Comments on: America's Civil War: Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet at Odds at Gettysburg

By: chikapikka

chikapikka — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:32:35 +0000

was Longstreet disloyal to lee and the confederate cause at Gettysburg

By: Mark Curranq

Mark Curranq — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 06:59:19 +0000

Anything Douglas Southall Freeman says about Lee is unreliable. It is only in Freeman's goofy deliberate distortions that Lee is personally brave.

When you understand that Douglas Freeman made up – concocted — stories about Lee's slaves loving him, you will understand what a corrupt historian he was. Freeman used a Rev Mack Lee, a black preacher from 1920's, to prove Lee was loved by his slaves.

Mack Lee claimed to be Lee's personal slave all through the war. By 1920's he was an aged "preacher" who roamed around raising money for his " church". But he wore a Confederate uniform, and told the white audiences that he agreed with whites, that whites would take good care of blacks, and blacks should respect whites. In other words, he was the ultimate "Uncle Tom" pulling a hustle. His "book" as Freeman described it, was merely la goofy pamphlet he handed out the day of a performance. It had a couple of absurd stories about Lee in it, claiming a cannon ball struck near his head, knocking him down, and Lee laughed and said "He aint seen no nigger do dat before". Plusl he had basic things wrong about the history of Lee's whereabouts during the war.

If that weren't enough, Mack Lee's name does not appear in any letters Lee wrote, though the names of Lee's real personal slaves do.

Freeman, of course, knew very well who Lee's personal slaves were, and knew very well Lee's whereabouts every day of the war. So for Freeman to pass off this huckster as Lee's real slave, and to pretend to believe Lee was the kindest guy on earth, is just absurd.

We know Lee's slaves actually hated him.

So when Freeman tells you Lee charged at the enemy, don't you believe a word of it. That guy lied his ass off. Shame on the "historians": for putting up with blantant falsehoods.

By: Todd William Scalcucci

Todd William Scalcucci — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:40:15 +0000

With the loss of Stonewall, who we know Lee and him were Olympian,the absence of Stonewall at Gettysburg and his successor Richard Ewell being slow and inexperienced as a corps commander cost Lee and the Confederacy their momentum and their high water mark momentum could not dismantle the Union Army of the Potomac which from the outset of the war were long odds for the rebels and after Gettysburg neutrality seemed a mute point and as William Tecumseh Sherman extorted in his usual manner the Confederates fighting was pure futility and insanity after their defeats at Gettysburg and Vicksburg and their four year battle deserves its loss in vain….

By: Traveller

Traveller — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:53:37 +0000

Robert E. Lee failed the South. He never (NEVER) conducted a campaign that ended with the destruction of the enemy. Yes, he was brilliant during battle, but he failed, again and again, to maneuver such that he prevented the Union Army from retreating in good order. And his two offensive campaigns both ended in disaster. History is beginning to catch up with General Lee. In his defense, his failures are both inextricable from, and overshadowed by, the strategic ineptitude that was Jefferson Davis.

By: bob

bob — Thu, 19 May 2011 16:46:06 +0000

this website has nothing to do with this subJect U guys R LOSERS

By: Todd William Scalcucci

Todd William Scalcucci — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 23:09:42 +0000

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

Bob Challenger — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:56:25 +0000

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

Mike Spangler — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:52:51 +0000

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

Doug Malott — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:18:34 +0000

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

brian — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:41:44 +0000

civil war is cool