Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [civilwarwest] Longstreet

Expand Messages
  • Gary R. Geisler
    I m sorry, I forgot where I m at But I ll still keep my thoughts about Longstreet either West or East he was less than stellar. God Bless Gary ... From:
    Message 1 of 18 , May 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
       I'm sorry, I forgot where I'm at' But I'll still keep my thoughts about Longstreet either West or East he was less than stellar.
      God Bless
      Gary
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 9:24 PM
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Longstreet

       

      In a message dated 5/30/2010 4:18:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time, ggeisler@cinci. rr.com writes:
      Am I alone in this? comment please
      You are not alone. There are those who think he was sainted and there are those who think he didn't earn much of a place in the USCW. Makes an interesting discussion though.
       
      Oh. Wait. This is Civil War West. Unless you're talking the time he was serving in the west, Longstreet is off-topic.
       
      Ole

    • hank9174
      Actually Old Pete s actions were probably better aligned with Southern aspirations than other, more exalted, Confederate leaders. The doctrine of strategic
      Message 2 of 18 , Jun 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Actually Old Pete's actions were probably better aligned with Southern aspirations than other, more exalted, Confederate leaders.

        The doctrine of strategic defense espoused by Longstreet and Johnston would have saved both territory and lives...


        HankC


        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Hattie" <ggeisler@...> wrote:
        >
        > The more that I study and read of this conflict, the less that General Longstreet impresses me seems like a lot os what he did was not beneficial to the cause of the South. Am I alone in this? comment please thanks and God Bless
        > Gary
        >
      • Ron
        ... Quote, in part, The doctrine of strategic defense espoused by Longstreet and Johnston would have saved both territory and lives... ... Given the military
        Message 3 of 18 , Jun 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          "hank9174" <clarkc@...> wrote:
          >
          Quote, in part, The doctrine of strategic defense espoused by Longstreet and Johnston would have saved both territory and lives...
          >
          Given the military resources of the Northern forces compared to that of the southern military, the strategy of "Strategic Defense" would lead to a slow steady stranglation of the south. It would be like waiting for the other shoe to drop.

          Ron
        • hank9174
          Isn t that what actually happened? I suppose the question(s) may be phrased as : 1) what could the USA have done to *shorten* the war with the same results,
          Message 4 of 18 , Jun 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Isn't that what actually happened?

            I suppose the question(s) may be phrased as :
            1) what could the USA have done to *shorten* the war with the same results, or,

            2) what could the CSA have done to *lengthen* the war and win via northern war weariness?


            HankC

            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <rblack0981@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > "hank9174" <clarkc@> wrote:
            > >
            > Quote, in part, The doctrine of strategic defense espoused by Longstreet and Johnston would have saved both territory and lives...
            > >
            > Given the military resources of the Northern forces compared to that of the southern military, the strategy of "Strategic Defense" would lead to a slow steady stranglation of the south. It would be like waiting for the other shoe to drop.
            >
            > Ron
            >
          • jlawrence@kc.rr.com
            Given the military resources of the Northern forces compared to that of the southern military, the strategy of Strategic Defense would lead to a slow steady
            Message 5 of 18 , Jun 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Given the military resources of the Northern forces compared to that of the southern military, the strategy of "Strategic Defense" would lead to a slow steady stranglation of the south. It would be like waiting for the other shoe to drop.
              >
              > Ron

              Hello.
              The overwhelming superiority in resources and manpower certainly insured that, if marshalled, a Union victory. (Overwhelming may be an understatement-while fighting the costliest war in our history, the transcontinental raillroad was building on schedule (In the South, according to the Army War College-Levenworth Campus they were not even making rails-let alone laying new track).
              What gaurnteed victory though was not men or material superiority-it was the will to wield them and force the issue through to the end-the will perseevere at any cost.
              It was Lincoln that won the war. He had the resources and he was of a mind to wield them.
              Absent Lincoln, you don' have victory.
              You have the negotiated peace that I think most in the CSA thought they were going to get when the whole thing started.
              In my opinion anyway

              Regards,
              Jack
              Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
            • carlw4514
              Hey Hank I agree, note that where Longstreet looked not so good was at Knoxville where he was asked to do something against this line of thinking. It probably
              Message 6 of 18 , Jun 4, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Hey Hank

                I agree, note that where Longstreet looked not so good was at Knoxville where he was asked to do something against this line of thinking. It probably was reinforced at Chickamauga, since just about the best that could be hoped for offensively accomplished little from a total Campaign view, yet cost plenty of blood.

                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@...> wrote:
                >
                > Actually Old Pete's actions were probably better aligned with Southern aspirations than other, more exalted, Confederate leaders.
                >
                > The doctrine of strategic defense espoused by Longstreet and Johnston would have saved both territory and lives...
                >
                >
                > HankC
                >
                >
                > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Hattie" <ggeisler@> wrote:
                > >
                > > The more that I study and read of this conflict, the less that General Longstreet impresses me seems like a lot os what he did was not beneficial to the cause of the South. Am I alone in this? comment please thanks and God Bless
                > > Gary
                > >
                >
              • rbaquero@netzero.net
                Hi ! Do you know if ...... President Jefferson Davis had something to do with Longstreet and Johnston ? - Raul ... From: carlw4514 To:
                Message 7 of 18 , Jun 6, 2010
                • 0 Attachment

                   Hi !  Do you know if ...... President Jefferson Davis had something to do with Longstreet and Johnston ?

                  - Raul



                  ---------- Original Message ----------
                  From: "carlw4514" <carlw4514@...>
                  To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Longstreet
                  Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:22:48 -0000

                   

                  Hey Hank

                  I agree, note that where Longstreet looked not so good was at Knoxville where he was asked to do something against this line of thinking. It probably was reinforced at Chickamauga, since just about the best that could be hoped for offensively accomplished little from a total Campaign view, yet cost plenty of blood.

                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Actually Old Pete's actions were probably better aligned with Southern aspirations than other, more exalted, Confederate leaders.
                  >
                  > The doctrine of strategic defense espoused by Longstreet and Johnston would have saved both territory and lives...
                  >
                  >
                  > HankC
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Hattie" <ggeisler@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > The more that I study and read of this conflict, the less that General Longstreet impresses me seems like a lot os what he did was not beneficial to the cause of the South. Am I alone in this? comment please thanks and God Bless
                  > > Gary
                  > >
                  >



                  ____________________________________________________________
                  Penny Stock Jumping 2000%
                  Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
                  AwesomePennyStocks.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.