Re: [TalkAntietam] RE: Jackson, D.H. Hill, and Longstreet Who's posting here?
- In a message dated 5/28/01 10:56:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Marshall also then added a curious
comment about that whatever disagreements Jackson had with Lee's
opinions or tactical thoughts, once ordered to perform a certain
operation, Jackson embraced the operation as if it were his own.
Longstreet, however, on the other hand continued to dissent and
Actually, in this book it was not really Marshall who made this observation.
It was rather the editor, Frederick Maurice, who shows in his writong that he
bought the Lost Cause position on Longstreet hook, line, and sinker.
Specifically, the sentences run like this: " He [Marshall] says that whenever
Jackson disagreed with a plan of Lee's, he said so; but having stated his
objection, he always deferred to Lee's decision and executed his orders with
as much zeal and energy as if he designed the plan himself. Longstreet, on
the other hand, when he disagreed with Lee, always maintained that his own
plan was best, and to the last moment of action endeavored to get his plan
adopted." Notice the second sentence does not state that it is Marshall's
opinion. Very clever.
The Chancellorsville section of the book is curious in that it is made up
primarily of the editor's opinion of what Marshall was trying to say in other
letters/writings, not reproduced. It is neat to read, though. Maurice, like
Krick, always works in some snide remark about Longstreet even when it is not
gremaine to the topic.