Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
In the 1864 Shenandoah Valley Campaign between 12,000 and 15,000 Confederates under General Jubal Early tried to defend the valley against 40,000 Union soldiers under General Phillip Sheridan. Early was defeated in several battles and was unable to save the valley. Under the same circumstances could Stonewall Jackson have done any better than Early?
In the 1864 Shenandoah Valley Campaign between 12,000 and 15,000 Confederates under General Jubal Early tried to defend the valley against 40,000 Union soldiers under General Phillip Sheridan. Early was defeated in several battles and was unable to save the valley. Under the same circumstances could Stonewall Jackson have done any better than Early?
Welcome, Ter61. I expect a response would revolve around "any." Under the circumstances, with a 3:1 advantage, the result would have been the same. It just might have taken a little longer.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I'm not a big Jackson fan, but even assuming that Jackson was all that he is often made out to be, I don't think he could have stopped Sheridan. Sheridan just had too many men. Jackson may have been able to maneuver about and delay the inevitable, but I am doubtful that he would have had any significant impact on the war's course.
__________________ Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
Good question, Ter61. I agree with all the posters that I don't believe Jackson in '64 would have been able to overcome Sheridan. I think that Early did as well as anyone had a right to expect. By '64, the Union presence in the Valley was just too powerful and too determined to knocked out of the Valley. No more a divided command with nondescript commanders and a jittery Washington trying to fight the fleet Confederates over the telegraph wires. Now a single powerful army of 3 solid corps under able and proven commanders and a dominant well-armed and well- trained cavalry under excellent commanders and the whole under a driving, no-nonsense, hammering, and inspiriting leader in Sheridan- and the whole Confederate presence in the Valley is in danger.
It took too the intervention of Grant to put his man in place and the force of his chartacter to buffer Sheridan from Washington, but once done, all the elements were in place for a Sherman like sweep through the country. And even still, Early could come swinging in and inflicting damage. But at great cost, these men in blue were there to stay.
Jackson may have made life for the Union army in the Valley a little more interesting, but ultimately, I don't see him doing any better than Early. In fact, his name alone may have caused the Federals to plow even more troops into the area, widening the disparity in numbers.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
btw- ole. Congrats on reaching 2000 posts. Keep on truckin. ed
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Even assuming that Jackson (or Early for that matter) had managed to avoid destruction in the Valley, would Grant still have been able to take Petersburg, minus Sheridan's forces? I think so. The VI Corps and the Army of the Shenandoah's cavalry divisions wouldn't be available for him, but that would be compensated for by the fact that Jackson/Early would still be fielding the ANV's detachments to the Valley. A no win situation for the South. In the actual event, I think Early did about as well as could be expected under the circumstances.
Respectfully
__________________ Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
I want to thank everybody that responded to my question. I believe there are a few things that Jackson would have done different if he had been in Early's situation. When Sheridan first took command Lee sent Early some reinforcements under General Joseph Kershaw. Just before the Battle of Winchester Lee called Kershaw back to Petersburg. I believe Jackson would have convinced Lee to let Kershaw's men remain in the valley by repeating a statement that he made earlier, "If this Valley is lost Virginia is lost." I believe Jackson would have worked with his cavalry better than Early. However, I agree with everybody on here, I don't believe Jackson could have ever stopped Sheridan. Sheridan had too many men and was willing to do whatever it took to win. Any success that Jackson would have had would have cost him men that could not be replaced. Sheridan would not have had any trouble replacing men that he lost because of the vast amount of manpower the North had available. In the end I don't believe Jackson could have done much better than Early.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Jackson vs Sheridan 
Linear Mode
