Confederate Generals

OF COURSE, because that would be horrible.

Lee:  Top 3 in history, with Alexander the Great and Hannibal.

Longstreet:  Solid Corps commander.

Jackson:  Look at his Shenandoah Valley campaign, easily one of the best campaigns in history.

A. S. Johnston:  Never realized his potential, though it could've gone either way.

by that i meant mainly slavery

i know that he was a superb commander , but i'm not sure about top 3 of all time

Well yea, Longstreet, as every other 'second echelon' general (as in, not those ranked at the top ten such as: Lee, Grant, Napoleon...etc...if you even rank Grant as one of those..heh)..in any case; as a second echelon general he made his mistakes - however, these don't negate his obvious gift in command.

The questions pops up:  had Longstreet had his way in Gettysburg, would the battle been a victory?  That's truly a mind bender - I don't know enough about Gettysburg to analyze it, and I hope that one of my superiors in this genre give me a good schooling.

However, in any case, I do consider Longstreet as one of the unsung generals of the Civil War - leaving Grant, Sherman and Lee in their legendery posts as three of the greatest American generals to ever command.

FYI Major General John S Wood commanded the 4th armored during world war II, his tactics before the war were visionary and widely criticized in the US army before and during the second world war.  Yet in hindsight it has become apparent that if he had more of a free reign he would have completely destroyed the German Western front on more than one occasion. 

The AoP didn't reinforce itself at its center, it reinforced itself at its flanks.  The center wasn't much weaker during the second day.

except that the attack didn't even come close to succeeding, the Union line may have been but that was merely Hancock pulling back his forward infantry so that he could use his artillery with greater effect.

Longstreet didn't care about taking Washington, the point was to threaten it and in so doing force the Union army to attack it in a strong defensive position.  It's sort of ironic, a couple months earlier had Hooker listened to his subordinates, Meade Reynolds and Hancock, who were begging to counter attack following Jackson's attack on the Union flank at Chancellorsville Lee's army would have at the very least been driven from the field in disorder.  A few months later had Lee listened to Longstreet he might have gained the victory he wanted.  Well not exactly, it was no longer practical to expect a Cannae or an Austerlitz on account of the tactics of the day, terrain, slight improvements in technology as well as the heavy concentration of artillery in the Union army.  The fact that Lee didn't realize this even after Second Manassas when Longstreet's corp slammed into Pope's rear displays a surprising amount of obtuseness.

likewise

Wood served brilliantly during Operation Cobra, his thrusting attacks during the "Race across France" and his encirclement of Nancy were superb.  Yet a problem arose when corp command, of the corp Wood was a part, opened up in the third army for which Patton considered Wood only to choose an old West Point buddy Sprague Eddy, a decision he later regretted.  Eddy was notoriously conservative and had little knowledge of how to employ armor, under his command Wood became increasingly frustrated and was relieved.  I suspect that if John S Wood was given the opportunity he would have shown what he was capable, his protoge Creighton Abrams would eventually reform the US Army.

Of course Wood had very little experience and there is little to truly judge his abilities on but then again you placed Lee  as one of the three greatest generals ahead of a number of other generals who had far more illustrious careers and made significantly greater contributions to military tactics and strategy.  I'm sorry but Lee makes a poor comparison to the likes of Napoleon, Scipio Africanus, Subotai, Frederick the Great and a number of others.  So is it worse to place Wood ahead of Lee?