From: mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Date: 17 Aug 1992 21:55:29 GMT
Organization: nasa-jsc

In article <1992Aug17.182354.8824@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.edu (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.155857.25877@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> I wrote:

>>[Gettysburg was the] first battle fought by Lee after losing Jackson.
>>Longstreet was a reasonably good leader, but he didn't have the touch of
>>genius that Jackson and Lee shared.

> Hm. Two thoughts on this subject. First, I think that most of the "touch of
> genius" that Lee and Jackson had was largely based on complete contempt
> for their opponents. In many of Lee's and Jackson's great battles, they
> did things that would have enabled a competent opponent to crush them:
> eg, Seven Days, Antietam, Chancellorsville. I have always thought that
> their reputations were built less on their own skill and more on the lack
> of skill of McClellan, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker. On the other hand, you
> have to credit them with recognizing when they were up against inferior
> generals and taking advantage of it.

  It's fairly obvious, I think, that a big part of the art of war is
exploiting your opponents mistakes.  If he makes less mistakes than
you in a particular battle, he is likely to win.  If he makes no mistakes
and has numerical superiority, what are you going to do?

> But, when Meade and Grant took over, Lee continued behaving as if he was
> up against McClellan, and it was Longstreet who was warning that the Union
> army had better commanders and the old tricks wouldn't work anymore. Hence
> the loss at Gettysburg.

  Well, I still think this occurred partly because Lee had become somewhat
dependent on Jackson as a corps commander.  Also, wasn't Lee sick for
part of this campaign?  Gettysburg was Lee at his worst.  Meade was not
a bad commander, and he picked an excellent defensive position for this
battle; Lee should have retired rather than fight him there.

> Same thing with Jackson's and Longstreet's tries at independent command.
> Jackson was up against Frement and Sigel, while Longstreet was up against
> Rosecrans and Parke (and also Burnside, to be fair). If the Union army
> had a competent commander in the Valley in 1862 Jackson might just be
> a footnote in the history of a nine-month war.

  If the Union army commanders had just been competent, not brilliant, the
ratio of Union/CSA victories throughout the war would have been considerably
higher.  There were few situations in which the Northern troops did not
have numerical advantage, better supply, etc.
  Suppose First Manassas had gone the other way?  Would the demoralized
CS army have been able to prevent the Union from taking the capital almost
immediately?  Who knows?

> Second, Jackson was occasionally brilliant and occasionally incompetent,
> for example at the Seven Days battles. Longstreet was not at good as Jackson's
> best but was much better than Jackson's worst. (Of course, Jackson wasn't
> at his worst very often.) I don't know whether I prefer genius or reliable
> brilliance... it's a tough call.

  Ah, but this is an important issue.  If the Union had bigger armies, better
supplies/supply lines, etc, AND commanders who were the equal of their
opponents, there would be no question who would emerge victorious.  Only
by exploiting mistakes did the South have ANY chance to win.  Once Grant
came to high command and placed his selected leaders in charge across the
board, it was more or less hopeless.  Genius on the battlefiend consists of
finding and exploiting opportunities, which are most often caused by opponents'
mistakes.
  Therefore, for the North, reliable brilliance was better.  The South needed
genius.

> -- 
> Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
> 
> "We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly

-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                         |
                 N5WVR                                                  |
  "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live       |
  in Hell." -General Sheridan                                           |