GDG- J. Wert on Longstreet as a subordinate...

[Margaret D. Blough]

>> I would rate John Reynolds and Winfield Scott Hancock every bit as high as James Longstreet (and personally would have preferred both as subordinates instead of Longstreet - especially looking back to Longstreet's preformance at Fair Oaks). In a matchup  between Longstreet and Jackson, I also think that Jackson is the person Lee would have chosen to pull his chestnuts out of the fire. <<

Fair Oaks was very early in the war (and occurred only a few  months after the devastating loss of three out of four of Longstreet's then surviving children and the narrow escape from death of the fourth in the Richmond scarlet fever epidemic of January-February 1862) and, putting the emphasis on that  would be about as representative of Longstreet's overall performance as Jackson's sluggish and execrable performance in the opening days of the Seven Days would be of his.
 
As to who Lee would pick between Longstreet and Jackson, I believe that the record shows that Lee made that determination based on which particular chestnuts needed to be pulled.  Jackson was the master of the rapid long-range movement, but his record as a battlefield commander in moving large numbers of troops is at best spotty.  I don't think you can see a battlefield performance on Jackson's part comparable to Longstreet's at Second Manassas, Chickamauga, and the Wilderness.

Regards,

Margaret



-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Tom Ryan" <pennmardel at mchsi.com> 

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> 
> 
> <> Illustrated where he made the case that James Longstreet was Robert E. Lee’s 
> best subordinate. Skipping the obvious comparison to Thomas Jackson, I 
> instead could not help but compare James Longstreet to George Meade’s 
> subordinate Corps commanders at Gettysburg. Looking at the list of generals, 
> I would rate John Reynolds and Winfield Scott Hancock every bit as high as 
> James Longstreet (and personally would have preferred both as subordinates 
> instead of Longstreet - especially looking back to Longstreet's preformance 
> at Fair Oaks). 
> 
> I also do not think there was any comparison to Jackson and Longstreet as 
> subordinates (the former IMHO being far superior).>> 
> 
> Hi R.L., 
> 
> You raise an interesting question. In comparing Meade's and Lee's 
> subordinates, I agree that Hancock stands out in the crowd at Gettysburg. 
> Tragically for Reynolds he had little opportunity to demonstrate his 
> abilities beyond getting the First Corps onto the field as quickly as 
> possible. Beyond that we are left wondering what might have been. 
> 
> As far as Lee's subordinates, Longstreet seems to have no peer at 
> Gettysburg, especially in comparison to the performance of Ewell, Hill and 
> Stuart. Despite Longstreet's misgivings about Lee's operational plans he 
> gave it his best shot on July 2. He could have done a lot better job on 
> July 3, yet still compared to the other top commanders he was the one in 
> whom Lee placed his trust. 
> 
> Between Hancock and Longstreet, I agree with your preference for Hancock 
> as 
> a subordinate over Longstreet (at least at Gettysburg). In a matchup 
> between Longstreet and Jackson, I also think that Jackson is the person Lee 
> would have chosen to pull his chestnuts out of the fire. 
> 
> Regards, Tom 
> 
> P.S. Enjoyed your books on Berdan and E.P. Alexander at Gettysburg, and the 
> one on New York soldiers' letters. Are you working on anything at the 
> present time? 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
> You may unsubscribe by going to 
> http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg 
> 
> You can add yourself to the GDG map at: 
> http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup 
> 
> View archived posts from May 2004 - present at 
> http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/