- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Better Confederate General: Jackson or Longstreet?
Posted on 12/25/14 at 2:23 pm to Mr.Perfect
Posted on 12/25/14 at 2:23 pm to Mr.Perfect
Jackson
0
Posted on 12/25/14 at 2:23 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Longstreet was but a shadow of what Stonwall Jackson was.
Are you implying Longstreet was a poor commander? He most certainly was not.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 2:29 pm to StrongSafety
quote:
On the eve of Christmas, we have a thread about a bunch of terrorist that tried to destroy our great Union ?
The "terrorist" where all Democrats who used the black race to get rich by keeping them on the plantation in slavery. Some things haven't changed.
The Republicans are the ones that freed the slaves. Never forget that.
This post was edited on 12/25/14 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 12/25/14 at 2:36 pm to Gulf Coast Tiger
Tactical: Stonewall Jackson
Strategic: James Longstreet
The South needed more commanders who had a better eye for strategy. When you are going up against an enemy who outnumbers you more than 2-to-1, you need to pick and choose where and when you fight your battles. Jackson and Lee did not have a good eye for that. Longstreet did.
Strategic: James Longstreet
The South needed more commanders who had a better eye for strategy. When you are going up against an enemy who outnumbers you more than 2-to-1, you need to pick and choose where and when you fight your battles. Jackson and Lee did not have a good eye for that. Longstreet did.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 3:10 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:
So true. His performance in the Valley was second to none in US history. He performed best though when he had an Independent command. His biggest blunders came when his division was merged into another command and he was placed in subordinate role. Lots of miscommunication occurred when his command was sent east from the Valley to merge with Longstreets corp on the coastal plains around Richmond. But no General during that war came close to what he did in the Valley campaign.
Best and most accurate post in the entire thread.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 3:18 pm to AU86
What Jackson did in the Shenandoah Valley was brilliant, but it pales in comparison to what Grant did in the weeks and days leading up to the Siege of Vicksburg.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 3:29 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
What Jackson did in the Shenandoah Valley was brilliant, but it pales in comparison to what Grant did in the weeks and days leading up to the Siege of Vicksburg.
Grants Vickburg campaign was very good but what Jackson pulled off in the Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1862 was one of the most brilliant campaigns in American military history. Lee was never able to replace Jackson after his death. They became an incredible team. Jackson was truly Lee's right arm.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 3:31 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:This. It really was an impressive campaign, running interference between two large union forces to keep them from combining.
His performance in the Valley was second to none in US history. He performed best though when he had an Independent command. His biggest blunders came when his division was merged into another command and he was placed in subordinate role. Lots of miscommunication occurred when his command was sent east from the Valley to merge with Longstreets corp on the coastal plains around Richmond. But no General during that war came close to what he did in the Valley campaign.
Erwin Rommel heavily studied Jackson's valley campaign and based a lot of his tactics off of it. Considering how much war had changed in 80 years, that's quite a compliment.
This post was edited on 12/25/14 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 12/25/14 at 3:33 pm to AU86
quote:
Best and most accurate post in the entire thread.
I can only guess you missed Mr Stout's post.
On topic...some are better at punching, some at counter punching. I don't think anyone could do more with less than Jackson. They were two different types of military men.
Who was better, Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth? Tough call. Two different types of baseball men.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 3:38 pm to GetCocky11
Both were great generals but had very different strategies. Longstreet was more cautious and was probably right more than he was wrong. Maybe he was a little slow, but he survived. Longstreet was made a villain for multiple reasons but it starter when he was blamed for the loss in the northern campaign. Also, as getcocky says, he probably made the best transition back into the Union as anyone. Longstreet also put down a confederate uprising in New Orleans after the War if im not mistaken. These are the reasons Longstreet isn't mentioned much with Lee and Jackson. But in my opinion he deserves to be on that "Mount Rushmore" of Confederate generals with Lee, Stuart and Jackson. And he was just as capable as all of them
Posted on 12/25/14 at 3:45 pm to AU86
quote:
Grants Vickburg campaign was very good but what Jackson pulled off in the Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1862 was one of the most brilliant campaigns in American military history.
It was brilliant, yes, but it did not have the same impact as Grant's Vicksburg Campaign had on the war. Jackson prevented 40,000 Union troops from reinforcing McClellan in front of Richmond - forces McClellan really didn't need. Had McClellan actually had an ounce of aggression within him in the spring of 1862, he would have captured Richmond and ended the war before Jackson's Valley Campaign had ended.
Jackson had the advantages of interior lines, friendly country, and going up against an enemy who, while outnumbering him overall, was always outnumbered 4-to-3 by Jackson when actually engaging him in battle.
Grant was cut off from home, had no interior lines to speak of, was deep within enemy country, and also found himself slightly outnumbered by the armies of Johnston and Pemberton. Yet he fought five battles, won all of them, crushed Johnston's army outside of Jackson, before driving Pemberton's into the defenses around Vicksburg.
The strategic implications of Vicksburg far outweighed the strategic implications of the Valley. Jackson's efforts merely prolonged the war. Grant's brought it closer to its conclusion.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 3:49 pm to BamaSaint
quote:
Both were great generals but had very different strategies. Longstreet was more cautious and was probably right more than he was wrong. Maybe he was a little slow, but he survived. Longstreet was made a villain for multiple reasons but it starter when he was blamed for the loss in the northern campaign. Also, as getcocky says, he probably made the best transition back into the Union as anyone. Longstreet also put down a confederate uprising in New Orleans after the War if im not mistaken. These are the reasons Longstreet isn't mentioned much with Lee and Jackson. But in my opinion he deserves to be on that "Mount Rushmore" of Confederate generals with Lee, Stuart and Jackson. And he was just as capable as all of them
I agree with what you said about their differences in strategy. Longstreet was known for being cautious and slow. But when he got into place he would hit you with everything that he had. His greatest moment of the war occurred at the Wilderness battle. He was simply brilliant there before he got wounded. This was where he came close to replicating Jackson as far as agressiveness. Longstreet was never as good in independent command: Knoxville campaign and Suffolk. But he was dependable and steady. His criticism arises from the second day at Gettysburg. There is a lot of controversy regarding his performance there.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 3:53 pm to lathoroughbred
Rebel Yell is the next book that I will read.
I finished Empire of the Summer Moon a few weeks ago. If Rebel Yell is anywhere near s good, I will be very pleased.
Thanks..
I finished Empire of the Summer Moon a few weeks ago. If Rebel Yell is anywhere near s good, I will be very pleased.
Thanks..
Posted on 12/25/14 at 3:55 pm to RollTide1987
I agree basicly with what you said about the Vickburg campaign. But without Jackson's performance in the Valley and later reinforcing Lee outside of Richmond the Confederacy would have ended there. Grant was also enabled by Joe Johnston's failure and Pemberton's incompetence at Vicksburg. IMO Uncle Joe was loved by his troops but he was a failure as a Confederate general. All one needs to do is research Joe Johnston's campaigns during the war.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 4:04 pm to AU86
Yeah I think Longstreet, knowing Jackson was gone, felt he had to do that in The Wilderness, and it was a great strategy. Unfortunately he was wounded. As far as Gettysburg goes, I don't know if we'll ever know the true story behind his impact. There was so much negative stuff put out there a few years after the war that were created to increase Lee and Jackson's reputation(who were both dead and somebody had to take the blame, Longstreet was an easy target in those days) that it would be great to know the true story
Posted on 12/25/14 at 4:16 pm to tigernchicago
quote:
Rebel Yell is the next book that I will read.
I'm thinking about picking it up tomorrow. Here's a book review from the Wall Street Journal FWIW - LINK
Posted on 12/25/14 at 4:24 pm to BamaSaint
quote:
Yeah I think Longstreet, knowing Jackson was gone, felt he had to do that in The Wilderness, and it was a great strategy. Unfortunately he was wounded. As far as Gettysburg goes, I don't know if we'll ever know the true story behind his impact. There was so much negative stuff put out there a few years after the war that were created to increase Lee and Jackson's reputation(who were both dead and somebody had to take the blame, Longstreet was an easy target in those days) that it would be great to know the true story
My ancestors served in Longstreet's Corp during the war. I really believe that Lee was trying to replicate Jackson's flank March at Chancellorville with Longstreet's flank March on the second day at Gettysburg. Longstreet was certainly blamed for being slow that day. Longstreet did say that he thought that his troops performed the greatest 3 hours of fighting in the history of the war on that day.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 4:31 pm to tigers32
If you are interested in some great books on Stonewall I would recommend the following:
Stonewall Jackson's: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend by James I Robertson.
This book is the Bible for Stonewall Jackson readers.
Stonewall in the Valley by Robert Tanner
Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaigns: Shenandoah 1862 by Peter Cozzens
Conquering the Valley by Robert K. Krick
Stonewall Jackson's: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend by James I Robertson.
This book is the Bible for Stonewall Jackson readers.
Stonewall in the Valley by Robert Tanner
Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaigns: Shenandoah 1862 by Peter Cozzens
Conquering the Valley by Robert K. Krick
Posted on 12/25/14 at 4:34 pm to Champagne
quote:
a better brigade or division commander whereas Longstreet would have the edge for corps level and higher command.
Sounds like Patton and Bradley
Posted on 12/25/14 at 4:50 pm to AU86
quote:
But without Jackson's performance in the Valley and later reinforcing Lee outside of Richmond the Confederacy would have ended there.
The war should have ended even with Jackson's reinforcing of Lee before the Seven Days Campaign. Lee's attacks against McClellan's lines were tactical failures that cost Lee twice the casualties that he inflicted. It was McClellan's generalship (or lack thereof) that caused the Union army to lose the campaign.
quote:.
Grant was also enabled by Joe Johnston's failure and Pemberton's incompetence at Vicksburg. IMO Uncle Joe was loved by his troops but he was a failure as a Confederate general. All one needs to do is research Joe Johnston's campaigns during the war.
Nathaniel Banks, John C. Fremont, Robert Schenck and James Shields (the commanders Jackson faced in the Valley) weren't exactly military geniuses either.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News