How Longstreet Acted During Pickett's Charge 

He absolutely should have resigned his command before ordering that charge. It's an officer's duty, by any sense of morality within warfare, to refuse an order which is absolutely guaranteed disaster with no benefit to the army, to their army's goals or to the general goals of the entity it represents in the field.

Yes, he was aware that the only way the South could win was if they kept it to a defensive war, until Grant took over, of course. The 2 times Lee invaded the North did not turn out well. Chancellorsville was defense by offense as were most of Lee's attacks.

He suggested to Lee that it would be wiser if they left Gettysburg and head towards Washington. He thought that it would draw the union out of their position, because they had to protect Washington. He had already found an excellent area to defend and he was as good at defending as anyone on either side. Maybe he should have resigned his command, but he loved Lee and would rather stay beside him than resign. Lee was without Jeb Stuart, so he had no idea what he was facing. But, if you have no idea, why would you send men to slaughter. He did not have to attack on the 3rd day and could have waited as long as needed, because the union was not about to give up their position. There was a lot of blame to go around after that battle and much of it fell unfairly on Longstreet.

But, Hancock was cooler & better

Longstreet's strategy of not engaging st Gettysburg and striking at DC could very well have altered the course of the war ...an audacious and not defensive approach. Lee made a grave error , in fact completely misread the Union resolve and leadership...he let his successes go to his head!!

same here , it was still his job so he had a invested interest of what was happening

Absolutely the same interpretation for me.

Agreed. His advice was to the contrary, but once the order was given, he used all his resources to see it through.

Not sure I agree. Brooding Longstreet dragged his feet (especially on Day 2), and, had he moved swiftly, the outcome MIGHT have been very different. He was reluctant on Day 3, as well, costing the rebels vital artillery support when it was needed most.

@@Former11BRAVO I like to give the benefit of doubt to generals in the past. Today with our communications, real time battlefield intel, and the speed of modern weaponry we have a difficult time understanding the pace of battle back in the 19th CE. I struggle to comprehend fighting a battle whilst sitting in a saddle giving orders that will take an hour or more to be acted upon based soley on what I can see through the smoke and couriered messages from other parts of the battle.

But his friends (including Longstreet) addressed him by his middle name, Mosley.

I was traveling and did not have my mic. So, I used the ear buds and built-in mic.

@@lifeonthecivilwarresearchtrail genius! shows how backwards my technoligy understanding is.

Bingo

Totally agree.

The speaker is not doubting that Longstreet did not agree with Pickett running the charge. He is saying that Longstreet has the unfair rep of not supporting Pickett once the charge was underway, and he felt that Sorrel's account proved that reputation wrong.

I am sure they had differences before Gettysburg ! The difference ? This one they lost ! Lee was on a winning streak and he commanded as Caesar commanded . Completely .

@@ford289cid7 What is the source of allegations that Longstreet did not properly support Pickett? I have never seen such a charge, but welcome learning who would make it. Jubal Early perhaps?

none...

This is hardly a military principle...but is, in fact, a principle of numerous hierarchical forms that value consultation and also initiative. Trying to suggest that only those with military experience could understand this is sublimely arrogant and reductive. Its tragic how people always try to ascribe common sense operational patterns of humanity to 'their' particular experiential 'geneology'. Just like its not unique to military veterans to lament RU-vidrs who expand anything into 'something' for views. Don't need to be part of some 'elite club' to know that. If you insist on such assertions, expend your time on rationalizing why an intelligent aspirational man like Longstreet ultimately decided to militate in favor of the vile practice of slavery comprised of routine selling of children, deflowering of youth, whippings, and life-crushing servitude in repudiation of both his Holy Book 'and' his (former) national ideology. 'That', too, is hardly specific to formal military men.

Military experience is not required - this is common sense.

Most of them have no experience in any regard, Mr. Woods😐 They're know-it-alls who in reality know much of nothing concerning military matters👎 BTW, sir....Thanks for your service🇺🇲💗 I appreciate u

With all due respect to Michael Woods USMC retired, I believe this depends on the personality of the one in command. I've never served but have worked in private industry for years and have seen the same situation. Leaders leading down a path of obvious failure but being unwilling to even listen to ideas put to them because their ego is so strong that they refuse to listen. What can one do in that case? Follow lawful but know-to-be-flawed orders is the only recourse. I have handled this over the years by saying to my superior .. "I believe its my duty as a professional and your loyal subordinate to point out ...." then I follow orders. Some leaders are receptive and will listen. They may disregard subordinate advice as being wrong and that's their prerogative as a lead.

As l understand it, Lee was a great hero to the rebels, then and even today. It would have been blasphemy to blame him for the loss of a battle, even though Lee himself admitted he was at fault.

You don't blame the Messiah , and Lee was walking on water at this point .

@@lonnietoth5765 No but in hindsight he ist t walking on water when it comes to Gettysburg and he should be graded based on facts known as at the time he was a God and people didn’t have all the facts. It was a suicide mission and unless you have overwhelming numbers you don’t march over a mile on a semi fortified position

@bigred2 after the charge witnesses said General Lee looked distraught and muttered “ it’s all my fault “. So even though people don’t blame General Lee deep down he knew he was to blame.

The myth of the lost cause founders all messed up during this battle. rather take the blame themselves, or admit to Lee's overconfidence...they blamed the General who was friends with Grant.

It's actually about 1200-1500 yards. From the jump-off to the High Water Mark to twenty minutes to traverse.

"Why did they go?" According to Shelby Foote, it would have taken more courage for a Confederate soldier to refuse Lee's order than to follow it. Lee was, in the eyes of his men, a god of war, and they firmly believed that he would bring them victory, no matter the circumstances.

They went because they were soldiers.

FREDRICKSBURG….FREDRICKSBURG!!!!! The Union soldiers yelled as they slaughtered the rebels

“Why did they go?” A question that many would asked if they where out there to view the field on both sides. How can you honestly answer that question and know that same question crosses your mind many times. The onLy best answer I would give is it was their duty to follow orders given by their leader, mostly Lee, have confidence that what they were about to do is the best way. Madness. It was all madness.

WW1 another disaster to all

it is just what a well-trained professional officer does.

I think Lee was too preoccupied with the situation regarding Stuart, the loss of Jackson, etc.. I feel at this point of the war Lee was weary of war and again, overly preoccupied with many thoughts, such that he wasn't functioning at full capacity.

According to Shelby Foote, by the third day, Lee's "blood was up," and there was no convincing him to change course. Lee nearly broke through on the first day, he came even closer on the second, and by God, he was going to break through on the third. Lee also understood that the longer the war dragged on, the less likely the South had for victory, so he felt that only bold and decisive action would win the day.

Gettysburg is a National Military Park. The monuments there aren't going anywhere. Anyone who visits there *wants* to see them and knows at least some of the historical context. People *choose* to go there. Having the statue of a slave owner prominently displayed outside of a government building where people need to go to conduct various kinds of business is a different matter. People who have to go to those buildings must pass those statues, and for some, it's like silent intimidation. Statues of the military opponents of the United States of America belong in those battlefield parks and in museums.

You are correct. General Longstreet's statue IS "somewhat hidden."

I love the conversation with Harrison in the movie Gettysburg. Don't know if that actually happened but certainly dramatized the situation.

I have read that Lee did not like spies however Longstreet put some trust into what this man "Harrison" had to say. @@stevefisher8323

@@stevefisher8323 www.nps.gov/people/henry-thomas-harrison.htm

I agree. It’s as if, they think that, by emotionally supporting Lee’s decision, Longstreet would somehow have supercharged 11,000 rebels and transformed defeat into victory. I assure anyone, my resolute cheering for my mediocre sports teams, has no effect on improving their quality or the on-the-field result.

George Pickett was very vocal against Lee for the slaughter of his Division and yet the southern press did not attack him at all . There were underling reasons , such as Longstreet's relationship with Grant . Did they chastise Armistead for failing at the Angle because he was dear friends with Handcock ? They could not touch Armistead because he died a hero and you could not touch Pickett because he lost his whole Division . That gives you Longstreet .

I think Lee knew the odds were against the success of Pickett''s charge. But he drove into the north hoping to turn sentiment in the north against continuing the war. Lee and Jefferson Davis knew the south could not win a protracted war against the much more industrialized north. The Gettysburg battle and Pickett's charge were "Hail Marys" .

well, if it was in the movie then, obviously it must be true! ... sarc/off on the second day, Hood wanted to go around big round top, instead of straight up little round top. Longstreet demurred, not wanting to countermand Lee's orders .... Jackson would have ... & Lee expected his subordinates to adjust to conditions as they would arise on the field. Longstreet did not adjust to events, because of 'orders' (hey, it's in the movie!) & Lee chose the only path left to him .... the center. Both Lee & Longstreet failed ... Lee admitted it, Longstreet didn't ... & blamed Lee Lee though so much of his troops that he thought they were close to invincible .... led by Jackson & Longstreet they possible could have succeeded at Gettysblurg, but Ewell was in charge of Jackson's Corp ... & as Ewell said, "there were a lot of mistakes at Gettysburg, & I made most of them." after the first day Ewell's Corp did little at all ... does anyone think Jackson would have done what Ewell did?

@@snidleywhiplash4791 Truth is, for all his deserved reputation for the well known events, Jackson was overall a more inconsistent Corps commander than Longstreet. On a good day, sure, a battle winner like no other, North or South... even coming from behind. But on an off day... well, he even cost the ANV a pretty major victory or two, even under more direct oversight from Lee. Sure, his replacement(s) Ewell and Hill weren't up to the standard of either Jackson or Longstreet but whenever the question of a further flung independent or supporting command came up outside of raiding, spoiling and distraction (like Jackson in the Shenandoah) Longstreet was Lee's (and the war depts) first choice for good reason. As such imo it would've been as likely for 2nd Corp under Jackson to fail on the ANV's left at Gettysburg (whether the army had been reorganised into three Corps or not) as it would've been for Hood's suggested wide right hook to have succeeded. We'll never know but war and battles aren't safe betting games either way.

Hi Kiwi!!👍

@WalterWild-uu1td - As Shelby Foote mentioned in the PBS series - The Civil War - it would've been more difficult for Longstreet to contravene an order from "Marse" Robt. E. The Confederates had had success with frontal attacks (against even larger forces) before, and Lee's "blood was up".

Do you really think Longstreet was better than Stonewall? C'mon, man.

@@marknewton6984 Stonewall was an incredible general but his bravado and peculiar notions about battle ultimately got him killed- Longstreet was a defensive general first and foremost, which was a strategy that proved sustainable throughout the war. Get there first and dig in. Having said that I dont know that there's really any way to compare between the two

@@clintaudette3683 You make some good points. I still think Stonewall was better. But that makes history fun!

Exactly. The Longstreet passed down through history was mediated by lost causers via the Southern Historical Society.

Some years after the Civil War James Longstreet even became a Republican.

@@schuberttim - And for that, he was cast into the outer darkness by a conspirators of the Lost Cause who needed a scapegoat. He was written into history by Southern historians as the bad guy. Sadly, the Lost Cause gained traction in the nation as a whole and within not much more than a generation Southern partisan authors were writing the textbooks for Yankee school kids. So much for "winners write history" idea.

Longstreet was Lee's second greatest general; Jackson being his greatest. The lost causers needed a scapegoat, especially since they raised Lee to sainthood, somebody had to take the blame for the South's defeat. Unfortunately, the reality was that the South was doomed from the very beginning. The south was agrarian and the North industrial. The North had ten factories to every one of the South. That's ten times the number of guns, cannons, ammo, food supplies, etc. Also, each Southern state had railroad tracks that were different widths. So supplies being shipped to the front lines had to be taken off one train and loaded onto another. This all takes time. The two essentials were food and ammunition. "An army travels on its stomach." Napolean. The governor of Georgia had a huge stake in the pig industry and refused food to the Confederate army. He also allowed General Sherman easy access to Atlanta provided the governor himself was well taken care of. This is why Sherman chose to go through Atlanta to the coast. Anyway, back to Gettysburg, Longstreet did make it clear that the Union soldiers were well ensconced behind a rocky wall, just as the Confederates where in Richmond. Gettysburg loss was all on Lee. Other Confederate generals, like Uhell, blamed Longstreet to avoid any blame on themselves. As Longstreet predicted, Picket's Charge was doomed from the start. You just don't send a walking army into over one mile of open terrain where artillery can rain down on you the whole way. It takes 20 minutes to walk a mile. That's a long time to be exposed to cannon fire unprotected. The same folly was repeated during WW1 where soldiers marched into heavy machine guns. As the famous book The Guns of August pointed out, you can't win a war fighting with the previous war's methods. Lee called Longstreet "His old war horse."

@@golfhound I've never seen any evidence that the governor of Georgia gave Sherman easy access to Atlanta. In the real world the Confederate army was in charge of defending Atlanta, firstly under Joe Johnston and then under John Bell Hood. It was Hood's inability to understand defensive warfare that made sure that Sherman would take Atlanta. The governor had nothing to do with Hood's attacking when he should have stayed on the defensive like Johnston.

Fremantle was quite taken by the American practice of whittling.

Fremantle never quite understood " modern" warfare. 10,000 out of 17,000 in casualties. But what impressed him was they reached their objective. Rifles kill; muskets wound. Pyrrhic victory was OK. Led to the slaughter 50 years later.

Definition of "Slow"

Good officers that obey orders don't always win in battle. My ancestor rode with Forrest, thanks to the Lord. Forrest threated to kill Bragg, his commanding officer.

You stand your ground with your superior, then do what is his decision is.

@@TheGuitarReb Please relate this incident to the readers,, It's an awesome read! :) Forrest was truly one of a kind.

@@tomjones2202 I assume you refer to Forrest's insubordination to his superior officers. Bedford was NOT West Point trained. He got away with much because he won his battles.

@@TheGuitarReb Have you read the book, "Bedford and His Critter Company" by Andrew Nelson Lytle. That's where I learned of him telling General Bragg that he'd kill him if he ever messed with him again. He didn't do well with fools.

@@nickroberts-xf7oq this is one of the most senseless, random comments thrown out carelessly I've seen.. 😐 Go ahead... provide me with some sort of thought behind this.

@@nickroberts-xf7oq 🤨 .. ok... What about it? If you're not going to actually add any context to random stuff you just throw out.. then I'm not going to bother after this. You're just saying random shit, without any information..

@@nickroberts-xf7oq ... because he dared to critique Lee..

After 1 July, Lee was forced to either attack or abandon the campaign in failure.

@@manilajohn0182 True, but by abandoning the campaign in failure he could have saved 15-20k casualties.

@@aaronfleming9426 The strategic objective of the campaign was to achieve a great enough of a success to remove pressure from the Confederate defenders at Vicksburg. The Confederate government authorized the retention of Lee's forces (instead of sending some of them west) and his idea of invading the north on this premise- and Vicksburg had been placed under siege before Lee's campaign even began. Up until 1 July, the bulk of the campaign had been spent foraging and in minor actions- none of which could affect the situation at Vicksburg. Abandoning the campaign on 3 July after having made only one real attempt at the AotP wasn't a real option. Moreover, Lee's attacks on 1 and 2 July- and his proposed 3 July assault- were all right in line with a variant of the Napoleonic concept of the strategic battle, where attacks on the opponent's left and right should draw forces from the enemy center and facilitate a third assault there. Meade no doubt understood this same concept as well, which is likely why he told Gibbon on the evening of the 2nd that any Confederate attack on 3 July would be on Gibbon's front (in the center)- and probably why Meade had approximately 20,000 reinforcements move on the center to crush that attack. Pickett's Charge was a long shot, but it was the only real option available to Lee by 3 July- and Lee had to try. Lastly- Lee wasn't there to save casualties; he was there to expend them, sad though that is. That is the nature of war. Like the man said; "A general who cannot look onto a battlefield dry- eyed will allow many men to be killed uselessly".

Stated from the comfort of your armchair no less.

@@manilajohn0182 The strategic objective was ill-conceived from the start. Strategy was probably where Lee and Davis were at their worst, and the Gettysburg campaign is Exhibit A. It's quite astonishing that they were able to convince themselves that an invasion of Pennsylvania would somehow relieve a doomed city in Mississippi.