| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Battles and Campaigns > Battle of Gettysburg > Lees corps commanders at Gettysburg |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Battles and Campaigns > Battle of Gettysburg > Lees corps commanders at Gettysburg |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Lees corps commanders at Gettysburg | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 09:57 am |
|
1st Post |
|
gettysburgerrn Member 
|
I personally say Longstreet but thats not saying very much ken
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 11:43 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
I think all four are in the same boat at one time or the other.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 11:58 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
The Iron Duke Member 
|
With the exception of Hill, partial blame for their "failings" can be laid at Lee's doorstep.
____________________ "Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 11:07 am |
|
7th Post |
|
gettysburgerrn Member
|
By serving I mean to most faithfully execute their supeior officer's (Lee's) plans and wishes in an effective and efficient manner... I probably should have made "none of the above" an option too in retrospect ken
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 10:44 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
The Iron Duke Member
|
I know this will put me in the minority but... Stuart's orders allowed him to do what he did. If Lee felt he couldn't execute a campaign without Stuart then he shouldn't have given him such freedom and Lee should never have allowed himself to be sucked into a major battle. Even without Stuart's presence Lee still had cavalry. Ewell's orders regarding Culp's Hill were ambiguous. He analyzed the situation and made a decision. We all know these "failings" contributed to the Confederate defeat but considering the context in which they occured I believe their actions are understandable. I think both of them have been given an unfair share of the blame in order to protect Lee's reputation.
____________________ "Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 11:57 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
pamc153PA Member
|
I have to agree with Duke (he took the answer I thought of when I first read the poll). I don't mean this to cut any of the four listed a break, but Lee should have been well aware of his corps commanders' shortcomings, and given his orders accordingly. Giving Stuart a long leash, and giving Ewell the "if practicable" order regarding Cemetery Hill--well, they did exactly what Lee told them in his orders, but not with the results that he wanted. That doesn't forgive Stuart and Ewell, but I still think that was an oversight on Lee's part, whether he was ill with diarrhea or recovering still from a heart issue back at the start of the year, or not. As for Longstreet, he too followed Lee's orders but so purposely slowly that it cancelled any end result he might have gotten otherwise. And Hill--what WAS his role, anyway? Pam
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 03:15 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
ole Member 
|
JDC Duncan wrote: btw, Duke, It most certainly can -- and has been. The movie, Gettysburg, did Ewell, Stuart and Longstreet no favors. Although it's an intriguing story, Shaara's book leaned heavily on traditional history -- much of it stamped heavily with "Lost Cause" inclination to shift all blame away from Lee. Stuart did what he thought he was supposed to do (albeit with some embellishment). Ewell did what he thought was possible with the force he had on hand. Longstreet followed his orders (perhaps too reluctantly and too rigidly). We've had a recent flurry of scholarly re-examinations of the battle; they are strongly recommended. ole
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 03:30 am |
|
14th Post |
|
The Iron Duke Member
|
Pam, Hill was involved in the first day's battle against Reynolds's men. Beyond that he didn't do too much because he was very sick. It's comforting to know that others share my opinion. And Ole, I feel that Gettysburg improved Longstreet's reputation.
____________________ "Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 01:32 am |
|
15th Post |
|
Captain Crow Progressive Southerner 
|
ole wrote: JDC Duncan wrote:not to mention the tendency to ignore the other units involved in the third day assault, aside from the Virginians...partially a result of heavy post war politicking by many of Picket's supporters. an excellent book on this subject: "Pickett's Charge in History and Memory" by Carol Reardon. I really don't see the "Lost cause" aspect as much as simple glory seeking by those involved.btw, Duke, http://www.amazon.com/Picketts-Charge-History-Memory-Reardon/dp/0807854611/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223515838&sr=8-4 oh and in order not to hijack......Longstreet is my choice.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 10:01 am |
|
16th Post |
|
gettysburgerrn Member
|
I agree with Iron Duke in that "Gettyburg" seemed to put longstreet in a positive/ sympathetic light- Ewell wasnt even in the film, but that whole discussion between Trimble and Lee sort of indicts him, and of course Stuart takes a beating. Hill is depicted pretty accurately I figure...invisible and essentially irrelevant.. Ken
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 02:38 pm |
|
17th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Did we watch the same movie? The one I watched emphasized Longstreet's "slows." Yes, it painted a sympathetic (stress pathetic) picture of a reluctant Longstreet agonizing over what he had been ordered to do. I find that to be pandering to modern sensitivity -- kinda like introducing Ol' Yeller into the mix.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 09:38 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Captain Crow Progressive Southerner
|
ole wrote: Did we watch the same movie? The one I watched emphasized Longstreet's "slows." Yes, it painted a sympathetic (stress pathetic) picture of a reluctant Longstreet agonizing over what he had been ordered to do. I find that to be pandering to modern sensitivity -- kinda like introducing Ol' Yeller into the mix.isn't it strange how people can watch the same movie and draw completely different conclusions? I tend to agree that Gettysburg portrays Longstreet in a most sympathetic light. It highlights his frustration with lee's refusal to attempt a flanking move. And at the same time you see him struggling for self control out of respect for Lee's rank and character instead of pressing the issue in a more aggressive manner. In almost every scene with Lee, Longstreet is seen bringing up valid points of contention regarding the decision to fight on that ground, constantly trying to dissuade Lee from pursuing what he obviously sees as a bad course of action. But in the end he always acquiesces to Lee's opinions out of a sense of respect for rank, honor, and his obviously deep admiration for Lee. As for Longstreet's "slows" I've always felt that the movie underplayed this aspect. Sometimes one must carefully observe the subtleties of an actors performance such as gestures, facial expressions, and body language. These are tools that help an actor build a more three dimensional portrayal of their intended subject. Tom Beringer uses these to great effect in Gettysburg. I could argue this point into the wee hours but I think I'd rather just go watch Gettysburg for what is probably the 30th time...I lost count years ago  .
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 09:39 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
barrydancer Member 
|
ole wrote: Did we watch the same movie? The one I watched emphasized Longstreet's "slows." Yes, it painted a sympathetic (stress pathetic) picture of a reluctant Longstreet agonizing over what he had been ordered to do. I find that to be pandering to modern sensitivity -- kinda like introducing Ol' Yeller into the mix. I have to disagree. I thought the film, as well as The Killer Angels, presented Longstreet in a very positive light. Keep in mind that the historiography prior to the late '70's and '80's (and unfortunately in some corners today) painted Longstreet as overly ambitious, jealous and petty, disobedient, recalcitrant. At Gettysburg he was purposely slow and sabotaged Lee's plan to fuel his own petty vindictiveness. The result of Lost Cause writers and mythology. While Shaara and the film are beholden to the Lost Cause mythos in many ways, Longstreet escapes his traditional portrayal. Rather than disobedient, I think the Lee-Longstreet relationship is shown accurately. Pete was never afraid to disagree with his superior, and I believe this one of the many reasons why Lee relied so heavily upon throughout the war. Longstreet is calm and prescient, dedicated to his men and his commander. I agree with William Garrett Piston that historians could write countless books trying to re-habilitate Longstreet's reputation and would never be as effective on popular perception as Shaara and the film because they reached such a wide audience and were "felt" history. I can see your point about the agonizing, but having studied the man for years I think that aspect of the film is also accurate. Longstreet had a number of misgivings about the fight, so much so that he expressed he had no confidence in the plan of attack on the third day asked to be relieved of responsibilty for leading the attack. "The order for this attack," he wrote in his official report of the battle, "which I could not favor under better auspices, would have been revoked had I felt that I had that privilege." (OR, XXVII, pt. II, pg. 360) It was the nature of his relationship with Lee that he felt he could express his doubts, and Lee likely took no offense. I think the film does use these misgivings for emotional effect. Longstreet becomes the fulfillment of Buford's speech earlier in the film about having to take part in an ill-conceived attack, helping it fail.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Current time is 01:39 am | Page: 1 2 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Battles and Campaigns > Battle of Gettysburg > Lees corps commanders at Gettysburg | Top |
