what if jackson had been in command at culps hill

[milhistbuff1]

Wouldnt any retreat or retirement by the AOP at that stage of the war be considered equal to the decisive victory Lee sought to bolster chances of a political end to the war? a retreat would give Davis that much more political capital to force a settlement on Lincoln.If i am not mistaken, that was the reason behind both of Lee's Invasions, a victory percieved or real, in order to gain political ground, to either end the war, or bring Europe in. ultimate success of it, is of couse another matter.

Respectfully,
Matt

[ole]

NB & Jamieva:
Interesting restart of an interesting thread. Jackson was the fortunate beneficiary of the hero-making machine. No one can survive a really close look, not even Lee or Grant or (nothing personal) NB Forrest. I mean, the best of them had a fault or two.

Jackson's death effectively forestalled his critical examination. By the time anyone scaled that ivory pedestal to take a close look, he had been deified to the point where criticism was heresy.

On to Cemetary Hill. There was a considerable Union presence on that hill at the end of the first day. Taking it would have been dicey for any tough Confederate unit. I vote no.
Ole

[ole]

Matt:
Gettysburg was a high stakes gamble. Lee had to have known his chances were slim to none, but the potential payoff was huge -- just a good showing would have had a profound affect on Union morale.

Stakes for the AoP were equally high. Not administering a thorough beating would give Lee the public relations edge (although I'd bet good money Meade wasn't thinking about that at the time).

Just a thought.
Ole

[milhistbuff1]

the real question then becomes, what if Meade bucks all of his commanders and retreats back to pipe creek end of day one? Wouldnt that politically counteract Vicksburg and word of which get to europe sooner thus sparking a potential supply or reinforcement deal with Napoleon or Victoria?

[nbforrest]

I doubt a Union retreat to the Pipe Creek line would have really affected the war's outcome at all. Even from a morale standpoint, the Northern public wasn't going to suddenly throw in the towel after a fizzled out battle after suffering through a string of defeats in the East.
Gettysburg, I think, is generally exaggerated in its importance.

Respectfully

[milhistbuff1]

what about the Europeans though? their perspective was the big question, how would they read it? would Gburg be the "Saratoga" of the Civil war? many defeats afterwards for american forces, but ultimate victory.
Respectfully,
Matt

[nbforrest]

No Confederate victories before had convinced Europe to intervene. Britain or France, despite some elements of their societies being sympathetic to the South, were not going to seriously intervene in the war.

Respectfully

[whitworth]

If Stonewall Jackson's death, the death of one Confederate general, hardly known by many before the war, was so great, why did the Confederacy ever start the war.

[milhistbuff1]

It was started because the CSA did not realize the true worth of many of the dead until after they were gone, Pettigrew, & Cleburne are two examples of that very phenomonon.
respectfully,
Matt

[whitworth]

What if the Confederate founding fathers, in the beginning, had realized that without Stonewall Jackson, the Confederacy could not win the war?
Even if 99% of them had never heard of "Stonewall Jackson" in 1860.