Dissertation Dairy — General James Longstreet: Revised

General James Longstreet resigned his post in the United States Army in mid 1861 and joined the Confederate Army in July 1861 [1]. He would serve the entirety of the war in both the Eastern and Western theaters. He served a majority of the war and was present at every significant battle with the Army of Northern Virginia, with the exception of Chancellorsville. In between Gettysburg and the Wilderness, Longstreet and his men took part in the Knoxville Campaign with the Army of Tennessee [2]. Longstreet played a major role in all areas of combat and contributed to the Confederate’s momentum and prolonged survival. Even though, he is primarily known for his actions at Gettysburg and after the war politics, Longstreet’s military performance from the very first battle, which was prior to First Manassas, till Appomattox has not received attention in its entirety.

According to recent historians like Harold Knudsen and Gregory Toretta, Longstreet understood and utilized a newer comprehensive approach to warfare [3]. He did this through the use of defensive tactics, especially entrenchments and the terrain, and altering both defensive and offensive strategies due to the use of new technology including the rifled muskets and ironclads. Within the few works that exist on this topic, the works are on the smaller scale and only tend to cover the large engagements including Gettysburg, Chickamauga, and the Wilderness. But, Longstreet became developed and utilized these new tactics with success far earlier in the war. Even though Longstreet’s early contributions to the war are sometimes overlooked by the bigger engagements, the events nonetheless had an impact in demonstrating the formation of Longstreet’s leadership qualities and tactics in the field.

These pivotal conflicts highlight Longstreet’s astute tactical and leadership skills. As one conflict builds upon the next, each one regardless of the size merit a closer look. Historians have rarely examined Longstreet’s experiences and contributions to the Confederate cause in great detail as a whole, despite his four years of continuous engagement throughout the war. As a result, they have not examined his tactics, leadership skills, and the results and consequences. Hopefully, with examining Longstreet’s actions in great detail it will take the partial or skewed picture of Longstreet’s contributions to the war and put it into broader context. Through a thorough analysis of every battle and engagement, there is a hope to uncover what strategies were successful or unsuccessful, what were the different challenges that Longstreet faced at each, and was he able to overcome them or not. This research may also shed light on the various tactics used in conjunction with various long-term plans and commanders, as well as the reasons why Longstreet seems to perform better under Robert E. Lee’s leadership than it does under others, such as Joseph Johnston.

In order to carry out the significant scope of this project, it will require a significant amount of historical research of both primary and secondary documents, battlefield examinations, archival investigations, and if possible battlefield tours. Because of the scope of the battlefields that Longstreet was engaged in, this project will require travel across the Midwest and Eastern parts of the United States. The development of a research plan each semester in crucial in order to coordinate and utilize time efficiently in this process. In order to follow Longstreet’s path chronologically, the battlefields and areas to be visited have been combined chronologically into the following categories: 1861 to early 1862, late 1862 to mid July 1863, and 1863 to April 1865. Each of the chronological periods have specific battles and archives that will need to be visited. Each battlefield and state have its own specific archives that could reveal additional sources including Gettysburg National Military Park, Fredericksburg National Military Park, and Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park Library. Connections with archivists at university, state, and historical societies will be crucial to help prioritize the limited time available at the archives. Developing a relationship with archivist to help with research will be a new adventure and a critical piece to the project. But, because of the experience and knowledge the researcher on the topic and the archivist’s knowledge base of the archive, there will documents might be uncovered or used with a new purpose.

Because of the level of recent scholarship that has been developing on Longstreet this work, if successful, will provide additional context to James Longstreet’s character which most Civil War historians will agree needs to corrected. But, at this point in the research stage, there appears to be a gap in the historiography in the analysis of Longstreet’s military career. While several authors including Knudsen or Jeffry Wert touch upon smaller engagements like Seven Pines and Gaine’s Mill, there is a lack of significant analysis of his efforts and actions at these smaller engagements. In order to provide a complete analysis of Longstreet’s contributions and if he truly did develop a new successful means to warfare, each and every engagement, no matter the size, needs to be examined in great detail through battlefield tactics and leadership execution. This work can hopefully narrow the gap on Longstreet’s contributions to not only warfare contributions in the Civil War but the strategic developments used in future United States engagements.

[1] Jeffry D. Wert, General James Longstreet: The Confederacy’s Most Controversial Soldier: A Biography (New York: Simon & Schuster paperbacks, 2005), 53.

[2] Harold Knudsen, James Longstreet and the American Civil War: The Confederate General Who Fought the next War (S.l.: Sava Beatie, 2024), x.

[3] Ibid, ix.