Comments on: America's Civil War: Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet at Odds at Gettysburg http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-robert-e-lee-and-james-longstreet-at-odds-at-gettysburg.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=americas-civil-war-robert-e-lee-and-james-longstreet-at-odds-at-gettysburg From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:00:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: bob http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-robert-e-lee-and-james-longstreet-at-odds-at-gettysburg.htm#comment-565707 bob Thu, 19 May 2011 16:46:06 +0000 #comment-565707 this website has nothing to do with this subJect U guys R LOSERS this website has nothing to do with this subJect U guys R LOSERS

]]> By: Todd William Scalcucci http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-robert-e-lee-and-james-longstreet-at-odds-at-gettysburg.htm#comment-304722 Todd William Scalcucci Thu, 01 Jul 2010 23:09:42 +0000 #comment-304722 FIRSTLY AS pIERRE gUSTAV bEAUREGARD OF fORT sUMNER FAME AND sHILOH AND pETERSBURGH SAID IT WAS TOO MUCH LEE AND WITHOUT sTONEWALL jACKSON AS LEE HAD STATED HIMSELF HE WAS HANDICAPPED SEVERELY AND WITH jEB THE BEAUTY sTUART RUNNING WILD HE WAS A OVERZEALOUS TENACIOUS LEADER AND WITH LONGSTREET HAVING GROWN AND EXPERIENCED GENERAL GRANTS WAR PHILOSPHIES LEE WAS MISTAKEN IN NOT FOLLOWING LONGSTREETS AND HEEDING LONGSTREETS ADVICE, THE FEDERALS WERE MIRED IN A SERIES OF DISAPOOINTING RESULTS AND AT GETTYSBURG THEY AVAILED THEMSELVES AS THE UNIFIED ARMY OF THE POTOMAC AND WITH HANCOCK THE SUPERB IN TOTAL CHARGE NOT MEADE THE OUTCOME WAS INEVITABLE AND AS GRANT SAID AFTER THE FALL OF VICKSBURGH THE CONFEDERATES WILL WAS BROKEN FIRSTLY AS pIERRE gUSTAV bEAUREGARD OF fORT sUMNER FAME AND sHILOH AND pETERSBURGH SAID IT WAS TOO MUCH LEE AND WITHOUT sTONEWALL jACKSON AS LEE HAD STATED HIMSELF HE WAS HANDICAPPED SEVERELY AND WITH jEB THE BEAUTY sTUART RUNNING WILD HE WAS A OVERZEALOUS TENACIOUS LEADER AND WITH LONGSTREET HAVING GROWN AND EXPERIENCED GENERAL GRANTS WAR PHILOSPHIES LEE WAS MISTAKEN IN NOT FOLLOWING LONGSTREETS AND HEEDING LONGSTREETS ADVICE, THE FEDERALS WERE MIRED IN A SERIES OF DISAPOOINTING RESULTS AND AT GETTYSBURG THEY AVAILED THEMSELVES AS THE UNIFIED ARMY OF THE POTOMAC AND WITH HANCOCK THE SUPERB IN TOTAL CHARGE NOT MEADE THE OUTCOME WAS INEVITABLE AND AS GRANT SAID AFTER THE FALL OF VICKSBURGH THE CONFEDERATES WILL WAS BROKEN

]]> By: Bob Challenger http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-robert-e-lee-and-james-longstreet-at-odds-at-gettysburg.htm#comment-114481 Bob Challenger Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:56:25 +0000 #comment-114481 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. 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: Mike Spangler http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-robert-e-lee-and-james-longstreet-at-odds-at-gettysburg.htm#comment-78092 Mike Spangler Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:52:51 +0000 #comment-78092 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. 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: Doug Malott http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-robert-e-lee-and-james-longstreet-at-odds-at-gettysburg.htm#comment-76873 Doug Malott Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:18:34 +0000 #comment-76873 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. 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: brian http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-robert-e-lee-and-james-longstreet-at-odds-at-gettysburg.htm#comment-47762 brian Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:41:44 +0000 #comment-47762 civil war is cool civil war is cool

]]>