the south would have most likely won the day and scattered if not destroyed the Union army.
Longstreet isn't the only "villian" as you put it. But his head wasn't in the attacks and he did not do all he could to lead his corp.
@@terrykeever3280 Longstreet two divisions crushed the 3rd Corps of Sickles, took over the wheatfield, devils den and the peach orchard. If it wasn't for heroic stands (1st Minnesota, 20th Maine, McGilvery's battery) and interior lines, they would have broke Union lines. Longstreet also had to countermarch his troops midday because the route did not provide flanking cover for an attack. Lee had poor knowledge of the terrain and wanted Longstreet to attack up the Emmitsburg Road, something that was impossible. Without Stewart, Lee should not have subjected his soldiers to a reckless attack over such difficult ground. I'm not saying Longstreet was innocent, but his attack on the second day for several hours, was one of the most vicious and heroic attacks of the war.
The Union had a lot more artillery left and going over a mile thru open fields attacking entrenched troops was just plain asking for it. Read Sun Tzu
@@terrykeever3280 delusional
Also, it bears mentioning that Longstreet was right at Gettysburg and Lee was wrong. All these attacks were completely futile against an enemy that had every advantage (you win by exploiting some key tactical advantage, not by fighting harder). And it also lost sight of the entire strategy behind the campaign. Or else, the strategy had become impossible to carry out within days of stepping off, in which case it was a terrible strategy and needed to be given up immediately.
In Any case, Lee‘s tactics would not have become more viable if Longstreet attacked faster.
I disagree. Longstreet was cautioning against the actions that Lee wanted to take. Lee lost sight of the whole purpose of his own campaign goals. Longstreet didn't.
Not true! Lee was relying on the reconnaissance of his calvary but they failed the mission. Plus commander not waiting for reinforcements and listening to Lee
So the south has resounding victories = all skill and valor but when they don't the excuses come out. Shelby Foote even brought up the Union still had another corp in reserve had much more artillery. And most of all they were on the home ground, when the south attacked north they didn't have much luck at Antietam or Gettyburg - shoe was on the other foot
I see the fault mostly as Lee's. First, Lee has bad intelligence and knows it, but still forces battle. Second, he had previously generally started battles from a defensive posture, and attacked from it. Maybe the Seven Days is an exception, but not really imo. Also, Lee gives crappy orders often. If Longstreet had discretion, I think he should have known clearly. Day 1, he gave Ewell a vague order to take a hill, "if practicable." He gave Stuart permission to try to pass around the Union Army, and while the orders told Stuart he could, Stuart also had to be the judge of it. So, discretion, but .... Stuart tried and got trapped. That is not all on Stuart, as Lee bears much of the blame for it. Grant, by comparison, gave simpler and direct orders.
Mostly, he has a Corp commander who he knows has no faith in the battle plan and still puts him in charge. That is a decision Lee made. When you have a man going into battle, he needs to believe.
Finally, Lee's major fault, is that while he is tactically brilliant, he does not have a winning strategy. Jeff Davis thinks the South had much more time than Lee did. Lee thought that he must defeat completely the Union Army sooner, not just outlast it or wait until he had the perfect opportunity. He forced the issue.
@@danmc7815 well said,and Longstreet was right head to Washington and get the Union troops off the high ground onto terrain that they could pick and choose. Longstreet was also correct as this was Fredricksburg only reversed - which it was. Shelby Foote had mentioned that many believes lee had been suffering from a heart attack in early July - makes sense considering his age and all the stress he was under
Maybe the mistake was not Lee or Longstreet, but the decision to go north in the first place. In retrospect, the idea of winning a "game changing" battle on Northern soil appears to be one of desperation forced by necessity. But still a pipe dream, perhaps.
Longstreet is a popular fall guy, especially for lost causers, because of his political affiliations after the war
Beware of Revishionism!😮
I take exception to this video. Almost all critical writings about Longstreet were made well after the war ended. Most of the critics blamed him because he petitioned for citizenship and became a Republican. Also, he supported Grant after the war which pissed off the southern leaders.
Yes, Grant was his friend since West Point
Agreed......this video was extremely subjective and definitely cherry picked to support someone’s non-objective and personal opinion of events that happened 150 years before they were born. Fake/False media and history is so out of control in our society today and that’s the category this work falls under.
@@dennisivan85 I think most of their evidence is in their posts. Wait long enough then come out and blame Longstreet whom no one in the south liked any longer anyway. A classic setup.
Now for a little tactical evidence, Longstreet was following orders and moved Laws and Hood's divisions south behind the ridge until he saw the union corps in the wheat field. He knew the original plan was now fubar and that his only recourse was speed. Position the troops and attack quickly, that's why they were on top of the ridge. Longstreet knew his best course of action was to let Hood move around to the right but he also knew that his attack was only part of the days action so he didn't have the time for the movement.
@@dennisivan85 My thoughts exactly.
@@catmandu1957 Its still taught at AWC that Longstreet while not at fault for the loss. He was a peculiar leader in that he did not take direction and would always petition for his own tactics.
Sounds to me like Kirk is trying to blame Longstreet for Lee's mistakes. The campaign was, of course, never going to result in the destruction of the Army of the Potomac or the capture of Washington. Lee understood that very well. He was hoping for a tactical victory on Union soil which might have had positive political affect. Longstreet was absolutely right that the best way to achieve that was to goad Meade into attacking them, on strong ground, rather than ceding all advantage to the enemy.
His name is actually Krick. And for some REAL enlightening information on whether he is biased or not, as well as Gallagher, go to cwmemory,com with Kevin Levin and some other actual CW scholars, a few of which know them personally, having an unbiased discussion about Krick's background and motivations, where he is both defended and criticized on his views. You can come to your own conclusion. I know what mine is.
@@USGrant-rr2by I'll stick to historians such as Bruce Catton rather than follow Lee's syncopants. Lee screwed up, plain and simple.
@@USGrant-rr2by Gallagher is a solid historian - but more to the point, I've never seen the kind of anti-Longstreet bias that Krick seems to display here.
@@richardmalcolm1457 Go to the site I gave earlier, and see.
...as I remember, this whole campaign was to convince Great Britain to join in the war on the Confederate side (or at least in part). Lee badly needed a victory on Union soil to prove he could do more than just fight a defensive campaign. Even if Lee had prevailed at Gettysburg, I'm not so sure that GB would have joined - they were firm against the support of slavery, which leads to the question, "Why was the British officer even there?" For the record, I am in no way a Civil War expert - just an interested soul...
South was defeated at Getysburg because Lee ordered an attack against a formidable defensive position, across more than a mile of perfect field of fire, manned by an enemy which advantage of interior lines enabled them to quickly seal any penetration, and against the batteries placed by no one else than the superb Henry Hunt. Whichever blunders Longstreet may have committed are minor in light of the big picture.
Longstreet disagreed with Lee as to the plan for Pickett's Charge
You’re right and I agree. I’ve been to Gettysburg a few times and it’s clear to see on the tour of the grounds when you know how many men were positioned and where they were. It is Lee’s overall failure. Obviously others made poor decisions but Lee could have saved his army and lived to fight (in terms of actually making aggressive maneuvers) again. As it was Gettysburg for all intensive purposes sealed the confederacy’s fate. The outcome was never in doubt after Gettysburg and that is Lee’s fault.
Ultimate responsibility falls on Lee. But the most idiotic idea falls on Longstreet. To concentrate the entire artillery under Alexander was a horrible idea. He had two superior artillery officers tell him not to do that and Longstreet didn't want to hear it and gave command to Alexander. Terrible move General Pendleton was the brains of the Confederate artillery Colonel Walton was the brawn. Both of them said the Confederate artillery was not capable of performing in a rapid massive bombardment, and what happened when they did that? They missed every shot. They shoulda done what they did at bulls run or Fredericksburg, slow and steady
@@rheinhardtgrafvonthiesenha8185 From my understanding, the center wasn't expected to be attacked by Lee, so it was lightly defended, and some troops from the Union left near the round tops were shifted there right before Pickett's charge.
@@FordHoard True Lee thought that in the 2 days past they had attacked the southern and northen ends and those were reinforced .Meade out generaled Lee . Meade predicted on the night of the 2nd day that Lee would attack the center on the 3rd day
Southerners hated Longstreet for what he did after the war and considered him a traitor...I do not consider Longstreet a liar any more then Buell, Grant, and etc..
Ah yes another "historian" claiming that Longstreet was a liar and traitor. No mention of how Union and Confederate private correspondence was filled with critiques of the high command and subordinates. Or mention that Longstreet court martialed McClaws and the two were bitter enemies to their final days. I love how Longstreet never spoke or said much, but nobody mentions DH Hill who spoke his mind and pointed out several mistakes and problems while with the AONV. What was his reward? Getting blamed for the defeat at Antietam and removed from division command.
Once again we hear the tired old myth that Longstreet was just too slow and OBVIOUSLY the only explanation was he was being obstinate, incompetent, or both. Could it have been that Hood and McClaws divisions had both forced march all of July 1st to reach Gettysburg at 2 am on July 2....then had to make another long march in stifling heat. I don't care how battle experienced you are, tired troops are more likely to make mistakes or get misdirected. Without cavalry recon thanks to Southern gentleman JEB Stuart, Longstreet was marching blind towards the Union left. Once he set out, Lee's early intelligence was comepletely out of date. Not only did the Union have a signal observation corps on Little Round Top but Sickles corp now occupied the Wheatfield and Peach Orchard forcing Longstreet to detour further southwest and east to get into a decent attack position. The goal of the flank attack was to roll up the Union line on Cemetery Ridge not smash through Sickles corp and take Little Round Top as later generals and historians would claim.
McClaws complaint about Longstreet being so picky about having all his men and making sure everything is close in hand is typical grumbling from a division commander who can only see what is in front of him. Longstreet surely realized that his two divisions were all he had to attack and possessed no reserve to exploit a breakthrough. This attack would have to be timed and executed carefully to ensure the Union forces were bowled over in the first blow. If the Union reformed or managed to recover, there was little chance the tired Confederates could overcome further resistance especially in the stifling heat and such long marches.
There were many mistaked and blunders committed on both sides, but blaming James Longstreet for the Confederate loss is just simplistic myth making at its best and Confederate, Lost Cause propaganda at its worst.
Excellent analysis! My only nitpick, have you read Stuart's actual orders from Lee(2 sets that contradict) and Longstreet(1)? Given on June 22,23. See; JEB Stuart: Gettysburg scapegoat@history,net.
@@USGrant-rr2by thank you. Yes I am aware of these orders and other contradictory or confusing orders issued by Lee. I just find JEB Stuart way overrated as a cavalry commander and officer by past historians. It seems your breeding and bearing mattered far more for promotion and command rather fighting abilities and leadership. Cleaburne and DH Hill are two examples of capable officers who were passed over or sidelined due to their speaking honestly or expressing criticism of Confederate strategy or upper leadership.
@@rickmaurer8726 Yes, unfortunately for the CSA, a number of capable officers were "sidelined" as you say. I don't necessarily think it was breeding and bearing as much as: who your friends were at the "Point." And relationships in the US Army before the war. But, yes. your social standing did have some bearing on it, especially in the ANV! Lee did have 2 brigades of cavalry with him, however, allowed personal feelings to once again outweigh prudent military judgment! As for Stuart, yes, I to think he was overrated, but so were several other generals on both sides.
@@rickmaurer8726 Stuart may be overrated, but not by all *that* much. He consistently delivered accurate intelligence to Lee, and when he was available, competently executed all the functions expected of a cavalry corps commander in that era. He did have a bad week in the Gettysburg Campaign, but Lee's ambiguous orders have to take at least half the blame for what happened, along with his reluctance to use Imboden's cavalry (which Lee, with some justice, had a low opinion of) to supply the deficit for scouting after Stuart vanished.
@@richardmalcolm1457 Lee was the OVERALL commander. In military terms it means he takes 100% of the blame every time! Imboden was a capable cavalry officer. His brigade performed more than adequately with Breckenridge in the Valley against Franz Sigel in 1864. Tell me why Lee was justified in not using the brigades of cavalry with him to screen and scout instead of just guarding his supply train and the south passes? IMO, It's because Lee depended/expected Stuart to take care of the details for the campaign as far as the cavalry was concerned. Well, Stuart was gone(per Lee's orders) so it fell to Lee, or his staff to guide the 2 brigades he did have. Just another forgotten detail by Lee, that was blamed on somebody else. Just like the entire campaign!
Let’s not forget that immediately after the war Longstreet joined the Republican Party. A lot of Southern veterans turned on him at that point. He went from Lee’s old war horse to not even being invited to reunions in South Carolina. It wasn’t until after the war that his military record came under question because he joined the Republican Party.
Col. John S. Mosby also became a Republican, and was quoted " Hell is being a Republican in Va". Later served in the US Foreign Custom Service in Asia, under President Grant. Mosby is still honored to this day. Longstreet did spread some bitter fragrance after the war, and that wasn't taken kindly to.
I’d ask Biden, he claims to have been there……
@@deckerbob I believe you might be confusing Biden with George Santos., another great Republican.
Historian Gary Gallagher has a great line about Kentucky "They didn't join the Confederacy until after the War was over"
The same way nobody seemed to complain too much about Longstreet's generalship during the actual war, but they sure got vocal about it after.
Longstreet was an easy scapegoat for former Confederates because he dared to say Lee wasn't perfect and committed an even graver sin by becoming a Republican. Any postbellum southern source, McGuire for example, is likely writing from that bias so I don't give them much credibility when it comes to their view of Longstreet.
"What resulted was Longstreet pouting and dragging his feet to display his disdain for Lee." - Gen. Longstreet was a professional soldier, a West Point Graduate and a Mexican-American war veteran. It is fiction to suggest that he would pout, drag his feet or otherwise do anything other than do his very best to carry out his orders as a soldier and strive to meet his assigned objectives to the best of his ability with minimum losses. That's the man he was. I fail to understand the point of deflecting blame for what happened at Gettysburg from one general officer to another. This idea (promoted by some) that the south was invincible and that they lost the war because of Longstreet, is nonsense. The South should have lost far sooner if the North's commanders had not been so reluctant to fight and risk losses in the beginning, a fault Lee did not have. The best explanation for the outcome of the Battle Of Gettysburg was best said by Longstreet himself when he said "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it".
Amateur students of military history such as myself, know that most famous decisive battles (eg. Battle Of Midway) were decided by a series of small obscure decision and events which happened to combine in such a way as to provide a significant enough advantage for one side to achieve victory over the other. Gettysburg was no different.
I think your comments about Midway are a bit unjust to Spruance
The movie 'Gettysburg' seemed to suggest that Longstreet was not the only one that did not agree to Lee being given command of the Confederate army. In a dialogue between Longstreet and Armistad, the movie suggests that some senior officers called Lee 'Old Granny'. I wonder if that is historically correct or if the movie exaggerated that fact? Would be great to hear from any experts out there on this topic.
The quote you attribute to Longstreet was actually said by Pickett.
Don’t let facts, get in the way of your emotions.
@@btho5531 I'm fairly sure the 'Granny lee' comment in the film is accurate. He is refering to when Lee FIRST took command of the army of northern virginia after the death of Joseph E Johnston at the battle of seven pines. Lee didn't have a great reputation when he initially took command because his very first campaign in west virginia ended in a failure upon which lee was removed from field command and became Jeff Davis's military advisor. Also Because Lee was having them dig trenches around richmond which most soldiers at the time didn't feel was honorable/glorious work for them, and it perhaps initially felt like Lee might being cautious and defensive which we now know to be far from the case. Interestingly Mcclellen also thought very little of Lee when he first took command.
Blame everyone but Lee who made multiple mistakes that were covered by stonewall Jackson but after Jackson died couldn’t be covered anymore
Jackson being killed by friendly fire was huge and he was the best field commander the rebs had.
Thinking one commander (Longstreet) to be the same as another since deceased (Jackson) seems to me was a fundamental flaw of leadership in Lee. Rule Number One of command is know your limitations. His insistence on dividing his forces and expanding the front against a larger, more powerful and more advantageously positioned enemy seems to be not a flaw of leadership but of ego, though. Longstreet may have been pouty -- who can say -- but they all together made enough mistakes, and repeated enough of those mistakes, to lose the war. And to paraphrase Longstreet, it must have been a good indicator as to where God fell on the issue at stake. I say he was right about that.
Stupid comment.
@@NoBody-pw3kf I'm glad to find someone else who recognizes what a colossal mistake Chancellorsville was. Probably the most overrated battle of the war, certainly for Lee. Malvern Hill you can almost excuse since it was early in the war, but he should have learned from that and avoided debacles like C-ville and G-burg.
@@NoBody-pw3kf People evaluate battles too much from a tactical perspective. The goal of battles are not always to cause attrition to the enemy army. At Chancellorsville Lee's army forced a union army more than double of its size to retreat, and that is a huge deal.
General Lee called Longstreet his "old war horse," which sounds like a term of endearment and suggests some affection between the two. Longstreet's recommendation for Lee to move between the Union and Washington, forcing the Union to attack was a reasonable option. Lee himself later stated, “It had not been intended to fight a general battle at such a distance from our base unless attacked by the enemy.” Lee's decision to attack without fully considering the enemies position ended in disaster.
If you want to put blame where it belongs put it on Stuart who weny Joyriding and lost contact with Lee's Army . He was suppose to screen and scout for Lee -he did neither .Lee had to learn where the Union Army was from Longstreet's spy Harrison.
Longstreet was a good fighter... But slow. No Stonewall!
@@marknewton6984 longstreet was a general who could see how 'future' warfare would be, jackson was very much of the past.
jackson's bayonet charges (had he lived long enough) would have been suicide against improving union mass firing weapons in fixed defensive positions.
Good points. Lee had 2 years to force a truce. Stonewall would have made a difference at Gettysburg instead of Ewell. Jeb Stuart was off. Lee should have waited for Meade to act. C'est la Guerre...
@@marknewton6984 lee couldn't force a truce, lincoln knew his VAST ADVANTEGES, all he needed was a general willing to throw 150,000 men against 65,000 continually, and he found him in grant. jackson may have taken round top BUT the facts are the union went on to make repeating rifles whilst the south used muskets, the north had gattling guns the south had muskets, the union had cannon, mortars, and 100+monitors, whilst the southern artillery overshot union positions at gettysberg (if it went off at all) and the south scuttled the merrimac.
jackson was a leader of HIS day an early civil war general, from 63 onwards throwing a bayonet charge against fixed positions with cannister and grape shot, gattling guns and rapid fire automatic loading rifles would have been mass sucicide, and incapable of getting half way across a battlefield.
one army was using early 19th.century weapons and tactics, the other WW1 weapons and tactics.
the mass full on charge was out of date by 1815 and waterloo.
What about Chickamauga? Longstreet was a fine corp commander. He wasn't perfect, but then who was?
He blew the victory at Chickamauga in the seige of Chattanooga
@@davidrutledge1482 Please, he was sent north by Bragg, so don't blame Chattanooga on him. The Knoxville campaign didn't go well, but his flank attach at the Wilderness was brilliant. Be fair Jubil.
@@davidrutledge1482 czcams.com/video/Hh590o6zJNw/video.html
@@davidrutledge1482 czcams.com/video/Hh590o6zJNw/video.html
Right on bro..and I live about 5 miles from Chickamauga Battlefield as well.
It's no secret that Longstreet much preferred the strategy of maneuver and defense, which Gettysburg was certainly not.
Lee's true objective was to provoke a union counter attack after Pickett's charge. Using only 12,000 men to take the ridge at the center was blatant stupidity. Lee had 50,000 men left and if he used all the confederates they would have taken the center .However Lee realized his losses would be too great and that he could not hold that position. His only hope was to force Meade to attack him like Abraham Lincoln wanted him to do and there by inflict enormous causalities on the Army of the Potomac leaving Lincoln unable to claim a victory and making his re- election doubtful. Then the North would have settled the war on amicable terms. Lee's objective was political and not purely military. Longstreet viewed it as purely a Military attack that was sure to fail from lack of number of attackers.
@@frankgraham1996 But then the union lines lit up with FREDRICKSBURG
@@frankgraham1996 not quite
And yet his men were responsible for some of the most savage offensive actions of the war: the counterattack at Second Bull Run, the second day at Gettysburg, Chickamauga, the counterattack at the Wilderness
@@johnreilly6630
Even Marse Robert believed Longstreet was his best corps commander... Because he was...
In hindsight it’s hard to see Pickett’s Charge as a good idea. I think a lot of the discussion here is supporting the notion that Longstreet in fact sabotaged the attack because of his “pouting.”
I find it hard to accept that Longstreet enjoyed so long a tenure as Lee’s key corps commander if he was so overmatched and incompetent.
If in fact he was sabotaging Lee at Gettysburg it would have been Lee’s responsibility to replace or sideline him.
Lee made the mistake of underestimating Meade. He assumed that Meade would keep the men he used to reinforce the flanks there, meaning his center was his weakest point in the line. Meade however reinforced his center in anticipation of the attack. Had his cannons return fire silencing them to give a false victory to the confederate artillery, and then unleashed hell on all those who charged.
@@moderndaywyattearp5792 What's really hard for me to comprehend is the fact that Lee EVER thought that attack would be successful? Even after his main subordinates involved in the attack(Longstreet, Pickett) both disagreed. I mean, he witnessed the same failure at Malvern Hill, his enemy's failure at Marye's heights, and read reports of smaller scale examples of the same thing. HOW could he possibly think "It's gonna work this time?" IMO, it was his unwavering confidence in HIS own military judgement and the ANV, that clouded "good" judgement of the situation. Guess what? You were WRONG Marse Robert!
david u.s. grant I mean we can say that now, hell maybe some of us would say it then as well but Lee had watched time and time again his under supplied, out numbered forces beat the Union. He may have had a sense of invincibility concerning his army. Had the Union center been the weakest point would Pickett’s charge have succeeded? I doubt from a tactical point that the confederates could have held that line after the decimation they just went through. But Lee wanted the decisive victory, the battle to end the war. I’m not saying he was right, it’s pretty clear he was wrong, but if Meade has not out thought Lee, I believe from a military standpoint that Pickett’s charge may be viewed as at least a wash between the two armies.
Longstreet always was Lee's second in command. He ranked Jackson because Lee wanted him to. Johnson also wanted Longstreet to be his second in command. He planned and strategized with both commanders. Jackson was more of a doer. Of course he wasn't on the penninsula, but no one ever talks about his poor generalship or possibly losing the war there. Longstreet made one of the most fearsome attacks against least twice the men at Gettysburg, but still gets blamed, when Hill and Ewell provided absolutely no support
@@moderndaywyattearp5792 Possibly, and as you say HE WAS CONVINCED the ANV was INVINCIBLE! And as you, I don't think he could have held the position. He had no follow up attack ready to reinforce if the attack was successful! He expected Meade to be like the previous Union CinCs, incompetent. Once again, LEE WAS WRONG, not Longstreet.
Opening with uncritical recital of writings from Lost Cause literature was a red flag. Unfortunately, what follows is a gross oversimplification of events at Gettysburg from an armchair general more interested in a simple narrative of one commander "pouting," without any regard to conditions on the field. Failure to even mention the potentially disastrous positioning of Dan Sickle's corps, poor coordination of left and right flank attacks (recall that the right flank was attacked hours *after* Longstreet's engagement on the left), and the disorganization of Hood's division after his wounding early in the engagement makes this evaluation incomplete to the point of historical malpractice. A real shame.
Great post ! I agree with you completely
You nailed it.
100%
Amen!!!
FNA. YT is overloaded with such crap not to mention stealing content then presenting it with your baseball cap turned backwards.
Hi, Longstreet was described as "Lee's Warhorse" Lee kept him as a corps commander until the end of the war. Even taking into account Lee's gentlemanly unwillingness to sack failing officers - eg Ewell - this was extreme if Longstreet was such a bad commander! Pickett certainly blamed Lee for the losses of his men in the charge, and Lee said at the time "this is my fault". Lee was wedded to the idea of the offensive, despite the immense changes in weaponry, Four out of five battles in the ~Civil War were won by the side on the defensive, Lee attacked at every opportunity. Lee specifically rejected Longstreet's suggestion of a move around Meade's left, placing the ANV between the union army and Washington. Why would Longstreet then disobey Lee to do just that?
This battle was Lee's failure, he was to blame!
Agreed!
I've been to Gettysburg twice, I stood roughly where Lee would have, looking across the mile of open field of Pickett's charge.
You don't need twenty-twenty hindsight. You don't even need to be a military genius. To look at that and see no way was that going to work.
Lee's decision to make this foolish charge is particularly perplexing in that he had been there at Fredericksburg and saw what happened to burnside's charges.
However, I'm equally perplexed by Grant's decision to make that kind of charge at Cold harbor. By then, it has been pretty obvious for nearly two years these kinds of charges didn't work anymore.
@@jonathanbrown7250Lee did the same at Malvern Hill that ought to have taught him that lesson and that happened even before he saw Burnside commit that very same blunder. Seems they all had to feel that sort of repulse themselves to learn as both Hood and Sherman crashed their armies against fortified positions the following year.
@@g.sergiusfidenas6650 This is a pretty good point. Yeah, Lee did this six months before the seven days where he did this stuff and lost every single time. Only McClellan wouldn't have rolled Lee up like a piece of licorice. Sherman did this at Kenessaw, and Grant at Cold Harbor, at least a year after they both should have known better. Hood did it twice in a row, at Franklin, then Nashville. Burnside made 14 charges at Fredericksburg - because the first 4 weren't enough of a hint.
You're kind of right. None of these generals could seem to learn by watching the experiences of another General facing the exact same army. They all had to get hit in the head with the rolled up newspaper personally.
@@jonathanbrown7250 we do have the advantage of hindsight and have grown maybe too used to see battles with a bird's eye perspective so I am willing to cut (some of) them some slack but even then some of those incidents are baffling, that's the thing regarding this war there is brilliance and gross incompetence sometimes coming even from the same individual.
You mentioned in the description that Gettysburg was the "largest battle in North America" but that isn't so. It was the bloodiest battle, but in terms of troops on the battlefield, Fredericksburg was the largest battle.
I'm not sure that I've ever seen a 10 minute video who's assertions I disagreed with more.
Extremely high rate of crap-per-second-of-video to be sure.
This is s hit piece on a dead man using the testimony of his enemies...
Longstreet was a incompetent field commander, and a liar to boot.
@@gregorywilliams9302 Chickmauga begs to differ.
@@MaskofAgamemnon Longstreet got lucky. On the second day of the battle, confusion reigned at Union headquarters, as limited vision in the thick woods around Chickamauga caused a scout to erroneously report that a Union division was out of position, leaving Rosencrans’ with a gap in his line. The scout’s report was incorrect; the division was there, but partially hidden by the forest. Unaware of the mistake, Rosencrans ordered one of his generals, Thomas Wood, to close the gap, which Wood begrudgingly did (he was aware of the lack of a gap). By doing so, however, Wood opened up a real hole in the line, which Confederate General James Longstreet immediately exploited, decimating the Union forces.
It’s not like he was a bad Corps Commander. He orchestrated some of the hardest hitting offensive attacks in the war while commanding some of the best defensive fronts of the war. Old Pete had a great eye for ground.
Which is exactly why Longstreet knew Lee was making some BIG mistakes at Gettysburg...
Longstreet started the use of the traverse trench, which was used all the way to WW1
And Lee referred to him as his old warhorse!
Well said
Or maybe... Lee blundered. And his blunder cost him the war.
Oh come now. Are you really suggesting that, as the CinC of the ANV, Lee should actually be held accountable and responsible for ALL outcomes good and BAD, as any student of war knows? SACRILEGE!
Eh... The war was lost before the first shot was fired
@@kucingmiumiu854 "The first gun that was fired at Fort Sumter sounded the death-knell of Slavery. They who fired it were the greatest practical Abolitionists this nation has produced. The decree went forth from that hour that Slavery should quickly cease to exist on this North American Continent."
Hindsight is 20/20 though, if I'm being honest.
@@kucingmiumiu854 The South came uncomfortably close to winning the war on a number of occasions. I suggest you learn your history.
The South was in the same position as the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. After their initial success, both had a finite amount of time to win before men and material overwhelmed them.
Well, Longstreet did lead the aggressive flank attack at 2nd Bull Run which crushed the Union left and sent them reeling back to Washington. Isn’t much of this criticism due to Longstreet becoming a Republican after the war.
No to mention that Hill and Ewell were no Jackson. While Stonewall was alive, they won most battles. After he was dead, they lost most battles.
Longstreet was responsible for 4 of the most devastating attacks of the war 1--2nd Bull Run ,2- Gettysburg -despite having to do counter march to stay out of sight .Almost succeeded ,thank God for the 1st Minnesota ,and the 20th Maine. 3-Chickamauga -Longstreet shatters the Army except for Thomas.4- Battle of the Wilderness Hancock would tell Longstreet after the war you rolled us up like a carpet .The attack was cut off when Longstreet was wounded by his own men in a repeat of what happened to Jackson except Longstreet survived
union weapons improved vastly during the conflict.
at first manassas the union were muzzle loading, by appomattox they had gattling guns, and multi shot weapons.
jackson was a 'spender' of men, longstreet could see the eventual tactics of WW1.
It's hard to say if Jackson would have tilted the odds towards the Confederates, but I think that the Army of Northern Virginia lost some of its elan because of his absence.
This is based largely on the false premise from Jubal Early’s writings which we know to be false. His statement about Longstreet delaying action on the second day is a outright lie.
Hell, Lee didn’t even make his battle plan until the morning of the second and even then was unaware where the union left flank even was until Longstreet attacked.
How do we know Early lied ? What is the source exposing Early, please.
And even changed it again on the morning of the third after engagements on the Union right flank broke out, leading to Lee believing their flanks were fortified, leading to Pickett's Charge.
@@marshalkrieg2664 There called FACTS. Any REAL history of the CW. You lost cause doosher.
@@USGrant-rr2by U S Grant ? The 2nd worse president who only beat Lee because he had access to an unending supply of fresh, well fed troops for reinforcements ? ( no. 1 goes to dishonest Abe. One million dead under your watch does not look good on your resume)...
General Lee once said, "The trouble with the South is all our best generals are newspaper editors."
lol I never heard that, but it's prescient.
Once when Lincoln was feeling hard pressed by northern newspaper attacks, he cheered himself up by reading what the southern papers were saying about Jeff Davis, which must have been far worse.....
Sorry, I can't remember Lincoln's exact words. As usual, they were humorous.
It wasn't any different in the North. In fact, it was markedly worse for the first 2/3rds of the war. Braxton Bragg was far worse than any other Confederate army commander and even he didn't create as much chaos and dismay as McClellan, Pope, or Hooker. The difference was the Union could easily recover from failures in the Eastern theater - Bragg ruined the West and (like McClellan) his political influence was such that it poisoned all the officers around him and reduced their efficiency too until the entire theater fell apart.
Bragg ruined the West. Lee invigorated the East.
You should probably have read more than one source. Your source is a well known Lost cause advocate. Try reading Corey Pfarr’s “Longstreet at Gettysburg, a Critical Reassessment.” He goes over every little nuance of the Lee-Longstreet controversy. It will change the way you think about it forever.
Thank God I'm not the only one who knows Mr. Krick for what he is! And Mr. Gallagher as well. cwmemory. com Kevin Levin. A discussion of multiple Cw historians about Mr. Krick's motivations. I now have my doubts as to our presenter?
Yet another "Lost Cause" rationalization for Lee's mishandling of the battle of Gettysburg. Longstreet dared to criticize the king of spades, and the South turned against him, using him as the reason for the loss at Gettysburg. Pathetic.
Don't forget that lousy "incompetent" cavalry commander JEB Stuart!. They actually needed to use two scapegoats for Gettysburg. Because it was such a "debacle" that one wasn't enough!
Exactly. One of two things happened at Gettysburg.
1. Lee was soundly out generaled and defeated.
2. Lee blundered in his command which led to one of the most crushing defeats the southern army ever experienced.
@@jonseekford8013 You just made about 50 million Confederate sympathizers crap their pants. LOL
@@nickhill934 That was one hellava comment. I loved reading that. You cut right to the heart of it, and what lost causers just refuse to acknowledge! I can admire Lee for his military prowess and his accomplishments, but Lee the man is a whole different story. Lost causers always say, Lee said this, but Lee said that, and Lee was honorable. IMO, a man his judged by his actions and his convictions, not necessarily what he might say. And Lee's actions spoke the Truth! As for Longstreet. Men can change...for the better. I KNOW THAT FOR A FACT! Thank you.
@@jonseekford8013 Lee is said to have said after learning Meade was in command that Meade was an engineer and would make no mistakes on my front .
You shouldn’t use “The Killer Angels” as reference material.
The Killer Angels was one Geogrian's, Ted Turner opinion of another Georgian James Longstreet. While Lee was wrong as Gettysburg doesnt mean Longstreet was right The Killer Angels neglects to mention that the biggest Union Corp, the Sixth was behind the Round Tops. Longstreet was more of a McCellan. He was catious and moved slow which almost cost A P Hill and the Army of North Virgina the Battle of the Wilderness. His only independent command at Knoxville was a disaster. And it was true that he was a pouter when he didnt get his way and he certainly didnt seem to know his place which Stonewall always did.
@ Robert D Yes , Longstreet was cautious but you couldn't always get a Fredericksburg turkey shoot . With a smaller army and economic / material attrition playing against the South , the strategy called for high reward / risk policy . Lee was a master of knowing when to land the stroke , but orders must be carried out with alacrity as to not miss those critical opportunities . Also , I think "The Killer Angels" portrayed Longstreet as the reluctant one because he could "see" better than the bloodthirsty Lee what would happen . Some people forget that this was a novel .
@@jeffreese1828 Blood Thirsty Lee? You seriously dont believe Lee enjoyed sacrificing his men. You have to remember what was happening out west at Vicksburg. The war was being lost and Picketts Charge was an act of desperation because the times were desperate.
@Robert D No sir , I do not ! I think that MOVIE portrayed him thus , at least compared to the reluctant Longstreet . This was my girlfriend's (not a student of tactics , lol ) takeaway after seeing it . The end result being a loss with very high casualties , Lee became the "bad guy" as Longstreet HAD warned him it would fail so by default "cared more about the men" and , presumably had a better plan . I explained to her that Lee was in enemy territory , with every kind of attrition favoring the North , and that he may never (and did never) have a better chance than this toward ending , or at least stepping toward , a conclusion to the war on favorable terms . His brilliant string of victories often relied on these kind of bold high risk/high gain decisions . Imho , Longstreet's foot dragging and erratic leadership at Gettysburg threw off Lee's timetable and planning , which if it did not doom the attacks (I think it did) , then at least contributed to the level of the loss and amount of casualties . I put Lee up there with Alexander the Great , Caesar , Hannibal Barca , and of course , T.J. Jackson (who may actually have been a little bloodthirsty ! Lol ). Regards .
@@jeffreese1828 Good post
Longstreet was the scapegoat during the lost cause because he became friendly with Republicans and supported reconstruction. He also became friends with many former Union Generals.
You don't say ? Tell me more .
"The lost cause" is double speak BS.
Longstreet didn't screw around at Gettysburg. Lee's orders on 2 July weren't even issued until 1100 and Longstreet's delay in getting into position was caused by a guide (sent by Lee) taking the wrong road. That said, Lee had no alternative but to attack on 2 and 3 July, as Longstreet's proposal for a maneuver around the AotP was no longer practical.
Not impressed by Kirk. A lot of his arguments come from Jubal Early and Parson Pendleton who both bore much fault for failures during the war. They were also the original "Lee is God" authors. I will take Longstreet any day. He was right about Lee's tendency to get his blood up and go on the attack at the worst time.
@David Vazquez sorry. Old eyes. Misread.
Not true you have not read Krick's essay obviously.
Disdain for Lee? Maybe early on, during the Seven Days, but Longstreet loved the old man though the disagreed. And Lee, not one to suffer fools for long, referred to Longstreet as 'His Old War Horse'.
Old SLOW😢!
Longstreet was right. Lee made a massive miscalculation and was nowhere near the genius he was made out to be.
What are they teaching you 5th graders these days?
@@dadeo8957 They are teaching that Lee was not the genius that the Southern writers wrote after the war with the "Lost Cause" narrative
@@dadeo8957 They likely teach fifth graders more than you have ever learned in your entire life.
@@dadeo8957 That Lee won when the Union wasn't ready and didn't do as well when faced with competent opponents.
@@mikepotter5718 LOL!
So, this essay is basing its "theory" that Longstreet despised his commander on a letter he wrote to his previous commander in the early summer of 1862. When, literally, the entirety of the no Army of Northern Virginia had nicknamed him the King of Spades, Marse Robert, or Granny Lee because all he was doing was making them dig trenches. Longstreet, Hill, Hill, hell ALL of the Division commanders were skeptical of Lee's appointment by Davis. All anyone really knew about him was that the one battle he had commanded troops in was a debacle, about the only thing good he did was setting up the defense around Savannah that kept it from being taken from the sea. Hell the Confederate newspapers in Richmond were VERY critical of Lee's appointment over Johnston.
So in essence, this essay is saying that ALL of the commanders in the Army of Northern Virginia, who had been there since the Peninsula, despised Lee.
Yes. I was wondering same while listening to this. It’s tempting to look at Lee like a War God in 2020. But in the early days of the war, he was just another flag officer who people weren’t sure if.
Gen. Longstreet gets a pass on that. Just like that Army’s Private’s did. Lee had a day zero just like everyone else.
Regards,
Marky
This whole video reeks of Lost Cause myth.
He seems to list quite a few sources but he takes these writings at face value and accepts them as fact. Really doesn't seem like he tried to understand the context of these documents both during the war and after. After the Civil War, the surviving generals and the wives of those lost during the conflict tried to paint the Confederacy as men that simply supported their states will, not rich aristocracy that fought and forced others to fight so the institution of slavery could continue. If there's any man that actually supported their state and chose to fight for the CSA because their state chose to join, it would be Longstreet.
All this video serves to do is perpetuate the absolute nonsensical belief that the CSA simply fought for the state's rights of self-determination. And that serves no other purpose than to divide us further.
@@DieNextInLINE Great book by Edward Bonekemper that destroys the Lost Cause Myth, it is titled The Lost Cause Myth . The fact is that the Southern Aristocracy that owned the Newspapers before the war and most of the slaves fed the flames of Succession .The right to own slaves was in most of their State Constitutions-State rights ?-yes -the right to own slaves. Then they lost .After the war the Army occupied the South .Grant as President kept troops in the south and cracked down on the KKK . No wonder the Southern Aristocracy hated Grant when he was President .That Southern Aristocracy pitted pooer blacks and whites against each other in order to regain power again.And they hated Sherman because Sherman went after their property.
Longstreet was jealous of Lee's popularity.
Nonsense. The continued efforts to diminish Longstreet's correct strategic judgment and blame him for Lee's massive strategic error is beyond old. The comments already entered have correctly pointed out why. Lee blundered.
Have you been to the Gettysburg battlefield? The land pulls you to everywhere except where you're supposed to go. Also, Longstreet and Lee were effectively best friends.
Hey, Lee already said it himself. He lost the battle of Gettysburg. Case closed.
When did he say that?
At the battle of Gettysburg. After Pickett’s charge. To his own men as they ran. He said (paraphrased) “this was my fault, I asked too much of you”. It was very good leadership to be fair to absolve them of failing in an impossible situation and realizing that he made a mistake.
At the end of the day the buck stopped at him.
@@OpalBLeigh WE know it did (the "buck), but he didn't, at least not publicly! I was being facetious in my previous comment. As you say, he made that statement solely in reference to the failure of "Pickett's charge." Just the final mistake of a myriad of them, mostly by Lee himself, that caused irreparable damage to the ANV and Confederate morale in general, soldiers and civilians alike! During and after the war in his own ORs (he suppressed Pickett's OR because it was so damning) and public writings, he NEVER admitted the Campaign itself was inadvisable in the first place (as Longstreet had warned Lee and Pres. Davis) or actually accepted full responsibility for the LOSS! His Ego would never allow it! And "lost causers" are still trying to blame his subordinates!
@@OpalBLeigh longstreet was not a general he was a joke no general ever lived that was better than Jackson the day he died is the day the south lost the war
@@bobknob3960 Yeeaah, I'm sure you're right. That must be why Lee referred to Longstreet as "My old war horse". And yeeaah, no one was better than Jackson- unless you're referring to the Jackson of the Seven Days' Battles- the same Jackson who utterly failed both Lee and the Confederacy because he was a religious zealot- the same Jackson who never ate pepper with his food because it made his left leg weak.
"The army commander thought it foolish not to follow up on a successful engagement the day before..." Well, the army commander was WRONG. Lol. He was outnumbered, in enemy territory, didn't know the exact strength in front of him, the enemy was on high ground, but he thought he could "follow up." Sure, I'm working from hindsight, but we all know what ended up happening. In fact, if not for Sickles, Longstreet's attack may not have been as successful as it was, and even that failed to "turn" the Union left flank. They either should have done what Longstreet suggested or pull up the arm and headed back to Virginia. I'm listening to S.C. Gwynne's bio of Stonewall Jackson, and it's obvious that both sides were too charge happy. At least the Federals had the numbers to waste, as terrible as that is. But the Confederates, having fewer available men, played games with the lives they hadn't to spend. Jackson was better than even Lee cause at least he would try to turn flanks, although he too made stupid front assaults. The only legitimate use of the front assault is to pin the enemy down to then attempt to turn their flank, and even that has to be done with care.
Extremely Astute judgement!!
Of course, then there's the frontal assault on Missionary Ridge at Chattanooga...
@Joakim von Anka I'm not more than vaguely familiar with that game. I have a couple Civil War pc games on my computer but haven't really played them, too busy with art and Xbox/PS4 lol. No, they didn't. They had one foot in the Napoleonic Era and one foot in the WW1 era, really...
@@academyofshem Refresh my memory. Was that Grant or Sherman? Wasn't that one of the few successful front assaults on high ground?
@Roger Trent Lol. But that's what I was SAYING. Oh, yes, that part is true. But would he not have had to move across open ground to get at Little Round Top, etc? Sickles stood in his way, got smashed, and kind of blocked union fire is what I'm saying. If the corps hadn't been there, Longstreet would have had to march his divisions across open ground for the most part, except Devil's Den which was highly rocky. Longstreet should have shifted Hood around to Big Round Top.
I have thought that it was Lees' engineer Johnson who scouted the wrong road.and the delay that it caused was the reason Longstreet denied Hoods request.lLongstreet felt there wasnt enough time for what Hood wanted to do.if my memory is right it was about 4pm when Longstreet attacked so his denial to Hood makes sense.slso as stated Longstreet was the most detested man among the rebel generals after the war so how much did that affect the blame game that played out over the years?
I recall reading persuasive evidence that Johnston actually blundered around in the dark early in the morning and was never near the Round Tops. His "intelligence" was garbage.
It was all for nothing anyway since Sickles moved his 3rd corps to the peach orchard before Longstreet's corps attacked. This also made Lee's attack plan along Emmitsburg Road outdated.
@@marknace1736 Lee's original orders were outdated the second they were issued, since he had no idea where the Union line actually lay. Sickles' move to the peach orchard was really a gift to Longstreet and Lee. His original position was much stronger and would have put him on Longstreet's flank if Longstreet had followed Lee's original orders.
Given their hatred of him after the war I find it all very dubious
The old war horse took one look at the proposed battlefield and knew it would not work. The union was well entrenched and had all the high ground. His idea of a flanking maneuver was a much better idea. Lee was a great general but this battle plan was a grave error.
Positioning yourself to be surrounded in enemy territory is a ridiculous, terrible idea. The union wasnt well entrenched they have to rush the maine unit to little roundtop while Longstreet was dragging his feet
@@samhalemba ask pickett if they were well entrenched
@@joekeiser6221 they were super entrenched on the third say. On the second day, at little round top, they had to rush Chamberlin over there because they didnt even have a unit on the hill
One of the lost cause mythology’s cornerstones is the defamation of Longstreet at any opportunity
I agree with you, its evident in the fact that there are not any (that I know of) Longstreet statues in the South... hmmm I wonder why... He did not subscribe to the lost cause myth and supported "freemen of color" rights after the war.
I know one thing. Longstreet is long. I ran every single day on Fort Bragg. General Longstreet was not an idiot. He knew slowing things down would aid in the fight. Throwing a haymaker is great. So long as you don't miss.
I know one thing. Longstreet is long. I ran every single day on Fort Bragg. General Longstreet was not an idiot. He knew slowing things down would aid in the fight. Throwing a haymaker is great. So long as you don't miss.
Total bullshit
A well sourced, if one sided video, I would be curious if there are any quotes from Longstreet about Lee that were not within 30 days of Lee taking command. Maybe anything from late ‘62 or early ‘63? Also one crucial fact missing-Longstreet was right!
Hard to separate gossip from fact as the confederate generals were all thinking they were the best. Longstreet was right about changing where to fight for the best chances of winning. The Union had the best ground to fight a defensive battle.
Longstreet certainly didn't cover himself with glory at Gettysburg, but I can't help but wonder if the source you are referencing falls in the category of "Lost Cause, exonerate Lee of all things and blame the Republican Longstreet." Also, I don't know what an ethics course at West Point was like in the 1840s, but doing poorly in an ethics class doesn't mean you are unethical. It might just mean that you aren't interested in philosophy and logic. These classes are far more complex than finding liars and giving them C's. If being occasionally insubordinate and having enough of an ego that you are going to defend yourself in all cases and settle scores in your memoir makes you unethical, well every general in the war was unethical.
I'm reading through Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogy--not a great historical source as it is basically a literary account of the war sourced from published records and memoirs, and ignores much of the economy, slavery, and the experience of the average soldier. It does excel, however in giving the reader a clear sense of the leadership personalities and a great sense of perspective, in that you know what is going on in all theaters of the war. Anyway, I'm near the end of 1863, so blame Foote if I'm very off-base.
It seems to me that Longstreet's issue was bigger than that one order. He disagreed with the entire offensive as such, having proposed an alternate strategy when the government was wondering what to do with the strategic initiative in the East that would take pressure off of Vicksburg. Also, Longstreet misunderstood Lee at a crucial point early in the campaign, and thought the two were in perfect agreement that the Pennsylvania battle should be defensive in nature. It looks to me that Longstreet went passive-aggressive on the 2nd and followed Lee's order to the letter, even when conditions had changed to make it less likely to succeed.
Gettysburg's reputation as the turning-point makes mountains out of molehills. Longstreet wasn't the only one who messed up in the Peninsular Campaign. Stonewall Jackson messed up Lee's orders on numerous occasions in the Seven Days Battles, going as far as napping when he should have been moving his troops. (Basically the same thing happened at Cedar Mountain as well). There was certainly a reason that when the CSA invented the Lieutenant General, Longstreet was given seniority over Jackson.
Go to cwmemory.com, kevin levin and see his dicussion with other cw historians about Krick's obvious bias! Very enlightening.
@@USGrant-rr2by Thanks for the tip. Yup. Confederate sympathizer all the way, and one who doesn't seem to have the full picture in mind. To be a fan of Lee is, I suppose, to love tactics and ignore strategy. The part about Krick as a "Victorian historian" is quite interesting. I see the same thing in Shelby Foote--a fascination with personalities. I love Foote for his prose more than his history. If I want to know the period, and not just the war, I'll go to David Blight or James McPherson.
@@rmarcusshort My thoughts as well. But I can't understand our presenter labeling, literally, Longstreet as a "liar'? I mean, I suppose some of the things he said during the war and postwar could technically be considered lies? But to label him as such and attack his character? Seems petty. Especially when you take into account that ALL the WP grads that fought for the Confederacy broke their Solemn Oaths to defend the Constitution! Bunch of hypocrites if you ask me. As to Shelby Foote, even when I was a kid I knew he was "siding with the Rebs." As for Victorian History in general. I visited the Biltmore. Pretty Awesome.
@@USGrant-rr2by I think Foote definitely has rebel sympathies, but I wonder sometimes if it is a bit overstated. The impression I get, about halfway through, is that the Southern leadership is rather obsessed with honor and appearances while the North has a small and growing number of people who understand the war on a strategic level are rising to the top and making stuff happen without much fuss. Of course, to have the camera zoomed in so close that you can't see the 2 million slaves in the margins of the shot is quite the southern bias in and of itself. (There's also some whataboutism about Lincoln authorizing the execution of deserters and the labeling of radical Republicans as extremists--though at the time they were. That being said, Foote definitely is enamored with Lincoln on a deep level).
I think his bias is more obvious in his interviews and Ken Burns appearances. His books hold fast to the "show don't tell" ethos of mid-20th century American literature.
Yeah, it is odd to hear Longstreet called a liar for this reason. And this is the first time I've ever heard Longstreet's countermarch be described in terms that make it seem so negligent and incompetent. Isn't the new consensus that they realized the first route would expose them to observation from Cemetery Hill and they had to double back to tack a parallel route further west?
@@rmarcusshort IMO( it is absolutely an opinion) Shelby Foote was a very "astute" lost causer" implying it's tenets w/o actually coming right out and stating them. Later in life I believe he let his guard down a little.
Grant was one of the first WPers to actually "grasp" what this war was going to be, and how it had to be fought. A key to his early successes in the West and was able to apply those lessons in the East. Which, once again, IMO Lee could never really wrap his head around. He was so concerned with Jomini's principle of "one great battle to decide the war" that he lost sight of the ACTUAL OBJECTIVE (which Longstreet actually grasped) of The CSA surviving long enough and making it so costly that just maybe Lincoln might change his position on expansion( of slavery) or outright recognition.
You and I and a lot of people who understand real military tactics know there was legitimate reason for the counter-march. Sickle's advance blocked his 1st route. So...what was he supposed to do? It's called the "Fog" of war. Really good commanders take those into consideration. IMO, Lee didn't do it enough. Bottom line. Neither Longstreet or Stuart can be entirely "blamed for Gettysburg", which it seems to me is what our presenter has been trying to do in the last few videos.(Stuart vs. NBF, knowing full well Stuart's supposed failure would be brought up)!
The fact of the matter is that the entire battle was a huge mistake and tactical blunder completely orchestrated by Lee. When they failed to finish off the 1st and 11th Corps and secure the high ground he lost all initiative and should have broken off the engagement. Anything that occurred after that was doomed to fail. The Yankees had the heights, Stuart was missing, A.P. Hills command was wrecked and combat ineffective, and there were 5 additional enemy Corps in the vicinity that couldn't be accounted for. To attack uphill over unfamiliar ground minus Hills Corps against an enemy of unknown strength is literally just asking for disaster.
Nice video! Stonewall Jackson's death deprived Lee of the best general the Army of Northern Virginia had. The second one, the cautious one, was Longstreet. In my opinion no other general analyzed Gettysburg battle ground better than James Longstreet on the one side and John Buford, a cavalry general way ahead of his era , on the other. The first one wasn't heard, the second one actually chose the battleground. The rest is history...
Jackson wasn't the "best" General of the ANV, he was certainly one of the most aggressive. Jackson's death was timely, as the aggressiveness he showed early in the war would've resulted in thousands of deaths of his own men. Has Jackson been at Gettysburg, it's possible he would've destroyed the entire 2nd Corps.
Jackson would have been on Lee’s right flank not the left .
The Confederate Line was extremely long ,about 5 miles it’s doubtful Longstreet even knew was was going on there.
However I agree Jackson probably would have taken Culp’s Hill maybe even on the first day.
Taking the high ground on either flank. and Meade would have had to withdrawn . He almost wanted to abandon his position which Hancock convinced him it was very favorable. However even if abandoned its on a tactic retreat to find better ground..
@@hoponpop3330 Uh, I think you might be a little confused as to which flank Jackson would have been on? Jackson commanded 2nd corps (Ewell's corps) which was on Lee's LEFT flank! The Union's "right flank."
@@hoponpop3330 Jackson would have had a couple of brigades to assault Culp's Hill which was defended by at least one fresh division and something like 40 guns. Jackson wasn't a superman...I don't think it would have worked.
But if it had, you are absolutely correct that Meade would have simply withdrawn and formed a line at Pipe Creek, as he originally planned.
I maintain that the wounding of Longstreet by his own men a mile away from where Jackson was wounded had as much impact if not more than Jackson's death for the following reasons(1). Longstreet was one of the very best at defensive warfare on either side . Can you imagine if Lee had had a healthy Longstreet during the Overland Campaign? (2)Longstreet had known Grant before the war and could have provided insights in to Grant .Longstreet had said there is one man who I hope the North never finds about, Sam Grant . He would fight us every day of the year.
I had my suspicions, but this video confirmed what I feared. A real "historian" would know that the anti-Longstreet propaganda that emerged after the war was just that; propaganda. Unsubscribed.
It’s always been low-key “Lost Cause” on this channel, it’s interesting to see it kicked into a higher gear.
@@aggressivelychad I was new to the channel and thought as much, but when, as you say, "it kicked into higher gear," that was too much for me. I don't support channels that portray themselves as historical but push a disproven agenda instead.
Yes
T
Yes I do
Lee and Longstreet had the experience of defending Fredericksburg. Lee still thought it a good idea to make the assault at Gettysburg.. Only one person to blame on this.
Just an opinion, but it seems Longstreet knew there was no way the Confederates would win at Gettysburg. The Union had too much in their favor.
Lee wrote his after action report not long after the battle. In describing the second day he wrote that the objective was never the rocky hills and that Longstreet had captured the desired ground. Lee was with Longstreet prior to the attack.
All true.
The book Killer Angels attempts to explain some of the back stories of what was going on in the minds of Gen. LEE and Gen. LONGSTREET while at GETTYSBURG.
MY understand was that Lee was concerned that his heart was failing.
He wasn't well at Gettysburg and felt that this major battle needed to occur or else the Civil War would as he stated to Longstreet," would continue to go on and on and on ".
Gen . LEE was also at a major disadvantage because he was without imput from his (Golden Boy) Gen. STUART. He didn't know where the Calvary was and this was a major problem for the entire confederate army. Gen. LONGSTREET did not keep it a secret that he and others thought that Gen. STUART should have been courtmarshield for not letting Gen Lee know what he was doing and where he was. Gen. LEE sided with Gen. STUART and told Gen. Longstreet when he mentioned the possible courtmarshiel of Gen. Stuart, that there would be, "none of that "
LONGSTREET consistently asked Gen. LEE to not fight at Grettysburg and redeploy to fight on ground of their own choosing.
LONGSTREET also understood the massive losses that the confederate army would suffered if they stayed in GETTYSBURG.
As Gen.Lee stated on Day four. "I thought we were invincible".
Yes, Longstreet was upset at Gettysburg but it's understandable that he would be.
Lastly Gen. LONGSTREET WAS suffering from Post Tramic Shock from the witnessing the deaths of his three very young children all within days of one another due to small poxes and the mental breakdown of his wife Louise because of this. This could explain his quiet moodyness.
The only thing I will say is "The Killer Angels" is a work of Historical FICTION.
@@USGrant-rr2by That very well maybe the case.
When Ken Burns who wrote the Civil War Series, wrote the script for the film Gettysburg he did refere to the book, Killer Angels for references.
Ken Burns from my understanding checked and rechecked his sources about material before adding them to any of his historical work.
@@elviscobb5922 The only thing I will say is "Gettysburg" is a MOVIE, not a documentary.
@@USGrant-rr2by I agree it was just a movie.
I have also read various historic books and documents about Gettysburg.
I visited and toured the battlefield only four different times but felt the guides there, were very knowledgeable and I learned a great deal from them as well. I agree it would be a mistake to look at one reference material and understand what happened there.
Time Life Books did a Civil War books series.I have read that cover to cover twice.
That 171 page book described in detail what occurred at Gettysburg and included the references from different 59 books. Of course I have not read all 59 books referenced there. I did read parts of 7 to 10 of them.
I have read some of Longstreet's,Lee's and Gen.Hoods journals/writing about Gettysburg.
I clearly still have much to learn about Gettysburg.
@@USGrant-rr2by Do you have interest in the battles at Fredericksburg, Antietam, First Manassas or Franklin?
I found my visits there were very informative and much easier to comprehend what was going on.
I watched a few things before this about Longstreet and Gettysburg. I take what he says with a grain of salt but he was put in a position that he was uncomfortable with. In the end he did what he was ordered to do. After, I think EVERYONE was looking for a fall guy and he was convenient. Especially with those who paint Lee as a true patriot and it was others fault..
Something we don’t think about is that they were fighting against friends and family. Most knew each other and it’s easier to paint the enemy as “Nazis “ or “kings men” etc. it’s harder when you see them as people. That’s why at the shooting range it’s an outline. The “enemy “. I thunk it’s more complicated than both sides paint it as.
Let's see.. why don't we make up a provocative title; denounce and slander Longstreet based mainly on one biased article and the fact that he didn't do so well at West Point; ignore many other studies of Gettysburg Day 2 which point out that this time the Union had the interior lines and it was the Rebels turn to attack uphill; sympathize with Hood's foolish idea to march around the Union flank which would have gotten his men into place at oh, around midnight, was against orders and would have left a huge hole in the Rebel lines; and completely ignore Lee's own many failures throughout the battle. I don't think many people were persuaded by this video.
BTW, enough with the 'if only Stonewall had been there.' This is counterfactual nonsense, he WASN'T THERE, and the Union also lost Reynolds on the first day, one of their two best corps commanders.
Longstreet was an amazing general and good man no idea why this guy has it out for him.
Longstreet was also a artillery genius he turned the tide at chickamauga
Kinda makes Tom Berenger's portrayal of Longstreet in the movie pretty accurate.
He was very moody.
"I've been arguing it all morning, hell, I've been arguing against any attack at all!!!"
Losing three children to disease in less than a week will do that to a man. Being ordered to launch an attack that one knows with near certainty will be a bloody disaster doesn't help, either.
@@stflaw think I remember that scene, where the division commanders were discussing evolution and then they played a game of cards. Think Kemper mentioned to Fremantle “the general is an avid cards player, but he’s lost his wind since his daughter died of fever in the spring”.
@@stflaw Yes , he lost his kids, give him a break .
George Patton " moody too.
It turns out that Longstreet was right about Pickett's failed charge. He told Lee that it would fail and he was right. So, Lee was the fault of failure at Gettysburg, not Longstreet.
Longstreet was slow day 2. He was sullen after that.
@@marknewton6984 Still doesn't negate the fact that he was right about Pickett's charge.
Longstreet May of misremembered a lot of things as his papers were destroyed in a house fire many years before he wrote his book
Burned down by "Lost Cause" assholes.
Lee is held in such reverence that I have to wonder if historians are always objective.
Lee was the last Cavalier. This does not play well today.
Piston in Lee’s Tarnished Lt. wrote an entertaining defense of Longstreet,where he addressed the comparisons between Longstreet and Jackson. The idea that Longstreet was incompetent, or mediocre doesn’t seem to explain how he rose so high in Lee’s army. Piston made a point of explaining that Longstreet commanded the first corps and that Jackson commanded the second, implying Longstreets priority.
Some of the most devastating attacks of the war were done by Longsteet .2nd Bull Run ,the 2nd day of Gettysburg ,Chickamagua ,and the Wilderness .
Many Civil War historians consider Longstreet, Grant, and Sherman to be among the first modern Generals. Lee blew it, plain and simple.
...and Thomas
The thing I noticed was Lee went on the offense only twice, lost both times.
They only do that to get back at lost causers. Same reason they say Joe Johnston is under rated. Its just petty bull shitting. They like Longstreet and Johnson because southerners didn't like them.
@@onepiecefan74
"They like Longstreet and Johnson because southerners didn't like them."
Do you have a percentage to back that up?
@@stevenwiederholt7000 kek. How would that back anything up? Johnston accomplished nothing the entire war. Before he was wounded McClellan almost took Richmond. Actual Military greats like Paton, Eisenhower, Rommel, and Zhukov studied and respected the great confederate generals like Lee Forest and Jackson. We are now told by a bunch of academics "um actually Joe Johnston was the real great general of that war. If only they had listened to him." Blow me.
Lee would not have trusted him with leadership in the battle if he had shown poor leadership in earlier battles .
Longstreet was no Stonewall. Nor Mosby. Nor Forrest.
I asked this very question on the Shelby Foote facebook page. Longstreet's staff member, Moxley Sorrell noted in his memoirs that his commander appeared to be out of sorts on day 2. His interaction with Hood, where he stubbornly held to the dicta of Lee's orders under changing circumstances backs this up. Add that with the counter march and it makes for a bad day.
Does it mention the REAL reply of Hood carrying out the order under protest!
Of course Longstreet was out of sorts. Lee had blundered badly, had no idea where the Union forces were, and was sending Longstreet blind into the face of a powerful, well-equipped, and well-led enemy force. I think we'd all be out of sorts under those circumstances.
The counter march was necessary to preserve the element of surprise, as per Lee's orders. The Longstreet haters want to have it both ways...Longstreet was wrong to disobey, but they he was wrong to obey, but then he was wrong to disobey again....sheesh.
It's fair to hold Lee accountable for his decisions at Gettysburg. It's also fair to hold Longstreet accountable for his decisions there, as well. Commanders from both armies made their fair share of mistakes in the course of the war.
The mistake some ACW buffs make is having a favorite commander, and then putting that commander too high on a pedestal.
Absolutely.
@@HistoryGoneWilder That's rich coming from you. I'm still here.
Frankly, I think the south would’ve had a better shot at Gettysburg if Longstreet had been in command.
Or if Stonewall had been there...😎
Had Lee admitted that he was suffering from victory disease at Gettysburg, he could have been better viewed in history as a great leader, not an infallible one.
Both Lee and Longstreet admitted and took the blame for not winning at Gettysburg, Sickle's move hurt Lee's original plan, the campaign did have success in gathering supplies for Lee's army, later in Tenneessee Longstreet called for Lee to come and command, too bad Longstreet shoot in the Wilderness are a big victory might have come.
“It’s all my fault. I thought my men were invincible.” Now if you ask me, that sounds like taking full responsibility. Does it not?
Hemingway said,"If you are any good at all, it's always your fault."
Were about to go to Gettysburg this week for the first time this coming weekend. Can't wait. Thanks for this great information.
That’s awesome! Gettysburg is definitely a bucket list destination for me!
I started out on the north side, and there were No monuments to the southern soldiers. I was very upset, until I went to the southern side of the battlefield.
That’s where they all were. I was kinda dumb, now you know and you don’t have to be.
@@cuchulain1647 Hey thanks for that info.
@J S I know. I was hoping to see the reenactments myself. I did hear the Museums will be open now. So that's good. But it will still be a good time. Guess I will have to make to 160th as will to see some of the battles played out.
Jake Roberts man of all the places they could go... makes me sick to think what they’re gonna do to the Battlefield and it’s monuments.
I really don't understand or expect a PhD candidate in CW History to base an entire presentation and opinion concerning one of the BEST commanders of the CW(both sides) on only one essay! And one, that IMO, came from two obviously biased sources, Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Krick.
In a 2011 CW discussion between noted CW historians(about as UNBIASED as I've seen) on the CW blog site cwmemory.com://kevin levin/krick they debate whether Mr. Krick is indeed biased toward the Confederacy(Lost Causer) or not? Some defend him, some criticize him. You can certainly make up your own mind! I came to the conclusion that he was indeed a Lost Causer(no surprise their). But also that Mr. Gallagher(a close friend of Krick's) was decidedly sympathetic to the Southern Cause as well. Krick exhibits a clear DISDAIN for those such as Longstreet, who he believes constitutes a THREAT to both Lee and Jackson's Legacy. Krick's sole interest in the CW has always been in regards to VA and the ANV!
According to Eric Wittenburg(fellow CW historian) and friend of Krick's, in referring to Krick , when he asked a question about a Union charge at the battle of Cedar Mt.: "Bob said, I don't know anything about yankees!" Another CW historian, Bob Huddleston, had lunch with Krick and Gallagher in the 90s and said Krick stated: "I WORK for LEE and JACKSON!" Mr. Krick has even argued in CW symposiums that modern historians should take "post war" writings at "face value". But as stated, you can judge for yourself. This presentation, to me; a CW historian, certainly does not seem unbiased nor does it present ALL the facts. My problem is "casual CW buffs" may get the wrong impression of Longstreet, and let Lee off the hook, per usual.
This is a bunch of BS. The only honest man in the Confederate Army was James Longstreet. Longstreet was the singular best General of the Confederacy. Way ahead of his time and had he been listened too at Gettysburg there would have been no battle to lose but a move to an advantageous position. Additionally, Lee was never what he was cracked up to be. Given the way war was fought in those days only a fool would have conducted Pickett's charge. And Longstreet was not delaying anything. His was the last Corps on march...the Army was strung out for miles on the way to Harrisburg not Gettysburg. The whole battle was a mistake and should have never been fought in the first place where it was if the Confederate Army was to realize the goals of the overall campaign. Lee had been dividing his Army for years...whistling past the graveyard with a lot of luck...and finally it caught up with him at Gettysburg. His orders were ignored by other Generals not Longstreet. Longstreet's corps was coming off a force march for days and was exhausted. Harrisburg not Gettysburg was the objective.
All Meade, an engineer officer, did was take advantage of Lee's gross error in judgement and the key terrain east of Gettysburg and won the battle and the war.
Lincoln couldn't stand Meade. He promoted him sideways after his great "victory," a military insult. Always thought Hancock did more at Gettysburg.
The Battle of Gettysburg, like many battles of the War, could have been changed if any one of the MILLIONS of decisions and actions by both commanders and individual soldiers were different. If the Confederates had pushed harder at the end of the first day would they have been able to occupy Cemetery Hill, thus depriving the Union army the strong right flank that anchored their line for rest of the battle, would they have broken the Army of the Potomac? Would there have even been a large battle if the Union cavalry had not put up such a stubborn fight when Confederate troops came across them on July 1st? If General Hood had been allowed his request to try to flank the Union left would he have been able to take & occupy a commanding position on Big Round Top or would the Union commanders cut him off from the rest of Longstreet's corps?
I think Longstreet understood the strength of the Union line as it existed on July 2nd. He had been in favor of abandoning Gettysburg after the fight on the 1st and finding defensible ground between the Union army and Washington, thus forcing General Meade to attack the Confederates on ground of their own choosing. Lee saw an opportunity to deal a crushing defeat on the enemy in a fight where his army had already pushed back a significant portion of the Army of the Potomac.
Who was right and who was wrong? I think a strong case can be made that the decision by Lee to continue the battle on July 2nd was a mistake, but that is with more than 150 years of hindsight. The same could be said for Longstreet's delay in starting the attack. Who knows what would have happened if either man had made different decisions.
I do know that Lee kept Longstreet as the commander of one of his most powerful corps for the rest of the War, and that Longstreet and his men made critical contributions in dozens of battles after Gettysburg. Lee referred to him as his "Old Warhorse", and Longstreet stayed under Lee's command until the Army of Northern Virginia surrendered and disbanded at Appomattox 22 months after whatever disagreements passed between them in Pennsylvania.
It wasn’t until General Lee died that this business started of other Southerners blaming him for Gettysburg. They knew that General Lee would defend Longstreet’s honor. Even General Lee didn’t blame General Longstreet for the loss at Gettysburg.
It's no accident that the War College uses staff rides at Gettsburg to hight light the strength and weakness of command and instruct officers advancing up the chain of command. There's simply too many good decisions and too many bad decisions made at Getsburg for today's U.S. military to ignore all the possible lessons learned from "after action" staff rides. I'm wiilling to bet that no War College attendee has ever forgot their staff ride of the Gettsburg battlefield.
WS
Lee was ultimately responsible for the defeat at Gettysburg, not Longstreet
The reason Longstreet's reputation was tarnished was that he took his oath of allegiance to the United States after the war seriously. He opposed the KKK and the Democrat Party rifle clubs who killed and assaulted blacks and Republicans who were trying to reform the South during Reconstruction. He was seriously wounded in fighting in New Orleans in the 1870's and had to withdraw from public life in the South due to Democrat Party threats. Grant, who is a far better judge of soldiers, considered him one of, if not the best, the better Confederate generals. They were also personal friends. Those who attack Longstreet's reputation are linking themselves with one of the most shameful movements in American history, the deprivation of the civil rights of black citizens after the Civil War, for which we are still playing a bitter price this very day! Shame on you!! The ex-Confederates who attacked Longstreet after the war were Democrat Party political operatives. Lee revealed some of the more vile side of his character (usually carefully hidden by him and his supporters) by refusing to defend Longstreet. I don't particularly care if Lee's statues come down, he betrayed his country and never apologized, bu Longstreet deserves much credit as a man who endured much suffering because he tried to make amends for the evil of the Democrat Party's attempt to overthrow the Republic with the Southern Confederacy.
Well put!
The only problem with this Theory is that Lee remained a huge proponent of Longstreet till the end of the war. Far to much weight is put on the words of those with a bone to pick or otherwise not involved in the bigger picture.
Lee takes Army North, meanwhile, at Vicksburg...........
Sorry but no, the revisionism after Gettysburg came from the General Early and Ewell crowd not Longstreet, Longstreet's big crime was being friends with US Grant before and after the war, FACT #1 Ewell failed to take the high ground, #2 day 2 and 3 plans were Lee's plans, not Longstreet's, they failed, had Lee listened to Longstreet history would be different, #3 Lee was heavily influenced by Napoleon, but the weapons had changed, and Lee's disaster at Gettysburg is very similar to Waterloo
The irony is that Longstreet's suggested plan of shifting to the South to be on the Union left flank seems to be a viable option. The main concern with that would be if a late arriving Union Corps came along after the shift, it might put the ANV in a "vicegrip" situation. Lee would have to be absolutely sure that the entire AoP was already present.
What road would the ANV have taken to get on the Union's left flank?
Of the three Confederate corps commanders at Gettysburg, Longstreet was the only one who performed adequately. Ewell was indecisive and Hill was a ghost. Yet historians persist in making Longstreet, along with Jeb Stuart, the scapegoats for Lee's busted battle plan.
There were a lot of different reasons for the ANV’s loss at Gettysburg but falling for a Lost Cause oversimplification isn’t working.
Maybe Longstreet was sullen because he was a good enough general to know that his 14,000 men were going against at least 3 Union corps and had little chance of dislodging them from their position, his attacks would only drive them into a tight mass. The idea of sending Hood around the Union left behind the Round Tops makes little military sense, as the Round Tops on the left and Rock Creek on the right create a narrow corridor with no room for maneuver. The Union V Corps was in a perfect blocking position at Powers Hill with the VI corps coming up the Baltimore Pike to arrive on Hood's right flank and rear. Had Hood gone around the right he would never have come back. As it was, it was a near run thing and the attack broke down when Anderson's Division of Hill's Corps went in. Pender and Rodes were supposed to continue the echelon attacks. Early's attack on East Cemetery Hill might have succeeded had pressure been applied to the other side of the salient. Lee's problem was not Longstreet, it was the whole problem of coordinating an army on exterior lines. This is all a consequence of the attrition in officers at Chancellorsville. The price of victory at Chancellorsville was the cost of defeat at Gettysburg. Stop scapegoating poor Longstreet, he did his job. Gettysburg was a race for who could concentrate their army first and the Union won the race. Lee gets the full blame for putting his numerically inferior army on exterior lines against the fully concentrated AoP operating on interior lines. Longstreet's 2 divisions went up against 8 divisions from the II, III, V, VI, and XII Corps. His stubborn demeanor had little to with the outcome, the military reality was that he had almost no chance of successfully carrying out Lee's attack plan, unless properly supported by Hill and Ewell, which he was not. Lee should have been with his new corps commander to make sure the echelon attack didn't break down when shifted to Hill's front. Lee himself admitted that the army was not properly coordinated. Longstreet was flawed like any man but you are just repeating Lost Cause dogma beating up on Old Pete.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the time he was supposed to attack, there were NO union troops on those hills.
@@KingofDiamonds85 What time was he supposed to attack? Longstreet's orders were to attack up the Emmitsburg Road, not to attack the Round Tops, so what difference does it make? The Union V Corps was concentrated at Powers Hill by 11am and would have been available to defend LTR just as it was later in the day.
@@hvymettle Excellent point especially on the difficulty of assaulting an interior line but also the cost of losing veteran officers including Jackson at Chancellorsville. My question would be where was Longstreet as the echelon attack progressed on Day 2? You would think he should have ended up with Anderson, reportedly the two got along to more closely supervise and perhaps follow up on any breakthrough. This would have left Lee to supervise the other new corps commander, Ewell in their assault on the Union right.
@@KingofDiamonds85 If he had attacked up the Emmitsburg road as and when originally ordered, Sickles' III corps would have been on his flank and in his rear. Whatever he had done, none of Lee's orders would have had much meaning. Lee really had no idea where the Union left was or what they were doing.
@@aaronfleming9426 Your last point is correct, but if you look at the battle map on the second day, Sickles was out of position and might have caused havoc for McLaws division, but Hood easily with Georgians, Texans, Arkansas, and Mississippi men could have swept the Southwest side of Big Round Top and crushed Hazards men almost from the rear.
It still remains that if Longstreet had advanced when Lee told him to, both round tops would have virtually been empty. Knowing the extent of the Union left flank or not, taking those undefended hills would have forced the Union to withdraw to different ground.
One thing that I've witnessed in the corporate world, seen in politics and heard about in the military is that no matter what the title or rank is that some of the same behaviors that you would see in high school continue in some people's lives. In some cases, people who have an outsized ego, are mean or petty, or are umempathetic never "mature" out of that.
The guy was obviously correct when predicting Pickett’s charge (Longstreets assault). The south has tried to bury this guy and as a historian....that noise don’t stick.
When were these comment on Longstreet made? If they made in the late 60s or 1870s Longstreet was not a popular fellow in the south.
His book From Manassas to Appomattox was published in 1896 some 30 years after the war.
More lost cause silliness. Three of Longstreet's children died in 1862, and he was clearly depressed about it... that's what the "sulking" was about, not his commanders.
Longstreet was hesitant at Gettysburg, because he knew it was a huge mistake to stay there beyond the first day. He knew charging up a hill against a force with superior artillery was an unnecessary sacrifice of thousands of lives. He felt honor bound to obey his superior, but plainly saw the facts of the situation. The idea that he sabotage his own side at Gettysburg is ridiculous. He served along side Lee straight up to Appomattox.
After the war, "Lost Cause" Confederates needed someone to blame and Longstreet had accepted the Reconstruction as appointment to various offices by Republicans.
Ridiculous...you have not read Krick's essay
Lee snatches defeat from the jaws of victory:
"We shouldn't have attacked here, General. Heth had his orders."
Lee waved a hand. "I know that. But we have pushed them back."
"In the morning we will be outnumbered."
Lee shrugged. Numbers were meaningless. "Had I paid attention to numbers, General..." Lee left the
rest unsaid.
Longstreet said, "If we moved south, toward Washington, we could fight on ground of our choosing."
"The enemy is here. General. We did not want the fight, but the fight is here. What if I ask this army
to retreat?"
"They will do as you order."
Lee shook his head again. He was growing weary of this.
Why didn't Ewell's assault begin? A cautious commander, new to his command. And A.P. Hill is
sick. Yet we won.
The soldiers won. Lee pointed toward the hill.
"They will probably retreat. Or Ewell will push them off. But if Meade is there tomorrow, I will attack him."
"If Meade is there," Longstreet said implacably, "it is because he wants you to attack him."
- Michael Shaara - The Killer Angels
Opinions about Longstreet held by other contemporary CSA commanders must be tempered with the fact their recollections were voiced and written post war.
Longstreet was a friend of Grant, and had been 1 of 3 groomsmen when the latter married Julia Dent in 1848; she was Longstreet's cousin. Longstreet and Grant's friendship, starting during their time together at West Point, was surprisingly close, especially when considering their respective backgrounds.
After the war Longstreet maintained his close friendship with Grant, who assisted him in various ways, including Longstreet gaining back his full citizenship rights. President Andrew Johnson opposed this, but the influence of Grant made it happen in June 1868. Longstreet became a Republican and supported Grant's election as President later in 1868. Several other government appointments followed and all were under the Republican banner.
Longstreet was vilified by southerners after the war. In fact, they downright hated him. Can we really expect other CSA generals to support him, given the sentiment of the time? Of course not.
Yea but.....Krick, the man who wrote the essay this video was based on thinks: We should take all of the post CW writings of these men at "face value". Our presenter seems to agree with him?
@@USGrant-rr2by You raise a good question. Up to this point I've found the "owner" of this channel to be accurate and fair in his presentations. I'd like to hear him weigh in on your question. Is he supporting Krick, or is he only presenting Krick's opinion? Hopefully he'll clear the air.
@@CraigerAce Ah, if you read my direct comment on this video, and my other replies you will see I was being completely sarcastic!! Krick is Lost causer, and up till now I thought the "owner" was at least trying to be fair and accurate. If you think this video is fair and unbiased....well i have some good swamp land to sell you!!
david u.s. grant - I heard you loud and clear. What my reply was intended to convey, was that I would prefer to “Have History...” state his opinion. I happen to agree with you, so there will be no bridge selling or buying. Longstreet’s Civil War record speaks for itself, at least to my mind. I guess maybe Lee was blowing smoke every time he complimented Longstreet. That of course is a sarcastic remark, lest it be misunderstood. James Longstreet was as good a general as any, and far, far better than many on either side.
@@CraigerAce Sorry, we are in agreement. I am so used to debating people here that it is just my auto-default set. I'm trying. But IMO anyone who actually tries to defend and support the Confederacy and actually wanted them to win is............
If Longstreet is as bad as all the other Confederate officers seem to think, then why did Lee rely on him so much? Also, I will point out that the Confederate Army had it‘s fair share of incompetent generals and political appointees, all of whom had reason to hate someone who didn‘t fit the mold, especially if he was either better than they were, or apparently favored by Lee. That their staffs would take the same view should not be surprising.
In any case, Lee is the commanding officer. If he relies on suburdinates that are incompetent one time, shame on them. If he does so repeatedly, shame on him. The buck always stops with Lee.
I believe your insights on Lee expecting his corps commanders to take charge when needed is spot on. I believe this is exemplified by Lee's orders to Ewell on Day 1 of Gettysburg to "take those heights is practical." What he meant was take Culps Hill and Cemetery Ridge immediately, but Ewell saw a reason to be cautious and not advance.
As for Longstreet, I've always said that if Longstreet attacked at the time he was supposed to, Gettysburg would have been a crushing southern victory. Hindsight, I believe Longstreet was right to disengage and find more favorable ground for the South, BUT I believe Longstreet's orders were to attack at 10a.m. but he didn't attack until 3p.m. If he attacked on time, there was NOBODY and I mean NOBODY on both Round Tops and he would have flanked the Union left on Cemetery Hill and if he got artillery on both hills, could've fired into the backs of union right on Culps Hill. Longstreets attack was to signal Hill and Ewell to start their attack. The delay not only cost them military position but a possible double envelopment. Lee took full blame for Gettysburg and he should for Pickett's Charge especially, but again, I say if Ewell or Longstreet had done what Lee commanded/expected, it would have been a different story.
Lee's order to Ewell was to take the hill if practicable, without bringing on a general engagement. That means if Ewell could conduct an assault with just the troops he had on hand and not require support from other corps. Rodes division was in the town, disorganized by the street grid, blown from combat, and would have had to march in column out of the town and form battle lines under artillery fire from Cemetery Hill. Early had Smith and Gordon out the Hanover Road guarding the flank against phantom federals. Hayes was in town guarding 3,000 prisoners. That left Avery's small brigade for an assault as Johnson's Division had not yet reached the field. Ewell let Lee know that he could assault if supported by Hill. Hill told Lee that Heth and Pender's Divisions were shot and unable to assist. Anderson's Division had arrived but Lee prudently held it back as the army reserve. Your insights seem to follow the narrative of the movie Gettysburg very closely.
You forget the reason why he couldn't attack at 10am he had Dan sickles corps between his corps and the jumping off point and had to find another route. He had to find, scout, and then redirect his entire corps around. This took considerable time.
@@opossum111 and if Sickles' corps had been where it was supposed to be, it would have been on Longstreet's flank and rear as Longstreet obeyed Lee's order to attack up the Emmitsburg Road. Either way, Lee's orders were pretty much meaningless.
Comparing Longstreet to Lee is like comparing Montgomery to Patton.
I think the person making the accusation couldn't stand Lee being held accountable for sending that attack, when He being witness to Fredericksburg, should have known better. he ordered Pickett to move. It falls on him. it is what it is.
Thank you for posting these videos, I really enjoy them!Longstreet was certainly a controversial figure especially after the war given his friendship with Grant and his joining the Republican Party. This, of course earned him the undying enmity of the "Lost Cause" proponents such as Jubal Early and others. It is also well documented that he wasn't perfect. That he was an able corps commander but not as effective at independent command seems to be a valid criticism. He also seemed to prefer the defensive and for him Fredericksburg may have been the ultimate in using ground and inflicting casualties at a rate far higher than was received. For all of the criticism regarding his preferences as a "defensive general", Longstreet's First Corps delivered sledgehammer blows at Second Manassas (2nd Bull Run), Gettysburg, Chickamauga and the Wilderness where like Jackson, he was wounded by his own men. At Gettysburg, it was a question of exterior lines versus interior lines and superior union artillery in defensible positions. Despite this, his Corps minus Pickett's Division but with the addition of Anderson's Division of Hill's Corps managed to more or less knock out the Union 3rd, 2nd and 5th Corps. The second day's confederate assaults on the Union left were echelon attacks, one started and the others proceeded delayed on purpose with the object being to draw reinforcements from nearby units with the ultimate goal of creating a breakthrough somewhere down the line. Ambros Wright's brigade achieved the breakthrough but were unsupported by Posey's and William Mahone's brigade of Anderson's Division despite direct orders from Anderson. The attacks on the Union right were also poorly coordinated but still came tantalizingly close to success with Harry Hayes' Louisiana Tigers breaking through on Cemetery Hill, an attack that was unsupported by Rhodes' Division. There is another factor. The Army of the Potomac fought well at Gettysburg. Buford, Reynolds, Howard and yes, Doubleday guaranteed the Union advantage in position on the second day with their efforts on July 1st. Despite being attacked by superior numbers, the stubborn delaying action ultimately concentrated their forces on the best defensive ground on the battlefield. On July 2nd, Sickles' Salient was almost catastrophic but Hancock was brilliant, feeding in units on the second day to fill gaps. Papa Green held Culp's Hill against Allegheny Johnston. Union artillery had a better platform on Cemetery Hill and ultimately along the entire position and used it to great advantage especially during Pickett's Charge. Exterior versus Interior lines, a concentrated and suddenly competent enemy on good defensive ground were primary factors in the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg. Still, the Army of the Potomac could have lost the battle and nearly did especially on the second day. For fans of the battle, Allen Guelzo's "Gettysburg" is a great read and Shelby Foote's "The Stars In Their Courses" was very enjoyable and informative. Porter Alexander's memoirs are also interesting.
Thanks, that was a good synopsis. I will certainly look at those books, not having read either.
Guelzo is ridiculously anti Meade and Foote is another “lost Causer”
Interesting reads but take with a few grains of salt
Very interesting video! I will say, making attacks by anything larger than a division was pretty tough during the Civil War. More failed than succeeded. Why? Command and control of anything larger than a division in terrain like Gettysburg or most spots in VA was like drink driving. I think we in the 21st century are bit glib when it comes to appreciating the difficulties of that. Speaking of the Peninsular and 7 days campaign, even Stonewall Jackson had a few bad days...thanks for the video!
Thank you so much for watching and supporting the channel. If you haven't done so already, please consider subscribing.
Had General Longstreet miss stepped, General Lee would have taken measures. Criticism about Longstreet was only after Lee died.
EP Alexander, probably the most intellectually gifted, evenhanded and least egotistical of the memoirists, praised Longstreet and his judgement and agreed with Longstreet’s assessment of what should be done at Gettysburg. He pointed out that many successes were due to Longstreet’s habitual and energetic personal reconnaissance, his excellent tactical leadership, as well as his imperturbability under fire.
In addition to what is noted, Pickett was also known to have said of Lee, “That old man had my division slaughtered”.
What we have here is a recitation of the postwar canon, “Blame the Collaborator”, as Longstreet resumed good relations with his former Northern acquaintances and accepted a federal appointment.
Technically speaking at the end of the day the fault still rest with Robert E Lee since as the overall commander his place should have been leading the decisive element. Also perhaps he took the actions he did to try and force Lee to concede the ground and stop the disastrous battle to come for their Army.
Bear in mind that Lee had also ordered attacks against the Union right, so obviously he couldn't be two places at one time So he put his trust in his more experienced corps commander. With all those character flaws, it's a wonder Longstreet made it as a corps commander and remained so. Often overlooked is the fact Lee was suffering severe "intestinal difficulties" that day.
@@billlawrence1899 Ahhhh! Did good ole marse robert have a "tummy ache"? At least half the soldiers on BOTH sides were suffering from different degrees of dysentery! Too Bad. Doesn't excuse you for glaringly bad decisions! So, apparently Lee had NO character flaws? How about his absolute DISDAIN for personal confrontation. Not a good characteristic for a COMMANDING GENERAL! It prevented him from giving DIRECT ORDERS with NO wiggle room(Ewell, Culp's hill, 1st day) and from ENFORCING them. Ewell should have been removed that day! Lee's own adjutant,Taylor, said as much in his recounting!
@@USGrant-rr2by Oh My, my MY!! How can EVER match wits with SOMEONE who SHOUTS every 3rd or 4th WORD?? Obviously you are EDUCATED far BEYOND me or anyone ELSE on this topic.
@@billlawrence1899 OBVIOUSLY!!! I wasn't aware that you could actually hear WRITTEN WORDS? I do that to EMPHASIZE when someone has made less than educated comments that are biased! Do those BIG words disable your ability to understand them? What I'm trying to iterate to "CW buffs" such as yourself is don't(not shouting) take at face value "facts" presented by biased people and biased sources. Maybe you are one? It is my(not yelling) belief that presentations of history given for public consumption be as unbiased as possible. This one was not! And might I add(not yelling) your response included no actual response to the facts I presented you. So, Good Day Sir!(no yelling)
The fault is entirely Lee's after the first day's screw up he should have known his subordinates were not totally enthusiastic with the plan for the second day, it was his job to know if they would have been able to adapt to changing battlefield conditions to ensure success....turns out they were not. Lee was out of his element, on unfamiliar and unfavorable ground. He gambled and he lost. He avoided total disaster by skillfully retreating starting on July 5.
I imagine the essay was written by a southerner, they didn't like Longstreet much after the war because he was a friend of US Grant before and after the war. If Longstreet was so bad why did Lee want him there with him? Lee had fought defensive battles up to this point and now the tables had turned, Longstreet wanted Lee to slide to the south and find a defensive position and draw Mead to them. Say what you like Longstreet was right about the change up the middle, why waste the manpower? For the rest of the war, Lee was undermanned.
For the rest of the war, the north tore up the south's supply lines and tied up his reinforcements. Grant didn't stop attacking Lee until the end. All for what, to own slaves.
I think this was one of the very rare battles during the Civil War in which General Lee actually thought he had even odds in terms of men and firepower. With all his recent successes and the abilities of his soldiers, I believe that Lee felt that a quick and decisive win here would end the war and force the Union to allow the Confederacy to co-exist as an equal nation. With those thoughts I believe that Lee allowed the chance for the 'ultimate victory' to cloud his judgement and his style of fighting. In addition General Stuart arriving much later than he should have, tended to not give Lee the normal information that he relied upon from his horse soldiers. Hard to believe but for once I think Lee got caught up in the incredible images of a huge battle and was looking ahead rather than in the present. Without the communications of today, it is obviously hard to understand why some things didn't happen, why wasn't Pickett recalled after tremendous losses, why did Stuart not arrive on time, etc. but we have to realize that most of these generals, after giving their orders are then on their own to fight, withdraw, etc. I think Pickett really believed he could break that line and nothing was going to stop him.
I live in Gainesville 1/4 mile from his grave
The divisions didn't March around an extra 3 miles because they were lost... that's ridiculous. They marched back to find a better approach that couldn't be observed by enemy artillery and to not make it obvious where they were attacking. It turned out to be in vain because the Union could see all their movements but that was the reason, not because Longstreet was being pouty...