General Lee proposes that Longstreet cares too much about the soldiers and needs to get rid of this sentimental attachment. Lee does not believe that any sensible man could disagree with his military tactics, so he accredits Longstreet’s defensive propositions to excessive sympathy for the men. The truth of the matter is that while Longstreet does care about his men, he more so believes that his own military techniques are better suited and more appropriate for the confederates. These generals have completely different mindsets and ideas of how to fight a war, but are unable to openly communicate these indifferences. I used to think Longstreet’s silence represented respect and admiration for General Lee, but now it seems to be a detrimental force in the downturn of the confederate army.
The South’s top two generals disagree on the fundamental principles of military warfare. Preparation and communication are key elements to fighting a war. Lee continues to give military orders and commands, but fails to recognize the reservations Longstreet takes to these military tactics. Longstreet resents the fact that Lee ignores his opinions as overly sentimental and compassionate. Regardless of his position as general, Longstreet has little power over Lee and never challenges this authority.
A strong and powerful military is not composed of one absolute leader. The southern people admired and revered Lee as great military leader, but this god-like status prevented any criticism to his actions. Great leaders often times question themselves and their actions as exemplified by Chamberlin. Being a former college professor, he questions why he was chosen to be a head military officer. This constant search for answers creates an open minded view of the world that allows for progression. Lee is never challenged and therefore his word is taken as a message from god and carried out exactly. I believe the outcome of the war could have been very different had someone challenged Lee’s military tactics and his power.
5 comments:
Like we discussed in class the other day, it seems Longstreet is too tolerant of Lee's tactics. Its not that Longstreet cares too much about his men and that his military strategy will fail, its that he does not have the courage to stand up to Lee. I definitely agree that the war may have had a different outcome had someone imposed their concerns on Lee. The person to do this was Longstreet-- as he was in the best position behind Lee. But Longstreet's respect for the chain of command prevents him from confronting Lee. Perhaps Longstreet's negligence indirectly led to the downfall of the Confederacy -- not Lee's flawed tactics. Anyone agree?
i like this, especially the last paragraph. The saying goes that we are our own worst critics, but i think that can be bad or good--as you say it is for Chamberlain.
in response to Scott's point, let me point out that situation someone mentioned in class... A plane crashed in icy weather because the wings were covered in ice. Later when the "black box" was recovered, it was found that the co-pilot had attempted to direct the pilot to de-ice the wings, but he had done so in an indirect and non-threatening manner, as he saw fit for his position. The pilot, seeing his suggestion as a mere suggestion, did not de-ice the wings.
in a way, Longstreet DOES challenge Lee's tactics--but not very strongly. Does his respect for position and lack of force mean that he is to blame? is the co-pilot to blame for the plane crash? Perhaps some fault lies there, but i do not think that Longstreet is the main perpetrator of the Confederacy's downfall at Gettysburg. A contributor, yes.
I agree with Tess, your last paragraph is really good. Of course the war would have been different if people challenged Lee more, but getting someone to stand up to him is a war within itself. To challenge Lee, that means someone is disobeying the chain of command. In the military, soldiers who do not obey this chain of command are looked down upon, or even discharged. So, if someone did stand up to Lee, there could have been serious consequences, yet if Lee listened, the war could have easily gone the Conferate's way.
Shanil, you have to also take into affect that the Confederacy won multiple battles before Gettysburg. So with Lee's past record and his current success I can understand how he would not second guess himself and for him to also have the support of all the troops and southerners. Maybe Lee understands where Longstreet is coming from, but he might also take into the fact that Longstreet's instincts could be clouded by the recent deaths of his children. The one thing that the Confederacy had been troops and a lot of them, so why not attack and attack if you have that advantage. I could be completely wrong, but I believe that Lee knew what he was doing and also he was so aggressive because the winner of Gettysburg would have the upper hand on winning the war.
i agree, i think longstreet is too respective of the chain of command and should have spoken up. sure lee was losing the war, but longstreet allowed it to happen. had he spoken up and challenged lee, they might have won after all
Post a Comment