what if jackson had been in command at culps hill

[nbforrest]

Going back to the title of the thread, I fail to see what in Jackson's record would suggest that he had the necessary tactical skills to gain victory.

Given his past experiences with attacking hills (Pritchard's Hill, Sitlington's Hill, the Coaling, etc) I don't see how he would have been successful in carrying out a swift coup.

Respectfully

[milhistbuff1]

Originally Posted by Admiral_Porter

But Jackson and Longstreet were subordinate to Lee. Lee was making the decisions which those two generals then carried out.

Admiral Porter,

Among those decisions was an order to take "the hill if practical." I believe Jackson, unlike ewell, would have deemed it practical and would have kept the men going. He may not have been perfect, but he certainly knew how to motivate his men for a morale cracking attack. As for the confederate navy, I was unaware Tattnal left the Virginia knocking on davy jones locker. As for the albermarle, the US navy had approximately 700 ships to cover from Cairo to New Orleans to Washington. That a lot of ground to cover, and surely there was a hole somewhere. If the Albermarle needed to refuel once it broke out, it could send any wooden ship to the bottom ala USS Cumberland and punch a hole to reach friendly coasts. I'm aware the Federals would have overwhelming numbers, but by instituting pin***** attacks, a ship here, a ship there etc. The union would thin out its reserves in DC to plug the holes in the blockade.

Respectfully
Matt

[Admiral_Porter]

Among those decisions was an order to take "the hill if practical." I believe Jackson, unlike ewell, would have deemed it practical and would have kept the men going. He may not have been perfect, but he certainly knew how to motivate his men for a morale cracking attack.

Jackson probably would have tried but I'm not convinced he would have actually taken the hill.

Lee's orders were very ambiguous which is why Ewell hesitated.

As for the confederate navy, I was unaware Tattnal left the Virginia knocking on davy jones locker.

He tried to get it up the James River but the ship's draft was too deep. It couldn't leave Hampton Roads when the tide was low either and the ship ran aground when it was fighting the Monitor. Tattnall put it to the torch.

As for the albermarle, the US navy had approximately 700 ships to cover from Cairo to New Orleans to Washington. That a lot of ground to cover, and surely there was a hole somewhere.

Hatteras Inlet made it difficult for a ship to escape.

If the Albermarle needed to refuel once it broke out, it could send any wooden ship to the bottom ala USS Cumberland and punch a hole to reach friendly coasts.

I don't know how seaworthy the Albemarle was but if it was anything like the Virginia it couldn't be very reliable on the open water.

I'm aware the Federals would have overwhelming numbers, but by instituting pin ***** attacks, a ship here, a ship there etc. The union would thin out its reserves in DC to plug the holes in the blockade.

I'm not understanding your statement here because of the censors.

[milhistbuff1]

Admiral, the last statement should make sense now

[samgrant]

"Among those decisions was an order to take "the hill if practical." I believe Jackson, unlike ewell, would have deemed it practical and would have kept the men going."
-milhistbuff1

"Jackson probably would have tried but I'm not convinced he would have actually taken the hill."
-Admiral Porter

Has it been demonstrated that those troops would have 'fought harder' under Jackson than under Ewell?

Were Jackson's battle tactical skills superior to Ewell's?

[nbforrest]

Among those decisions was an order to take "the hill if practical." I believe Jackson, unlike ewell, would have deemed it practical and would have kept the men going. He may not have been perfect, but he certainly knew how to motivate his men for a morale cracking attack. As for the confederate navy, I was unaware Tattnal left the Virginia knocking on davy jones locker. As for the albermarle, the US navy had approximately 700 ships to cover from Cairo to New Orleans to Washington. That a lot of ground to cover, and surely there was a hole somewhere. If the Albermarle needed to refuel once it broke out, it could send any wooden ship to the bottom ala USS Cumberland and punch a hole to reach friendly coasts. I'm aware the Federals would have overwhelming numbers, but by instituting pin***** attacks, a ship here, a ship there etc. The union would thin out its reserves in DC to plug the holes in the blockade.

Again, I fail to see any evidence as to why Jackson would even attempt to take the hill. He froze up at Mechanicsville and the White Oak Swamp and several half-hearted jabs (McDowell comes to mind). And sometimes he just totally lost control of the situation. A attack on a hill with darkness approaching and with tired, scattered troops...I don't Old Blue Light was up to it.
I really don't think it is reasonable to say that a Confederate ironclad could break the blockade...this is exactly what the Rebs tried to do several times and every time it was shown that, despite some temporary success, one ship could not overtake the blockade. The Albemarle was unable to effect the blockade in reality...a temporary success at Plymouth and then bottled up. And the Union navy by that time far outnumbered the South in terms of ironclads...it wouldn't have been an iron vs. wood fight.

Respectfully

[nbforrest]

Has it been demonstrated that those troops would have 'fought harder' under Jackson than under Ewell?

Were Jackson's battle tactical skills superior to Ewell's?

Excellent questions my friend, and I personally would have to say no to both. Jackson was a poor tactical commander and Ewell was solid, if unremarkable, although it is tough to judge by the relatively short time he held corps command. The II Corps did just as good fighting under Ewell as under Old Tom Fool...the Wilderness comes to mind.
I just don't think Jackson would have made a difference.

Respectfully

[whitworth]

Why do so many contend that the magnificent Confederacy, with all its great generals, was so dependent of one little-known general, at the start of the war.

[Jamieva]

I'm late to the discussion but a couple of points.

#1 The whole basis of this what if is probably faulty as Gettysburg was started by the III Corps. If Jackson is alive does the III Corps even exist? Probably not.

#2 If Jackson takes that hill, then Meade has to deploy somewhere else and the ANV still has to go after them. Not a clear cut end to the war in any way, shape or form. Meade more then likely falls back to Pipe Creek and waits on Lee.

[nbforrest]

Both good points.

Assuming there indeed was no III Corps, who would have been the ranking officer at the battle's opening? Pure speculation of course, but given the ANV's history, I suspect Jackson would have made the strike towards Harrisburg. How would he have handled the battle? Who knows.
But I doubt that a decisive victory could have been wrought, even by Lee.
As you say, Meade could very well have retired.

Respectfully