General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier—A Biography (review)

l64CIVIL WAR HISTORY their efforts would be remembered by posterity. In "Morale, Maneuver, and Mud," A. Wilson Greene examines the Union aftermath of Fredericksburg, blending Burnside's earnest efforts to redeem himself with the vicious machinations of subordinates determined to oust him and "insipid" political superiors who left Burnside to languish in a "shark tank on the Rappahannock" (216). Though often narrated simply for their drama, military actions raise an assortment of questions requiring close analysis. As Gallagher and his collaborators have ably demonstrated in five previous volumes, the essay collection approach affords an effective way of reevaluating old issues and exploring new ones, without having to rehearse at length familiar developments. The Fredericksburg Campaign is no exception. Indeed, it is arguably the best of the lot so far. Mark Grimsley The Ohio State University General James Longstreet: The Confederacy 's Most Controversial Soldier—A Biography. By Jeffry D. Wert. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993. Pp. 527. $27.50.) Without a biographer for the first sixty years after the Civil War, Confederate lieutenant general James Longstreet now has four of them. To Eckenrode and Conrad (1936), Sanger and Hay (1952), and Wilbur Thomas (1979) is now added Jeffry D. Wert. His General James Longstreet: The Confederacy 's Most Controversial Soldier, published in 1993 and presently in a paper edition, obviously builds on these works, as well as on William Garrett Piston's iconographical study, Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant (1987). Well-written, sure in its factual detail, and researched richly in manuscripts, Wert's biography stands at least equal to the best of its predecessors. But how far above them does it rise? Surprisingly, in its argument and analysis, not very. The greatest strength of Wert's Longstreet is its balanced, thoughtful perspective of the officer who served from Manassas to Appomattox, commanding the First Corps of R. E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia throughout much of the war. Balanced perspective is indeed what James Longstreet has needed. Maligned by generations of Southerners as scapegoat for Lee's defeat at Gettysburg , he was scorned as well for being too chummy with the Republicans in Reconstruction. Longstreet may not be "the Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier," as Mr. Wert bills him (most students would accord Gen. Joseph E. Johnston that ambivalent accolade), but he has certainly been handed a bum rap in much of Confederate history. Sorting through the accusatory literature, Wert keeps his focus on Longstreet 's war record and, commendably, finds both good and bad. In battle he showed keen tactical skills, as at Second Manassas, Chickamauga, and the Wilderness where his powerful attacks earned him reputation as Lee's "hardest BOOK REVIEWS165 hitter" (273). Quietly unflappable under fire and in crisis, Longstreet conveyed confidence to his men and to General Lee, who came to rely increasingly on Longstreet as adviser after the death of Jackson. Wert's Longstreet is not without fault, though. At Seven Pines he botched Johnston's plan, then denied responsibility, and, worse, pinned the blame on old Ben Huger. At Knoxville in late 1863 he faltered at independent command, showing both indecisiveness and poor judgment. Sad to say, he was also given to bickering with brother officers. His deliberate slandering of Braxton Bragg after Chickamauga, Wert concedes, severely weakened the Army of Tennessee just before it faced the indomitable Grant at Missionary Ridge. Despite such faults, and in consideration of the general's undisputed contributions to the Confederate service, Wert seems reasonably justified in concluding that "Longstreet, not Jackson, was the finest corps commander in the Army of Northern Virginia" (405). This is not to say, however, that Mr. Wert presents an extensive evaluation of Old Pete versus Old Jack. Indeed, in its analyses General James Longstreet seems somewhat slack. Longstreet is praised lavishly for his assault at Chickamauga , but nowhere in the author's narrative is the key question raised: Could Longstreet's attack in depth have succeeded had not Union general Thomas Wood withdrawn his division (barely mentioned on page 3 1 2), creating a gap in the Federal line at just the point of Confederate attack? In discussing Gettysburg , Wert reviews Longstreet's disagreement with Lee's decision to attack...