One of the most popular "What If..." questions: Stonewall Jackson

[civilwartalk]

If Jackson had not been killed and had managed to survive at least through the remainder of the war, what would have happened different? Would Gettysburg have ended differently? Would the war have lasted longer? Would Stonewall be as popular today if he had not died?

I hope you enjoy chewing on this question

[tulip]

LOL, one of the favorite "what ifs" of all CW discussions.

Let's say Jackson made the difference at GB and it became a win in the CSA column.

Part of Lee's and Davis' strategy for GB encompassed that a win would 1) break northern morale; 2) gain foreign recognition and intervention; and, 3) allow them to move against and capture Washington.

1) As we see frequently throughout the CW, morale seems to tighten up when a loss occurs. Manassas did not send the Union home front skedaddling, but rather spurred on the growth of the Sanitary Commission; editorials promising to go forward; the development of the Christian Commission; and a resurgence of volunteers.

2) Foreign recognition and any possibility of intervention had already turned into a pipe dream by 1863. The French saw no advantage to getting involved; the British government was hamstrung by their population's opposition to slavery; Russia and Austria-Hungry leaned towards the north. Northern trade and the great distance from Europe along with Europeon political gamesmanship assured that the best any government would or could do was to nibble at the edges of the American conflict.

3) Win or lose, Lee's ability to move on Washington was problematic. Even if you flip the casualty figures of GB, Meade's AoP would still be left with a pretty strong army at Lee's back. Then there was the powerful western armies that had knocked off VB. It was connected by railroads in the hands of the Yankees, who had such men as Dodge, Haupt and Miegs to work magic for moving troops Eastward. Washington itself was a fortified town, well wringed with entrenchments and heavy artillery. As we well know, sieging a capital city is not the same as toppling Vicksburg or Gettysburg. I propose the siege would have been as long and deadly as either Richmond or Vicksburg. Plus you also have to wonder how Lee would supply his seige army with Meade moving at his back and Grant, Sherman etc. al. rushing eastward.

I doubt Jackson would have made much difference in the overall outcome of the war.

[sean_harris]

With StoneWall in command (Of his Corp) Gettysburg would have ended on day 1 with the Union falling back to Meade's Pipe Creek Line. However, I believe we would have seen the same result only 20-30 miles from Gettysburg at or around the Pipe Creek line.

If Jackson or Ewell would have advanced and would have taken the hills...what then? The Gettysburg line would have fallen. The Pipe Creek line would have been solidified. The Army of Northern Virginia could have either circled to the east and north and presented itself in a strong defensive position between the Federal army and Washington (this was still an option at the end of the first day at Gettysburg). Or...the enemy was on the Pipe Creek line in a weakened state having lost two corps of troops. An assault on a well established defensive line near Pipe Creek may have produced the same results that were produced at Gettysburg. Would Lee have swung to the east and north as Longstreet wanted? Or would he have went after the Federal army at Pipe Creek? What if?

[unionblue]

The Union Army always seems to come back from defeat, doesn't it? Even if Jackson had been there at Gettysburg, would he have acted differently? What if Day 1 it was his Corps in the rear?

What if he had been on the planning of the 3rd day? Would he have accepted his orders or would he have talked to Lee about the impossible assault on the center? Could Jackson talk Lee out of it? Or was he Lee's faithful right arm?

Lot of questions, ain't there?

Unionblue

[clp_moo]

I agree with Neil you don't know what would happen because it never did so I think Jackson would have help but I don't know if ti would have changed the out come of the war.

[grege]

Had Old Jack not fallen, I do not believe Gettysburg would have taken place. He would have pressed the attack and sent the Union forces back towards Washington. The Campaign would have become a more aggressive one with Stonewall forcing the Union forces to draw a line of battle far short of Gettysburg. If it went that far North, Harrisburg would have fallen and Philadelphia and Baltimore may have become threatened. Gettysburg would not have had to become the rallying point of the ANV.

[jac]

Hard to know. CSA forces did get to the Harrisburg area before the battle, and found all the bridges across the Susquehanna river burned, and militia waiting on the other side. The Susquehanna would be very difficult to cross for a CW army. A lot of pontoons would be needed. Anyone know if Lee had a pontoon train with him? I never heard that he did, but...
Jackson might have taken Cemetary hill the first night. If so, I suspect the Pipe Creek line would have been the location of the major battle.
I think it should not be overlooked that the AOP was fighting on home ground, where they knew the roads,and the terrain, and the ANV didn't- the complete opposite of the usual situation. And, defending home ground certainly stiffens morale.
I think Connie's exactly right about Lee not being able to beseige Washington.
I think Jackson's presence might have changed some of the place names we now hold famous, but not the end result.

Jackson's presence at Gettysburg, probably would have made a much smoother operation. Lee and Jackson worked together very well. Providing no other events changed, the union army, would still have the high ground, with its advantages. The ending of the battle would probably have been the same. Also as to the winning the war, Jackson was just one man, and the south needed much more than that, to win. It's doubtful that the war would have lasted longer even with Jackson, due to the shortage of supplies.

Gunsmoke

[johan_steele]

God how I hate "What If" questions. What if the Spencer Rifle had been adopted by the Union Army instead of the Springfield (it very nearly was in 1862). What if Reynolds had survived, what if the pontoons would have arrived a week earlier for Burnside, what if Hooker hadn't been knocked out of kilter by that brick. There are so many questions of the What If variety. The point is it didn't happen. Lee still had Longstreet who IMHO was a far superior commander of men than Jackson. As Jackson himself so aptly put it many times... "The reputation is not mine but my mens."

I really enjoy, pondering over "what if" questions. In order to answer them properly, one must know a little more, than just the basic facts, of a topic. Which encourages a deeper study, on the subject. These topics, can be fun to work with. It's certainly true, that they didn't happen, and discussing them, doesn't change history, but its also true, that discussing only facts, doesn't change things either. Both tools, can be used for fun and learning, and thats what discussion, should be about. As for myself, I would enjoy seeing a few more, of the "what if" questions.

Gunsmoke