The contrasting military minds of Robert E. Lee and Longstreet are very dangerous and problematic for the confederate army. Lee is presented as somewhat vulnerable due to his weakening heart condition, yet his military strategy is aggressive and offensive. As opposed to Longstreet, who takes a defensive and more practical approach to the movement of the military. We discussed in class that Longstreet respects the ranking of general and the leader of the confederate army. Lee happens to be in this role of leadership, yet Longstreet makes a more efficient and thoughtful leader. Longstreet may be somewhat conservative, but he also wants to conserve the lives of his fellow soldiers if possible. It is easy for Lee to assert aggression and increase cavalry sizes when he is not on the front lines putting his life on the line. We discussed in class how Longstreet lost multiple sons in the war and has deeper feelings of sympathy for putting his men in unnecessary danger. I feel Longstreet makes a more logical and intelligent leader who understands the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the confederate army. An offensive military attack is important, but I feel Lee is too determined to be aggressive and is unwilling to allow the war to slowly evolve and develop.
Longstreet is a loyal general, who truly respects the confederate party. Regardless of Longstreet’s personal opinions about war tactics, he is obedient and respectful of Lee’s final decision. Longstreet represents the archetype general. He is creative and passionate about the confederate cause and truly cares about his people and his troops. Lee even has to remind him not to risk his life on the front line, because he is too important of a general and leader. While Longstreet is courageous and passionate, he is not arrogant and never questions his leader, Robert E. Lee. Often times generals that are second in command envy the power and respect of the leader, yet Longstreet respects the military ranks and system. Even though Longstreet has differing opinions, he never second guesses Lee’s power or decision making capabilities as a leader.
I am interested to see how their relationship will develop as the war progresses and see how the military is affected by the leadership and military minds of these two men. Generals played a huge role in leading armies into battle and inspiring thousands of men that this was a war they could win. Lee was an inspirational figure, but I do not know how realistic he was in his military tactics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't think anyone in our class would disagree that Longstreet's strategy would most likely have been more successful than the catastrophe of a strategy that Lee used. But it is easier for us to do so considering the age in which we live in. We live in an age where logic is far more valued than honor. Looking at the era in which Lee was making these decisions makes it easier to understand his desire to fight with "honor". Longstreet was ahead of his time in realizing how their weaponry was more advanced than their strategy. Lee was an old school general that had not yet learned how fight the type of war that Longstreet wanted to.
I agree with Creed Thoughts (I still don't know who that is) that Longstreet was ahead of his time. Ironically, I think if the confed's had less men they might have won. Historically, the underdog adopted new tactics to win. For the revolutionary war it was hit and run tactics, now it's defensive warfare.
Nick is right in saying that Longstreet's tactical strategy of trench warfare was way before its time. But it was accustomed to charge in lines and do whatever it takes to win no matter how many lives are lost. I believe Lee understood that the longer the war lasted the more likely the Union was to be victorious. So by being aggressive he could shorten the war and possibly pull out an impossible win.
Post a Comment