Rating: 
Summary: Good, but can be dry
Review: Longstreet's memoirs are very good. They are well written, informative, and candid. When Longstreet disagreed with someone, he states it. If he disagreed with a strategy, such as at Gettysburg, he states it and gives his view of what should have happened. Although this looks like a case of Longstreet trying to say his way would have won, I personally believe he was simply being honest. While Longstreets memoirs can be dry when he talks of strategies and tactics, it is still a informative, entertaining book. I would rank Longstreet's memoirs only behind Grant's, Sherman's, E.P. Alexander's, and Richard Taylor's underrated Destruction and Reconstruction.
Rating:
Summary: LtGen Longstreet
Review: This book pulls no punches which is undoubtedly why many former CSA officers did not like it and may Union officers had no comment. He points out tactical flaws and decisions made by politicians. This has been recommended to be added to the Commandant of the Marine Corps' reading list. LtGen Longstreet's views are given with a corps commanders outlook, not delving too much below the division level or as we in the military say, using the "big blue arrow" concept. Well worth the read!
Rating: 
Summary: Longstreet Answers His Critics
Review: This incisive and detailed memoir by General James Longstreet answers once and for all the slanderous critics of bygone times who, to further their own careers, tried to destroy his. His insights and commentary on the history of the First Corps and the Army of Northern Virginia is a "must read" for anyone serious about Civil War history.
Rating:
Summary: Longstreet Speaks Although After Time Has Passed
Review: This is a fairly long book written by Longstreet a few years before his death as one of the longest living of the great generals of the Confederacy. He wrote many controversial articles prior to this book in the late 1870's that sparked controversy during the building of the Lost Cause syndrome. Since Longstreet does seem to have some memory issues with some battles such as Gaines Mill, parts of the book may be a little disappointing; however, he provides pretty good detail on his Gettysburg participation that is probably the most significant part of the book. The issue of what occurred on the morning of the second day of Gettysburg with Lee is in some conflict with previous testimony but Longstreet clearly states that there was no "sunrise attack order". He also defends his proposed move to the right but offers, what almost seems a publishers delight, a view that "Lee's blood was up" and there was no recourse but to attack. Unfortunately, Longstreet spends little time on his Tennessee campaign where in brutal winter conditions his wonderful command totters into disharmony. Although I wonder how much involvement Longstreet had with ghostwriters due to the loss of the use of his arm from the Wilderness, the demeanor seems consistent with "Old Pete". Perhaps if Longstreet followed D. H. Hill's view of never speaking ill of the dead, he would have a place in Richmond. In contrast to "Old Pete", D. H. Hill who was a cranky and outspoken critic during the war and but effective general, following his own rules Hill was rather boring in his lack of commentary. What is phenomenal about Longstreet is the great punishment he has taken from earlier CW writers about Gettysburg because of his post war views while in contrast Jackson was not held nearly as accountable for his failure to participate properly in the 7 Days battles where the war could have been won. Contrast Longstreet's role at the battle of Glendale with Jackson's
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting Perspective
Review: While its well noted by numerous individuals that this book contains inaccuracies, I wish the publisher would have noted where they were. In the General's attempt to cover as much of the war as possible for posterities sake, there is way too much detail on minor participants which results in a more boring book than it could have been. But the stories of such "characters" as the look-out scout "Julius Caesar" make this book well worthwhile to read for anybody interested in a first-hand analysis (albeit self serving).It is, however, sad to see the General take such a self-centered view of his part within the war. I suppose that any person who attains the position of high rank must be very confident to the point of being somewhat cocky, but Mr. Longstreet apparently felt that without his input, the "lost cause" never had any chance what so ever. But again, overall the book is very interesting and no modern day writer with their revisionist viewpoint can match that of an actual participant. People 150 years from today cannot understand what 9/11 was really like compared to us who experienced it as it unfolded. With this grain of salt, I recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Perspective
Review: While its well noted by numerous individuals that this book contains inaccuracies, I wish the publisher would have noted where they were. In the General's attempt to cover as much of the war as possible for posterities sake, there is way too much detail on minor participants which results in a more boring book than it could have been. But the stories of such "characters" as the look-out scout "Julius Caesar" make this book well worthwhile to read for anybody interested in a first-hand analysis (albeit self serving). It is, however, sad to see the General take such a self-centered view of his part within the war. I suppose that any person who attains the position of high rank must be very confident to the point of being somewhat cocky, but Mr. Longstreet apparently felt that without his input, the "lost cause" never had any chance what so ever. But again, overall the book is very interesting and no modern day writer with their revisionist viewpoint can match that of an actual participant. People 150 years from today cannot understand what 9/11 was really like compared to us who experienced it as it unfolded. With this grain of salt, I recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Book...for the Most Part
Review: With Lee's death soonafter the War, Longstreet was the most prominent Confederate to write memoirs on the War, and given his responsibilities in both the East and West, he was in a position to offer more insight. Longstreet is very descriptive when it comes to setting the scene of battle, but he describes the armies' movements very generally. For this purpose, the reader has to be familiar with the battles, which have been covered in depth by other books, so when it comes to summarizing campaigns, the memoirs should be seen as complementary information. In passing, it should be kept in mind that Longstreet couldn't come into possession of all the information available now, and thus his memoirs can't be considered a case closed definitive account. As others have mentioned, Longstreet isn't afraid to pull punches, which he does at times quite poignantly on Lee's mishaps, most notably of course at Gettysburg. In other instances, he defends himself by criticising others. When Fitz Lee notes that R.E. Lee called Longstreet the hardest man to move in the Army (a comment that can't be confirmed/refuted), he comes to his own defense in part by criticising Jackson during the 7 Days campaign. Hindsight is 20/20, and Longstreet's arguments in the conduct of certain campaigns certainly benefit from the passing of 30 years. At a number of places, Longstreet believes that if his suggestions were followed, the results could have destroyed Union armies or won the War. We'll never be sure if he's right or wrong on these matters. The memoirs are most interesting during Longstreet's analysis of who deserves credit/shame at certain battles. But where it is most interesting is in rebutting criticism of his war record. The best part of the memoirs are the 3 chapters on each day at Gettysburg, since the postwar criticism of Fitz Lee and Jubal Early aim mostly at that. Fitz Lee most notably mentions comments by R.E. Lee criticising Longstreet that can't be confirmed/refuted with Lee's death. Longstreet does a good job of fending off criticisms of his record for the most part, usually including letters written by other officers to his defense. The only problem I had with the memoirs was that I found the post bellum chapter of the memoirs woefully short. Throughout the memoirs, Longstreet notes his relationship with certain officers on both sides, including his strong one with U.S. Grant. He briefly covers the controversy in 67 that stirred the anti Longstreet feelings in the South. However, we know Longstreet's battles concerning his record after the War, to the extent that he wasn't even invited to the Army of Northern Virginia's reunion. Longstreet makes almost no mention of this. After alluding to his postbellum relationship with Lee souring due to "political differences" throughout the book, Longstreet doesn't elaborate on it in the postbellum chapter. In all, Longstreet's memoirs make for a very good general read of the important campaigns and relationships between the CSA's big names. He doesn't dodge accusations and he's not hesitant to place blame where he feels it belongs, whether it's himself or, more often, General Early. That Longstreet isn't afraid to criticize the Southern deities, which in itself drew criticism of his war record from proponents of the Lost Cause, lends a more evenhanded credence to his memoirs, making them a very worthy read.
|
