Longstreet Offers Us Something to Think About
I’m currently reading Elizabeth Varon’s new biography Longstreet: The Confederate General Who Defied the South, which includes a quote Longstreet gave during a September 21, 1874, interview with the Indianapolis Journal.
There’s enough going on in the news these days that Longstreet’s comment resonated with me in several ways and for several reasons. I thought Longstreet’s comment interesting enough that I wanted to share it for your consideration and let you draw conclusions of your own:
Men can’t all think alike, and the trouble with the Southern people always has been that they won’t tolerate any difference of opinion. If God Almighty had intended all men to think just alike, He might just as well have made but one man. . . . My opinion is that the only true solution for Southern troubles is for the people to accept cordially and in good faith all the results of the war, including the reconstruction measures, the acts of Congress, negro suffrage, etc., and live up to them like men. If they would do this, and encourage Northern immigration, and treat all men fairly, whites and blacks, the troubles would soon be over, and in less than five years, the South would be in the enjoyment of greater prosperity than ever.
I read that book. Longstreet of course remains a controversial figure. That debate will never end.
For some reason, that wasn’t how the South felt about things, after four years of destruction and devastation of their homes and region, by people from Connecticut, New York, Ohio, etc., especially after great efforts were taken to insure that newly returned Southern citizens couldn’t vote down high tariff rates. It’s amazing how major aspects of any situation are just ignored by some historians when they don’t serve their purpose. Longstreet may have been sincere, and even correct, but he was good friends with Grant, related to him by marriage, didn’t lose much in the War, and very few people in the South saw any reason to care about his opinions.
That was just a “bit your nose to spite your face” reaction by the South, though. Being so hard-hit by war, the #1 thing that would have helped would have been an economic infusion. Longstreet was absolutely right about trying to invite Northern investment, but Southerners seemed generally more interested in trying to reimpose an economic and social system that more resembled the old order. (Mahone’s Readjusters faced a similar problem during their tenure.) The tariff argument often gets used as a smokescreen to try and cover those less savory reasons for Southern resistance to Reconstruction.
And you’ve been appointed judge of the “savoriness” of “reasons”? Yikes.
As a Southerner, I’m well aware of the insightful accuracy of Longstreet’s comments. Southerners’ extreme conservatism and refusal to consider alternatives to slavery virtually insured that the country would descend into civil war. Intransigent pre-war Southern politicians bullied their way into a fight that some of them dearly wanted, and too many other more moderate ones unwisely followed along. I’ve studied the American Civil War since I was 10 years old and I find that it’s capable of teaching us hard lessons that we are still reluctant to learn.
Longstreet is 100% correct, not just for how the bulk of former Confederates should have reacted to the war’s outcome and changes during Reconstruction, but how men of any age should react to any macro changes to their society. If an individual cannot prevent the change from happening, then each needs to adapt in the best way they can. In addition to studying and writing on the war, I have worked in IT for the last 30+ years. The IT world is changing constantly, changes that I or any IT professional cannot change – from the internet, to the advent of cloud computing. If you are not prepared to adapt to the constant change you will find yourself unemployable.
I agree with Mr. Slaton’s comments above. Within us all lie the seeds of our own destruction. The Civil War came when the South seceded from the Union. The South made the choice to break away from the Union- no one forced them. As Lincoln said to the Southern commissioners at City Point, “Slavery is done.” Maybe if both sides could have continued talking, they would have been able to figure out a way that the southern economy would have progressed without slavery as its basis. But hotter heads prevailed and we are still living with the legacy of the destruction and crushing of the South from the war. This unfortunate legacy is with us in many forms today. I think only time will erase hatred and prejudice. Let us hope so. General Longstreet pointed out some truths, and sometimes the truth is very hard to take or accept.
I worry when hotter heads take control of discussion. It never ends well.
Just finished Varon’s book. It is one of the more balanced Longstreet accounts to appear in quite a while. Longstreet was a realist, warts and all. If we can get beyond Gettysburg we might achieve some measure of objectivity.
It’s funny how the Gettysburg controversy continues to color people’s perceptions of Longstreet, even among historians. I agree, her book offered a balanced portrait of him.
Some years ago I visited the Confederacy Museum in New Orleans across the street from the WWII Museum and adjacent to what was then Lee Circle. I recall there was quite a bit of treatment of Longstreet, and I got the impression of someone who had to do what it took to take care of his family.
That museum is filled with all sorts of neat stuff. It’s a wonderful collection of artifacts.
In context, a very naive political statement. Like many a general, not made for politics, and his well known intellectual uncle told him as much.
I think Varon demonstrates that Longstreet was more politically savvy than most historians have given him credit for, but he doesn’t get that credit because he sided with Republicans and so has generally been dismissed by Southern partisans. Her book is worth a read.
I haven’t read the new biography, but I think it is debatable. I don’t read Longstreet’s statement above as a truth and I find a lot to admire about Longstreet. The idea that ex-Confederates should just let others control their political destiny, right or wrong, makes no sense politically and literally put Longstreet on the wrong side of the white Democrat south soon enough. His uncle chided him to stop having his words published in newspapers, because his uncle saw where the land was headed politically and that Reconstruction wouldn’t last long. More power to Longstreet and his personal perspective, but whatever he hoped would happen wasn’t going to happen, which was a misreading of the politics of the postbellum South.
It’s a typical Longstreet quote; he thought he knew more – and better – than everyone else. His battle record and, far worse, his dishonest memoir, prove that he basically knew less than everyone else. His comment in this case is just plain wrong; overall, his statements like this and his claims that he was a better general than Lee demonstrate an inferiority complex. One of the most grievous errors Civil War historians have made in the last half century is taking Longstreet’s dubious memoir as gospel truth, and ascribing to him powers that he never had. But that’s what is good and interesting about history; the next generation of Civil War scholars will undoubtedly set the record straight.
What’s your basis for describing his memoir as dubious? Contemporary reviewers considered it to be balanced and less embittered than most of them expected it to be; criticism often came from people who were already his political enemies or from the pro-Virginia faction of Lost Causers who were interesting in propping up Lee in order to prop up their own careers. Varon’s book does a good job of parsing this out.
Longstreet’s memoir–as the case with any memoir–should not be taken as objective truth but as Longstreet’s subjective experience.
I think it is interesting that you at one point characterized the memories written down in the Confederate Veteran magazine as “propaganda” and therefore dubious, but yet you are here extoling this particular memoir. I haven’t read it so I don’t have a dog in the fight, I’m simply making an observation.
Also, you seem to be dripping with contempt for Virginia. For those of us who ARE Virginians, and who had ancestors who fought in Virginia units, that’s a little disconcerting. It bothers me a little that you appear to be active in the organization American Battlefield Trust, which actively and heroically promotes the preservation of battlefields in my state and in which I am also involved in researching and writing about, with such a bias. Can I trust that you will treat both sides of the issue, and the land itself where both sides fought, with equal respect and reverence? I’m not so sure at this point. I just have to say, as a Virginian I am “pro Virginian”. I realize you are likely not from Virginia yourself, but come on, that was pretty blatant. Perhaps you aren’t involved in preserving battlefields located in Virginia. And what’s wrong with “propping up Lee”? Again, that’s some bias there. I could go on, but I’ve said enough.
Regards,
D. Vazquez
We had Gary Gallagher present at our round table here in Chattanooga, and he even acknowledged (I think to Chris’s point) that memoirs should not be taken as “objective truth.” He even said the same thing about Grant’s memoirs as well. In fact, he even admitted sorting them out as history might be a stretch. A purely subjective viewpoint of their experiences.
Amen
Men can’t all think alike, and the trouble with _(fill in the blank)_ people always has been that they won’t tolerate any difference of opinion. If God Almighty had intended all men to think just alike, He might just as well have made but one man. . . .
My opinion is that the only true solution for _______ troubles is for the people to accept cordially and in good faith all the results of the ______ . . . .and live up to them like men. If they would do this . . . and treat all men fairly, whites and blacks, the troubles would soon be over, and in less than five years, [America] would be in the enjoyment of greater prosperity than ever.
Right off the bat, I see an error with the first sentiment mentioned in the excerpt. Of course Group X think mostly alike, while Group Y think mostly in another way. He seems to be saying if Group X thought less alike, and thought more like Group Y (who think alike as well), Group X would be more correct. The problem with that is that Group Y think alike too, so all you’re doing is trading how you think and most people around you think for how Group Y thinks.
Furthermore, it is EXTREMELY simplistic to think that all they had to do was do what Group Y wanted them to do, and all would be cherry. Furthermore, the Union Army had treated many with great disrespect, up to the point of destroying their property and murdering civilians (the Union Army destroyed my own direct ancestor’s farm and took their property). So I can see why my ancestor (at least, I can’t speak for others) would not exactly be hot and heavy to go along with what the North wanted them to do. I think it’s easy for a rich, privileged person like Longstreet who had an assured, good source of income after the war to take the attitude he did.
–D. Vazquez
If Longstreet had met long term Giants or Bills fans, he might have instantly revoked his belief in the perceived salubrious effect of an infusion of Northern “blood”?. I would, however, seriously suggest that Longstreet’s infrequent contacts with Northerners had led him to seriously overestimate their virtues. As residents of a region, they had little issue with speedily and largely abandoning the newly freed slaves to their fate, and pursue the family and career goals the war had interrupted. After the bloodbath of the war, and the suppression of the rebellion, their main goal, one can understand it. We learned from that mistake. We did neither with Japan nor Germany after the Second World War, and rebuilt their societies. The real tragedy is that the populist politicians of the South found a convenient at hand scapegoat to focus their anger on for their regions defeat and relative impoverishment. But this sort of angry nativism was hardly unique to the South. After all, the Klan elected mayors in Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine in the 1920s.
I came across the book on Amazon and I’m looking to get it. It has good reviews and I noticed the bad reviews are all by lost causers of varying degrees. I agree with Longstreet’s sentiment but its impossible to expect it to come pass then or now. Maybe in another one hundred years but I wouldn’t count on it.
BTW, I saw nothing in Chris’s comments that was dripping with contempt for Virginia or Virginians. Maybe I just need to read them again and more slowly.
I originally scribed these comments about Longstreet on Patrick Young’s Reconstruction Page-
A holistic and rigorous examination of Longstreet as a scope to understand the war, America and the way going forward for all, (Northerners and Southerners, White and Black Americans, the two contested versions of American democracy and federalism, etc, etc). Is really apt.
His conversion to the Republican and pro-Northern side of politics and culture in the post-war and certain statements and actions on his part, (such as these in the press, his leading of Black militia during the Battle of Liberty Square in New Orleans in 1874, and his very vivid and close friendship with Northern figures such as Ulysses S. Grant), were reasons why such a high number of Southerners (wrongly and undeservedly) demonised him. This is highly true. He was not wrong to call some of Robert E. Lee’s decisions into question, with the benefit of hindsight, after the war. He also may be said to have wrongly challenged Lee’s authority during the war. Lee and Longstreet were not in any way animositive to each other; they had very different conceptions of tactics in noted ways. Longstreet did disagree with some of Lee’s choices and there were reasons at the time that Longstreet’s views may have deserved more attention, yet there were as many to resound to Lee’s.
Longstreet could have prosecuted his orders at Gettysburg with more vigor and speed. Speed was not his key attribute as a commander. He fought incredibly hard and well. He disagreed with his orders at that battle and made no hiding of the fact, and there is room to critique his performance, as of Lee’s. He was also a dutiful suboordinate and if he could have arranged his orders into action more quickly on the morning of 3 July, the alleged ‘dawn attack’ was never ordered and it is incorrect to posit it was ever ordered.
But what is truly fascinating about Longstreet is not what sets him apart; it is what he shockingly has in common with other figures, both North and South of the era, and that this has escaped large historical attention, from the post-war to the present day. The amazing thing is that Longstreet’s actions or beliefs in this have also escaped scrutiny in the contemporary.
-Like Jeb Stuart and Lee, Longstreet openly declared that he sided with the South out of his understanding of his native state being the lynchpin of American federalism.
-Longstreet stated to the effect that the South had been right to take up arms in protection of its slave property, in concurrence with Howell Cobb. He disagreed with Robert E. Lee, even at the end of the war, that slavery ought be abolished in the South.
– Like all pre-war West Point graduates, he swore to uphold the US Constitution; with the ‘Return of Fugitive Slaves’ tenet in this, he viewed himself as keeping this American oath alive, (regardless of which side he fought on), by performing the long-standing American military tradition of returning presumed fugitive slaves to bondage, as the records show he took an active part in the impressment of Black Americans into bondage on the Gettysburg Campaign. This he practiced during the war along with Ulysses S. Grant, whom, despite the possibilities offered by the First Confiscation Act of 1861, returned a dozen slaves to Confederate owners upon the capture of Fort Donelson in Tenn., in Feb. of ’63.
-Along with Sherman, Longstreet showed an uncanny true appreciation for the new nature of war in Western society, as announced by the arrival of the mini-ball. While others did, too, Sherman seemed to understand that the ability to ‘get to’ civilians away from the battle zone on the opposing side was a key to victory, as Longstreet ought to have been a commanding officer on either side in the First World War; he was born for that conflict and its scary to think of what ‘Old Pete’ could have done with Bren or Maxim guns along the trenches of Fredericksburg.
-Longstreet was no deity of racial change of attitude; rather, it is more accurate to describe that, like other Americans of the era, he never completely eschewed his racial prejudices, but because of both the experiences he lived through and found himself thrust in, he did embrace a heroic amount of progressive growth.
Examples of this which he had in common with other Americans would be Robert Gould Shaw and Alexander Stephens. The letters of Shaw prove that right up to essentially the day of his death at the battle of Fort Wagner, he never completely eschewed his racial prejudices of Black Americans, (he uses the n-word throughout the length of his corro), and whereas in the Georgia state legislature in 1866, Stephens also displayed his still-present like prejudices. Stephens also called for racial equality therein to be legislated in the State, for compensation to be paid to Georgian Black Americans in some form to at least some extent and like Longstreet, called for at least limited Black American voting rights, (‘impartial suffrage’).
-On the point of suffrage for Black Americans, Longstreet made it plain that his support for this measure was not entirely rooted in progressive growth; his biographer, Jeffry D. Wert, cites that Longstreet believed that Black suffrage in any form was going to happen, regardless of desire or endorsement. Thereby, ‘Old Pete’ believed that it was better for White Southerners to endorse the measure as a means of ‘influencing’ their new Black American voting counterparts.
His actions in defending civil rights for Black Americans also serve as evidence that Longstreet genuinely did undergo progressive growth in his outlook, to his credit.
In this, Longstreet not only joins company with Stephens, but with other figures such as Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Oliver O. Howard and even Edward Pollard, (toward the end of the latter’s life), whom all supported Black American suffrage, to at least some extent, themselves. There is room for a measure of fair and balanced criticism from our times today that can be applied to all the above for the limited terms in which they saw this. There is also great credit as much due to them, for it was they and people like them, however imperfectly, whom broke with the prevailing norms and forged change.
-Longstreet, in forming a friendship/positive impression of Northerners like Grant, also are reflected by such as Lincoln and Stephens, Winnie Davis and Julia Grant, Frederick Douglass and the daughters of his former owner.
-Like Porter Alexander, Longstreet heavily implied in his memoirs, ‘From Manassas to Appomattox’, support of Black Americans for the Confederate war effort, for example, as when describing his train journey from the New Mexico territory back to the deep South, he witnessed Black Americans, (presumably at least the majority of which can be stated to be slaves), wave their hats to the passing train. This was at a time when all trains passing southwards were publicly known to be conveying persons/supplies/etc, for the new Confederacy.
As with Alexander’s section in his memoirs that teamsters in the Army of Northern Virginia were equipped with guns in anticipation of being pursued by the Army of the Potomac on the retreat from Gettysburg and fighting occurring, (the ANV having a high number of Black American teamsters), Longstreet leans with no explicit argument, but a heavy implication, that this was a sign of Black American support for the Confederate war effort, leaving it to future generations to examine and dispute.
-In as much as his leading Black American militia at the battle of Liberty Square in 1874 can be said to demonstrate progressive growth in his views of Black Americans and their place in society, Gary Gallagher is correct in making this highly insightful observation of the change in racial/cultural outlook that the war evoked upon White Americans.
In this, Longstreet obviously shares this with Abraham Lincoln, but also with Robert E. Lee, whose 27 and 29th of March, 1865, orders to Richard Ewell also demonstrate a like growth in racial attitude; herein, not only does Lee make plain he was willing to lead nationally organised Confederate troops of Black Americans into battle, but that racial equality ought to accompany in the military and be accompanied in Southern society.
And as much as Longstreet had in common with William Mahone, (whom also committed racial injustice during the war and measures of racial justice after it), it was again Lee whom inspired the both of them to this by a counsel of all his Generals and staff on the evening of 8 April 1865.
So again, what is shocking is not only that Longstreet has been subjected to such historical extremes since the time of the war, but also that what he had in common with other Americans of his era is almost completely unexamined.
well done article & glad you pointed out that Federal leaders & Lincoln & the common man in midwest & North wree not for instant full citizenship benefits & voting – for slaves who had no education & training & could be manipulated bt Radical republicans & scallawags & carpetbaggers … as predicted & as it turned out ;
The North turned lose a bunch of folks completely unprepared for freedom & free will that citizenship brings … and created a Mess– Similar to G W Bush mess in IRAQ & Biden in Afgam