what if jackson had been in command at culps hill

[Admiral_Porter]

Lee laying siege to the most heavily fortified place on the planet seems very unlikely. He realized the impracticality of such a move after his signal victory at Second Manassas.

I don't understand how you can say that Lee was the confederacy's worst general on one thread and now state he was so good he would have destroyed the AOTP and captured Washington.

[milhistbuff1]

[/quote]

I don't understand how you can say that Lee was the confederacy's worst general on one thread and now state he was so good he would have destroyed the AOTP and captured Washington.[/quote]

Admiral, my other posts deal with Lee's tactics and strategy as it actually happened or deal with a post Gettysburg scenario, after Jackson is dead. Assuming Jackson lived, this is a likely scenario given the chaos of the union buildup on the evening of July 1st.
respectfully,
matt

[Admiral_Porter]

my other posts deal with Lee's tactics and strategy as it actually happened

That still makes no sense to me.

You say Lee was a poor general but at the same time tell us that if the had Jackson at Gettysburg he suddenly would have learned tactics and pulled off a Cannae or Lake Trasimene.

Lee had Jackson during the Seven Days, Second Manassas, Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville and he still did not come close to annihilating the AOTP.

He had a chance to gain a major victory at Glendale but Jackson blew it.

Stonewall could maneuver his forces well but was not good at battlefield tactics.

[milhistbuff1]

Admiral, With all due respect, the reason Lee failed to gain a destruction of the AOTP at the other sites is because he either was too impatient (Mechanicsville/Beaver Dam Creek, Malvern Hill), topography negating movements, (Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg:Stafford Heights) Concerning Antietam, Lee was too weak, and pressed against the creek in such a way that there was insufficient room on the flanks to maneuver and attack the Union flank, just enough to shift reserves and meet Union assaults.

the Culps Hill situation was the only one where the union troops present on the field were in sufficient disorder to alllow an armywide. Vicksburg, New Orleans and the other western union victories were important, but news of a major CSA victory on Northern soil, might have brought the British or french in giving the confederacy the capability to shatter the blockade and retake vicksburg. This may have taken some time but far shorter than the 21 months it took to lose the war.

respectfully,
Matt

[Admiral_Porter]

the Culps Hill situation was the only one where the union troops present on the field were in sufficient disorder to alllow an armywide.

The controversial high ground of the first day was always Cemetary Hill. Howard had already placed men there before he marched off to fight Ewell.

Ewell's men were highly disorganized after they fought through the actual town of Gettysburg.

Ewell vacillating in front of Culp's Hill is a myth. Cemetary Hill, not Culp's, was always the hill Lee wanted taken.

There is nothing in Jackson's record to suggest he would have successfully occupied Cemetary Hill. He was poor at tactics.

news of a major CSA victory on Northern soil, might have brought the British or french in giving the confederacy the capability to shatter the blockade and retake vicksburg.

The British cotton crisis had already passed. The blockade was getting stronger by the day.

Britain was just as reliant on southern cotton as they were on northern grains; they found alternate cotton sources in Egypt and India. Lincoln sent grain supplies to feed the hungry mill workers.

The British got scared off when we threatened retaliation if they continued to allow British built ships fall into the hands of the Confederacy like the Florida and Alabama. The British paid dearly after the war for the Alabama Claims.

Queen Victoria often got annoyed with all the constant colonial wars and I highly doubt she would approve of a full scale war; the average Briton was pro-Union anyway. It was the aristocratic elite who supported the Confederacy.

Toss in the loss of the south's largest commerical city and the Emancipation Proclamation and you have a very unwilling Britain.

The British had nothing to gain in a war against the US.

Recognition of the Confederacy, peace negotiations? Possibly. Going to war? Highly unlikely.

[MobileBoy]

Porter,
Jackson was aggressive and definitely would have attacked.The hill would have fallen to the Confederates in all likelihood.It's not like it would take some miraculous effort to displace the Union troops.It was lightly defended and was ripe for the taking.Remember everyone doesn't share your view of Jackson.British scholars considered him and Lee to be two of the greatest soldiers produced by English speaking poeple.He basically always won even though outnumbered though granted he was going up against Yankees so the competition wasn't the greatest but he was an effective commander.

[milhistbuff1]

Originally Posted by Admiral_Porter

It was the aristocratic elite who supported the Confederacy.



.

Admiral,



It was that "aristocratic elite" as you put it, who made policy. All the ANV needed was a victory on Northern soil, Stonewall's aggressive attack speed would have kept the pressure on, not giving the 1st and 11th corp a chance to reform, Culps and Cemetary could have easily fallen, especially after hancock left at 7PM, depriving the union of his presence on the field. I do not claim that jackson was perfect, but his foot cavalryesque treatment of his troops would have likely caused a snowball effect and possibly panicked Robinson's division on Cemetary Hill. Since he was the sole reserve, Meade would have had no chance to establish his fish hook deployment. If the Confederates took the Cemetary Hill and Culps Hill on day one, Meade would have most likely ordered Slocum's 12th and Sickles' 3rd Corp to attack both positions the next morning.

Respectfully, Matt

[nbforrest]

Since the Potomac was flooded, assuming Lee kept right on Meade's heels, eventually Lee could have pressed him against a flooded Potomac leaving Meade no way to cross. Or if Meade managed to get to washington with what was left of the AOTP Lee could lay siege to the capital, do to Meade what Grant did to Lee at Petersburg.

Why on earth would Meade have fled to the Potomac? Why would he move southward? Makes no sense. If he panicked for some reason and hightailed it out of there, he would have fallen back to his Pipe Creek line. A siege of Washington was impractical. Even assuming the AOP had gotten beaten up, Northern Virginia could not supply Lee. That is exactly why he fell back from Centreville after the Bristoe Station campaign.

Respectfully

[Admiral_Porter]

British scholars considered him and Lee to be two of the greatest soldiers produced by English speaking poeple.

Not everyone. Try JFC Fuller.

though granted he was going up against Yankees so the competition wasn't the greatest

And yet the south still lost. Hmmm...

That same attitude is what got the south into trouble in the first place.

All the ANV needed was a victory on Northern soil,

By 1863 there were too many other factors at play which made foreign recognition of the Confederacy unlikely.

Stonewall's aggressive attack speed would have kept the pressure on, not giving the 1st and 11th corp a chance to reform,

Ewell performed just as well as Jackson and the II corps believed they had found the new Stonewall.

Even if Stonewall were there his men would still have been disorganized after fighting through the town just as his men were highly disorganized after routing the 11th corps at Chancellorsville.

If he didn't spend the time reorganizing his men like Ewell did he probably would have gotten his men slaughtered in peicemeal attacks.

[milhistbuff1]

NBForrest,

Lee, courtesy of his smaller army was able to move quicker, smaller wagon train, smaller columns etc. My point in the prior post was that Lee might have pursued a lot faster since if he was able to gain the heights he would have lost far fewer than the 28,000 men lost in the actual July 1-3 battle. as a result, Lee would be too close to meade's tail to allow him to set at pipe creek, he would have to keep moving. You are correct about Washington's fortification strength. Launching a proper siege would have been foolish. He would not have to "siege Washington" per se, just cut the rail lines specifically, the B&O, threaten the city and meade's army assuming it's in the city manning the works, with starvation. Obvious not the most ethical course but militarily it would get the results desired, foreign recognition or we starve you to death.
Respectfully,
Matt