1) I think that much of what has been posted is correct. Longstreet
was vilified for having the temerity to criticized Lee, and also
for serving in Republican administrations. The religious analogy
(Lee as Christ, Jackson as martyr, Longstreet as Judas) is very
apt.
2) It is too bad that Robert Krick apparently isn't on this
list. For those who don't know his work, Krick is a vehement
pro-Jackson, anti-Longstreet historian, with a very sharp mind and
pointed pen.
3) While much of the known criticism of Longstreet focuses
on Gettysburg (where it is least appropriate), there is ample room
to criticize his conduct at Seven Pines and of course in Tennessee.
Still, I think he was one of the most effective corps commanders in
any army on either side. (My second choice would probably be
WS Hancock.)
4) My major point: I think the chances of his Wilderness attack
routing two Federal Corps are vastly overstated. For one thing, he was
only engaged with one Federal Corps: Hancock's Second, which had been
reinforced by a single divison from each of Fifth and Sixth Corps.
(It is true that much of Ninth Corps eventually served with Hancock,
but that was later in the day. Also, I believe that only 3 or 4 of
the divisions under Hancock's command were attacked by Longstreet.
The rest were in reserve along the Brock Road.)
Second, the nature of the terrain prevented any kind of meaningful
follow-up of an attack. In fact, it needs to be remembered that his
initial thrust was successful only because he was attacking a force
that had itself been attacking through the Wilderness for several
hours and was accordingly much worn out and disorganized.
Jim Epperson
epperson@math.uah.edu