Customer Reviews

From Manassas to Appomattox: General James Longstreet

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Before reading his book I knew a lot about Longstreet, but he remained a rather amorphous figure. Now I feel I know the man somewhat better. It should be understood that Longstreet wrote these memoirs in defense of his reputation, which was under attack by Jubal Early, FitzHugh Lee, and others in an attempt to shift blame from the deceased Robert E. Lee. As a result Longstreet is argumentative and abrupt in his rebuttals. (And the way he writes, one gets the feeling that he ALWAYS was that way!) Longstreet gives a lot of details about battle strategy and various campaigns; and he is not shy about revealing his ideas about what was done well and what was done poorly - even when it involves Gen. Lee or himself. He is brutally honest, regardless of whom it offends. But he also spread numerous anecdotes throughout the book, giving it a more human feel. After many years of study I developed the opinion that Longstreet was one of the most pragmatic generals of the Civil War. This book confirms that opinion. Longstreet, somewhat like Grant, seemed to always think along the lines of "what is the best way to get it done", blocking out all else. His criticism of others is usually based upon their inability to think and act in a similar manner. I finished the book realizing that Longstreet was a fascinating person and the ultimate soldier...someone I would have liked to have met. This is NOT a book for beginners: unless you know of various campaigns and battles in some detail, you will probably feel bored and lost at various times. But for readers with some Civil War knowledge, this will prove to be a most enjoyable read!

General Lee often called James Longstreet his Old War Horse so the reader can get the story straight from the hoses's mouth. Before reading this I had assumed that Jubal Early and others who attacked Longstreet after the war decided he would be a good scapegoat for their and Lee's failures due to his not being from Virginia and because he became a Republican after the war. After reading Old Pete's book it became obvious that personality conflicts may have been involved also. Longstreet called things like he saw them in his book and probably in person. It is easy to see how Early, Ewell, and others may have been offended by Longstreet during the war.

For the student of the Civil War there could be no better overview from someone who was there. With Longstreet's service in all of the major Virginia campaigns and his service at Chickamauga, Chattanooga, and Knoxville in the west the reader can glimpse both major Confederate armies and gain a deep insight into Lee's army.

The writing is a little dry at times but is as clear and well writen as can be expected. After all Longstreet was a general not a scholar. This book is a must in any complete Civil War library.

Longstreet's memoirs are very good. They are well written, informative, and candid. When Longstreet disagreed with someone, he states it. If he disagreed with a strategy, such as at Gettysburg, he states it and gives his view of what should have happened. Although this looks like a case of Longstreet trying to say his way would have won, I personally believe he was simply being honest. While Longstreets memoirs can be dry when he talks of strategies and tactics, it is still a informative, entertaining book. I would rank Longstreet's memoirs only behind Grant's, Sherman's, E.P. Alexander's, and Richard Taylor's underrated Destruction and Reconstruction.

If Longstreet had died of his wounds at The Wilderness, he would be in the Pantheon with Lee and Jackson. If he'd never uttered a public word about The War, he might well be in that Pantheon. But after Lee's death, and in the humiliating pain of Reconstruction, Longstreet was the only surviving icon of the Army of Northern Virginia. Longstreet saw The War over and went on with his life. In doing so, he committed the unpardonable sin of renewing his old acquaintances, doing homage to the ruling party, and putting food on his family's table. As the lesser lights among the general officers began to seek a profit from their war, someone had to be blamed for the Army of Northern Virginia's failure. The Virginians wrote the history; the the Georgian, Longstreet, got the blame. Longstreet was an imperfect man and an imperfect commander, but neither Longstreet nor Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg. Gallant Virginians get that honor. If Viginians Ewell, Early, and A. P. Hill had done anything useful on 2 July 63, American history might well be written with a different accent. By the time of this memoir, Longstreet was a wounded and defensive man under sustained and violent attack by the "Lost Cause" crowd in Virginia. Read his memoir in that context.

I've recently caught the Civil War bug and wanted to know more about one of the few greats who survived to write his memoirs. It seemed best to read his own account before tackling the biographies out there. I'm glad I decided to do it that way. Reading the accounts of battle in Longstreet's own words has given me a much better understanding of his intellect and character. Although certainly flawed, he hardly seems the cause of all ills as some wish to portray him. I thought his explanations surrounding Gettysburg were compelling. Also, his written communications showed a keen mind and a leader who wanted no chance of his directives being misunderstood or ignored. (No verbage such as "if practicable.") If Robert E. Lee had communicated a tad more like Longstreet, who knows whether it might have helped avoid some of the failures of those who may have known his follow-up would be weak.

There is no mention whatsoever of his wife...Longstreet does not focus at all on any family or personal matters. Yet much of his personality is revealed through the reading. I wouldn't have missed it for the world...highly recommended.

I can not say enough about Longstreet's book. Wish I had read it years ago. There is so much detail that a notepad and pencil would be desirable while enjoying the book. I will read the book again.

With Lee's death soonafter the War, Longstreet was the most prominent Confederate to write memoirs on the War, and given his responsibilities in both the East and West, he was in a position to offer more insight.

Longstreet is very descriptive when it comes to setting the scene of battle, but he describes the armies' movements very generally. For this purpose, the reader has to be familiar with the battles, which have been covered in depth by other books, so when it comes to summarizing campaigns, the memoirs should be seen as complementary information. In passing, it should be kept in mind that Longstreet couldn't come into possession of all the information available now, and thus his memoirs can't be considered a case closed definitive account.

As others have mentioned, Longstreet isn't afraid to pull punches, which he does at times quite poignantly on Lee's mishaps, most notably of course at Gettysburg. In other instances, he defends himself by criticising others. When Fitz Lee notes that R.E. Lee called Longstreet the hardest man to move in the Army (a comment that can't be confirmed/refuted), he comes to his own defense in part by criticising Jackson during the 7 Days campaign. Hindsight is 20/20, and Longstreet's arguments in the conduct of certain campaigns certainly benefit from the passing of 30 years. At a number of places, Longstreet believes that if his suggestions were followed, the results could have destroyed Union armies or won the War. We'll never be sure if he's right or wrong on these matters.

The memoirs are most interesting during Longstreet's analysis of who deserves credit/shame at certain battles. But where it is most interesting is in rebutting criticism of his war record. The best part of the memoirs are the 3 chapters on each day at Gettysburg, since the postwar criticism of Fitz Lee and Jubal Early aim mostly at that. Fitz Lee most notably mentions comments by R.E. Lee criticising Longstreet that can't be confirmed/refuted with Lee's death. Longstreet does a good job of fending off criticisms of his record for the most part, usually including letters written by other officers to his defense.

The only problem I had with the memoirs was that I found the post bellum chapter of the memoirs woefully short. Throughout the memoirs, Longstreet notes his relationship with certain officers on both sides, including his strong one with U.S. Grant. He briefly covers the controversy in 67 that stirred the anti Longstreet feelings in the South. However, we know Longstreet's battles concerning his record after the War, to the extent that he wasn't even invited to the Army of Northern Virginia's reunion. Longstreet makes almost no mention of this. After alluding to his postbellum relationship with Lee souring due to "political differences" throughout the book, Longstreet doesn't elaborate on it in the postbellum chapter.

In all, Longstreet's memoirs make for a very good general read of the important campaigns and relationships between the CSA's big names. He doesn't dodge accusations and he's not hesitant to place blame where he feels it belongs, whether it's himself or, more often, General Early. That Longstreet isn't afraid to criticize the Southern deities, which in itself drew criticism of his war record from proponents of the Lost Cause, lends a more evenhanded credence to his memoirs, making them a very worthy read.

This book pulls no punches which is undoubtedly why many former CSA officers did not like it and may Union officers had no comment. He points out tactical flaws and decisions made by politicians. This has been recommended to be added to the Commandant of the Marine Corps' reading list. LtGen Longstreet's views are given with a corps commanders outlook, not delving too much below the division level or as we in the military say, using the "big blue arrow" concept. Well worth the read!

This is a fairly long book written by Longstreet a few years before his death as one of the longest living of the great generals of the Confederacy. He wrote many controversial articles prior to this book in the late 1870's that sparked controversy during the building of the Lost Cause syndrome. Since Longstreet does seem to have some memory issues with some battles such as Gaines Mill, parts of the book may be a little disappointing; however, he provides pretty good detail on his Gettysburg participation that is probably the most significant part of the book. The issue of what occurred on the morning of the second day of Gettysburg with Lee is in some conflict with previous testimony but Longstreet clearly states that there was no "sunrise attack order". He also defends his proposed move to the right but offers, what almost seems a publishers delight, a view that "Lee's blood was up" and there was no recourse but to attack. Unfortunately, Longstreet spends little time on his Tennessee campaign where in brutal winter conditions his wonderful command totters into disharmony. Although I wonder how much involvement Longstreet had with ghostwriters due to the loss of the use of his arm from the Wilderness, the demeanor seems consistent with "Old Pete". Perhaps if Longstreet followed D. H. Hill's view of never speaking ill of the dead, he would have a place in Richmond. In contrast to "Old Pete", D. H. Hill who was a cranky and outspoken critic during the war and but effective general, following his own rules Hill was rather boring in his lack of commentary. What is phenomenal about Longstreet is the great punishment he has taken from earlier CW writers about Gettysburg because of his post war views while in contrast Jackson was not held nearly as accountable for his failure to participate properly in the 7 Days battles where the war could have been won. Contrast Longstreet's role at the battle of Glendale with Jackson's

From Manassas to Appomattox by James Longstreet is an excellent example of a Post-bellum memoir, and it is written in clear and dignified voice. The memoir is of course the account of the actions of General James Longstreet, CSA during the American Civil War, his thoughts on various events, and recollections of his command and various individuals whose names are household words to the Civil War historian. As a person with only a passing interest in the American Civil War, I read this book for its purely biographical information, in other words, to get a feel for James Longstreet, who appears to be the underdog of Confederate commanders. I found the book easy to read, though at times I felt mired down in the military minutiae that fills most of the pages, but quickly recovered by small personal tidbits interspersed therein. I also enjoyed reading about his relationship with Robert E. Lee, and the way Longstreet handled himself in a very blunt, upfront manner. I would recommend this book to anyone who wanted to read a fine example of memoir writing from the period, Civil War buffs (who of course have undoubtedly already enjoyed this book), and to researchers wanting insight to the major battles of the American Civil War.