General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier

by Jeffry Wert Simon and Schuster, $27.50 527 pp.

General James Longstreet has always been a question mark in the history of the American Civil War. For years he was blamed by his former Confederate associates for the South's decisive defeat at the battle of Gettysburg. Historians have debated whether his impressive victories throughout the war were due to his skill as military leader or his luck. And though he was the Army of Northern Virginia's top lieutenant, Longstreet failed to become a Civil War legend like his commander, Robert E. Lee, or his subordinates, Stonewall Jackson and Jeb Stuart.

In General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier, author Jeffry Wert attempts to resolve the dispute which surrounds Longstreet and to reveal why such an important figure in one of the most studied periods of American history receives so little recognition today. Drawing on both Longstreet's supporters and critics, Wert creates a fair and insightful narrative of Longstreet's Civil War experience. In the process, Wert establishes an image of Longstreet as a complex man whose intricacies have often been lost in the rush to historical judgment.

Longstreet's life paralleled the lives of many of his more famous Civil War associates. Born in South Carolina and raised in rural Georgia, Longstreet was taught a deep respect for Southern political and social life. At 17, he enrolled at West Point where he studied military leadership with many other future generals of the Civil War, including both Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. With a number of his former classmates, Longstreet gained real battlefield experience in the Mexican War during the 1840s. As the Civil War broke out in 1861, Longstreet, like Lee and other Southern officers, recognized his primary allegiance to the South and resigned from the U.S. Army to join the Confederacy.

Longstreet won victories and recognition quickly during the Civl War. Although he left the U.S. Army as a major, he was soon made a brigadier general in the Confederate Army. After his success at the first major battle of the war, Manassas, Longstreet was promoted again to major general. He became close to Lee, who named Longstreet his senior subordinate when he assumed cammand of the Army of Northern Virgina, calling Longstreet "the staff in my right hand. " He became Lee's most reliable general and "handled his command with the confidence and calmness that became a hallmark of his battlefield leadership."

Wert present Longstreet as an extremely skillful military leader. He describes Longstreet as a general who sought to win through superior organization and the conservation of his own troops. In contrast to stonewall Jackson, Longstreet did not usually attempt bold and daring attacks. While not achieving stunning victories like Jackson, he did not put his army in as much danger and still was extremely successful in battle.

Longstreet also learned from his experiences throughout the war. The size of the battle and the loss of life in the civl war were much larger than practically anyone had expected. Longstreet tried to repeat his victories, like Fredericksburg, where he had established strong defensive positions and let the enemy attack them, and to avoid costly confrontations like Antietam, where the gains, if any, were negligible compared to the casualty rate. Even at Gettysburg, Longstreet had planned this kind of defensive maneuvering until he was forced by Lee to lead the attack that would become the most disastrous failure of the war.

But Longstreet had his own dangerous failings as a general. At several points during the war, his carelessness and indecision nearly led to disaster for his army. At Knoxville, his hesitation and poor planning led many of his troops into a ditch where they suffered over 800 casulties in 20 minutes. Throughout the war and for years after, such unexplained failures became the focus of the debate over Longstreet's qualities as a general. Most importantly, though, the popular desire to save Robert E. Lee, the Confederacy's greatest hero, from any blame for the loss of the war left Longstreet unfairly holding the bag for the defeat a Gettysburg.

Wert explains that it is this unresolved controversy that has led to Longstreet's relative obscurity as a Civil War leader. His quite, but impressive service to the Confederacy became the basis for his failure to become a great Civil War legend. Stonewall Jackson's bold successes obscured his failures and his death shortly before Gettysburg left him an unblemished hero and martyr for the Confederacy. Robert E. Lee, the commander and gentleman who is generally considered one of history's greatest generals, gradually surpassed Jackson as the premier hero of the Old South. "The singular figure in the army who stands in history's shadows," Wert explains, "is Longstreet." His conservatism in battle and his rightful blaming of Lee for Gettysburg left him an uninspiring if not undesirable memory for the former Confederacy.

Wert concludes that Longstreet was a superb though humanly flawed general. He was certainly the best subordinate commander in Lee's army and perhaps the best in any army on either side during the Civil War. By looking fairly at the records of the other generals, like Lee, and dealing seriously with the battlefield conditions of the Civil War, Wert provides a credible basis from which to evaluate Longstreet's performance.

He also fits Longstreet's personal experience well into the general context to the Civil War. By reminding readers that practically every one of Longstreet's closest circle of friends from West Point faced each other as commanders on both sides during the battle of Chickamauga, Wert aptly places Long-street in the culture that made the war so divisive.

General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Contorversial Soldier is a valuable text for understanding the military leadership of the Civil War. Because the book dose not discuss much of the military and political developments that did not involve Longstreet of his armies, it requires at least a basic prior knowledge of the broader context. But the balance and insight it provides make it an important tool for understanding one of the great unknowns of American history.