The ANV's B Team: Robert E. Lee's Second String During the 1864 Overland Campaign

1864 brought a new kind of war to Virginia. Robert E. Lee was already down one of his top lieutenants and would soon lose his others. As Emerging Civil War's Chris Mackowski explained, without the famous triumvirate - Longstreet, Jackson, and Stuart - Lee would have to rely on a “B-Team” that would not be up to the task.
This episode of the Emerging Civil War Podcast is brought to you by Civil War Trails, the world’s largest open-air museum, offering more than 1,500 sites across six states. Request a brochure at civilwartrails.org to start planning your trip today.

[@terryp3034]

Outstanding presentation. You really create a vivid picture of the handicaps Lee was dealing with, and, to my mind, make Lee's defiance of Grant's offensive all the more remarkable.

[@emergingcivilwar8965]

Thanks!

[@clarkbuckner4900]

One of the best descriptions of the Lee -Longstreet relationship.

[@sethgraves4572]

This was fantastic!! What a great comparative analysis between the ANV A-Team and B-Team. It seemed when Longstreet went down, it was a matter of time. I greatly enjoyed this.

[@emergingcivilwar8965]

Thanks!

[@Historybluff1986]

If I’ve learned one thing from Lees generals, it’s to never conduct a flank attack then try to survey the line.

[@citizenbobx]

If you had to pick from the remaining surviving commanders, how would you have staffed it?
Seems like Hampton performed capably enough with the cavalry, although there were simply less and less resources to maintain the arm.
He has Early and Longstreet, but what about Gordon and Mahone?

[@emergingcivilwar8965]

from Chris: Great question. Part of Lee's struggle is that he has to let the cream rise to the top. He's good at identifying talent and using it, but he didn't like to ruffle feathers when it came to traditional things like seniority. I think he'd have gotten rid of Ewell sooner except the right opportunity didn't present itself and it wasn't like Lee to just sack someone. Gordon was a good choice who might've done more with an earlier opportunity. I think D. H. Hill would have been good, but Lee didn't like him (few peers did).

[@jagsdomain203]

I've been getting a lot of respect for AP Hill in fact it almost sounds like some of Jackson's wins should have gone to AP Hill

[@emergingcivilwar8965]

from Chris: Hill always said that if he had success, Jackson would get the credit, but if Jackson messed up, he (Hill) would get the blame. And that did, indeed, happen.

[@Historybluff1986]

Seems like Jackson was also very very close to defeat on more than one occasion.

[@Stew-kv8nw]

I’m about to speak heresy here, but here it goes. Both Jackson and Lee are overated . If you look at the casualties figures, the ARV lost close to the same as AoP. Lee lost 34% at Antietam and 20% in his “masterpiece” at Chancellorsville. Hooker lost 13%. He didn’t outfight AoP at all. He made Hooker blink but at the cost of a fifth of his army. That he can’t replace.

[@Historybluff1986]

It was always surprising to me how an army such as AoNV could take such losses then continue the fight. I get that in the moment a win is a win and the next win could mean winning it all. By the time we get to a place like Spotsylvania the writing is on the wall, he’s gotta know it’s already over. Even winning these battles, he can’t win the war anymore.