WI: Longtreet put in charge of Confederate Armed Forces?

Longstreet has a reputation for 'defensive fighting'... basically, maneuvering the much larger Union forces into attacking him on ground of his own choosing. Not sure how true that is, but if it is, then Union casualties are likely to be a lot higher... but that isn't really a strategy for winning the war/taking the war to the enemy either... a longer, slower, more painful death for the CSA?

He didn't demonstrate that during the Knoxville campaign, where he was stunningly ineffective in an independent command. It says a lot when you get outsmarted by Burnside.
 
Indeed. At least he managed to attrack some attention and get Sherman send to Knoxville. All in all, the whole campaign was a bad idea, a waste of resources and men that Bragg was to need when Grant came to kick his ass, even if having Longstreet at hand would have changed little.
.
 

jahenders

Banned
Longstreet has a reputation for 'defensive fighting'... basically, maneuvering the much larger Union forces into attacking him on ground of his own choosing. Not sure how true that is, but if it is, then Union casualties are likely to be a lot higher... but that isn't really a strategy for winning the war/taking the war to the enemy either... a longer, slower, more painful death for the CSA?

While that's true, it's certainly debatable whether Lee's actions in 'taking the war to the enemy' were a war winning strategy. After all, even if Lee wins substantially at Antietam or Gettysburg, what can he REALLY accomplish in terms of getting the Union to quit? Even if he mauls the AotP, he'll lose a lot doing it and the Union will be able to rush together another sizable force between him and any key objectives. One might say his 1st and 2nd invasions of the North were basically just huge harassment raids.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Longstreet has a reputation for 'defensive fighting'... basically, maneuvering the much larger Union forces into attacking him on ground of his own choosing. Not sure how true that is, but if it is, then Union casualties are likely to be a lot higher... but that isn't really a strategy for winning the war/taking the war to the enemy either... a longer, slower, more painful death for the CSA?

Considering the only time in the war that Longstreet truly exercised independent command he lost to Burnside, safe bet the Union is safe. ;)

Ack- ninjaed.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
While that's true, it's certainly debatable whether Lee's actions in 'taking the war to the enemy' were a war winning strategy. After all, even if Lee wins substantially at Antietam or Gettysburg, what can he REALLY accomplish in terms of getting the Union to quit? Even if he mauls the AotP, he'll lose a lot doing it and the Union will be able to rush together another sizable force between him and any key objectives. One might say his 1st and 2nd invasions of the North were basically just huge harassment raids.

True, which speaks to the undeniable reality that the correlation of forces was always against the rebellion, no matter what Chiroptera are pulled out of the ether.

Best,
 
While that's true, it's certainly debatable whether Lee's actions in 'taking the war to the enemy' were a war winning strategy. After all, even if Lee wins substantially at Antietam or Gettysburg, what can he REALLY accomplish in terms of getting the Union to quit? Even if he mauls the AotP, he'll lose a lot doing it and the Union will be able to rush together another sizable force between him and any key objectives. One might say his 1st and 2nd invasions of the North were basically just huge harassment raids.
that was my thinking too... the south is just too outnumbered/outgunned to win. But if Longstreet was the 'defensive strategy' guy that he was rumored to be (which apparently ain't all true), then the death of the south would have been slower, longer, just as certain...
 
Top