Customer Reviews

James Longstreet: Lee's War Horse

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is one of the first bios on Longstreet going back to 1936 when the first edition was published. The subsequent second edition is graced with Gary Gallagher's introduction that is more balanced and gives you a better and fuller picture of Longstreet with the benefit of more recent research. The authors' writing is very good and presents all of Longstreets warts full bore and pretty much hang Gettysburg on his shoulders. But, the Gettysburg segment is not very balanced and the authors do not write very complimentary of Longstreet and are more than punishing. It is still an engaging book but oddly the authors wrote a complete book without foot notes so sources are missing. But still, the book gives you a reference point of what Longstreet's reputation was in the south in the 1930's, virtually a pariah in the south still. The high point of the book is Gallagher's introduction that in 1986 was up to date on a broader perspective that the authors do not give. A much friendlier more up to date book is Piston's classic.

Although this book was very easy to read, excluding the very boring aspect of the Seven Days Campaign which was very hard to understand, the book made Longstreet seem like the bad man in every situation. This book even made Longstreet seem bad at Fredricksburg, quite possibly one of the greatest defensive stands ever. The authors clearly do not like Longstreet and show it throughout the book. However, I am a Longstreet and Civil War fanatic and I would still suggest you read this book just to get everyone's opinion on the controversy that is James Longstreet.

I'm a fair student of the Civil War and read this book a week after making my first visit to Gettysburg. In all my years of reading about the War I had read of Longstreet, but, not a considerable amount about him. It finally occured to me that this wasn't from a lack of my reading, but, a lack of material. I picked this book up at my library to learn more about him.

Most of my impressions of him in general reading had been fairly positive. Particularly the "Killer Angels" portrayed him as Lee's discenting General, but, one that obediently obeyed. From other readings I had him listed as the Godfather of trench warfare of WWI.

This book really took that shine off his overall generalship, but, showed him as an EXCELLENT defensive tactician. If it was a defensive operation none was better. Other than that he is made out to be an extremely egotistical person who will sacrifice anything for his own glory. That sacrifice including his men, his army, others army's, and, his country he is fighting for. I'll need to read other sources to be sure this is true, but, this text definately changed my opinion.

I would have liked more detail on his life after the war. I briefly coves how he was a Republican and a friend of Grant, but, this part is a mere sketch at best. If the detail of troop movements can be covered for Chickamauga, then the last forty years of his life can be covered in more than one chapter.

Having personally walked Gettysburg and seen the terrain involved, I can only conclude that Lee was absolutely insane to keep attacking after the second day. The successes seen at this battle were made in spite of Lee's direction. Lee's men would have been justified in shooting him as they came back from Picketts charge. The Japanese Kamikazees were at least given upfront expectations of their mission.

This is a book that should hold the interest of any Civil War buff. It has a great deal of information about many battles and campaigns. However I believe the author to be overly hard on one of the souths finest generals. I have read a great many books on the Civil War and also many on General Longstreet. I believe this book to be the most unjustly critical. The author works hard to paint a poor picture of a competent commander. In the authors defense the book is a number of years old, and much information about The Civil War has come out since this work was written. The book is also very readable and hard to put down once started. However the author devotes much of the book to his own personal opinion of Longstreet rather than offering the facts and allowing the reader draw a conclusion. Quite often the book is in contradiction of itself. The author is quick to explain that Longstreet deserved little credit for southern victories due to the fact that he was merely a subornate to R.E. Lee. This logic does not seem to apply in the defeats suffered by the Army of Northern Virginia. For these it would seem he is held directly responsible being sighted as asserting his will on the Great Confederate Commander. This a book that is worth reading for the Civil war enthusiast, however I would reccomend it be taken with a grain of salt.........

This biography of Longstreet was written in 1936 during a time when Longstreet's career was still causing controversy. The authors have provided some background on the cause of that controversy and the reasons behind why they decided to write this book. Overall the book was enjoyable to read and even though it was dated in some areas it was still a well written book. I am unsure how much some of the facts or the authors opinions have been shown to be right or wrong over the passage of time since this book was first written but the book itself still offers some insight into the man and the battles he fought. Well worth the time to read.

In the 1930's this was probably the only well known secondary source on Longstreet, which is too bad, because this is a Lost Cause source. It is very easy to read most of the time, but has some rough spots that are very boring and are not easily understood. Parts of the Seven Days Campaign were not very clear, and the Chattanooga Campaign is missing a lot of detail. I agree with other reviews, this book was written to make Longstreet out to be the bad man in every situation. This book even made Longstreet seem bad at Fredericksburg; even though Longstreet won that battle, and turned that into one of the best defensive stands ever. The authors clearly do not like Longstreet and show it throughout the book. I do not agree with most of the negative Lost Cause spin this book takes. Since this is essentially the first biography it is an important source historically, but reader beware - it is a Lost Cause piece of propaganda of the first order. I have to go with the lowest rating for its inaccuracies and primary purpose - propaganda.

This book, like its subject, is destined to remain controversial. James Longstreet was one of Robert E. Lee's two main subordinates, and, after the death of Jackson, Lee's right arm. He was either a vain, insubordinate man, who should have been cashiered from the Army, or he was a genius ahead of his time. Longstreet was one of the officers most loved by his own men. Two others of whom that can be said were Joe Johnston and George McClellan. All three were defensive-minded leaders, who never wasted their men's lives in vain assaults. In addition, Longstreet shared some of the "bad habits" of his troops, and was approachable, unlike Lee and Jackson, who seemed to dwell on Mount Olympus.

After the war, Longstreet was blamed for the loss of Gettysburg; interestingly, that was NOT the impression at the time. Some of the General's political statements after the war angered his own people, and may have caused them to "look back" for things not seen earlier. The debate over who was "right" at Gettysburg will continue forever. I suppose my own opinion is obvious, though I still consider Lee to be the greatest officer that ever lived. See "The Killer Angels".

James Longstreet certainly did not help himself with his post-war political associations, or with the book he wrote. The authors of the book under review did not like General Longstreet, though they did admit his physical courage. "The man never lived who could call James Longstreet a coward". Longstreet seems to be one of those very rare leaders who are at their best ONLY when things fall apart....Churchill and Rudy Giuliani come to mind. I do wish the authors had given more space to Longstreet's first 40, and last 40, years. The book is well written, but ultimately I disagree profoundly with the authors. That's fine....this is America. If you want to read about James Longstreet, try Jeffry Wert.

General James Longstreet has always been one of the most controversial southern generals. Long before the end of the war, in fact dating back to the battle of Gettysburg, the revisionist history began and continued until well after the turn of the century. This book is a picture perfect example of that revisionist history. The generals from both sides of the conflict were very flawed and imperfect men. Longstreet was no exception. His vilification is however unjust. He was blamed for the ill advised failure at Gettysburg, for no one could bear to place the blame on the true culprit, General Robert E. Lee. Lee was a great general , but this battle was none the less a mistake. His mistake. Eckenrode's book however blames Longstreet for this defeat and for nearly every other defeat the Confederacy suffers in the last two years of the war. The idea that Longstreet had some nearly mystical power over Lee, a very strong personality in his own right, is simply preposterous. The only accurate information in the book seems to be related to Longstreets dismal campaign as an army commander in the west. He truly did show greater tallent as a corp commander than as an army commander. This was certainly one of the best southern generals of the war, but is unfortunately given no credit for this in this inaccurate account. The only reason I gave the book two stars instead of one was for the simple fact the book was well written, and easy to read, if not based in fact. It would seem its author was certainly a more gifted writer than he was historian.