Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-02-04
LEE AND LONGSTREET.
Latter's Corps Bore the Brunt Of the
Fighting at Gettysburg.
From the New York Tribune.


The death of Gen. James Longstreet, as
was to be expected. has revived to some
extent the controversies which have ragged
over certain memorable Incidents in his
military career. For the last twenty five
years persistent efforts have been made 10
throw on Gen. Longstreet's shoulders re-
sponsiblity for Lees defeat at Gettysburg.
Not few southern writers have gone so
far as to accuse him. If not OF fnSubordina-
tion at least of culpable inattention to Or
ders given him by the confederate COM
mander-in-chief Gen. John Il. Gordon in
his recently published "reminiscences.
vived and amplified these charges against
Longstreet, stating explicitly-as his own
conclusion and that of impartial military
critics generally-that Longstreet's blunders
had blasted confederate hopes at Gettys-
burg, and that Gen. Lee died believing he
had lost by LongstreetS disobedience"
Strangely enough, Gen. Longstreet's wife
had prepared elaborate refutation of
Gen Gordon's theories, and had arranged
for its publication on January 3-the day
following Gen. LongStreetS death.
We do not think that history will sustain
the contentious of Gen. Longstreet's critics
They are interesting enough post-mortem
demonstrations of what might have been
But they ignore actual conditions. They
picture situation which could have exist
ed only as a military afterthought. Gen.
Longstreet cannot be made a scapegoat for
All the SINS OF neSlldIloTS OF omission
chargeable to confederate commanders at
Gettysburg. Gen. Gordon is himself dis
posed to censure Gen. Lee for not vigor
ously attacking the federal forces in their
new position on the evening of July 1. He
condemns utterly Longstreets failure to as
sault the federal left wing early In the
morning of July 2. But he waves aside en-
tirely the exhaustion of A. p. Hills corps
at the conclusion of the first days battle
and the physical impediments to forming
and executing an attack on the federal left
wing before noon of July 2 That Long
streets assault suffered in effectiveness
from the delays of July is greatly to DE
doubted. The fighting done by his corps
far eXcelled in dash and brilliance anything
done at Gettysburg by Ewelrs corps or A.
P. Hills. Longstreet bore the brunt of
both the second and third days struggle
and emerged from the conflict with his rep
utation as corps commander unimpaired.
There Is no reason to think that he could
have fought more brilliantly or more sue
cessfully if he had attempted the attack
which Gen. Gordon philosophers about in
the early morning of the second day.
Gen. Lee al the close of the battle justly
and honorably assumed entire responsible
ity for the confederate defeat. Lee lost at
Gettysburg because on the offensive he
seemed incapable of rising to the full height
of his military talent. His generalship In
his two brief invaSioIfS of northern territory
was commonplace. Jackson's death at
Charlottesville had robbed him of the one
great genius of battle in the southern
al mics. Stripped OF JackSonS aid, his OPP
erationS in Maryland and Pennsylvania lost
their vigor and certainty. Longstreet WAS
not a Jackson. and could not replace Jack
son. But certainly, of all Lees remaining
lieutenants, he was the one who-as mis-
assaults both at Gettysburg and Chicka-
manga teStified-moSt nearly approached
Jackson in fire and force.
In Lees own lifetime not a word of crit
icism was aimed at Longstreet. 1t Is need
less to inquire what influences have con-
spfred to foist him the blame for the
confederate failure at Gettysburg. Another
genera ton of southern writers will do him
more impartial justice. He will certainly
be claSsed hereafter by openminded critics
one of the ablest and most intelligent of
the commanders who fought under the
south's flag in the civil war.