| |

America’s Civil War: Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet at Odds at GettysburgMilitary History | 4 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post History has come to many obscure places, has stayed awhile and, after its departure, has rendered those places famous. In America’s saga, perhaps no out-of-the-way place has taken on greater historic importance than the southern Pennsylvania village of Gettysburg. There, during three summer days, July 1-3, 1863, the nation’s fate may have been decided. When the battle was over, General Robert E. Lee’s Confederate Army of Northern Virginia began the retreat to Virginia, defeated by Major General George G. Meade’s Union Army of the Potomac. ‘Gettysburg’ would forever hold a place in the minds of all Americans. Subscribe Today
Since those unforgettable three days of battle, controversy has stalked nearly every facet of Gettysburg. In the postwar years, Southerners came to regard the battle as the great ‘if’ of Confederate history. Southern independence had beckoned on the farmers’ fields and wooded knolls for three days, then, like an alluring siren, had disappeared. To Southerners, the fault lay not with the great chieftain, Lee, but with his most trusted and senior lieutenant, James Longstreet. Of all Gettysburg’s controversies, none has so shaped history’s interpretation of the battle as has the Lee-Longstreet dispute.
The controversy had its origins in the days following Lee’s brilliant victory at Chancellorsville, May 1-5, 1863. In the woods and fields west of Fredericksburg, Va., Lee’s outnumbered army defeated the Federals of Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker, the victory achieved by Lee’s audacious tactics and Lt. Gen. Thomas J. ‘Stonewall’ Jackson’s assault on the evening of May 2. Lee defied the odds, divided his army, and drove Hooker’s troops back across the Rappahannock River. It was arguably the crowning offensive stroke of the war for Lee, although its price was the mortal wounding of Jackson. In Chancellorsville’s wake, Lee held the strategic initiative in the East.
Lieutenant General James Longstreet, commander of the Confederate I Corps, had missed the Battle of Chancellorsville while serving with two divisions on detached duty in a supply operation in southeastern Virginia. Longstreet rejoined Lee outside Fredericksburg on May 9. The next day, a Sunday (the same day that Jackson would succumb to his wounds), the two generals began a series of private conferences that continued for four days. Together, they fashioned a plan that would carry the Confederate army northward in a second invasion of Union territory.
Longstreet was 42 years old at the time, the senior subordinate officer in the army. Since Lee had assumed command of the Confederacy’s major force on June 1, 1862, Longstreet had emerged as Lee’s finest lieutenant. In the aftermath of the Seven Days’ campaign outside Richmond, Lee had privately described Longstreet as ‘the staff in my right hand,’ and on the bloody field at Sharpsburg, Md. (Antietam), Lee called him ‘my old war-horse.’ Promotion to senior rank, above Jackson, followed for Longstreet, and he and Lee developed a relationship Longstreet described as ‘affectionate, confidential, and even tender, from first to last.’ Now, with Jackson gone, Lee needed Longstreet’s counsel more than ever.
At their initial meeting in early May, in all likelihood, Longstreet proposed a plan he had broached to Secretary of War James Seddon in Richmond a few days earlier. As Longstreet saw it, the Confederates needed to concentrate troops in Tennessee for an offensive thrust into Kentucky that would relieve the threat posed by Union Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, Longstreet’s best friend in the antebellum U.S. Army, against Vicksburg, Miss. If the Southerners advanced into the Blue Grass State, the administration in Washington would pressure Grant to detach troops to the endangered region. Longstreet argued that two divisions from Lee’s army should be sent to Tennessee.
‘I laid it before him [Lee],’ Longstreet wrote later, ‘with the freedom justified by our close personal and official relations.’ But Lee objected to the plan, as he had during the previous weeks in Richmond. Lee wanted to exploit the initiative earned at Chancellorsville with a strategic offensive across the Potomac River. Lee argued that such a movement would disrupt Federal operations for the summer, garner needed supplies, and temporarily relieve Virginia of the war’s burden. Longstreet agreed to Lee’s operation, and on the 14th, the commanding general journeyed to the capital to persuade President Jefferson Davis and the Confederate Cabinet. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6Tags: 19th Century, American Civil War, Historical Conflicts, Historical Figures
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
4 Comments to “America’s Civil War: Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet at Odds at Gettysburg”
civil war is cool
By brian on Mar 30, 2009 at 9:41 am
I grew up near Gettysburg and have visited the field many times as well as reading many accounts of the battle. Both Lee and Longstreet have points in their favor as to who had a better strategy. Lee knew the south needed a quick victory for numerous reasons. First, to secure recognition from the Europeans to give the southern cause credibility. Also to defeat the army of northern Virginia and drive to Washington where he was to deliver a letter from Jefferson Davis to sue for peace. He couldn’t afford a long, drawn out campaign against a much larger foe. Longstreet on the other hand had a more sound strategy of forcing the enemy to attack on ground of their choosing since they were fighting in unknown territory and being, as usual, out numbered. He knew the offensive tactics would drain the south of men that couldn’t be replaced. I also believe that Lee had agreed to this before they left
Virginia. He should have been reprimanded for his performance at certain stages of the battle but he seemed to be stalling hoping Lee would see the light.
There is no way the rebels could have dislodged Meade from those heights
with his strong interior lines and natural fortifications he had. Pickett’s Charge was a disaster waiting to happen and Longstreet’s assesment of
it’s failure was a no brainer. So all in all, I believe Longstreet was right and it was Lee’s worst battle plan of the war. The question I’ve always had is this -
Even if Pickett’s Charge had broken through how could they have sustained the advantage with no back up and almost 50% casualties? Who was going to drive on to Washington? A doomed strategy by Lee.
By Doug Malott on Jun 17, 2009 at 12:18 pm
One cannot succeed in the long term if you do not survive the short term. That is the case at Gettysburg. Any extended strategy that Lee may have harbored became useless when he destroyed his army on day 3.
Cemetery Ridge and the Round Tops were unassailable after Sykes and Sedgwick secured the Federal left flank.
Longstreet was correct in his tactical assessment of the CSA and USA positions. Lee’s arrogance and emotion took command of the situation.
Quite simply, Lee did at Gettysburg what Burnside did at Fredericksburg. Cemetery Ridge vs. Marye’s Heights – no difference. Except that Southern mythology sanctified Lee and vilified Longstreet. It seems to me that Lee ought to be remembered with the minimal reverence afforded Burnside and his ilk.
By Mike Spangler on Jun 18, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Mr. Spangler must be joking when he says that “Lee ought to be remembered with the minimal reverence afforded Burnside and his ilk.” Burnside had not 1/10th the skill and courage of R.E. Lee on or off the battlefield. While I believe that Longstreet’s assessment of the situation at Gettysburg after the first day was essentially correct, Lee had several good reasons to try and break the Union position on Cemetary Ridge and not engage in a drawn out campaign in Union territory. Lee was lacking General Stuart and therefore was not aware of the size or disposition of the federal army. He had no line of supply and could not afford to sit by and wait out General Meade. Lee was forced to either try to get around the Union army and position his army between Meade and Washington, as Longstreet suggested or to attack. Burnside labored under none of these limitations. Burnside did not have to make the doomed attack on Mayre’s Heights. He has a full calvary, he had a supply line to Washington and could have waited until conditions were either more favorable or until a better plan could be devised. Comparing Lee and Burnside as having comparable skill on the field of battle is simply ridiculous.
By Bob Challenger on Sep 8, 2009 at 3:56 pm