As a man born in Virginia I am a true believer of the south but I am also a sincere American. There were numerous mistakes made on both the sides in the time of the Civil War. Longstreet was a very good general, a man who had many difficult decisions to make during the war. It is difficult to know how the results of the civil war would have changed America if the south had won. I believe Longstreet was put in many difficult situations in a very difficult time. I believe the Civil War could have been avoided if southern slave owners had started to pay their slaves and give them the option to stay with pay or leave. Most who left went north and found freedom but little work. Again it was America's most difficult time and the country survived. God bless the United States and I am very proud to be a citizen of this country. Joseph Edone
@@StanVarnon-jh8pkBuchanan was totally ineffective president. He did not believe he had the authority to stop succession. Lincoln just took the power to do so. 4:20
Lee lost Gettysburg, not Longstreet. Lee should have listened to Longstreet and manuvered between Meade and D.C.. And then Lee should have listened to him during the battle when he wanted to go around Big Top. Lee made these mistakes, not any of his commanders.
"Great points! Longstreet did propose a more strategic maneuvering around Meade, and many historians agree that Lee's decisions at Gettysburg were pivotal in the loss. It's interesting how Longstreet's insights are often overlooked in favor of blaming Lee. The dynamics between them during that battle really shaped the narrative of the war.
@@josephogrodnik4792 He was. Both good as a general if not great, and he was a good moral human being. Much like General and later President, George Washington, who was also a slave owner. Just like General Ulysses S. Grant. Indeed, Grant was a slave owner. He married a woman who was gifted two servants by her father as a wedding present. General Grant would not emancipate these servants till the close of the war, and as head of household this was in his legal power to do so. It may be that he did not liberate those servants until the passage of the 13th amendment in December of 1865, 7 months after the conclusion of fighting when Alabama ended slavery. If the South had just been poor and not so rich via cotton then no one would have cared if it had seceded.
Very good docudrama. I just want to point out that at Sharpsburg/Antietam, Longstreet did not fight the Cornfield. Longstreet's line was the Center and Right of Robert E. Lee's battleline. He's my favorite General of the war. He deserves great credit as a soldier.
James 'Pete' Longstreet was perhaps the best general the South had. He understood and contributed to the doctrine of the tactical defense while on the offense. After the war he refused to buy into Jubal Early's "Lost Cause" myth and admitted the South lost the war militarily. His worst offenses in the eyes of people such as Early was he accepted a federal pardon , he became a Republican, held federal offices and took Northern money. Worst of all in the eyes of many Southern politicians was his openly becoming a Catholic. Lee held a godlike position at a time when the South had to blame someone for losing the war. They would never blame Lee. Jubal Early hated him openly, and Longstreet did not think much of Early either. Longstreet won the battle at Chickamagua by employing a "deep column" of soldiers placed into the battle. A tactic he just made up, on the spot, when he saw an opening in the federal line. This tactic was taught after the war at West Point. Longstreet wasn't perfect, but he was a loyal soldier to the South. His errors after the war made him the target by the likes of Jubal Early because Early needed a scapegoat, and that was not going to be Lee.
I wouldn’t call any of those things you listed after the war “errors.” Siding with truth and principles is never a bad thing, and only reflects poorly on his detractors.
I wouldn’t call any of those things you listed after the war “errors.” Siding with truth and principles is never a bad thing, and only reflects poorly on his detractors.
I wouldn’t call any of those things you listed after the war “errors.” Siding with truth and principles is never a bad thing, and only reflects poorly on his detractors.
--[1] Thanks for the vid. Certainly, Longstreet was easily one of the very best Civil War corps commanders. --[2] Trivia fact: Longstreet is the 'only' corps-level commander whose attacks in two major Civil War battles drove the enemy from the battlefield & into retreat from the battle. Those two battles were Second Manassas & Chickamauga. Admittedly, Longstreet's Chickamauga attack occurred at the gap mistakenly caused where a Union division pulled out of the Union's line. Lonstreet's attack into that gap caused the Union defense to collapse into a full retreat. Indeed, Longstreet had good fortune there, but skillful people, like Longstreet, somewhat make their own luck. Richard
@@horseman528 She was Longstreet second wife. She was 34, and he was 76 when they married. During World War 2 at the age o 80 she worked as a Riveter in a factory making Bombers in Georgia.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I totally agree-Longstreet had some really forward-thinking ideas about military strategy. It’s fascinating how his defensive tactics foreshadowed what happened in WWI. And wow, I didn’t realize his widow lived into the 1960s! That must have been an interesting time for her, reflecting on his legacy.
You are correct, he spoke often of the use of trench warfare, the advance of the new weapons being used (such as the Gatling gun, rapid fire rifles, and better artillery). His fellow generals mocked him for his discussion of trench warfare as cowardice ideas, yet Longstreet saw where war was headed. Lee should have listened to him at Gettysburg. But to Lee's point he knew the "cause" was lost and it seemed he was ready to both fight to that end at Gettysburg to resolve the war and not protract it out months of weaker battles and total loss of men in the north.
@21:00 there is no mention of the battle of Chicamauga, one of the bloodiest battles of the war, where Longstreet almost destoyrd the Union army of the Cumberland (were it not for the heroics of a WAY underrated union Gen. George Thomas.) Bragg was jealous of Longstreet's success, this would have fit perfectly into your narrative. I'm surprised at its omission.
@@chadrowe8452 yes and Grant said he had the slows. He was loved by his troops. He was a winner. I don't think he ever lost a battle as a whole army commander.
If they had followed General Forrest’s recommendations the army of the invader could have(probably would have) been destroyed) at Chicamauga. Longstreet’s conservative style would have been wise to have been followed at Gettysburg on day three however hurt the Cause on day two when his slow response to orders allowed the yankee army to discern and prepare for the slowly developed attacks that would have most likely broken the yankee line. If they had had been carried out immediately that morning instead of late afternoon when Longstreet cautiously advanced instead of the aggressive attack that Lee wanted carried out that morning, the result might have been much different. I don’t think that Lee nor Longstreet can shoulder the blame of the loss at Gettysburg but it appears to be more of a difference in command styles. There were times when Lee’s aggressive approach won the day however there’s also an argument for the more cautious style of Longstreet in several engagements that assured a Confederate victory. Of course this brings up the same old argument that “had Jackson been alive to command at Gettysburg” things would have gone far differently. Although Lee respected and valued Longstreet’s counsel he was not well during the battle of Gettysburg so he probably wasn’t thinking things through as clearly as he would have had he been 100% healthy. On the other hand, he was clearly frustrated about the slowly developed assaults that he had ordered on the 2nd day that resulted in the assaults being repulsed although by a thin margin. That in his mind was “proof” that had his orders been followed at once instead of several hours later, the yankee lines could and would have been broken. Now once again, even though he was ill, Lee should have remembered that he wasn’t issuing his orders to General Jackson(who was much more aggressive in tactics than Longstreet) but to General Longstreet whom he knew to be a far more cautious and defensive minded strategist so he should have been more direct in his orders of “attack them now(!)”instead of “attack as soon as seems practical to do so(or something along those lines, I can’t remember the exact order). Two different commanders, two different interpretations of the orders received and the rest is well, left for us armchair commanders to debate 160 years later. I(as well as many others throughout the years) think that is the reason that he felt like the aggressive assault on the yankee center could break their lines because had the assaults ordered been carried out expediently on the 2nd that is exactly what(probably) would have happened. The difference from day two and day three was that General Meade’s staff officers agreed that they felt Lee would indeed attack the center of their line next so the center was reinforced with reserves. The artillery barrage that preceded the attack actually did cause a great deal of casualties and destruction of supplies and ammunition because they overshot the enemy at the breastworks and instead hit many of them in the rear. Once again, had they been more accurate and hit more of the defense at the breastworks…but I digress. This argument has gone on hundreds of thousands of times in the last 160 years and no matter what our opinions the result will remain the same as in was on those hot July days in 1864. The preceding has been my own humble opinion from my own perspective and research. Many more able man than me have formed their own conclusions about that horrible battle fought so long ago. Deo Vindice, God bless Dixie![>
Lee was coming off a heart attack two weeks before the battle and was suffering from dysentery during the battle. Lee should have given the command to another general for the battle.
Yes I believe Lee was not thinking clearly he could have been in cardio- genic shock where after a cardiac episode the blood flow is slow due to the insult. Lee should have given command up before the battle
He chose to keep command. And on July 3, 1863 he chose to employ the same tactics that caused his defeat at Malvern Hill on July 1, 1862. His heart wasn't the problem. His strategy was the problem.
One advantage inherent in Longstreet's legacy, is that he outlived nearly all those who could contradict his memoirs. He undoubtedly downplayed his personal pique and petulant delays on July 2nd where he apparently "took his sweet time" getting everything ready for an attack on the Union left. (No one will ever know definitively because no record of orders and times received exists. It could all just be speculation and certainly is shaped by the personalities of those involved - see Gen Jubal Early for example.)
@@choctawone8266 but it was Lee who made the decision to fight there at all and who ordered pickets charge not fully understanding his order of battle. Those are undeniable facts.
Gettysburg was lost for a number of reasons; 1. The south was hopelessly outnumbered in every battle. 2. The south did not have ability to supply their army. 3. They had too many egotistical commanders ie Longstreet, Bragg, Johnson, Stuart and Jeff davis to name a few and too few that could not obey orders.
'The Killer Angels", and 'Gettysburg' indicate that Lee is primarily but not solely at fault for the loss at Gettysburg. This was one of the seminal films which sparked my interest in history overall. Among all of the great elements of the film, I love Tom Berenger's portrayal of Longstreet, and Martin Sheen's portrayal of Lee. In the real world, I like that Longstreet had integrity in the post-war years, as a poster boy for reconciliation, in spite of the enemies it earned him.
Don't know about this so much. For decades no one blamed Longstreet, Lee himself said it was "all my fault". The politics after the war are a different story altogether.
Longstreet knew that the plan at Gettysburg was wrong but was a good and loyal soldier who followed his orders. He was ultimately a hero to the southern cause, but he also understood the need for reconciliation for his country to continue on. Thus, he was also a visionary! I consider him to be a good man in very difficult circumstances!
Though I have no personal history in this war having come from Germany in the 20th century, I do believe the Union was correct and slavery had to be abolished. Having gotten a minor in US history of the 19th century in university, I became a Civil War historian. Of all the leaders of the South, Longstreet impressed me not only with his skills but his character. He is easily the most formidable of all the southern generals. Even Lee comes off as both a poor tactician and a poor strategist compared to him. I doubt the Confederacy could have won under any circumstances, but had he been the commanding general, the South could have made an even better fight of it. His actions after the war, his willingness to accept black suffrage and freedom and his rejection of the "Lost Cause" myth make him a true American hero.
General Longstreet was just a man after the war transitioning to be a good citizen as General Lee would himself prescribe. At Gettysburg Lee should have taken Longstreet's advice more seriously.
the original orders the previous day were ignored pretending they were not received... I am overjoyed the traitors lost- they took too many good people out of this world trying to pick up stakes & move their states to mexico... longstreet was a dum dum & didn't ever understand that strategically the South HAD TO WIN & WIN IMMEDIATELY- playing a long game was simply surrender by another means bcuz the Union had the numbers & supplies so the south could not have a victory thru attrition... Lee's whole approach was to cut off DC from the North [Gettysburg] & South [Richmond] & then force a political solution [dissolution], thankfully due to the brave courageous & fierce Union Troops those plans failed... Pickett's charge happened bcuz on the previous day orders were not followed
I was surprised that there was no mention of the Battle of Chickamauga, one of Longstreet's biggest victories. The move of his entire corps from Virginia to the western front by train was a masterful strategic move. He did not leave the West after Chickamauga. He campaigned through Tennessee and then he and his army returned to the East by train.
Longstreet to much a degree was a victim of the lost cause myth. Old southern leaders needed scapegoats to twist pre-war and war history, and Longstreet made an easier target. As long as the myth was propagated by those who oeiginated it and later supported ot (ie, Shelby Foote, etc), Longstreet would remain a victim. Fortunately, in the last decades, the lost cause myth is being uprooted and killed off. Longstreet was the kind of person needed by America postwar, and his reputation being restored. Thanks for your work.
If you haven't already done it, take a look at the Battle of Fort Sanders (November, 1863). It was Longstreet vs Burnside there. At Fort Sanders, Longstreet's casualties at 813, while Burnside only lost 13 men. Burnside defeated Longstreet at Fort Sanders, a very lopsided battle. Longstreet ordered the assault on the fort, the same Longstreet who complained to Lee about the folly of storming Cemetery Ridge, at Gettysburg.
Most seem to forget Lee freeing his slaves and shortly after the war Lee accompanying a black man at his church to, I believe, taking the sacrament. I believe Longstreet could get very sullen and had higher aspirations than he might have been up to. Generally extremely capable Knoxville was a disaster and he tended to blame others or minimize their achievements and was extremely outspoken, a very dangerous exercise in the military. Lee, in fact, got D. H. Hill out of his command as fast as he could for that, though D.H. Hill was brilliant in the field wherever he fought. Seems like the popular is frequently very limited and biased
Bragg was one of, if not the worst, general in American history. When he was sent to Wilmington, NC most said goodbye to Wilmington it was nice knowing you,and this turned out to be a correct statement. Nero couldn't have let a city fall as fast and total as Bragg. Even though history has shown Nero wasn't in Rome when it burned, he was at his lake villa.
Longstreet is only “controversial” because his former Lost Cause colleagues smeared him after the war for turning into a Republican and aiding Reconstruction rather than stew in lies and grievance like they did.
Enough of the lost cause crap. Longstreet upset Southerners because he went Republican and supposedly supported reconstruction policies that were very unpopular in the defeated South.
Pickett's Charge was such an "all-or-nothing" strategy at Gettysburg that I can't believe Lee would have chosen it instead of Longstreet's maneuver strategy.
@@marvinbush9330 when they left Virginia after brandywine they had 3 days ammo and food. On the 3rd day Alexander ran out of artillery ammo on the 3rd day due to Longstreets procrastination.
My unit, 1/103rd FA, held the high water mark on Pickett's Charge. When I was enlisted we had a training exorcise at Ft. Indiantown Gap and took a detour to Gettysburg for a bit of a field trip. We got to actually reenact Pickett's Charge on our predecessors position. It sucked. Even without running into artillery fire, and as a bunch of modern soldiers with modern training, it sucked. 0/10, would not recommend.
Had the attack been in the morning it would have had a better chance . The Union positions were reinforced through the day . The action should have been called off. While I agree w With Long streets argument to move toward DC and then choose the better ground. It would seem though that he was slow in relaying some of Lees orders.
At 17.50, thats Lee and Jackson. Also, I thought his wife had died in Dec 1862 along with his kids so, not sure why he would write to her. According to Shelby Foote, Longstreets behaviour at Gettysburg bordered on insubordination. On day 2, he was ordered to attack on the right at about 9am, his forces didn’t actually engage until well into the afternoon leading to expensive failures at the Devils Den, The Peach Orchard, Little Round Top and so on. On the third, he delayed Picketts Charge as long as he could and could not even verbally give the order to Pickett, just nodding his head when asked by Pickett should he begin . I do not question his loyalty or ability, I simply suggest he could be stubborn if he didn’t want to do something.
Longstreet did what he had to do after the war. In a changing society he excepted the verdict of history. The old south was gone but people hung on to the lost cause. Longstreet was a man ahead of his time. He chose forgiveness rather than hate.
Longstreet seen that Lee's frontal attack was going to end in disaster, what he told Lee could have changed the war, by collapsing their defenses and attacking Washington DC, and leaving Gettysburg with the Union army entrenched with their army there. It is beyond me why Lee did what he did and essentially losing the war. Two of the greatest Generals were Longstreet and Lee
I always tell young kids that General Lee was the "Head Coach" General Longstreet was his Defensive Head Coach while General Stonewall Jackson was his Offensive Head Coach. They seem to understand it better.
Longstreet was a defensive genius ahead of his time. The Siege of Petersburg lased as long as it did in large part due to Longstreet's ideas in trench warfare that the rest of the world would not natch until WW1.
@@jimhart4488 Lee was king of spades when assigned to build coastal fortifications. In Longstreet’s later opinion, Nobody exceded Lee as an active defensive General. On the offensive, he was erratic and given to taking rash chances. This as meant on a high level, as an offensive strategist competent, Grant was a genius. Grant was described as a butcher by some of Lee’s subordinates, which is absurd. His casualty rates were quite low in comparison to others in the West. In the East, against Lee he made very few bloody tactical mistakes, Cold Harbor being the most important. Casualties there might arguably even have cost the early occupation of Petersburg on the first day there. But also remember during the whole movement south of the James, Grant fooled Lee to the point that Lee’s army was threatened with destruction. By the end of the Overland campaign, I wonder if all of the generals were nearing physical, mental and emotional exhaustion. Certainly some were. Lee performed miracles, although his subordinates were wounded, in poor health, or mentally nearing breakdown. There was no one he trusted, while bedded with dysentery, to attempt to take full advantage of Grant’s tactical error on the North Ana. That said, Longstreet was the farsighted innovator that is described here, and not solely as a defensive designer sort to speak. Certainly both armies (led by trained military engineers, for the most part, were L.’s apt students.
This is the first time that I found out that General Longstreet was from Edgefield SC. My mom was born and grew up in Edgefield SC and was from a large farming family,. That being said, I believe that it’s entirely possible that members of the Longstreet family and the Atkinson family were probably very familiar with each other. I’ve always admired both General Lee and General Longstreet. I believe that they were both very fine gentlemen caught in a terrible epoch of American history.
Vincent commanded the brigade that included the 20th Maine under Chamberlain and was wounded on 2nd day of battle in the defense of Little Roundtop. This was just a small error in otherwise solid video.
Longstreet is an extremely distant relative of mine. We share a common ancestor, Matthias Laen, who settled in New Amsterdam in 1662, one year before the colony was taken over by the British. Laen was actually from the Spanish Netherlands, now known as Belgium, but moved to Holland where he married his wife who died during the voyage to the new world. My next generation ancestor, Gysbrect (sp?) married another person on their ship, the Roseboom, and they moved to Monmouth, NJ, where their names were Anglicised to GIlbert Lane and his wife Jane Smith. Subsequent generations in my line moved to PA where a descendent, David McKinney, a Presbyterian minister was active in the effort to ban slavery. My greatgrandfather's brother, David Barto served in the northern army and died at Petersburg, where Longstreet led the Confederate army. Longstreet's ancestor was the sister of Gysbrect, and she married Dirk Laengstrat, also of Dutch ancestry, and they moved to South Carolina. I have all the names written down in my genealogical records but have probably messed up the spelling here.
That's a great observation! The rapid advancements in weaponry during the Civil War did indeed render many traditional tactics obsolete. Longstreet recognized this shift and adapted his strategies accordingly, emphasizing the importance of defensive positions and combined arms tactics. It's fascinating how these changes set the stage for the warfare we saw in WWI.
@@RootHistoryChannel Many officers, from Europe, were there to witness, firsthand, the tactics and weapons of the Civil War. These included officers from Prussia and one of those was Graf von Zeppelin, who observed Union reconnaisance ballons in Virginia. He would later build dirigibles for Germany in WWI. But what was the most important observation, by the Prussians, was the coordination of telegraph and railway, to move troops and supplies quickly, to the battlefield. This helped the Germans immensely during WWI, also.
His father James Longstreet Sr. was a successful farmer. I guess they didn't want to say he was from the planter class that owned a large amount of slaves. And why did the video say "family farm and show a photo of white people working when it was a plantation worked by slaves?
True, but not really relevant. After Lee's surrender, the rest was really mopping up and everyone knew this on both sides in 1865. Richmond was gone, their biggest army was gone and nobody was going to put up effective resistance to either Grant or Sherman; the latter was still running around separately and uncontained. And nobody, and I mean nobody, wanted to face Grant by April of 1865. The truth is, effective resistance was over. There was no south anymore. They had no capital city and most southern states (including Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia) were already effectively conquered. What, exactly were they fighting for? "States rights"? You gotta have states to fight for them. Slavery? The 13th amendment was clearly going to happen. Meanwhile, farms and families had suffered for years with no benefit now or in prospect.
@@curious968 Yep, thats like arguing the Revolutionary War didn't end with Cornwallis surrender. Sure it's wasn't technically over, but yea, it was over for all intents and purposes. Of course I suppose anyone that was killed over the next two years that might disagree a bit.
The war went on officially until August 20th, but to say the war truly went on after Lee is nitpicking. Pretty much every remaining field army surrendered when they realized that all hope was lost. Johnston realized it and said “it would be the greatest of human crimes to continue the war.” The Army of Tennessee was having mass desertions and was a fighting force in name only. Even the Indian Territory troops were an army in name only. So you could in theory nitpick, but it was effectively over.
true but, its like saying your team is up by 2 scores and have the ball with less than a minute on the clock...once Lee and his army was defeated, that was it
@@timhand3380 True, but I'm sure there much be someone, somewhere who has a positive attitude about Braxton Bragg. He was born and grew up in Warren County, NC, not far from me, and as an "Army brat" in my youth having spent a lot of my time on post at Fort Bragg / Liberty, at least I should have some affection, or at least respect for his memory as a fellow Tarheel. Bragg was a very bright student and did well at West Point, getting few demerits and graduating in the top 10% of his class (very good, but not quite a "Star Man"). Still, he held a lot of promise, but as far as I can tell, he's pretty much universally reviled as a disaster as a general, and not much better as a human being.
We should always do our best to understand the world as it was then, not as it is now, when we look back in history. The "United States of America" of today is seen universally as a single entity composed of 50 different states. Back then, the "United States of America" was also seen as a single entity by many (especially by the Unionists), but it was also seen as a rather loose collection of individual states that were "united" only through a common agreement that was not binding (The Confederacy) .... Something akin to today's European Union. In that era, references made to the "United States" were frequently spoken or written in the plural ("The United States are") rather than as today when the United States is spoken or written in the singular ("The United States is"). After the Civil War, all references made to the United States were in the singular Had the Southern states been able to break free from the Federal union and each go on to have their own individual foreign policies with one another and with the United States, and with every other nation on Earth, we can imagine the ebb and flow of economic, political and military alliances that would have bubbled up over time. Imagine Texas, Georgia and Tennessee uniting into an 1885 alliance against Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama for control of the Gulf ports. Or Imagine Texas and California aligning with Mexico to support Germany in WW1 while the Federal United States aligned with The Allies.
I do not understand why Americans are so focused on battles, generals etc. From other part of the world perspective war 1861 - 1865 was Easy to predict. North had 2x more people, much better railway infrastructure and much better gun industry.
In reality, the South could have won. They had the same opinion about the war of 1776, that it was "impossible to win" and Washington showed that it was possible, even though it was a titanic task.
Longstreet served mainly on the western frontier during the 1850s, rising to the rank of major. He owned a small number of slaves and showed no interest in politics.
The battle of Gettysburg was lost on the first day by failure to take the high ground when the Union was on the run. Longstreet was slow to follow orders. The second day it wasn’t until mid afternoon that they engaged the enemy. And on the third day. He drug his feet. Also poor coordination.
I’ve visited his grave in Gainesville, GA a few times. It’s relatively modest, although larger than the surrounding markers. There are both Confederate and US flags represented.
I admit I am enjoying the two docues You have on James Long Street and the Battle of Gettysburg Would bothers me Is everything I know about General James Longstreet I would never categorize him as cautious a great strategist Yes cautious I think of McClellan the union commander This is not a characteristic I would use on James Longstreet soundness not fearful and overly cautious as I would General McClellan of the Union army who constantly would fight a battle on a field of honor when or lose and trot pack to Washington when Lincoln would say to him Why didn't you chase him back to Virginia or Atlanta We're finally General Grant told Lincoln you want to win this war You can't continue to face an enemy on a field of honor and simply turn and go home after the battle You have to take the war to the doorsteps of the enemy otherwise this war will never END ... NOT SURE WORDS WERE EVER STATED ... SO TRUE AND ACCURATE ARE THOSE WORDS WE USE THIS TACTIC IN WAR TO THIS DAY THAT OF THE WAR OF 1861!
True, but even Lee agreed a month later that the Gettysburg campaign was a mistake. I am an addict like so many others, but other battles were far more important/decisive. Examples: 7 days. Pea Ridge, Atlanta campaign and Battle of Atlanta., Grant moving South of James setting up the Siege of Petersburg (or the whole Overland Campaign), the Vicksburg campaign, the capture of New Orleans, Sheridan in the Valley in 1864.
@@gennaro3685 now is it your opinion that is foolish or is that facts? Because if it's your opinion I'm going to just go ahead and let you know I don't care about your opinion your opinion doesn't matter
DAVENPORT OWA DAD JOKE of the day I recently attended an IOWA corn maze. I couldn't shake the feeling,that I was being STALKED, it was really quiet EARIE
Why not talk about Longstreet's decisions at Gettysburg that are controversial, especially his failure to follow up Pickets' charge as ordered? On the flip side, why not talk about his great victory at Fredericksburg?
First, the South decision-makers, like the Axis' ones almost a century later, did not recognise the industrial power of the opponent, putting aside any moral ground. Secondly, Longstreet has been a loyal soldier first, and an intelligent reconciliator, later. Re-uniting your country is a wonderful duty and very hard job. I understand post-war bitterness and hate, but union is very important and late wokeism unfortunately misguided. We Europeans know well how it works. A house divided...
War was fashionable in those days--not that long after Waterloo etc--all US brass went to same collages--they were aching to 'Wage War'--nobody to fight--so they mangled their own countrymen.-(prove me wrong)
What's never explained, if not Gettysburg, then where? Ground of our choosing? Where is/was the mystery ground between Gettysburg and Washington DC? Lets say, Longstreet got his way and Lee moved the army. My contention, what ever position, battle stand, Lee made would've met with Lee's doom. Or the largest POW camp in America. How? Pick the hill, we choose it, entrench quickly, wait for the Federal Army to attack,. At the same time, Meed should bring up the Washington cannons, about 8 of them, protectedby escort, in those days about a week by wagon train, then siege the Confederate positions. Use the heavy siege guns to do the work. Meanwhile, Lee would discover the trap, and fight to break out. Lee retreat would have 60 to 80 percent. The civil war end would've different.
True loss at Gettysburg on Lee , simply not listening to Longstreet guarantee u Lee knew that even if he would not publicly admit it. Gettysburg could have turn out lot different few small decisions made huge difference for the Confederates
The losing side at Gettysburg lost to the vicissitudes of any battle (or situation). Pickets charge being one of those unforeseeable situations. War is a bitch. Avoid it if at all possible.
The South lost because it had no coherent strategic plan similar to the North's "Anaconda" strategy to first isolate the South then split it up into section isolated from each other. The Souths best winning exit would have been to cause Lincoln to lose his re-election by frustrating Northern efforts to invade, lose faith in the war effort then defeating Lincoln in 1864 Presidential election. Had they pursued such a strategy, our nation today would be divided. Praise God the South lost.
Appomattox courthouse did not end the Civil War. Still other troops in the field. Government did not surrender. Several major battles after this. April 13-15, 1865 Battle of Morrisville North Carolina Union Last cavalry battle of the War. April 16, 1865 Battle of West Point Georgia Union Union victory during final phase of U.S. Civil War. April 16, 1865 Battle of Columbus (1865) (Battle of Girard) Georgia Union April 23, 1865 Battle of Munford Alabama Union Croxton's Raid in northeast Alabama. May 1, 1865 Battle of Anderson South Carolina
Had Pickett not charged, the Confederates would've still lost the battle. Then the men they saved would've just died in future battles and protracted the war even further, with the same inevitable result. Had Picketts men somehow routed the Yanks and won the battle it would also not have changed the outcome of the war. The Confederates would still be massively outnumbered and undersupplied and the damage Sherman would go on to do would not be mitigated by any battlefield victories the Confederates could've won.
Sherman was a war criminal. His march to the sea was against innocent women, children and old men who couldn't fight. He burned their houses, barns, and crops. The livestock they couldn't steal, he had shot, widespread rape of helpless women, warfare against the civilian population plain and simple. He called it "total war". Historians call it brutality against the innocent civilian population. This while Lee had a starving confederate soldier executed for stealing a pig while matching through Mayland on the way to the horrors of Antietam. Big difference.
Longstreet earned the nickname 'Old Pete' during his time at West Point, though the exact origin isn't clear. Some say it reflects his 'rocklike' character, while others believe it was just a friendly moniker from his classmates. Regardless, it stuck with him throughout his life and became a symbol of his steadfastness in battle!
@@RootHistoryChannelI also heard his nickname was gloomy Pete. He lost a lot in the war. If not mistaken I think he lost several children to Scarlett fever or something like that.
From Wert's biography: James's father was impressed by his son's "rocklike" character, giving him the nickname Peter, and he was known as Pete or Old Pete for the rest of his life.
Grant’s wife, Julia Dent, was Longstreet’s cousin. Longstreet’s wife, Louisa Garland, died in 1889 after bearing him 10 children. Three of the children died in the same week in late January, 1862. They are buried together in Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond. His second wife, Helen Dortch, outlived him by many decades and died in the 1940’s. For the rest of her life she championed his reputation and legacy. James and Louisa are buried side by side in Alta Vista cemetery in Gainesville, Ga.
Lee was advised twice not to go on with his strategy ,lees ass was drunk and I just believe wanted to get the over with any way it was going to happen ..he was tired ..
Lee was a great general and patriot but he surrendered the initiative at Gettysburg. He alone could have decided where the battle would take place and he gave that advantage to the Union. IMO he was not at his best in July having just lost his best friend a few weeks before. The rest is history
Longstreet's sullen reluctance to obey Lee's orders doomed Pickett's Charge. Longstreet was always slow and unreliable. Lee won Chancellorsville without Longstreet but lost Gettysburg without Jackson.
First of all, let me make it clear that I am not American, so maybe from a distance I can judge the facts better. So from what I have read, the period of "reconstruction" in the South was nothing but a period of brutal foreign occupation. so obviously the general was nothing more than the analogue of the French general Petain, who from being a hero in the war, became a traitor after the defeat.
Petain was a hero of the 1914-18 War; his treachery lay in his collaboration with the Nazis after the defeat of 1940. But he was not alone: practically the whole French high command was riddled with Nazi sympathisers and anti-Communist fanatics.
If you want to dehumanize everyone you oppose then that says more about you than it does about the people you despise. If you want to glorify the Union, feel free to create your own TH-cam content. You're not forced to be here or to watch.
As a means of supporting our efforts please hit the LIKE & SUBSCRIBE button.🤍🙏
As a man born in Virginia I am a true believer of the south but I am also a sincere American. There were numerous mistakes made on both the sides in the time of the Civil War. Longstreet was a very good general, a man who had many difficult decisions to make during the war. It is difficult to know how the results of the civil war would have changed America if the south had won. I believe Longstreet was put in many difficult situations in a very difficult time. I believe the Civil War could have been avoided if southern slave owners had started to pay their slaves and give them the option to stay with pay or leave. Most who left went north and found freedom but little work. Again it was America's most difficult time and the country survived. God bless the United States and I am very proud to be a citizen of this country. Joseph Edone
@@josephedone9734 the south went to war to preserve slavery. End of. Nothing was good or noble about that.
What role did President Buchanan play and could he have done
more to prevent the war to begin ?
@@StanVarnon-jh8pkBuchanan was totally ineffective president. He did not believe he had the authority to stop succession. Lincoln just took the power to do so. 4:20
Lee lost Gettysburg, not Longstreet. Lee should have listened to Longstreet and manuvered between Meade and D.C.. And then Lee should have listened to him during the battle when he wanted to go around Big Top. Lee made these mistakes, not any of his commanders.
So he said. Did you have a point?
"Great points! Longstreet did propose a more strategic maneuvering around Meade, and many historians agree that Lee's decisions at Gettysburg were pivotal in the loss. It's interesting how Longstreet's insights are often overlooked in favor of blaming Lee. The dynamics between them during that battle really shaped the narrative of the war.
totally overrated...lee was a loser
@@doreekaplan2589 For over 150 years, Lee's supporters have blamed Longstreet for the loss at Gettysburg.
@@smartbomb7202sure 🤡
Longstreet was a great general.
Wait? Confederate? Then, no.
@@Buconoir We are talking about being a good general, not moral human.
Good, but not great.
@@josephogrodnik4792 He was. Both good as a general if not great, and he was a good moral human being.
Much like General and later President, George Washington, who was also a slave owner.
Just like General Ulysses S. Grant. Indeed, Grant was a slave owner. He married a woman who was gifted two servants by her father as a wedding present.
General Grant would not emancipate these servants till the close of the war, and as head of household this was in his legal power to do so. It may be that he did not liberate those servants until the passage of the 13th amendment in December of 1865, 7 months after the conclusion of fighting when Alabama ended slavery.
If the South had just been poor and not so rich via cotton then no one would have cared if it had seceded.
Very good docudrama. I just want to point out that at Sharpsburg/Antietam, Longstreet did not fight the Cornfield. Longstreet's line was the Center and Right of Robert E. Lee's battleline. He's my favorite General of the war. He deserves great credit as a soldier.
James 'Pete' Longstreet was perhaps the best general the South had. He understood and contributed to the doctrine of the tactical defense while on the offense. After the war he refused to buy into Jubal Early's "Lost Cause" myth and admitted the South lost the war militarily. His worst offenses in the eyes of people such as Early was he accepted a federal pardon , he became a Republican, held federal offices and took Northern money. Worst of all in the eyes of many Southern politicians was his openly becoming a Catholic. Lee held a godlike position at a time when the South had to blame someone for losing the war. They would never blame Lee. Jubal Early hated him openly, and Longstreet did not think much of Early either. Longstreet won the battle at Chickamagua by employing a "deep column" of soldiers placed into the battle. A tactic he just made up, on the spot, when he saw an opening in the federal line. This tactic was taught after the war at West Point. Longstreet wasn't perfect, but he was a loyal soldier to the South. His errors after the war made him the target by the likes of Jubal Early because Early needed a scapegoat, and that was not going to be Lee.
I wouldn’t call any of those things you listed after the war “errors.” Siding with truth and principles is never a bad thing, and only reflects poorly on his detractors.
I wouldn’t call any of those things you listed after the war “errors.” Siding with truth and principles is never a bad thing, and only reflects poorly on his detractors.
I wouldn’t call any of those things you listed after the war “errors.” Siding with truth and principles is never a bad thing, and only reflects poorly on his detractors.
NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST. Greatest general in the civil war. And father of the civil rights movement after the war.
@@wordnerd2005father of the Klan, you mean.
--[1] Thanks for the vid. Certainly, Longstreet was easily one of the very best Civil War corps commanders. --[2] Trivia fact: Longstreet is the 'only' corps-level commander whose attacks in two major Civil War battles drove the enemy from the battlefield & into retreat from the battle. Those two battles were Second Manassas & Chickamauga. Admittedly, Longstreet's Chickamauga attack occurred at the gap mistakenly caused where a Union division pulled out of the Union's line. Lonstreet's attack into that gap caused the Union defense to collapse into a full retreat. Indeed, Longstreet had good fortune there, but skillful people, like Longstreet, somewhat make their own luck. Richard
His military analysis was excellent and predicted the defensive nature of WW1 (his widow died in the 1960s)
Wouldn't that make her over 120 years old when she died?
@@horseman528 She was Longstreet second wife. She was 34, and he was 76 when they married. During World War 2 at the age o 80 she worked as a Riveter in a factory making Bombers in Georgia.
@@pauldourlet So he married late in life. I guess that makes sense. Thanks.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I totally agree-Longstreet had some really forward-thinking ideas about military strategy. It’s fascinating how his defensive tactics foreshadowed what happened in WWI. And wow, I didn’t realize his widow lived into the 1960s! That must have been an interesting time for her, reflecting on his legacy.
You are correct, he spoke often of the use of trench warfare, the advance of the new weapons being used (such as the Gatling gun, rapid fire rifles, and better artillery). His fellow generals mocked him for his discussion of trench warfare as cowardice ideas, yet Longstreet saw where war was headed. Lee should have listened to him at Gettysburg.
But to Lee's point he knew the "cause" was lost and it seemed he was ready to both fight to that end at Gettysburg to resolve the war and not protract it out months of weaker battles and total loss of men in the north.
@21:00 there is no mention of the battle of Chicamauga, one of the bloodiest battles of the war, where Longstreet almost destoyrd the Union army of the Cumberland (were it not for the heroics of a WAY underrated union Gen. George Thomas.) Bragg was jealous of Longstreet's success, this would have fit perfectly into your narrative. I'm surprised at its omission.
Umm... Longstreet won Chickamauga because of a bad order that opened up a huge hole in the Union line. Ray Charles could have seen that opening.
Thomas was the unions best in defense, but he was a Virginian so he was hated by the south and distrusted by the north.
@@chadrowe8452 yes and Grant said he had the slows. He was loved by his troops. He was a winner. I don't think he ever lost a battle as a whole army commander.
Bragg and Hood were the worst generals in the CSA. They deserve to be demonized.
If they had followed General Forrest’s recommendations the army of the invader could have(probably would have) been destroyed) at Chicamauga.
Longstreet’s conservative style would have been wise to have been followed at Gettysburg on day three however hurt the Cause on day two when his slow response to orders allowed the yankee army to discern and prepare for the slowly developed attacks that would have most likely broken the yankee line. If they had had been carried out immediately that morning instead of late afternoon when Longstreet cautiously advanced instead of the aggressive attack that Lee wanted carried out that morning, the result might have been much different. I don’t think that Lee nor Longstreet can shoulder the blame of the loss at Gettysburg but it appears to be more of a difference in command styles. There were times when Lee’s aggressive approach won the day however there’s also an argument for the more cautious style of Longstreet in several engagements that assured a Confederate victory. Of course this brings up the same old argument that “had Jackson been alive to command at Gettysburg” things would have gone far differently. Although Lee respected and valued Longstreet’s counsel he was not well during the battle of Gettysburg so he probably wasn’t thinking things through as clearly as he would have had he been 100% healthy. On the other hand, he was clearly frustrated about the slowly developed assaults that he had ordered on the 2nd day that resulted in the assaults being repulsed although by a thin margin. That in his mind was “proof” that had his orders been followed at once instead of several hours later, the yankee lines could and would have been broken. Now once again, even though he was ill, Lee should have remembered that he wasn’t issuing his orders to General Jackson(who was much more aggressive in tactics than Longstreet) but to General Longstreet whom he knew to be a far more cautious and defensive minded strategist so he should have been more direct in his orders of “attack them now(!)”instead of “attack as soon as seems practical to do so(or something along those lines, I can’t remember the exact order). Two different commanders, two different interpretations of the orders received and the rest is well, left for us armchair commanders to debate 160 years later. I(as well as many others throughout the years) think that is the reason that he felt like the aggressive assault on the yankee center could break their lines because had the assaults ordered been carried out expediently on the 2nd that is exactly what(probably) would have happened. The difference from day two and day three was that General Meade’s staff officers agreed that they felt Lee would indeed attack the center of their line next so the center was reinforced with reserves. The artillery barrage that preceded the attack actually did cause a great deal of casualties and destruction of supplies and ammunition because they overshot the enemy at the breastworks and instead hit many of them in the rear. Once again, had they been more accurate and hit more of the defense at the breastworks…but I digress. This argument has gone on hundreds of thousands of times in the last 160 years and no matter what our opinions the result will remain the same as in was on those hot July days in 1864. The preceding has been my own humble opinion from my own perspective and research. Many more able man than me have formed their own conclusions about that horrible battle fought so long ago. Deo Vindice, God bless Dixie![>
Lee was coming off a heart attack two weeks before the battle and was suffering from dysentery during the battle. Lee should have given the command to another general for the battle.
Yes I believe Lee was not thinking clearly he could have been in cardio- genic shock where after a cardiac episode the blood flow is slow due to the insult. Lee should have given command up before the battle
Lee could have been in cardio-genic shock. Low blood flow to the head after the cardiac episode. Lee should have given command to another
Cardio-genic shock? This would render him near death . Perhaps heart failure, but cardio-genic shock???
UTSW cardiology background
Maybe, too late now🤨
He chose to keep command. And on July 3, 1863 he chose to employ the same tactics that caused his defeat at Malvern Hill on July 1, 1862. His heart wasn't the problem. His strategy was the problem.
One advantage inherent in Longstreet's legacy, is that he outlived nearly all those who could contradict his memoirs. He undoubtedly downplayed his personal pique and petulant delays on July 2nd where he apparently "took his sweet time" getting everything ready for an attack on the Union left. (No one will ever know definitively because no record of orders and times received exists. It could all just be speculation and certainly is shaped by the personalities of those involved - see Gen Jubal Early for example.)
@@choctawone8266 but it was Lee who made the decision to fight there at all and who ordered pickets charge not fully understanding his order of battle. Those are undeniable facts.
Longstreet should have been given a small independent command somewhere 10,000 or less. He could not follow orders from another superior officer.
Gettysburg was lost for a number of reasons;
1. The south was hopelessly outnumbered in every battle.
2. The south did not have ability to supply their army.
3. They had too many egotistical commanders ie Longstreet, Bragg, Johnson, Stuart and Jeff davis to name a few and too few that could not obey orders.
Sorry, Too few that could obey orders. Stonewall Jackson and John Gordon
'The Killer Angels", and 'Gettysburg' indicate that Lee is primarily but not solely at fault for the loss at Gettysburg.
This was one of the seminal films which sparked my interest in history overall.
Among all of the great elements of the film, I love Tom Berenger's portrayal of Longstreet, and Martin Sheen's portrayal of Lee.
In the real world, I like that Longstreet had integrity in the post-war years, as a poster boy for reconciliation, in spite of the enemies it earned him.
Killer Angels and Gettysburg, based on the book, were written based on the Lost Cause myth.
Don't know about this so much. For decades no one blamed Longstreet, Lee himself said it was "all my fault". The politics after the war are a different story altogether.
Longstreet was persona non grata in the South the rest of his life.
Longstreet knew that the plan at Gettysburg was wrong but was a good and loyal soldier who followed his orders.
He was ultimately a hero to the southern cause, but he also understood the need for reconciliation for his country to continue on. Thus, he was also a visionary!
I consider him to be a good man in very difficult circumstances!
Though I have no personal history in this war having come from Germany in the 20th century, I do believe the Union was correct and slavery had to be abolished. Having gotten a minor in US history of the 19th century in university, I became a Civil War historian. Of all the leaders of the South, Longstreet impressed me not only with his skills but his character. He is easily the most formidable of all the southern generals. Even Lee comes off as both a poor tactician and a poor strategist compared to him. I doubt the Confederacy could have won under any circumstances, but had he been the commanding general, the South could have made an even better fight of it. His actions after the war, his willingness to accept black suffrage and freedom and his rejection of the "Lost Cause" myth make him a true American hero.
Excellent.
General Longstreet was just a man after the war transitioning to be a good citizen as General Lee would himself prescribe. At Gettysburg Lee should have taken Longstreet's advice more seriously.
General Lee screwed Longstreet at Gettysburg by ordering him to charge his division up the middle.
It was a horrible plan.
the original orders the previous day were ignored pretending they were not received... I am overjoyed the traitors lost- they took too many good people out of this world trying to pick up stakes & move their states to mexico... longstreet was a dum dum & didn't ever understand that strategically the South HAD TO WIN & WIN IMMEDIATELY- playing a long game was simply surrender by another means bcuz the Union had the numbers & supplies so the south could not have a victory thru attrition... Lee's whole approach was to cut off DC from the North [Gettysburg] & South [Richmond] & then force a political solution [dissolution], thankfully due to the brave courageous & fierce Union Troops those plans failed... Pickett's charge happened bcuz on the previous day orders were not followed
I was surprised that there was no mention of the Battle of Chickamauga, one of Longstreet's biggest victories. The move of his entire corps from Virginia to the western front by train was a masterful strategic move. He did not leave the West after Chickamauga. He campaigned through Tennessee and then he and his army returned to the East by train.
Longstreet to much a degree was a victim of the lost cause myth. Old southern leaders needed scapegoats to twist pre-war and war history, and Longstreet made an easier target. As long as the myth was propagated by those who oeiginated it and later supported ot (ie, Shelby Foote, etc), Longstreet would remain a victim. Fortunately, in the last decades, the lost cause myth is being uprooted and killed off. Longstreet was the kind of person needed by America postwar, and his reputation being restored. Thanks for your work.
If you haven't already done it, take a look at the Battle of Fort Sanders (November, 1863). It was Longstreet vs Burnside there. At Fort Sanders, Longstreet's casualties at 813, while Burnside only lost 13 men.
Burnside defeated Longstreet at Fort Sanders, a very lopsided battle. Longstreet ordered the assault on the fort, the same Longstreet who complained to Lee about the folly of storming Cemetery Ridge, at Gettysburg.
The lost cause isn't a myth, it is people who lived before, during and after the war writing about what they experienced.
The south had no chance of winning the war. Lee should have listened to Winfield Scott and stayed with the Union.
Most seem to forget Lee freeing his slaves and shortly after the war Lee accompanying a black man at his church to, I believe, taking the sacrament. I believe Longstreet could get very sullen and had higher aspirations than he might have been up to. Generally extremely capable Knoxville was a disaster and he tended to blame others or minimize their achievements and was extremely outspoken, a very dangerous exercise in the military. Lee, in fact, got D. H. Hill out of his command as fast as he could for that, though D.H. Hill was brilliant in the field wherever he fought. Seems like the popular is frequently very limited and biased
Myth?
Bragg was one of, if not the worst, general in American history. When he was sent to Wilmington, NC most said goodbye to Wilmington it was nice knowing you,and this turned out to be a correct statement. Nero couldn't have let a city fall as fast and total as Bragg. Even though history has shown Nero wasn't in Rome when it burned, he was at his lake villa.
Bragg was an excellent general who did not give in to his rivals
Longstreet is only “controversial” because his former Lost Cause colleagues smeared him after the war for turning into a Republican and aiding Reconstruction rather than stew in lies and grievance like they did.
Sounds like today. lol 😆
Let's not for he embezzled from the state lottery.
He did what he believed was right…
He searched for the right..,
Enough of the lost cause crap. Longstreet upset Southerners because he went Republican and supposedly supported reconstruction policies that were very unpopular in the defeated South.
Pickett's Charge was such an "all-or-nothing" strategy at Gettysburg that I can't believe Lee would have chosen it instead of Longstreet's maneuver strategy.
@@marvinbush9330 when they left Virginia after brandywine they had 3 days ammo and food. On the 3rd day Alexander ran out of artillery ammo on the 3rd day due to Longstreets procrastination.
It was over.
My unit, 1/103rd FA, held the high water mark on Pickett's Charge. When I was enlisted we had a training exorcise at Ft. Indiantown Gap and took a detour to Gettysburg for a bit of a field trip. We got to actually reenact Pickett's Charge on our predecessors position. It sucked. Even without running into artillery fire, and as a bunch of modern soldiers with modern training, it sucked. 0/10, would not recommend.
maybe Lee got some foul Intel
Had the attack been in the morning it would have had a better chance . The Union positions were reinforced through the day . The action should have been called off. While I agree w
With Long streets argument to move toward DC and then choose the better ground. It would seem though that he was slow in relaying some of Lees orders.
At 17.50, thats Lee and Jackson. Also, I thought his wife had died in Dec 1862 along with his kids so, not sure why he would write to her. According to Shelby Foote, Longstreets behaviour at Gettysburg bordered on insubordination. On day 2, he was ordered to attack on the right at about 9am, his forces didn’t actually engage until well into the afternoon leading to expensive failures at the Devils Den, The Peach Orchard, Little Round Top and so on. On the third, he delayed Picketts Charge as long as he could and could not even verbally give the order to Pickett, just nodding his head when asked by Pickett should he begin . I do not question his loyalty or ability, I simply suggest he could be stubborn if he didn’t want to do something.
Longstreet did what he had to do after the war. In a changing society he excepted the verdict of history. The old south was gone but people hung on to the lost cause. Longstreet was a man ahead of his time. He chose forgiveness rather than hate.
Longstreet seen that Lee's frontal attack was going to end in disaster, what he told Lee could have changed the war, by collapsing their defenses and attacking Washington DC, and leaving Gettysburg with the Union army entrenched with their army there. It is beyond me why Lee did what he did and essentially losing the war. Two of the greatest Generals were Longstreet and Lee
If Lee did so badly, why do you put him as one of the best generals? Maybe you should reconsider that or lower him from that position?
I always tell young kids that General Lee was the "Head Coach" General Longstreet was his Defensive Head Coach while General Stonewall Jackson was his Offensive Head Coach. They seem to understand it better.
Longstreet was very good at operating on the offensive.
Where is the painting at 13:16 supposed to be? Confederates attacking from Devil's Den to Little Round Top July 2, 1863?
Longstreet was a defensive genius ahead of his time. The Siege of Petersburg lased as long as it did in large part due to Longstreet's ideas in trench warfare that the rest of the world would not natch until WW1.
Hmm.... Lee was called the king of spades.
@@volslover1504 Well, Lee was in command, but if Lee was king of spades, Longstreet was the prince of picks and shovels.
@@jimhart4488 a spade is a form of shovel.
@@volslover1504 Yes, it is.
@@jimhart4488 Lee was king of spades when assigned to build coastal fortifications. In Longstreet’s later opinion, Nobody exceded Lee as an active defensive General. On the offensive, he was erratic and given to taking rash chances. This as meant on a high level, as an offensive strategist competent, Grant was a genius. Grant was described as a butcher by some of Lee’s subordinates, which is absurd. His casualty rates were quite low in comparison to others in the West. In the East, against Lee he made very few bloody tactical mistakes, Cold Harbor being the most important. Casualties there might arguably even have cost the early occupation of Petersburg on the first day there. But also remember during the whole movement south of the James, Grant fooled Lee to the point that Lee’s army was threatened with destruction.
By the end of the Overland campaign, I wonder if all of the generals were nearing physical, mental and emotional exhaustion. Certainly some were. Lee performed miracles, although his subordinates were wounded, in poor health, or mentally nearing breakdown. There was no one he trusted, while bedded with dysentery, to attempt to take full advantage of Grant’s tactical error on the North Ana.
That said, Longstreet was the farsighted innovator that is described here, and not solely as a defensive designer sort to speak. Certainly both armies (led by trained military engineers, for the most part, were L.’s apt students.
This is the first time that I found out that General Longstreet was from Edgefield SC. My mom was born and grew up in Edgefield SC and was from a large farming family,. That being said, I believe that it’s entirely possible that members of the Longstreet family and the Atkinson family were probably very familiar with each other. I’ve always admired both General Lee and General Longstreet. I believe that they were both very fine gentlemen caught in a terrible epoch of American history.
The 20th Maine was led by Col. Joshua Chamberlain on the Round Tops
Vincent commanded the brigade that included the 20th Maine under Chamberlain and was wounded on 2nd day of battle in the defense of Little Roundtop. This was just a small error in otherwise solid video.
Petersburg had to be the most horrific battle of the war.
Longstreet is an extremely distant relative of mine. We share a common ancestor, Matthias Laen, who settled in New Amsterdam in 1662, one year before the colony was taken over by the British. Laen was actually from the Spanish Netherlands, now known as Belgium, but moved to Holland where he married his wife who died during the voyage to the new world. My next generation ancestor, Gysbrect (sp?) married another person on their ship, the Roseboom, and they moved to Monmouth, NJ, where their names were Anglicised to GIlbert Lane and his wife Jane Smith. Subsequent generations in my line moved to PA where a descendent, David McKinney, a Presbyterian minister was active in the effort to ban slavery. My greatgrandfather's brother, David Barto served in the northern army and died at Petersburg, where Longstreet led the Confederate army. Longstreet's ancestor was the sister of Gysbrect, and she married Dirk Laengstrat, also of Dutch ancestry, and they moved to South Carolina. I have all the names written down in my genealogical records but have probably messed up the spelling here.
Wasn't nothing wrong with James Longsreet. One of the best on either side
Because of the new weapons and ammunition the kind of war they learned at West Point was already becoming outdated.
That's a great observation! The rapid advancements in weaponry during the Civil War did indeed render many traditional tactics obsolete. Longstreet recognized this shift and adapted his strategies accordingly, emphasizing the importance of defensive positions and combined arms tactics. It's fascinating how these changes set the stage for the warfare we saw in WWI.
@@tony-g1g4o good point, so many examples where generals start by using tactics from the previous war.
Could be, again kinda late🤨😔🧐
@@RootHistoryChannel Many officers, from Europe, were there to witness, firsthand, the tactics and weapons of the Civil War. These included officers from Prussia and one of those was Graf von Zeppelin, who observed Union reconnaisance ballons in Virginia. He would later build dirigibles for Germany in WWI. But what was the most important observation, by the Prussians, was the coordination of telegraph and railway, to move troops and supplies quickly, to the battlefield. This helped the Germans immensely during WWI, also.
What’s with the terrifying music?
Them Rebels was looking to loot some shoes! Many was bare foot.
😮
Were, not was.
Great man
His father James Longstreet Sr. was a successful farmer. I guess they didn't want to say he was from the planter class that owned a large amount of slaves. And why did the video say "family farm and show a photo of white people working when it was a plantation worked by slaves?
The Civil War did not end with Lee's surrender, there were other armies in the field that had not surrendered yet.
True, but not really relevant. After Lee's surrender, the rest was really mopping up and everyone knew this on both sides in 1865.
Richmond was gone, their biggest army was gone and nobody was going to put up effective resistance to either Grant or Sherman; the latter was still running around separately and uncontained. And nobody, and I mean nobody, wanted to face Grant by April of 1865.
The truth is, effective resistance was over. There was no south anymore. They had no capital city and most southern states (including Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia) were already effectively conquered.
What, exactly were they fighting for? "States rights"? You gotta have states to fight for them. Slavery? The 13th amendment was clearly going to happen.
Meanwhile, farms and families had suffered for years with no benefit now or in prospect.
@@curious968 Yep, thats like arguing the Revolutionary War didn't end with Cornwallis surrender. Sure it's wasn't technically over, but yea, it was over for all intents and purposes. Of course I suppose anyone that was killed over the next two years that might disagree a bit.
The war went on officially until August 20th, but to say the war truly went on after Lee is nitpicking. Pretty much every remaining field army surrendered when they realized that all hope was lost. Johnston realized it and said “it would be the greatest of human crimes to continue the war.” The Army of Tennessee was having mass desertions and was a fighting force in name only. Even the Indian Territory troops were an army in name only. So you could in theory nitpick, but it was effectively over.
Technically, that’s correct
Practically, the war ended at Appomattox
true but, its like saying your team is up by 2 scores and have the ball with less than a minute on the clock...once Lee and his army was defeated, that was it
They should have had the best general at Gettysburg. Nathan Bedford Forrest.
????
@sharenerickson1780 many union generals agree Forrest was the best.
From the title of "Most Controversial Confederate General," I was sure this video was going to be about Braxton Bragg.
Braxton was an idiot.
Bragg wasn't controversial. He sucked, that's undisputed 😂!
@@timhand3380 True, but I'm sure there much be someone, somewhere who has a positive attitude about Braxton Bragg. He was born and grew up in Warren County, NC, not far from me, and as an "Army brat" in my youth having spent a lot of my time on post at Fort Bragg / Liberty, at least I should have some affection, or at least respect for his memory as a fellow Tarheel. Bragg was a very bright student and did well at West Point, getting few demerits and graduating in the top 10% of his class (very good, but not quite a "Star Man"). Still, he held a lot of promise, but as far as I can tell, he's pretty much universally reviled as a disaster as a general, and not much better as a human being.
@@WelshRabbit the general who "would shoot his own soldier rather than a chicken."
Nathan Bedford Forrest would be more consversal
We should always do our best to understand the world as it was then, not as it is now, when we look back in history. The "United States of America" of today is seen universally as a single entity composed of 50 different states. Back then, the "United States of America" was also seen as a single entity by many (especially by the Unionists), but it was also seen as a rather loose collection of individual states that were "united" only through a common agreement that was not binding (The Confederacy) .... Something akin to today's European Union.
In that era, references made to the "United States" were frequently spoken or written in the plural ("The United States are") rather than as today when the United States is spoken or written in the singular ("The United States is"). After the Civil War, all references made to the United States were in the singular
Had the Southern states been able to break free from the Federal union and each go on to have their own individual foreign policies with one another and with the United States, and with every other nation on Earth, we can imagine the ebb and flow of economic, political and military alliances that would have bubbled up over time. Imagine Texas, Georgia and Tennessee uniting into an 1885 alliance against Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama for control of the Gulf ports. Or Imagine Texas and California aligning with Mexico to support Germany in WW1 while the Federal United States aligned with The Allies.
I do not understand why Americans are so focused on battles, generals etc. From other part of the world perspective war 1861 - 1865 was Easy to predict. North had 2x more people, much better railway infrastructure and much better gun industry.
In reality, the South could have won. They had the same opinion about the war of 1776, that it was "impossible to win" and Washington showed that it was possible, even though it was a titanic task.
@@HuesopandillaGlorius It was impossible to keep colony with huge population or/and vast territories: see India.
I’m surprised no one named a army base after him
Longstreet served mainly on the western frontier during the 1850s, rising to the rank of major. He owned a small number of slaves and showed no interest in politics.
Why no mention of Chickamauga. This is conspicuous by its' absence.
The battle of Gettysburg was lost on the first day by failure to take the high ground when the Union was on the run. Longstreet was slow to follow orders. The second day it wasn’t until mid afternoon that they engaged the enemy. And on the third day. He drug his feet. Also poor coordination.
Why? Why?😮
I’ve visited his grave in Gainesville, GA a few times. It’s relatively modest, although larger than the surrounding markers. There are both Confederate and US flags represented.
The south was lucky to have him and it would be good if there were people like him in the south today
Yes, so true.❤
I had not heard of Mongstreet getting shot by his own men. Man those Rebs were always shooting their own guys. I mean WTF!!!
It's 2024 and I'm still throwing my lot in with my fellow Southerners even with all I know as an arm chain QB
I admit I am enjoying the two docues You have on James Long Street and the Battle of Gettysburg Would bothers me Is everything I know about General James Longstreet I would never categorize him as cautious a great strategist Yes cautious I think of McClellan the union commander This is not a characteristic I would use on James Longstreet soundness not fearful and overly cautious as I would General McClellan of the Union army who constantly would fight a battle on a field of honor when or lose and trot pack to Washington when Lincoln would say to him Why didn't you chase him back to Virginia or Atlanta We're finally General Grant told Lincoln you want to win this war You can't continue to face an enemy on a field of honor and simply turn and go home after the battle You have to take the war to the doorsteps of the enemy otherwise this war will never END ... NOT SURE WORDS WERE EVER STATED ... SO TRUE AND ACCURATE ARE THOSE WORDS WE USE THIS TACTIC IN WAR TO THIS DAY THAT OF THE WAR OF 1861!
True, but even Lee agreed a month later that the Gettysburg campaign was a mistake. I am an addict like so many others, but other battles were far more important/decisive. Examples: 7 days. Pea Ridge, Atlanta campaign and Battle of Atlanta., Grant moving South of James setting up the Siege of Petersburg (or the whole Overland Campaign), the Vicksburg campaign, the capture of New Orleans, Sheridan in the Valley in 1864.
Wow. You sound like you really know your battle tactics and history. So sad so many suffered and gave the ultimate sacrifice.
Yeesh! Hearing the names Rosecrans, McCellan, Pope. etc made me wince harder each time it was said.
Ya left 6,000 men on the field. Dead ☠️ wounded or captured. Ridiculousness
I believe Longstreet was a close cousin of Julia Dent Grant.
The side that makes the fewest mistakes usually wins
As a southerner we put up one hell of fight an im proud of it. It sets standards. Fight for what you believe in.
SLAVERY????👀
What a absolutely foolish take! The Nazis and put up one hell of fight. It set standards. Fight for what you believe in!
@@gennaro3685 now is it your opinion that is foolish or is that facts? Because if it's your opinion I'm going to just go ahead and let you know I don't care about your opinion your opinion doesn't matter
@@scottbivins4758it’s a fact
@@DaveReece-u4b pretty sure I wasn't talking to you.
I would consider PGT Beauregard, Earl van Dorn, or Braxton Bragg more "controversial."
No, she was about 30 when he married her a few years before he died
How is Longstreet a more controversial general than Nathan Bedford Forrest? 😕
Visionary and Lee was made into a military genius because of Edwin Stanton
DAVENPORT OWA DAD JOKE of the day
I recently attended an IOWA corn maze. I couldn't shake the feeling,that I was being STALKED, it was really quiet EARIE
Why not talk about Longstreet's decisions at Gettysburg that are controversial, especially his failure to follow up Pickets' charge as ordered?
On the flip side, why not talk about his great victory at Fredericksburg?
Jackson was a bit of a fanatic. Agood officer not a great one.
Longstreet had a relationship with Grant that went back before the war. He had attended Grants wedding.
First, the South decision-makers, like the Axis' ones almost a century later, did not recognise the industrial power of the opponent, putting aside any moral ground. Secondly, Longstreet has been a loyal soldier first, and an intelligent reconciliator, later. Re-uniting your country is a wonderful duty and very hard job. I understand post-war bitterness and hate, but union is very important and late wokeism unfortunately misguided. We Europeans know well how it works. A house divided...
You lost me at “family farm.” Plantation.
Dems love plantations. They are still trying to keep certain people on them 250 years later.
Born into the Rich Southern traditions, Longstreet came from humble beginnings. Okay, which is it? Was he born wealthy or "humble"?
War was fashionable in those days--not that long after Waterloo etc--all US brass went to same collages--they were aching to 'Wage War'--nobody to fight--so they mangled their own countrymen.-(prove me wrong)
What's never explained, if not Gettysburg, then where?
Ground of our choosing?
Where is/was the mystery ground between Gettysburg and Washington DC?
Lets say, Longstreet got his way and Lee moved the army. My contention, what ever position, battle stand, Lee made would've met with Lee's doom. Or the largest POW camp in America.
How? Pick the hill, we choose it, entrench quickly, wait for the Federal Army to attack,. At the same time, Meed should bring up the Washington cannons, about 8 of them, protectedby escort, in those days about a week by wagon train, then siege the Confederate positions. Use the heavy siege guns to do the work. Meanwhile, Lee would discover the trap, and fight to break out. Lee retreat would have 60 to 80 percent. The civil war end would've different.
The music though. It’s so constantly ominous, I stopped watching. It’s history, not horror.
Way too many words, too many adjectives. You can say the same and more elegantly in one third of the space.
Ulysses S Grant: best Civil War General
Longstreet and Lee , two of my fav civil war generals. Cheers from Poland
True loss at Gettysburg on Lee , simply not listening to Longstreet guarantee u Lee knew that even if he would not publicly admit it. Gettysburg could have turn out lot different few small decisions made huge difference for the Confederates
Longstreet should have took command of the Army of Ten. 1863 .
The losing side at Gettysburg lost to the vicissitudes of any battle (or situation). Pickets charge being one of those unforeseeable situations. War is a bitch. Avoid it if at all possible.
The South lost because it had no coherent strategic plan similar to the North's "Anaconda" strategy to first isolate the South then split it up into section isolated from each other.
The Souths best winning exit would have been to cause Lincoln to lose his re-election by frustrating Northern efforts to invade, lose faith in the war effort then defeating Lincoln in 1864 Presidential election.
Had they pursued such a strategy, our nation today would be divided.
Praise God the South lost.
Appomattox courthouse did not end the Civil War. Still other troops in the field. Government did not surrender. Several major battles after this.
April 13-15, 1865 Battle of Morrisville North Carolina Union Last cavalry battle of the War.
April 16, 1865 Battle of West Point Georgia Union Union victory during final phase of U.S. Civil War.
April 16, 1865 Battle of Columbus (1865) (Battle of Girard) Georgia Union
April 23, 1865 Battle of Munford Alabama Union Croxton's Raid in northeast Alabama.
May 1, 1865 Battle of Anderson South Carolina
My lineage is SOUTHERN,I live in Pennsylvania I make NO apologies for the CONFEDERATE battle flag, but the BIBLE goes on top!!! 💔✝️👆🙏
12,500 soldiers attacking. That’s gotta be a site to be seen .
Verbose, wordy, prolix, diffuse, redundant, pleonastic, long-winded, and rambling.
Longstreet was an excellent general. Lee is overrated 100%.
Had Pickett not charged, the Confederates would've still lost the battle. Then the men they saved would've just died in future battles and protracted the war even further, with the same inevitable result. Had Picketts men somehow routed the Yanks and won the battle it would also not have changed the outcome of the war. The Confederates would still be massively outnumbered and undersupplied and the damage Sherman would go on to do would not be mitigated by any battlefield victories the Confederates could've won.
Sherman was a war criminal. His march to the sea was against innocent women, children and old men who couldn't fight. He burned their houses, barns, and crops. The livestock they couldn't steal, he had shot, widespread rape of helpless women, warfare against the civilian population plain and simple. He called it "total war". Historians call it brutality against the innocent civilian population. This while Lee had a starving confederate soldier executed for stealing a pig while matching through Mayland on the way to the horrors of Antietam. Big difference.
how did he come by the nickname "Old Pete?"
Longstreet earned the nickname 'Old Pete' during his time at West Point, though the exact origin isn't clear. Some say it reflects his 'rocklike' character, while others believe it was just a friendly moniker from his classmates. Regardless, it stuck with him throughout his life and became a symbol of his steadfastness in battle!
@@RootHistoryChannelI also heard his nickname was gloomy Pete. He lost a lot in the war. If not mistaken I think he lost several children to Scarlett fever or something like that.
From Wert's biography: James's father was impressed by his son's "rocklike" character, giving him the nickname Peter, and he was known as Pete or Old Pete for the rest of his life.
@@jackmessick2869 this makes sense, mystery solved for me
Grant’s wife, Julia Dent, was Longstreet’s cousin. Longstreet’s wife, Louisa Garland, died in 1889 after bearing him 10 children. Three of the children died in the same week in late January, 1862. They are buried together in Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond. His second wife, Helen Dortch, outlived him by many decades and died in the 1940’s. For the rest of her life she championed his reputation and legacy. James and Louisa are buried side by side in Alta Vista cemetery in Gainesville, Ga.
Lee was advised twice not to go on with his strategy ,lees ass was drunk and I just believe wanted to get the over with any way it was going to happen ..he was tired ..
Lee was a great general and patriot but he surrendered the initiative at Gettysburg. He alone could have decided where the battle would take place and he gave that advantage to the Union. IMO he was not at his best in July having just lost his best friend a few weeks before. The rest is history
Longstreet's sullen reluctance to obey Lee's orders doomed Pickett's Charge. Longstreet was always slow and unreliable. Lee won Chancellorsville without Longstreet but lost Gettysburg without Jackson.
First of all, let me make it clear that I am not American, so maybe from a distance I can judge the facts better. So from what I have read, the period of "reconstruction" in the South was nothing but a period of brutal foreign occupation. so obviously the general was nothing more than the analogue of the French general Petain, who from being a hero in the war, became a traitor after the defeat.
Petain was a hero of the 1914-18 War; his treachery lay in his collaboration with the Nazis after the defeat of 1940. But he was not alone: practically the whole French high command was riddled with Nazi sympathisers and anti-Communist fanatics.
Gloomy Pete
Lee made mistakes for sure
Yet another assertion not supported by actual events.
The Christian Church should be held accountable for causing this problem !
The Confederacy should be condemned not glorified
If you want to dehumanize everyone you oppose then that says more about you than it does about the people you despise. If you want to glorify the Union, feel free to create your own TH-cam content. You're not forced to be here or to watch.
Stop crying @ColonelHoganStalag13 your family will never get their slaves back, get over it already
Maybe you should study the history of New England better...
Longstreet is a traitor
😂
Honor and loyalty? Hahahahaha the clown tried to destroy his country.
What? They were all traitors. Video done.