- 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 5:11 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 12/25/14 at 5:11 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
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.
The only tactical failure that Lee had during the Seven Days was Malvern Hill. He could have and should have destroyed the entire Union army at Glendale ( Fraysers Farm and White Oak Swamp). Lee also suffered only about 5 thousand more causualties during the Seven Days that McClellan suffered.
I would also say that Lee's strategy of seizing and holding onto the initiative to counter the Federal numbers had as much to do in the result of the campaign as did McClellan's generalship. McClellan only outnumbered Lee by about 10-20,000 troops.
This post was edited on 12/25/14 at 5:36 pm
1
Posted on 12/25/14 at 5:37 pm to AU86
quote:
The only tactical failure that Lee had during the Seven Days was Malvern Hill.
That was his only defeat, yes, but any assault that failed to break the Union lines (which was all but one) is a failure. And the battle you refer to where Lee did penetrate the Union lines was the Battle of Gaines's Mill, not Glendale. And Gaines's Mill, while a Confederate victory, was not as big as it could have been because it was achieved against a relatively small part of the Union force. And yes, he had plenty of opportunities to defeat the Union army but it was the failure of him and his subordinates (namely Jackson) that almost always made it an impossibility.
quote:
Lee also suffered only about 5 thousand more causualties during the Seven Days that McClellan suffered.
When you had the Union army's POW count into the figures, yes, you are quite correct. The Union army lost roughly 5,000 men to prisoner of war camps during the Seven Days campaign - 3,000 at Gaines's Mill alone. But in those days, prisoners were traded and parlayed all the time. By 1863, many of the Union troops lost to POW camps in the Seven Days Campaign were back fighting on the field. So those 15,000 casualties the Union suffered in the campaign were actually closer to 10,000. Lee, I believed, lost fewer than 1,000 men (maybe even lower) to POW camps in the North during that campaign.
This post was edited on 12/25/14 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 12/25/14 at 5:39 pm to athenslife101
Jackson -7 vs Longstreet on a neutral field
Posted on 12/25/14 at 5:42 pm to RollTide1987
I know that Gaines Mill was where the Federal lines were driven by John Bell Hood. But it was at Glendale where Lee had his greatest chance to destroy the Federal army. Jackson's Corps were delayed by fighting at White Oak Swamp. This enabled McClellan to escape and set up defensive positions at Malvern Hill.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 5:53 pm to mattz1122
nathan bedford forrest ftmfw
Posted on 12/25/14 at 6:09 pm to athenslife101
Idk if anybody has said it but Nathaniel Bedford Forrest was better than both.
His winter radius in '63-'64 were incredible.
His winter radius in '63-'64 were incredible.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 7:02 pm to KosmoCramer
My favorite story was about Stuart stealing Gen. Joe Hooker's dress coat.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 7:25 pm to Paratiger
Had Lee listened to Longstreet during Gettysburg, they would have destroyed the Union army and taken major cities including the capital within a couple of months. Longstreet understood how to use the disadvantages of the Confederacy perfectly from a defensive standpoint. Jackson knew the same thing but from the offensive standpoint. It's why the Confederacy dominated in the East from 61-63.
Had Jackson not died, and Albert Sidney Johnston and Earl Van Dorn not died early in the West, the war would have ended in peace from the North because of 1864 elections, foreign intervention or would have lasted much much longer.
Also I would have loved to seem Jackson leading a division/corps with Forrest heading up a Calvary brigade in support. The tactical masterpieces would have been incredible to read/study.
Forrest was so ahead of his time, saw past having mounted Calvary and created a mobile infantry.
Had Jackson not died, and Albert Sidney Johnston and Earl Van Dorn not died early in the West, the war would have ended in peace from the North because of 1864 elections, foreign intervention or would have lasted much much longer.
Also I would have loved to seem Jackson leading a division/corps with Forrest heading up a Calvary brigade in support. The tactical masterpieces would have been incredible to read/study.
Forrest was so ahead of his time, saw past having mounted Calvary and created a mobile infantry.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 7:37 pm to athenslife101
Certainly, Im not a professional Civil War Historian but have read quite a few books and in particular one of the autobiographies on Longstreet and IMO, Longstreet was better. I guess historians will always debate his performance at Gettysburg but im of the opinion that had Lee listened to him, the outcome of the Civil War may have been different. Certainly feel that Jackson was one of the best but I believe Longstreet is right up there and may have been a tad better.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 7:39 pm to WalkingTurtles
Wow, WalkingTurtles, you hit the nail on the head of how I feel and believe also. 
Posted on 12/25/14 at 7:50 pm to windhammontanatigers
Posted on 12/25/14 at 8:00 pm to windhammontanatigers
If I wanted to read very good books on Longstreet and Forrest what would you recommend?
Posted on 12/25/14 at 8:12 pm to windhammontanatigers
quote:
Certainly, Im not a professional Civil War Historian but have read quite a few books and in particular one of the autobiographies on Longstreet and IMO, Longstreet was better. I guess historians will always debate his performance at Gettysburg but im of the opinion that had Lee listened to him, the outcome of the Civil War may have been different. Certainly feel that Jackson was one of the best but I believe Longstreet is right up there and may have been a tad better.
Lee knew that the Southern resources were disappearing fast. They could not sustain a prolonged war. That is one of the reasons that Lee invaded the North. He wanted to deliver a knock out blow that would destroy the AOP and end the war. Lee had won many battles but in the end they were costly and fruitless. Lee did not want another fruitless victory such as Fredricksburg, Second Manassas or Chancellorville. Lee always wanted to gain the initiative and hold on to it. He believed that he could counter the larger Federal numbers by seizing the initiative and staying aggressive. This allowed him to maneuver and strike pieces of the larger federal army and defeat them by evening the odds and numbers. When Lee was locked into a siege at Petersburg he lost that ability to maneuver and his army was doomed. Jackson believed in the same philosophy and that is the reason that he and Lee made such a great team.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 8:19 pm to athenslife101
If there is a biblical God, it was almost as if Jackson had to die. It was said he liked to fight on Sundays because he felt God was on his side. He was a very stern religious man and a strict disciplinarian who did not tolerate laziness or men not following orders. There is no denying the results and incredible marches.
Longstreet blundered mightily when he refused to listen to Hood. If he didn't send Hood into Devil's den, the south probably would have taken Little Round Top when it was open. When Hood couldn't convince Longstreet into making Lee understand the blunder of Devil's Den, Hood himself led his men into battle like he had done in the past. This time he was gunned down and lost a limb. His replacement later just stood there when his troops begged him to take the fricking open hill several times. Hood would have been on top of it way before the North, especially if he would have attacked the way he had planned.
I use this piece of history a lot as an example of how important leadership is when it comes to reacting and also making critical decisions on the fly before the window of opportunity closes.
Longstreet blundered mightily when he refused to listen to Hood. If he didn't send Hood into Devil's den, the south probably would have taken Little Round Top when it was open. When Hood couldn't convince Longstreet into making Lee understand the blunder of Devil's Den, Hood himself led his men into battle like he had done in the past. This time he was gunned down and lost a limb. His replacement later just stood there when his troops begged him to take the fricking open hill several times. Hood would have been on top of it way before the North, especially if he would have attacked the way he had planned.
I use this piece of history a lot as an example of how important leadership is when it comes to reacting and also making critical decisions on the fly before the window of opportunity closes.
This post was edited on 12/25/14 at 8:26 pm
Posted on 12/25/14 at 8:57 pm to HerbEaverstinks
quote:
Longstreet blundered mightily when he refused to listen to Hood. If he didn't send Hood into Devil's den, the south probably would have taken Little Round Top when it was open.
That was not Longstreet's decision. That was Lee's. Longstreet had been advocating for a move around the right flank since the end of the fighting on the first day. Lee, however, would have nothing of it. When things started shaping up on July 2, Longstreet again advocated for a move around Big Round Top. Once again he was refused.
Hood was merely echoing Longstreet's argument to Lee when he was protesting about the attack plan to Longstreet that afternoon. Lee had already turned down that strategy. Of course Longstreet was going to say no to Hood's request. He had his orders from the big man in charge.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 10:54 pm to HerbEaverstinks
Actually, he was devoted to keeping the Sabbath and only fought on a Sunday less than a handful of times and then only because he really had no choice. He believed in doing nothing on Sundays except meditating on his God. In fact, he would not even open mail or write letters himself on Sundays. If his darling Esposito, as he called his wife, wrote a letter that was delivered to him late Saturday night or on Sunday, he not only would not read the letter....he would not even open the letter until Monday.the only time that he sent or received dispatches on Sunday was during those rare times when he had to engage on Sunday out of sheer tactical necessity.
An interesting fact highlighting his eccentric behavior is that even as devout as he was in his Episcopalian religious structure, he was notoriously famous for never having stayed awake for an entire sermon going back to his VMI professorship days. Bets were waged by officers and enlisted men alike how long it would be before he was out like a light. He rarely lasted 20 minutes into the sermon and his men had much fun at his expense. If he cared, he never let on and just took the light hearted barbs in stride.
Anyone wanting to study his life should read [Stonewall Jackson - The Man, The Soldier, The Legend ]by James Patterson. I have read several bios on him and this, IMO, is the best.
An interesting fact highlighting his eccentric behavior is that even as devout as he was in his Episcopalian religious structure, he was notoriously famous for never having stayed awake for an entire sermon going back to his VMI professorship days. Bets were waged by officers and enlisted men alike how long it would be before he was out like a light. He rarely lasted 20 minutes into the sermon and his men had much fun at his expense. If he cared, he never let on and just took the light hearted barbs in stride.
Anyone wanting to study his life should read [Stonewall Jackson - The Man, The Soldier, The Legend ]by James Patterson. I have read several bios on him and this, IMO, is the best.
Posted on 12/25/14 at 11:18 pm to athenslife101
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Posted on 12/26/14 at 12:35 am to athenslife101
Longstreet.
Jackson wasn't as broad in his strategic thinking and logistics as Longstreet.
Jackson wasn't as broad in his strategic thinking and logistics as Longstreet.
Posted on 12/26/14 at 7:57 am to Captain Rumbeard
quote:
Jackson wasn't as broad in his strategic thinking and logistics as Longstreet.
Agreed.
Posted on 12/26/14 at 9:53 am to Dick Leverage
quote:
Anyone wanting to study his life should read [Stonewall Jackson - The Man, The Soldier, The Legend ]by James Patterson. I have read several bios on him and this, IMO, is the best.
If I wanted to read on Longstreet or Forrest what do you suggest?
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News