James Longstreet: The Man, The Soldier, The Controversy

by Richard L. Di Nardo, Albert A. Nofi

Few figures from the American Civil War have generated more controversy than Confederate general James Longstreet. As the senior officer present at Pickett's Charge, he has been blamed by many, particularly in the South, for the decisive Confederate defeat at Gettysburg. Other scholars have cited his exemplary combat record during the Civil War and looked to rivals within the Confederate hierarchy or his post-war support for the Northern-based Republican Party as sources for the criticism leveled at him. Richard L. DiNardo and Albert A. Nofi have assembled some of the top Civil War and Longstreet scholars to fully examine this still-controversial topic.

Genres: Biography, Civil War, History, American Civil War

304 pages, Hardcover

First published May 21, 1998

Reviews

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

This nifty little collection of essays fills a gap in the historiography of war literature. We are presented with a variety of views in support of rehabilitating the character and career of General James Longstreet. One of Lee's most reliable lieutenants, Longstreet for too long has been blamed for the losses of Gettysburg and ultimately the entire war. This essay collection looks to right that wrong and adds some sense of balance to the historical narrative.

[Gerry · Rating 3 out of 5]

James Longstreet: The Man, the Soldier, the Controversy is a collection of six essays on Confederate Lieutenant General James Longstreet, commanding general of the First Corps in General Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. As the subtitle says, the general was a figure of some controversy.

The first essay, “James Longstreet, the Modern Soldier: A Broad Assessment” by R.L. DiNardo claims for Longstreet the status as a “modern soldier” by virtue of plain common sense, a good staff and favoring the defense in combat. If the reader is unfamiliar with General Longstreet, he will end up liking or at least respecting him from reading this.

Second, “Petticoats, Promotions, and Military Assignments: Favoritism and the Antebellum Career of James Longstreet” by William Garrett Piston, indicates this could have happened although Piston doesn’t rule it so.

“No Fifteen Thousand Men Can Take That Position: Longstreet at Gettysburg” by Jeffry D. Wert, who earlier had written a biography of Longstreet, describes Longstreet’s actions at Gettysburg. It’s neither attack nor defense; it’s a description.

“The Bull of the Woods: James Longstreet and Confederate Left at Chickamauga” by James R. Furqueron, is a play-by-play of Longstreet’s breakthrough of Union lines at Chickamauga. It’s the longest essay, difficult to follow, hindered by maps which are difficult to read. It also defends Longstreet’s actions against criticisms offered by authors writing of the battle.

The fifth essay, “Longstreet and Jackson Compared: Corps Staffs and the Exercise of Command in the Army of Northern Virginia,” is what it says. Longstreet, a better communicator and who choose his staff members for their intelligence (not just good ol’ boys from Lexington) comes out the winner.

The last essay, “Marked in Bronze: James Longstreet and Southern History” by William Garrett Piston, is probably the most important. After General Lee’s death, Longstreet’s reputation was tarnished by others who claimed he was the greatest contributor to the Southern loss at Gettysburg. Longstreet’s own writings didn’t help. It took Shaara’s The Killer Angels and the movie Gettysburg to begin his redemption.

This is mainly a pro-Longstreet work. The General, who did have his bad moments (Seven Pines and Knoxville) should be included among Lee, Jackson, and Stuart who brought glory to the Army of Northern Virginia.

[Brett Brothers · Rating 2 out of 5]

From a purely military sense - interesting read into Longstreet’s abilities as a Corp commander. The authors make some interesting points on why he was so successful. The piece comparing his staff and their roles to Jackson’s was of particular interest.

With ties to the Sons of Confederate Veterans and being written in the mid-90s, the book is outdated in terms of how we should remember the Civil War, the role of the CSA in modern times, and how we approach the overarching concept of what the Civil War was fought for.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Did a paper on Longstreet recently. I wish I had read this book before hand instead of after. This book seemed to be the most objective book about him that I read. It describes his brilliant work for the Confederacy, but doesn't attempt to cover up his flaws. It also tries not to invent motives where we have no evidence as some authors have done.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting--albeit uneven--edited volume on General James Longstreet, one of the best corps commanders in the Civil War. In any edited volume, there is apt to be some unevenness in the contributions. Just so, this volume.

However, there are some very interesting essays that warrant careful reading. The chapter on Longstreet as a modern soldier is quite interesting; the author of this chapter makes an assertion that Longstreet had a more modern perpsective on war and combat than many of his contemporaries. The chapter on Chickamauga gives considerable detail on his attack in depth. Even though Union errors created a gap into which Longstreet, by luck, had aimed his assault, his disposition of forces was extremely well done.

Perhaps the best chapter explores Longstreet's selection of and use of staff in his corps. The points that he was better than most at deployinf staff resources is well made here.

All in all, a nice addition to one's Civil War library.