Grant & Longstreet: Their Friendship in American History

A discussion with Nicholas E. Hollis, General Longstreet Recognition Project.

Interviewed by Eric Porteus, The Friends of the Ulysses S. Grant Cottage

For information, go to:
http://www.agribusinesscouncil.org/lo...

• Category

  Education

[Douglas Gray]

Longstreet was way ahead of his time. Even during WW I, numerous commanders ordered all out assaults on fortified positions, and the casualties were predictably huge. Longstreet understood what a stupid way that was to wage war.

[M salz]

Longstreet was ahead in tactics, see Chickamauga & 2nd day Wilderness, using column style formations to control units in difficult terrain. Yet he could order direct assualts as well, see Knoxville. Longstreet was senior to Jackson, as Lee desired.

Jackson, master of strategic maneuver, poor on tactics, see Valley Campaign & its battles & 2d Manassas. At the moment of triumph, Chancellorsville, he deployed his divisions in a way that ensured their cohesion and control would be lost in minutes.

[oldmal60]

Currenty reading "From Manassas To Appomattox" by Gen James Longstreet written in 1896. Excellent book for insight of the battles and the men.

[Jesus Gonzalez]

Longstreet, my favorite CSA General. I was so glad as a youngster when I read that Grant and Longstreet where good friends.

[M salz]

No general is ever perfect, in war or in peace. Look at WW2 with Ike, Bradley, Patton, Montgomery. Every one a winner, but each with flaws. Go back to ACW and it's the same. I'm a big fan of Longstreet but he was far from perfect.

Longstreet's Assualt (60%+ from Hill's Corps, Hill being worthless) could have been better supported, responsibility: Lee and Longstreet. Both too detached for whatever reason. Several Union regt did break! Some artillery and even depleted bgds to follow on?

[dehdeh55]

As I recall, Sheridan's men won the first battle, chased Early's out of a position and then relaxed, so much so that Sheridan was absent, when Early counter-attacked. As you said, the Union forces were retreating until Sheridan returned. But after that, Early was not even able to save his army. Contrast that with Lee, who saved his army to the bitter end.

[dehdeh55]

Like the rest of the Brits and French, Monash failed to take Gallipoli - this was supposed to be an offensive, not a defense! True, Monash did a good hold and then sneaked off with the Turks not noticing his absence. But - how could the Brits and French and Germans not realize after the first few hundred thousand deaths that they could not just send men into machine guns? I admit that I really cannot understand this.

[dehdeh55]

Monash was Australian, so he must have been good (Brits tend to look down on colonial leaders). He learned from his defeats by the Turks - got his men out, and then cooperated with British tanks well. But not until 1918. My point is that ALL generals on all sides should have realized that you cannot just frontal attack anymore in 1914. WHY did it take 4 years and millions of brave men to die?