View single post by Wrap10
 Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 03:57 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sat Jul 28th, 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 97

  back to top

ole wrote: Krick describes Longstreet's actions as a "snit." He wanted to do this, Lee wanted him to do that, so he did that, in spite of what he saw in front of his face. Meanwhile, it's kinda fun to talk about.


Several years back I was a member of a discussion board that included a fellow who was an ardent - make that strident - Longstreet defender. I remember someone at one point bringing up the "snit" comment and applying it to Longstreet. You would have thought a holy war had been declared. But that was his style. He didn't just argue with people, he attacked them like Sheridan at Five Forks. You disagreed with him at your own risk.

But what might be ironic about Longstreet at Gettysburg is that, if you look at the performance of all three of Lee's corps commanders, Longstreet probably did the best job. I don't think Ewell really did any better, and Hill just about disappeared. Longstreet is the one that always gets hammered for Gettysburg, but did he do any worse than Hill or Ewell? And what does that say about the leadership in Lee's army at Gettysburg, if the best you can say is that Longstreet didn't do any worse than Hill or Ewell, and probably did better?


 Close Window