How Longstreet Acted During Pickett's Charge
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 окт 2024
- At Gettysburg, Gen. James Longstreet is remembered as a reluctant, hesitant commander who disapproved of Gen. Lee's orders that ended in a heavy loss of life and strategic failure in Pickett's Charge. Longstreet, so the popular story goes, could barely bring himself to give the order for Pickett's Division to advance. But here's another view of Longstreet at Gettysburg from a trusted staffer-Gilbert Moxley Sorrel.
"Life on the Civil War Research Trail" is hosted by Ronald S. Coddington, Editor and Publisher of Military Images magazine. Learn more about our mission to showcase, interpret and preserve Civil War portrait photography at militaryimagesmagazine.com.
This episode is brought to you in part by War of the Rebellion, specializing in original Civil War Photography and Antiques, with an emphasis on cartes de visite of the period. Visit waroftherebellion.com to see the latest additions.
He was a soldier. He disagreed with the orders but once they had been given was trying to make it work. That is apparent to me.
same here , it was still his job so he had a invested interest of what was happening
Absolutely the same interpretation for me.
Agreed. His advice was to the contrary, but once the order was given, he used all his resources to see it through.
Not sure I agree. Brooding Longstreet dragged his feet (especially on Day 2), and, had he moved swiftly, the outcome MIGHT have been very different. He was reluctant on Day 3, as well, costing the rebels vital artillery support when it was needed most.
@@Former11BRAVO I like to give the benefit of doubt to generals in the past. Today with our communications, real time battlefield intel, and the speed of modern weaponry we have a difficult time understanding the pace of battle back in the 19th CE. I struggle to comprehend fighting a battle whilst sitting in a saddle giving orders that will take an hour or more to be acted upon based soley on what I can see through the smoke and couriered messages from other parts of the battle.
I sometimes wonder what military experience commentators have. A subordinate should express disagreement with force proportionate to the strength of his conviction until the order is issued, then forget prior disagreement and execute orders with vigor and enthusiasm. The behavior described here is exactly in accord with that principle.
-- MDW, USMC retired
none...
This is hardly a military principle...but is, in fact, a principle of numerous hierarchical forms that value consultation and also initiative. Trying to suggest that only those with military experience could understand this is sublimely arrogant and reductive. Its tragic how people always try to ascribe common sense operational patterns of humanity to 'their' particular experiential 'geneology'. Just like its not unique to military veterans to lament RUclipsrs who expand anything into 'something' for views. Don't need to be part of some 'elite club' to know that. If you insist on such assertions, expend your time on rationalizing why an intelligent aspirational man like Longstreet ultimately decided to militate in favor of the vile practice of slavery comprised of routine selling of children, deflowering of youth, whippings, and life-crushing servitude in repudiation of both his Holy Book 'and' his (former) national ideology. 'That', too, is hardly specific to formal military men.
Military experience is not required - this is common sense.
Most of them have no experience in any regard, Mr. Woods😐 They're know-it-alls who in reality know much of nothing concerning military matters👎 BTW, sir....Thanks for your service🇺🇲💗 I appreciate u
With all due respect to Michael Woods USMC retired, I believe this depends on the personality of the one in command. I've never served but have worked in private industry for years and have seen the same situation. Leaders leading down a path of obvious failure but being unwilling to even listen to ideas put to them because their ego is so strong that they refuse to listen. What can one do in that case? Follow lawful but know-to-be-flawed orders is the only recourse. I have handled this over the years by saying to my superior .. "I believe its my duty as a professional and your loyal subordinate to point out ...." then I follow orders. Some leaders are receptive and will listen. They may disregard subordinate advice as being wrong and that's their prerogative as a lead.
Longstreet is a man of incredible character, which he demonstrated both during Pickett's charge and in the decades following the war.
I took a group of high school kids to Gettysburg on a senior trip many years ago...We had read Killer Angels.. The kids and I were in the woods where Pickett's division was preparing their quarter mile charge across the field.. As they quietly surveyed the position and remarking on the Union's well fortified position, one girl quietly asked, "Mister W, why did they go"?!
It's actually about 1200-1500 yards. From the jump-off to the High Water Mark to twenty minutes to traverse.
"Why did they go?" According to Shelby Foote, it would have taken more courage for a Confederate soldier to refuse Lee's order than to follow it. Lee was, in the eyes of his men, a god of war, and they firmly believed that he would bring them victory, no matter the circumstances.
They went because they were soldiers.
FREDRICKSBURG….FREDRICKSBURG!!!!! The Union soldiers yelled as they slaughtered the rebels
“Why did they go?”
A question that many would asked if they where out there to view the field on both sides. How can you honestly answer that question and know that same question crosses your mind many times.
The onLy best answer I would give is it was their duty to follow orders given by their leader, mostly Lee, have confidence that what they were about to do is the best way. Madness. It was all madness.
I'm not a historian, but was fortunate to walk the entire Gettysburg Battlefield twice with a private military historian to discuss military battlefield tactics and lessons on Leadership. I obtained great insight and respect for Gen. Longstreet on how he attempted multiple times to reason with Gen. Lee against Picket's charge, and that he had a far superior plan. As we know... Gen. Lee shut him down and the rest is history. One thing that often gets missed is how crucial Gen. Longstreet was in successfully covering Lee's retreat along the treeline.
My first battlefield tour happened shortly after Longstreet's bronze statue had been erected. I am not sure, but was under the impression that this was a "semi secret" placement as there was still those who protested the statue. I am happy that I was able to see it for myself... for however long the monuments will be allowed to remain.
I think Lee was too preoccupied with the situation regarding Stuart, the loss of Jackson, etc..
I feel at this point of the war Lee was weary of war and again, overly preoccupied with many thoughts, such that he wasn't functioning at full capacity.
According to Shelby Foote, by the third day, Lee's "blood was up," and there was no convincing him to change course. Lee nearly broke through on the first day, he came even closer on the second, and by God, he was going to break through on the third. Lee also understood that the longer the war dragged on, the less likely the South had for victory, so he felt that only bold and decisive action would win the day.
Gettysburg is a National Military Park. The monuments there aren't going anywhere. Anyone who visits there *wants* to see them and knows at least some of the historical context. People *choose* to go there. Having the statue of a slave owner prominently displayed outside of a government building where people need to go to conduct various kinds of business is a different matter. People who have to go to those buildings must pass those statues, and for some, it's like silent intimidation.
Statues of the military opponents of the United States of America belong in those battlefield parks and in museums.
You are correct. General Longstreet's statue IS "somewhat hidden."
I am not sure how that passage changes anything about Longstreet's reluctance of ordering Pickett's charge. He may not have agreed with Lee but he would have surely watched over Pickett and assisted as best he could as any good obedient dedicated general would. He would not merely hang Pickett out to dry just because he did not agree with Lee's orders.
Bingo
Totally agree.
The speaker is not doubting that Longstreet did not agree with Pickett running the charge. He is saying that Longstreet has the unfair rep of not supporting Pickett once the charge was underway, and he felt that Sorrel's account proved that reputation wrong.
I am sure they had differences before Gettysburg ! The difference ? This one they lost ! Lee was on a winning streak and he commanded as Caesar commanded . Completely .
@@ford289cid7 What is the source of allegations that Longstreet did not properly support Pickett? I have never seen such a charge, but welcome learning who would make it. Jubal Early perhaps?
Longstreet was more of a defensive leader. He wanted the Union Army to attack him. He knew right away that the charge would not succeed, especially with the long distance his soldiers had to go.
Yes, he was aware that the only way the South could win was if they kept it to a defensive war, until Grant took over, of course. The 2 times Lee invaded the North did not turn out well. Chancellorsville was defense by offense as were most of Lee's attacks.
He suggested to Lee that it would be wiser if they left Gettysburg and head towards Washington. He thought that it would draw the union out of their position, because they had to protect Washington. He had already found an excellent area to defend and he was as good at defending as anyone on either side. Maybe he should have resigned his command, but he loved Lee and would rather stay beside him than resign. Lee was without Jeb Stuart, so he had no idea what he was facing. But, if you have no idea, why would you send men to slaughter. He did not have to attack on the 3rd day and could have waited as long as needed, because the union was not about to give up their position. There was a lot of blame to go around after that battle and much of it fell unfairly on Longstreet.
But, Hancock was cooler & better
Longstreet's strategy of not engaging st Gettysburg and striking at DC could very well have altered the course of the war ...an audacious and not defensive approach. Lee made a grave error , in fact completely misread the Union resolve and leadership...he let his successes go to his head!!
Longstreet knew that Lee was making a mistake and tried to talk about him out of it. Lee overruled Longstreet and they got crushed.
He absolutely should have resigned his command before ordering that charge. It's an officer's duty, by any sense of morality within warfare, to refuse an order which is absolutely guaranteed disaster with no benefit to the army, to their army's goals or to the general goals of the entity it represents in the field.
Gilbert Moxley Sorrels book is one of the best I have read on the war. Greetings from NZ
Hi Kiwi!!👍
Longstreet was right in his assessment of Lee’s battle plans as the poor outcome suggests!
Once committed to battle you might as well try and win no matter how bad an idea he knew it was!
Longstreet was given an impossible task and people don’t want to blame Lee why?
As l understand it, Lee was a great hero to the rebels, then and even today. It would have been blasphemy to blame him for the loss of a battle, even though Lee himself admitted he was at fault.
You don't blame the Messiah , and Lee was walking on water at this point .
@@lonnietoth5765 No but in hindsight he ist t walking on water when it comes to Gettysburg and he should be graded based on facts known as at the time he was a God and people didn’t have all the facts. It was a suicide mission and unless you have overwhelming numbers you don’t march over a mile on a semi fortified position
@bigred2 after the charge witnesses said General Lee looked distraught and muttered “ it’s all my fault “. So even though people don’t blame General Lee deep down he knew he was to blame.
The myth of the lost cause founders all messed up during this battle. rather take the blame themselves, or admit to Lee's overconfidence...they blamed the General who was friends with Grant.
Thanks for sharing this positive view of General Longstreet. Interesting quotes.
One of my favorite descriptions of Longstreet right after Pickett's charge comes from Arthur Fremanle. In his book, he saw the very end of the charge and thought it was going well. He went to find Longstreet, who he found sitting on a fence whittling sticks. Longstreet told him that they had been repulsed.
Fremantle was quite taken by the American practice of whittling.
Fremantle never quite understood " modern" warfare. 10,000 out of 17,000 in casualties. But what impressed him was they reached their objective. Rifles kill; muskets wound. Pyrrhic victory was OK. Led to the slaughter 50 years later.
Longstreet knew what was about to happen. He KNEW some of his close friends in this horrible charge were NOT coming back. It was a farewell to his old friends and comrades whom he'd never see again,, and he KNEW it.. But,, he carried out Lee's orders and we see what happened...
I love the conversation with Harrison in the movie Gettysburg. Don't know if that actually happened but certainly dramatized the situation.
I have read that Lee did not like spies however Longstreet put some trust into what this man "Harrison" had to say. @@stevefisher8323
@@stevefisher8323 www.nps.gov/people/henry-thomas-harrison.htm
Longstreet was often criticized for being slow. When he hit he put it all on the line and he was very effective as a commander. He praised Lee as being perfect on defense but felt he was sometimes too agressive on offense.
There was a quote from George Picket years after the war. When he was asked why the charge failed, he replied "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."
I think Longstreet was a scapegoat for the lost causers because of his friendship with Grant and other Republicans at that time (after the war). If Lee felt he was incompetent, Longstreet would not have been in command.
Exactly. The Longstreet passed down through history was mediated by lost causers via the Southern Historical Society.
Some years after the Civil War James Longstreet even became a Republican.
@@schuberttim - And for that, he was cast into the outer darkness by a conspirators of the Lost Cause who needed a scapegoat. He was written into history by Southern historians as the bad guy. Sadly, the Lost Cause gained traction in the nation as a whole and within not much more than a generation Southern partisan authors were writing the textbooks for Yankee school kids. So much for "winners write history" idea.
Longstreet was Lee's second greatest general; Jackson being his greatest. The lost causers needed a scapegoat, especially since they raised Lee to sainthood, somebody had to take the blame for the South's defeat. Unfortunately, the reality was that the South was doomed from the very beginning. The south was agrarian and the North industrial. The North had ten factories to every one of the South. That's ten times the number of guns, cannons, ammo, food supplies, etc. Also, each Southern state had railroad tracks that were different widths. So supplies being shipped to the front lines had to be taken off one train and loaded onto another. This all takes time. The two essentials were food and ammunition. "An army travels on its stomach." Napolean. The governor of Georgia had a huge stake in the pig industry and refused food to the Confederate army. He also allowed General Sherman easy access to Atlanta provided the governor himself was well taken care of. This is why Sherman chose to go through Atlanta to the coast. Anyway, back to Gettysburg, Longstreet did make it clear that the Union soldiers were well ensconced behind a rocky wall, just as the Confederates where in Richmond. Gettysburg loss was all on Lee. Other Confederate generals, like Uhell, blamed Longstreet to avoid any blame on themselves. As Longstreet predicted, Picket's Charge was doomed from the start. You just don't send a walking army into over one mile of open terrain where artillery can rain down on you the whole way. It takes 20 minutes to walk a mile. That's a long time to be exposed to cannon fire unprotected. The same folly was repeated during WW1 where soldiers marched into heavy machine guns. As the famous book The Guns of August pointed out, you can't win a war fighting with the previous war's methods. Lee called Longstreet "His old war horse."
@@golfhound I've never seen any evidence that the governor of Georgia gave Sherman easy access to Atlanta. In the real world the Confederate army was in charge of defending Atlanta, firstly under Joe Johnston and then under John Bell Hood. It was Hood's inability to understand defensive warfare that made sure that Sherman would take Atlanta. The governor had nothing to do with Hood's attacking when he should have stayed on the defensive like Johnston.
I love your channel. After watching it for the past year or two, I am wondering about the few, iconic motion pictures about Civil War battles, in particular, Gettysburg. As I have been drawn into your historical, forensic analysis, my initial love for this film has been buoyed. It seems to me about as accurate historically as it could be, and very realistic. I was a literature major in college 55 years ago. An old, part-time English professor who was a WWII sea captain in the British merchant navy, torpedoed and sunk twice, told me that the point of literature is to 'shed light'. You have showed me how that dictum also applies to the discipline of history.
Sorrell finished the war as a Brigadier General. He served in Mahone's Division of 3rd Corps.
I always viewed Longstreet as someone with a high intellect,
Someone whose mind was constantly flashing through every scenario and possible results/outcomes in every situation long before most could notice what was going on around them.
An extremely attentive person who noticed every detail..
@@nickroberts-xf7oq this is one of the most senseless, random comments thrown out carelessly I've seen.. 😐
Go ahead... provide me with some sort of thought behind this.
@@nickroberts-xf7oq 🤨
.. ok... What about it?
If you're not going to actually add any context to random stuff you just throw out.. then I'm not going to bother after this.
You're just saying random shit, without any information..
@@nickroberts-xf7oq ... because he dared to critique Lee..
Longstreet was a professional soldier. While he may have disagreed with Lee, once he received his orders he took every means to accomplish the task, even though he may have thought it a bad idea. Orders were to be carried out...That was drilled into pretty much every graduate of West Point, and Longstreet was an excellent officer.
@WalterWild-uu1td - As Shelby Foote mentioned in the PBS series - The Civil War - it would've been more difficult for Longstreet to contravene an order from "Marse" Robt. E. The Confederates had had success with frontal attacks (against even larger forces) before, and Lee's "blood was up".
Clearly he did not approve of such a charge that he believed had little chance of success. But once it started, I have no doubt that he hoped for success.
Very interesting. Thank you. As I understand it, Longstreet wasn't so much a hesitant or reluctant commander at Gettysburg, but rather he was painfully aware of the obstacles that would be faced by Pickett while moving across open ground. But once committed, he was all in.
Excellent video and interesting, intelligent comments from viewers. I think I'll enjoy this channel...liked and subscribed!
Longstreet was 50 years ahead of his time in his concepts of how to wage war. His ideas and tactics were followed in WWI.
WW1 another disaster to all
Why is anyone surprised that Longstreet followed orders and tried to accomplish the mission to the best of his ability?
it is just what a well-trained professional officer does.
All I have read indicates to me that Longstreet was a good officer who spoke his conscience, but once decisions were made carried out his orders whether he agreed with them or not, dutifully and to the best of his ability.
As any good officer should do.
Good officers that obey orders don't always win in battle.
My ancestor rode with Forrest, thanks to the Lord. Forrest threated to kill Bragg, his commanding officer.
You stand your ground with your superior, then do what is his decision is.
@@TheGuitarReb Please relate this incident to the readers,, It's an awesome read! :) Forrest was truly one of a kind.
@@tomjones2202 I assume you refer to Forrest's insubordination to his superior officers.
Bedford was NOT West Point trained.
He got away with much because he won his battles.
@@TheGuitarReb Have you read the book, "Bedford and His Critter Company" by Andrew Nelson Lytle. That's where I learned of him telling General Bragg that he'd kill him if he ever messed with him again. He didn't do well with fools.
IMHO - Longstreet did not agree with Lee's plan, but as a soldier, He obeyed and did everything he could to make it succeed.
LONGSTREET was the Smartest Guy in the room. Period____
The real question is why did Lee order Picket’s charge. Longstreet saw Lee’s error, communicated his concerns, and Lee failed to heed Longstreet. Apparently, by this time Lee thought his army could not be defeated.
The South needed a scapegoat for their lost cause and chose Longstreet, in part because of his previous relationship with Grant. There was an important scene in the movie Gettysburg where Longstreet ask Lee to consider redeploying the Confederate army to better ground and between Meade and Washington. Lee, of course, did not redeploy his army but felt confident they could win the battle. Thus, some southern historians have made it appear as if Longstreet did not perform well at Gettsyburg because he did not agree with Lee's strategy which this report proves this theory to be false.
I agree. It’s as if, they think that, by emotionally supporting Lee’s decision, Longstreet would somehow have supercharged 11,000 rebels and transformed defeat into victory. I assure anyone, my resolute cheering for my mediocre sports teams, has no effect on improving their quality or the on-the-field result.
George Pickett was very vocal against Lee for the slaughter of his Division and yet the southern press did not attack him at all . There were underling reasons , such as Longstreet's relationship with Grant . Did they chastise Armistead for failing at the Angle because he was dear friends with Handcock ? They could not touch Armistead because he died a hero and you could not touch Pickett because he lost his whole Division . That gives you Longstreet .
I think Lee knew the odds were against the success of Pickett''s charge. But he drove into the north hoping to turn sentiment in the north against continuing the war. Lee and Jefferson Davis knew the south could not win a protracted war against the much more industrialized north. The Gettysburg battle and Pickett's charge were "Hail Marys" .
well, if it was in the movie then, obviously it must be true! ... sarc/off
on the second day, Hood wanted to go around big round top, instead of straight up little round top. Longstreet demurred, not wanting to countermand Lee's orders .... Jackson would have ... & Lee expected his subordinates to adjust to conditions as they would arise on the field. Longstreet did not adjust to events, because of 'orders' (hey, it's in the movie!) & Lee chose the only path left to him .... the center.
Both Lee & Longstreet failed ... Lee admitted it, Longstreet didn't ... & blamed Lee
Lee though so much of his troops that he thought they were close to invincible .... led by Jackson & Longstreet they possible could have succeeded at Gettysblurg, but Ewell was in charge of Jackson's Corp ... & as Ewell said, "there were a lot of mistakes at Gettysburg, & I made most of them." after the first day Ewell's Corp did little at all ... does anyone think Jackson would have done what Ewell did?
@@snidleywhiplash4791 Truth is, for all his deserved reputation for the well known events, Jackson was overall a more inconsistent Corps commander than Longstreet. On a good day, sure, a battle winner like no other, North or South... even coming from behind. But on an off day... well, he even cost the ANV a pretty major victory or two, even under more direct oversight from Lee. Sure, his replacement(s) Ewell and Hill weren't up to the standard of either Jackson or Longstreet but whenever the question of a further flung independent or supporting command came up outside of raiding, spoiling and distraction (like Jackson in the Shenandoah) Longstreet was Lee's (and the war depts) first choice for good reason. As such imo it would've been as likely for 2nd Corp under Jackson to fail on the ANV's left at Gettysburg (whether the army had been reorganised into three Corps or not) as it would've been for Hood's suggested wide right hook to have succeeded. We'll never know but war and battles aren't safe betting games either way.
No matter how reluctant Longstreet was to order Pickett's charge, he still knew his job and was a good, humane commander of men in the field and would have done everything possible to give Pickett' men a chance, even if he knew they had none. This doesn't change my opinion of Longstreet's orders and feelings even one iota.
One the charge had started and could not be aborted, it does not surprise me that Longstreet just began to act professionally looking after the flanks of the charge. It really is a separate issue.
Longstreet displayed the attribute of a good Prussian officer. He questioned the order of superior - in this case, a severe mistake. Then, he carried out the the order with vigor.
Well done, Ron!
So he was against the plan but fought like hell and did everything in his power to try to make sure the plan is successful. I actually respect that, know the charge is happening anyway, knowing he can’t stop it, he tried everything to help his men.
Longstreet was loved by the veterans at the conventions he visited after the war but had problems with some of the officers from the war in the CVA yearly news letter after the conventions
As I recall, on the first page of his book he mentions the pronunciation of his name as Sor-RELL.
But his friends (including Longstreet) addressed him by his middle name, Mosley.
Longstreet was right about advising Lee to call off Picket's charge and instead maneuver to get all the Confederate forces between the Union forces and Washington DC.
I would advocate that this was a reluctant general who spite of not agreeing and worrying about his men would do everything that was necessary to ensure success. Had he done anything but what the aide described he would have been supporting failure. His job was to support Picket and try to ensure the success of a monumental mistake by Lee.
Even if he was against the charge, he did his best to help it succeed
Dictionary definition of "Scapegoat": Longstreet.
Definition of "Slow"
One can be, at once, both against a move and supportive of that move. It was Longstreet's job to execute or assist in execution the orders of his boss regardless of his feelings, not to sit off by the trees and yell "na-na, I told you so!" as the action crumbled.
If Lee is the only rebel who could've stopped the charge and instead ordered a tactical retreat, then Lee is the only to blame.
All I see from that passage is a professional Soldier who's doing this job, even though he thinks it's a bad order. All the more reason for him to be active in trying to make things as good as he can for his men.
As a child I stood on the spot where Pickett's began their attack and even the I wondered who thought this was a good idea.
One of the comments made was partially correct, Longstreet was not in favor of Pickett’s charge but was following orders. He did not blame Porter Alexander but simply told him to pour as much fire into cemetery ridge as possible and to signal him when done. Alexander knew it would not be enough and Longstreet took the blame for the failure of it all.
General lees frustration led to disaster that day i am a aussie who walked the battlefield and timed the charge around 2 min 30 to get to the stone wall it was a suicide mission absolutely no cover and destroyed pickets division later on i went to hollywood cemetery and seen the mass grave picket as he should be is buried not far from them a absolute waste of life rip you brave souls my heart crys for the loss of both sides
The duty of a "Right hand man", "Old War horse", "Second in command" or...a "Co-pilot" is to when necessary, say..."Are you SURE you want to do this"? Otherwise your useless to a leader in that position.
It would take an absolute IDIOT not to see the foolishness of having troops MARCH ACROSS A MILE OF OPEN GROUND IN THE FACE OF HEAVY ARTILLERY.Insanity!Longstreet saw this as did most others probably.Longstreet was decades ahead in battlefield tactics,with one squad advancing,and another providing covering fire,instead of shoulder to shoulder.But Lee was GOD to these people,and I think HE JUST DID NOT WANT TO LOSE THIS BATTLE. remember Jackson was no longer there to stabilize everything.
Bottom line, one side wanted to preserve the Union. The other side wanted states to have the right to own people. The human condition is tragic that such a loss and waste of so many young lives.
While reading Sorrel’s short book, I was repeatedly conscious of deja vu: Sorrel's 'Recollections' must, as a matter of ratio of quotation and/or paraphrase to its entire text, be among the most frequently utilized of Civil War memoirs in the preparation of newer and broader histories and analysis.
Unfortunate that after the war Longstreet was held responsible by southerners for being half committed to the cause which is not true
He tried his best regardless of whether he agreed with his commanding officer or not. That's the mark of a true soldier
Best goddamn general the South had- don't get it twisted, Lee deserves all the blame for Pickett's Charge. Longstreet spoke out vehemently against the idea. Furthermore Lee took full responsibility with the tatters of the brigade when they linked back to the Southern line
Do you really think Longstreet was better than Stonewall? C'mon, man.
@@marknewton6984 Stonewall was an incredible general but his bravado and peculiar notions about battle ultimately got him killed- Longstreet was a defensive general first and foremost, which was a strategy that proved sustainable throughout the war. Get there first and dig in. Having said that I dont know that there's really any way to compare between the two
@@clintaudette3683 You make some good points. I still think Stonewall was better. But that makes history fun!
I see this as Longstreet doing his best to mitigate what he knew to be a very poor decision. Officers are bound by oath to do their duty and execute lawful orders to the best of their ability...this is him doing that. A lesser man would indeed have just gathered his staff around him and sulked and watched passively. JL was not that man.
I had read in Pickett biography that Pendleton, Lee’s chief of artillery, had withdrawn the howitzers- that Alexander had gathered to provide close support to the charge-at the last moment. Do you know if there is any truth to that?
I feel as though this passage is more of a beaten officer thinking about the next step to stop a total defeat of his army. Does the book mention anything about his discussions with Lee and McLaws the day prior? To me, this speaks more to Longstreet's attitude.
Nice short and informative
Sorrell and Custer appear to have employed the same tailor.
He may have kept a "careful watch on Pickett's division", but he was in command of the entire assault. Is Latrobe sent to the left of Pickett, or to the left of the Pettigrew?
This is not surprising that Longstreet would support Pickett. Longstreet always saw Pickett as his favorite subordinate. It still doesn't change the idea that he was against the charge and let his feeling be known about it and other times he disagreed with Lee.
Longstreet was a consummate professional, who correctly assessed Picket's Charge was a mistake.
It was an impossible attack, but if it had been possible Longstreet would have seen it done
I have always thought Longstreet was too hesitant in his attack however,recently have reviewed the inaction of Ewell and Early to the north stopped by the barriers set in place by the defenders of Culp's hill and the failure of(late arriving) Jeb Stuart the night of July 2nd and his failure to take the rear of the Union defenses because of Custer and Custer's early morning attack on the troops brought by Stuart.Longstreet's failures on the Confederate right have to be tempered with the heavy artillery fire they were receiving and the fact that the Union had reserves and used them well.The closure of Sickle's opening of the Union line near the Peach orchard had to monumental because had any of Lee's commanders been able to exploit this the battle would have been over.I do know about Custer because our family owned a farm to the rear of the battle lines.Custer held my 5 year old great grandfather on his knee at breakfast at the farmhouse before he attacked Jeb Stuart's troops and had his horse shot out from under him but took refuge in the trees to the rear of the Union lines where Stuart could never dislodge him and his troops.
Was it Longstreet or Lee to whom Pickett said, "What have you done to my army?" Pickett's charge was a tactical relic of the days of unrifled muskets when accuracy was an accident. By the time of the civil war rifled barrels, which were discovered by accident, made long range marksmanship possible. It would appear because of the rifled barrels and the cannons Pickett's charge was an unfortunate waste of good soldiers. But, I have read, had Pickett thrown an extra 1000 men into the line the charge would have successfully breached the Union line and the charge would have been more than a high water mark of the Confederate crusade.
this makes sense. He knew it his gut the charge had no chance but then strange things happen in war so he did his best. In the movie Gettysburg he sits and just basically winces as the charge unfolds but as soon as it is clear its failed he immediately moves forward to prepare for a counter attack. It is much more likely he was that way the entire time
Lee should have been relieved after Gettysburg. And replaced with Longstreet. The confederacy would have been in better shape. For how long? Who knows!?
@@travisjerwers4921 Actually I think Lee did about as good as he could after Gettysburg; but he never had the chance to do anything except defend which he did a very good job of. But he was up against Grant who was going to go for the throat every chance and keep pushing; never letting Lee's army recover. WIth the end of the Prisoner exchanges Lee had no way to replace losses at all. so he got ground down. Longstreet showed great ability to develope trench warfare but that is not going to win a war
Longstreet's sole error during the battle of Gettysburg was that he failed to see that Lee's plan of campaign (which he and Lee had agreed upon prior to the onset of the campaign) was no longer viable after 1 July. If he had understood this, he would not have persisted in suggesting a movement around the Union left and would have realized that the only option open to Lee was to attack. His reluctance regarding Pickett's Charge was both understandable and natural. It involved a frontal assault on the Union center, and one of the divisions was from his own corps.
After July 1, attack is exactly what Lee did do. He attacked both flanks on July 2, as well as certain points in between when Meade had not yet concentrated in the center. He nearly succeeded but for fierce Union resistance, such as Chamberlain's famous stand on Little Round Top. July 2 was really the apex of the battle, it's just overshadowed by the drama of Pickett's Charge. Longstreet did his job well. Lee was the one who made the fatal mistake.
@@amain325 Well, attacking after 1 July was not a mistake on Lee's part since had no other alternative. It was multiple errors which he made before the battle even began that ruined his campaign.
Longstreet apparently did not agree with Lee re that charge, but as a loyal soldier, he followed orders. As a good officer, of course he was interested in how the charge went. After that disaster, even Lee admitted was his own fault. As good as Lee was as a general, I believe Stonewall Jackson was the best confederate general. Losing him was fatal to the Confederate cause.
Longstreet was not a Fool! He knew what would happen. The attack was futile. He knew that!
I would have to assume that Longstreet himself has commented on the entire Gettysburg battle, with Picket’s Charge being the event to comment on for the ages. I’m not a historian, perhaps he took his experiences to his grave.
Longstreet knew it was a big mistake.
Very good 😃
Thinking of the "Dead Horse" with the back legs blown off, and the concern for the "saddle".
Did they just leave all the carnage in place while they camped and ate right beside them. I know we all see vast pictures of the dead…lots of self inflicted deaths by rotting flesh.
My understanding is that the confederates fired cannon at the northern troops before the charge. The smoke from the shelling obscured the view from the field. The shells overshot the enemy hitting harmlessly behind them but the confederates didn't see that and the charge was given before the smoke cleared. Also Lee sent cavalry out that was suppose to strike the northern army from the flanks. However they were stopped by Leutenant George Custer with his cavalry. Those 2 facts led to the tragic slaughter.
Like some other comments, It's perfectly consistent with a military frame of mind.Geez....haven't you watched "Gettysburg" and Buford's monologe🙄🤔🤔
Not complicated. He disagrees with the operational order, but once it is decided, he gives it all the thought he can in executing it. In fact, the left flank of Pickett's charge was ambushed by a 160-man company from Ohio from a shallow ravine in front of where Culp's Hill meets Cemetary Ridge and caused significant disruption in the advancing Confederates in that end.
If I had been ordered to attack half the union army with only 15000 men two days in a row, I would have been miffed too...
When did Sorrell write this? Is it in response to crticism after the war or from a diary? Time has an influence on how he might perceive Longstreet or he felt the need to defend him. Context is important.
It appears in his memoir, "Recollections of a Confederate Staff Officer," published in 1905.
@@lifeonthecivilwarresearchtrail thanks! New to your channel but I've enjoyed the handful of videos I've seen.
"Good heavens!
These slavers must really love enslaving others if they are to risk so much on this foolhardy charge."
-Arthur Lyon Fremantle
From his assessment of Pickett's Charge.
Hmm. Sent aides out to keep main charge being flanked?!? I am a Longstreet apologist for the most part, but if he did, it didn't work. Both sides WERE flanked.
As a Reconstruction administrator in Louisiana seemed Longstreet had a moderate reputation. When Grant was running for WH reelection in 1872 was there any talk of Longstreet as VP?
i would say longstreet didnt agree with aLEE and longstreet was right - off to the side draw the union from the heights
My analysis, Longstreet understood the gravity and risk of the situation, it was do or die, and if Picketts men could make it, then the hope would continue. It is like placing on all on a snake eyes, of course you will be alert an putting all your juju into the roll.
At receiving the strategy of Lee’s design of Pickett’s charge, Longstreet may not have been convinced of its success. But once Lee ordered it to happy, I believe Longstreet went into the plan, 100%
Based on that excerpt, it seems that Longstreet was simply conducting the necessary movements to support Pickett. What was he supposed to do? Leave Pickett high and dry? If Pickett had been successful, or at least a bit more successful, Longstreet had to move supporting elements into position to reinforce, refit, and resupply. I don't think that excerpt lends credence to your supposition that Longstreet wasn't as reluctant over giving the order as he is depicted. Once the order was given, he had a duty to his men to support their movement and the operation as best he could. To do otherwise would have been dereliction of duty.
I’ve read Longstreet took hours to get ready to attack , thus losing valuable hours
Longstreet was slow.
The attack was doomed. Early or late really didn't matter. The Union army had a superior position, superior artillery, greater numbers, and good generals and soldiers defending the position. That was just as true earlier in the day as it was at the time of attack.
All comments aside history shows Longstreet was right Lee was wrong. It was a devastating loss, the kind Lee and Longstreet had inflicted on the north repeatedly and under almost identical circumstances.
Well, what the hell was he supposed to do? He had men out there who were putting their lives on the line.
Well, of course once the order was given and the battle started he would do what he could to win, regardless of how he felt beforehand. What else would be expected?
I've often felt like Lee wanted this to be the end of the war.
Officers are obliged by morality and any sense of decency to refuse an order which is absolutely guaranteed disaster with no benefit to the army, to their army's goals or to the general goals of the entity it represents in the field. It would have been reasonable and expected by any decent standard for Longstreet to resign his command before ordering Pickett's Charge, and to do so in view of others for maximum affect. EVEN BEFORE the charge, any reasonable mind would have deemed the inevitable casualties and the long-term after-effects to be absolutely unacceptable, ESPECIALLY given the obvious nature of the South being continuously outnumbered in each major engagement. Lee had major successes, brilliant victories; still studied today. But he absolutely doomed his army, he murdered an entire division and the Army of Northern Virginia never recovered. My grandmother's grandfather was at Gettysburg serving under James Dearing in a Lynchburg artillery battery in Pickett's Div. of Longstreet's Corp. They didn't know until after the war that Lee knew how impossible it was to take Seminary Ridge. And then they hated him for it. Now here we are, over 150 years later, still suffering the consequences of forcible union and racial divisions set upon us by the elite wealthy in order to keep us divided for their gains, ruled by a tyrannical and corrupt government.
TY 🙏🙏
Confederates began blaming generals for the defeat at Gettysburg as soon as the war was over, and the later accounts are biased in the authors' desire to remove blame from Lee, and by politics. Longstreet was a friend of Grant's at West Point, and became a Republican after the war. Heth got blamed for blundering into the battle; Pickett was blamed for failing to take Cemetery Ridge, J.E.B. Stuart was (wrongly) blamed for not scouting for Lee, and so on. The fact is that unsung heroes like Herman Haupt, Strong Vincent, ordinary Union soldiers (1st Minnesota; 20th Maine; 44th New York, for example) and lower-ranking generals like Buford, Reynolds, and Hancock were determined not to allow their top brass to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Lee was not the perfect general that his admirers imagine (the frontal assault at Malvern Hill had about the same casualty rate as Grant's attack at Cold Harbor, for instance) or the perfect gentleman that the Lost Cause portrayed. He is responsible for ordering the assault on the third day of Gettysburg, and if it had succeeded, he'd have gotten all the credit. It didn't.
You've never been in a combat situation. It's very clear.
Lets say Lee had managed to occupy an area in southern Pennsylvania that would allow him to threaten Philadelphia, Washington or other Northern cities. If the Army of the Potomac could cut him off from all resupply and restrict his ability to forage. Just how long would the ANV have lasted.
There is NO way that Longstreet dragged his feet or did anything wrong during Picketts’s charge. He was a professional soldier through and through
Longstreet , like Rommel , was a commander and followed orders period ! I would be more concerned with Jeb Stuart and his blinding of the Army of Northern Virginia with his playing the papers . Yamamoto was against a war with the U. S. but was honor bound to do his best knowing their ( Japans ) younger officers had a bad habit of assassinating their superiors if they did not support Tojo and the War . They even tried to stop the Emperors surrender speech that was recorded . I wonder what Jackson's input would have been and would Lee have listened to Jackson if he suggested , " Going around the Right " . Flank , Flank Flank !
Had jeb Stuart not run into Custer he could have completed the task of a pincher move in behind line and with picket split the union line brilliant plan right in line with lees thinking but things don’t always work out especially in a war of attrition
I don't agree. Even if you are solidly opposed to the decision once the die is cast you have to do everything you can to help ensure its success even if you fear that it will be a failure. This is a situation where you do all you can to prove yourself wrong.
That's just it. Sorrell wrote that while Longstreet did not support the decision to send Pickett charging, he did his best to support it once the decision was made.
@@ford289cid7 Maybe I misunderstood the video. But it seemed to me that the narrator was implying that Longstreet's actions during the charge indicated that he wasn't opposed to the decision. That's what I was disagreeing with. I think Longstreet opposed the plan but once it was put in motion, as any good soldier would, he supported the effort to the best of his ability. But that shouldn't be interpreted as evidence that he actually supported the plan.
Longstreet did not want that attack. He didnot want the responsibility of ordering it. He tried to lay that off on the Artillery commander Porter Alexander. Alexander knew he was short of ammo and it was defective. The artillery bombardment would be iffy. He couldnot replenish his ammo quickly. Longstreet. later became a Republican and was very unpopular in the South. Day 2 one of his subordinates wanted to change the place of attack to flank the Union Army. Longstreet said Lee ordered an attack somewhere and they would do as ordered. That failed too.
I think Longstreet was frustrated with Lee's determined attitude to have his plan carried out...I believe Lee was in poor health and his ability to be flexible as the battle evolved was absent..on the 2nd Longstreet was late and that was the final straw for Lee and the day and victory would have resulted if not for stalling by Longstreet and Pickett's charge he was detatched and reluctantly finally gave to order to advance....the war was lost just before the men stepped off ..
Yeah no, that whole story of “Longstreet delayed following Lee’s order at Gettysburg, so the South lost” myth is just that: a myth. I believe that it was invented after the war by a guy who hated Longstreet, partly because Longstreet went along with reconstruction, but mostly because he dared to criticize some of Lee’s wartime decisions (aka blasphemy for Lost Causers). Don’t take my word for it though, look it up for yourself.
The scouting was poor with no Stuart, they had to backtrack and remarch. The canteen water soldiers were captured so they fought with no water
Stalling?
A number of little things going wrong and causing delays is perfectly normal when needing to march and coordinate attacks on unfamiliar ground. When this normal kind of event hampers the AoP in Virginia and they fail to capitalize on a mistake by Lee, Lee is declared a genius. When this normal kind of even hampers the ANV in Pennsylvania, someone must be scapegoated and Lee is declared a genius who was failed by a subordinate.
The biggest problem with Pickett's charge is not that it was a disaster because it failed. The biggest problem is it would bring inevitable disaster even if the charge itself succeeded. Lee was hoping a number of other efforts would succeed, Stuart's attack on the left being but one example, and all those other things failed. If those men somehow took the hill in the center, they would have been standing in an artillery kill zone, with support unlikely to come for an hour or more. Having committed the bulk of his reserves to this attack, what would Lee do with these men stranded where they will be torn to pieces?
@@kenkaplan3654 Lee had plenty of other cavalry assets, its always the excuse to blame Stuart. Stuart had his part to play on the third day, sweeping around to attack the center from the rear. Sadly Custer disobeyed orders and was there to block this move. Longstreet should have been hung for dereliction of duty on the way home!
If it would have been Forrest rather than Longstreet, he would have told Lee to go and F### himself! Gen. Wheeler would have agreed.