Alternate Historiography Challenge: James Longstreet:

Suppose that James Longstreet died in 1866 or sometime around there from his injuries sustained at the Battle of the Wilderness and thus never goes on to become a Republican and to participate in the mini-civil war that was Reconstruction-era Louisiana. What would his role in the historiography of the alternate Civil War be? For that matter what would his early death do to the emerging Lost Cause and to the reputations of some generals who developed them much later on?

Longstreet gets a lot more credit for his generalship; unsurprisingly, the Lost Causes absolutely loved trying to find a way to blame every single problem the Army of Northern Virginia had on him, and attributed all of his successes to others. Odds are, his reputation ends up being at least equivalent to Jackson's, especially since if he died from being shot during Wilderness their deaths would eerily parallel each other (both hit by friendly fire during battle, and in roughly the same battleground).

Also, post WW I his reputation will probably go up further, since he was one of the first generals to seriously push the idea that changes to military tech were starting to give a huge advantage to the defensive, emphasizing the value of entrenchment, etc.

Of course, without Longstreet the next question is who the Lost Causers blame for Gettysburg and other reversals of the ANV. A.P. Hill seems a likely candidate to me; assuming his death in battle isn't butterflied away, he won't be able to defend himself. The fact that he definitely did a poor job of making the transition from division commander to corps commander, and he caught a fair amount of flack from the Lost Causers in OTL contributes.

I'm not sure Longstreet would be held in the same esteem of Jackson.

1) He was still critical of Lee at Gettysburg.

2) He's still a realist. Realists don't get glorified by myth-making "historians'.

3) He's not a Virginian.

Does the scapegoat for the Lost Causers have to come out of the Army of Northern Virginia? (And I sort of think it does, or how else could Bobby Lee have lost)

If so, even with an earlier, though post-war death, Longstreet will likely come down for a fair amount of criticism. He was a high ranking officer from the beginning till the end. Lee can't be criticized, so who else is there who hamstrung Lee and the AoNV? AP Hill? JEB Stuart (who bought it early in the 64 drive on Richmond)? Maybe Ewell, the man who couldn't fill Jackson's shoes (regardless of having only one leg)?

AP Hill is the most deserving candidate in my book.


If the scapegoat can come from anywhere in the Confederacy, I nominate Braxton and Joseph E. as the two best candidates.

Chengar Qordath said:

Longstreet gets a lot more credit for his generalship; unsurprisingly, the Lost Causes absolutely loved trying to find a way to blame every single problem the Army of Northern Virginia had on him, and attributed all of his successes to others. Odds are, his reputation ends up being at least equivalent to Jackson's, especially since if he died from being shot during Wilderness their deaths would eerily parallel each other (both hit by friendly fire during battle, and in roughly the same battleground).

Also, post WW I his reputation will probably go up further, since he was one of the first generals to seriously push the idea that changes to military tech were starting to give a huge advantage to the defensive, emphasizing the value of entrenchment, etc.

Of course, without Longstreet the next question is who the Lost Causers blame for Gettysburg and other reversals of the ANV. A.P. Hill seems a likely candidate to me; assuming his death in battle isn't butterflied away, he won't be able to defend himself. The fact that he definitely did a poor job of making the transition from division commander to corps commander, and he caught a fair amount of flack from the Lost Causers in OTL contributes.

Click to expand...

With the possibility that the first wave of revisionism in an ATL where he is esteemed for generalship would try to figure out why Longstreet keeps routing Union armies but nobody else in the Confederacy, even Jackson, did. The Lost Causers could blame Ewell or Pickett for Gettysburg, very probably Pickett if he causes a Five Forks scenario earlier on.

Elfwine said:

I'm not sure Longstreet would be held in the same esteem of Jackson.

1) He was still critical of Lee at Gettysburg.

2) He's still a realist. Realists don't get glorified by myth-making "historians'.

3) He's not a Virginian.

Click to expand...

I think Jackson would probably remain much longer *the* hero of the war and Longstreet's rise would be posthumous in accordance with Lee, and that like historical Lee hagiography Jackson would be blamed for Lee's earlier failures and Longstreet's own role blown somewhat out of proportion. The first Civil War revisionists post-WWI probably focus on Longstreet as an example of a Confederate general who was modern and won victories surpassing any of the others.

High Plains Drifter said:

Does the scapegoat for the Lost Causers have to come out of the Army of Northern Virginia? (And I sort of think it does, or how else could Bobby Lee have lost)

If so, even with an earlier, though post-war death, Longstreet will likely come down for a fair amount of criticism. He was a high ranking officer from the beginning till the end. Lee can't be criticized, so who else is there who hamstrung Lee and the AoNV? AP Hill? JEB Stuart (who bought it early in the 64 drive on Richmond)? Maybe Ewell, the man who couldn't fill Jackson's shoes (regardless of having only one leg)?

AP Hill is the most deserving candidate in my book.


If the scapegoat can come from anywhere in the Confederacy, I nominate Braxton and Joseph E. as the two best candidates.

Click to expand...

George Pickett is an obvious one, he's likely to rise same as OTL if the other guys die and one Five Forks-style fish fry in the middle of a battle and instant scapegoat. Pickett was also extremely critical of Lee, as was A.P. Hill thanks to the Battle of Malvern Hill. So you could see them both perhaps assume the role of twin scapegoats. The West same as OTL will be ignored altogether in favor of the East save the Atlanta Campaign.

High Plains Drifter said:

Does the scapegoat for the Lost Causers have to come out of the Army of Northern Virginia? (And I sort of think it does, or how else could Bobby Lee have lost)

Click to expand...

Specifically, lost Gettysburg. Other than that, you could excuse the AoNV for losing the war without necessarily losing battles until they were starved and exhausted. So all your candidates have to be folks at Gettysburg.

It would be really nice to blame Jefferson D. (nice, comprehensive, coherent line of attack), but he can't really be blamed for Gettysburg.

Snake Featherston said:

I think Jackson would probably remain much longer *the* hero of the war and Longstreet's rise would be posthumous in accordance with Lee, and that like historical Lee hagiography Jackson would be blamed for Lee's earlier failures and Longstreet's own role blown somewhat out of proportion. The first Civil War revisionists post-WWI probably focus on Longstreet as an example of a Confederate general who was modern and won victories surpassing any of the others.

Click to expand...

Depends on how well Early and all succeed, I think. But a post-WWI rehabilitation makes sense, at least from the scholars (instead of people getting the idea Jackson was a model for how to use tanks).

George Pickett is an obvious one, he's likely to rise same as OTL if the other guys die and one Five Forks-style fish fry in the middle of a battle and instant scapegoat. Pickett was also extremely critical of Lee, as was A.P. Hill thanks to the Battle of Malvern Hill. So you could see them both perhaps assume the role of twin scapegoats. The West same as OTL will be ignored altogether in favor of the East save the Atlanta Campaign.

Click to expand...

Not war but murder Hill is the other one, though.

mrmandias said:

Specifically, lost Gettysburg. Other than that, you could excuse the AoNV for losing the war without necessarily losing battles until they were starved and exhausted. So all your candidates have to be folks at Gettysburg.

It would be really nice to blame Jefferson D. (nice, comprehensive, coherent line of attack), but he can't really be blamed for Gettysburg.

Click to expand...

"If only J.D. had supported Lee instead of frittering troops all over the Confederacy, the Yankees would have been crushed! Just two more brigades (two of Pickett's were kept behind, it ought to be noted) and Hancock's line would have been broken and we'd have taken Washington!"

There. That was too easy.

Elfwine said:

Depends on how well Early and all succeed, I think. But a post-WWI rehabilitation makes sense, at least from the scholars (instead of people getting the idea Jackson was a model for how to use tanks).

Click to expand...

This would also fit in partially with a lot of the older histories of the Civil War of OTL which to an extent overstated how much the war predicted WWI, at least where the Western Front was concerned.

Elfwine said:

Not war but murder Hill is the other one, though.

Click to expand...

True, and that's what I was thinking of.

Elfwine said:

"If only J.D. had supported Lee instead of frittering troops all over the Confederacy, the Yankees would have been crushed! Just two more brigades (two of Pickett's were kept behind, it ought to be noted) and Hancock's line would have been broken and we'd have taken Washington!"

There. That was too easy.

Click to expand...

Did Lee ever *ask* for more troops for the invasion? If so, awesome, JD it is.

mrmandias said:

Did Lee ever *ask* for more troops for the invasion? If so, awesome, JD it is.

Click to expand...

Yep. There's quite a few pages of correspondence on the subject in the Official Records.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/recordView.cfm?Content=040/0782

I bring these facts to Your Excellency's notice now that you may take such means as in your judgment seem best to increase the strength of the army. This can be done, in my opinion, by bringing troops from the departments of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. No more can be needed there this summer than enough to maintain the water batteries. Nor do I think that more will be required at Wilmington than are sufficient for this purpose.

I can find more examples if you'd like, but that might take a while (I have a lot of saved files to sort through).

Mind, there was a reason Davis "frittered troops all over the Confederacy" besides being an idiot, but we're looking for a scapegoat, so...

Snake Featherston said:

This would also fit in partially with a lot of the older histories of the Civil War of OTL which to an extent overstated how much the war predicted WWI, at least where the Western Front was concerned.

Click to expand...

Yeah, anyone pushing the idea that the ACW predicted WWI will probably love to mention Longstreet. I'd agree that his historiographical star probably peaks after World War I, since that will let every single Lost Causer start crowing about how Longstreet was decades ahead of his time.

A.P. Hill still strikes me as the best main scapegoat for Gettysburg. In addition to the other reasons previously mentioned that it dovetails nicely with Jackson's elevation as a heroic figure. Plenty of Lost Causers like to say that Lee never would have lost Gettysburg Jackson were still there, and slamming A.P. Hill for being an inadequate replacement follows smoothly from that premise.

Chengar Qordath said:

Yeah, anyone pushing the idea that the ACW predicted WWI will probably love to mention Longstreet. I'd agree that his historiographical star probably peaks after World War I, since that will let every single Lost Causer start crowing about how Longstreet was decades ahead of his time.

A.P. Hill still strikes me as the best main scapegoat for Gettysburg. In addition to the other reasons previously mentioned that it dovetails nicely with Jackson's elevation as a heroic figure. Plenty of Lost Causers like to say that Lee never would have lost Gettysburg Jackson were still there, and slamming A.P. Hill for being an inadequate replacement follows smoothly from that premise.

Click to expand...

That works, yes.