New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-01-10
LEE AND LONGSTREET.

The death OF General James Longstreet, as
was to be expected, has revived to some extent
the controv ersies which have ragged over GER
tain memorable incidents in his military career.
For the last twenty-five years persistent efforts
have been made TO throw on General Long
streets shoulders responsibility for Lees de-
feat at Gettysburg. Not few Southern writers
have gone so far as TO accuse him, II not OF
INSTRUMENTATION, at least Of culpable inattenuon
to orders given him by the Confederate com
mander in chief. General John B. Gordon In
his recently published "reminiscences revived
and amplified these charges against LongStreeI
stating explictly-as his own conclusion ana as
that of impartial military critics generally
that Longstreet's blunders had blasted Coined
crate hopes at Gettysburg and that General
Lee died believing he had lost by LongstreeFs
disobedience" Strangely enough General Long
streets wife had prepared an elaborate refuta-
ton Of General Gordon's theories, and had ar
ranged for its publication on January 3-the
day following General LOngstreet'S death.
We do not think that history will sustain the
contentious of General LonGstreets critics.
They are interesting enough rs pOStmortem
demonstrations of what might have been. But
they ignore actual conditions. They picture
situation which could have existed only as Il
military afterthought- General L0ngstreet can
not be made scapegoat for all the sins of hest
tation or omission chargeabe to Confederate
commanders at Gettysburg. General Gordon is
himself disposed to censure General Lee Tor
not vigorously attacking the Federal forces
in their new position on the evening OF July l.
He condemns utterly Longstreets failure to as
sault the Federal left wing early in the morn
ing of July >. But he waves aside entirely the
exhaustion Of A. F. Hills corps at the conclu-
ox-Sh nftI 10 nd hn
impediments to forming and executing an at
tack on the Federal left wing before noon Of
July . That Longstreets assault suffered in
effectiveness from the delays of July . is great
" 10 be doubted The fighting done by his
CORPS far cxcelled in dash and briiliance any
thing done at Gettysburg by Ewells corps or
A. T. Hills Longstreet bore the brunt of both
the second and third days struggle and emerged
from the conflict with his reputation as corps
commander unimpaired. There is no reason to
think that he could have fought more brilliantly
or more successfully if he had attempted the
attack which General Gordon philosophers
about in the early morning Of the second day.
General Lee at the close of the battle justly
and honorably assumed entire responsibility for
The Confederate defeat. Lee lost at Gettysburg
because on the offensive he seemed incapable OF
rising 10 the full height of his military talent
Northern territory was commonplace. Jack
sons death at Charlottesville had robbed him
OF the one great genius Of battle in the South
ern armies. Stripped Of JacksonS aid his OPP
erations in Maryland and Pennsylvania lost
their vigOr ana certainty Longstreet was not
q Jackson and could not replace Jackson. But
certainly of all Lees remaining leutcnants, he
was the one who-as his assaults both at Get
tyshurg and at ChckamauGa testied-most
nearly approached Jackson in fire and force.
In Lees own lifetime not a word Of crlti-
/ cism was aimed Al Longstrcet 1t IS needless
TO inquire what Influences have conspired to
foist on him the blame for the Confederate
failure at Gettysburg. Another generation Of
Southern writer's will do him more impartial
Justice He will certainly be classed here
after by omen minded critics as one OF the
ablest and most Intelligent Of the commanders
who fought under the South's flag in the Civil
/ War