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!
Jackson or Longstreet take command of the AoNV or does it go PGT or Johnston or Bragg.
If we assume that is still Jackson leading flank attack I think president Davis would make him a full general and give him AoNV. Hardly he would want to place PGT or Johnston in command, both of them he disliked. Since Jackson would be famous after this victory there would be no opposition to his elevation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5fish
Can Jackson or Longstreet work with Pres. Davis can Jackson and Longstreet work with each other once Lee is gone?
Jackson hardly communicated with his subordinates, but he had no problem with Lee so maybe he could work with president on good terms.... Anyone knows what were relations between Jackson and Longstreet? Jackson would probably choose some of his subordinate to command his corps, probably Ewell...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5fish
Can Jackson or Longstreet be able to handle U.S. Grant in the coming year?
I think Jackson would be a poor army commander since he was not able to communicate with his subordinates. When You are army commander that is a huge problem as we could see on example of general Bragg.
The war would have been over. At least his troops would feel that way and go home. Whoever took over command would be quickly pushed into a defense of Richmond as there would have been no impetus to make the next bold move.
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
It all depends on how good an Army Commander either Jackson or Longstreet would have been.
Like most people Jackson had his good days and his bad days.
It is hard, for me to imagine, Jackson's command style, meshing very well with most of the other senior officers of the ANV, especially Longstreet.
It is possible that Jackson would have changed his style a little to accomodate his changed relationship with the officer corps of the army. but, somehow, I do not think so.
Most important, could Davis and Jackson have worked together any length of time, before one or the other got on the others nerves.
There would, I think, have been a natural pause after Lee's death and Hooker's retreat. to iron out command arrangements for the ANV.
Approaching the middle of 1863, the strategic opportunities in Va. were narrowin. Getting close to Either attacking Washington D.C. or once again trying to destroy the AoP. Neither course would IMO have appealed to Davis (he only agreed to the Pa. Campaign because of Lee's blandishments.)
It is likely, that Longstreet would be even more anxious to get away from the ANV and it's Commanding General, Jackson, as he was Lee.
I do not know how Jackson felt about the war outside Va., but have always assumed he was more a bit more of a Confederate General than was Lee. If Davis did not allow another invasion of the North, Jackson, might very well have resigned. In which case, it would be Longstreet in command of the ANV and Jackson (IF he could be persuaded to remain in the Service) would end up with his Corps going West.
Jackson was a hard man, fighting a hard war, I do not think he would have turned the war around in the West, But I do think he would most probably have severely disrupted the Northern War effort in the West, at least through the end of 1863. After that , who knows?
Personally, I think Lee was the Confederacy's "indispensable man" like Washington in the Revolution. The ANV was too good an organization not to keep fighting effectively, but it was a force built in Lee's image, and would not have functioned as well under another commander. It's hard to see anyone on the Southern side that could have replaced Lee's mix of character and skills.
I was just thinking how a theme on the Confederate side, is "if Jackson hadn't been killed, the South might have won Gettysburg" or "if Albert Sidney Johnston hadn't died at Shiloh" good things for the South would have happened. Probably so.
The theme on the Northern side should be: "If only a sniper had gotten Burnside at the First Bull Run, the North would have won in 1862...or at the Crater, since he screwed that up too." "If only Hooker had been killed, not just wounded by that shell at Chanscellorsville, then a talented corps commander like Reynolds or Couch could have turned defeat into victory" "If only Sickles had fallen off his horse and broken his neck on July 1st," "If only Ben Butler...." "If only Kilpatrick..." You can go on and on.
With Lee gone and Jackson at the zenith of his career so President Davis would have had no choice but to pick him.
Longstreet would have gone west for he was an early proponent of relieving Vicksburg. Plus, he wanted his own command and for some reason wanted to face off against Grant. I just hope in his later years he figured out that Grant would have kick his A***.
A.P. Hill either went west or went to jail for he and Jackson had issues.
Old Jeb for some reason he and Jackson got along with each other.
A note: Lee's inter circle of Jackson, Stuart, Heth, Pender, and a few others all had the same religious type belief, or ideas, or style and historians never talk about it. Has this religious bond between these men ever been explored by Historians.
Stop on that note:
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
I honestly can't really say if either Jackson or Longstreet would have been good replacements if Lee had been killed at Chancelorsville. As has been stated, both had pros and cons.
Jackson I think might have been another Hood, in the sense that he reached his zenith at corps command, as Hood did his in divisional command. Many a time did Lee split his command, which gave the independent commanders a little more leniency to operate on their own to an extent. He trusted his commanders to do their jobs. But could Jackson replace Lee? He was great general to be sure, and it was a devastating loss when he was killed. But he was a hard marching, hard charging, very secretive man. He fought his men hard, and took the casualties to prove it. And we all know the South didn't have the manpower the North did. And the fact that he rarely divulged plans would make operations a little more difficult. I think he would have been at best a 6 on a scale of one to ten on capablility of Army command.
Longstreet I think may have fared a bit better. He was a bit more cautious, and knew how to handle his corps. He understood early on that frontal assaults and stand up fighting was going to deplete the Confederate forces faster than they could replace men. He was an advocate of maneuver and digging in, which was shown to be an effective tactic in the last two years of the war. The only downside I can see is the possibility of his not getting along with the Confederate high command. I would give him a 8 on the one to ten scale. Better than Jackson, but there are still a couple of problems to overcome.
I also have to think that you must add to this equation that Jackson does not do his recon at the end of the flank attack, because that is what got him wounded and eventually led to his death. If both Jackson and Lee are killed, that only leaves Longstreet, or bringing in somebody from the West, such as Beauregard or Johnston, which I don't think would happen, as the Davis administration liked neither. It is a great question to be sure. It would definitely have changed the outcome of the war though. IMHO, I think it may have ended sooner in the North's favor though, if one or both had died. Just as the death of A.S. Johnston was a blow to the Confederates in the west, the death of Lee would have been an even greater blow.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Jackson I think might have been another Hood, in the sense that he reached his zenith at corps command, as Hood did his in divisional command.
HTML Code:
[php][code][/code][/php]
I think there is great truth in your statement about Jackson and Hood. I was thinking when Jackson and Grant met on the field of battle in the spring 1864, a blood bath greater then when Lee ans Grant collided.
I think Jackson would be unable to change his over aggressive style as Lee did once he encounter Grant on the field. I think he would have destroyed the AoNV by colliding and crashing into Grants larger force. He would have play right into Grants hands.
By the end of the summer of 1864 the civil war would have been over with the AoNV gone. Like Hood destroyed his army being over aggressive not changing as events change. Jackson would have destroyed the AoNV for the same reason. So your statement carries a lot of truth.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
If General Robert E. Lee would have died, his death would have been extremely hard on his surviving Army. I think deeply and with sincere reflection that, cause and honor aside--they fought for Lee--the man and what he represented and what was still good. I also believe due to Lee's age, it could have been where Lee would have died of natural causes. I am sure President Jeff Davis had that in the back of his mind.
As far as who would lead the Confederate Army; I believe Longstreet was promoted before Jackson, making Longstreet Jackson's senior. I do believe there might have been friction between Longstreet and Jackson however, Jackson being aggressive similar to Lee would have balanced Longstreet's caution and defensive style however, Jackson wasn't as 'gracious' as Lee, to which--I would think Jackson would have disobeyed Longstreet's orders and or be headstrong as to be troublesome and be sent West. I think Longstreet would have brought in Pickett, Hood and Armistead and Garnet, pre Gettysburg best and seasoned Generals from Mexican War days.
Should have Jackson been appointed Commander of Confederate Armies, he would have fought until there wasn't a soldier left to surrender with. "The Black Flag." I think Jackson was very insecure and had to micro-manage his command. I agree with other statements, that he may have just gone on to slaughter rather than quit. Without the religious component to rein Jackson in, he would run unchecked. Further, Jackson was not good at making reports. He relied on Captain Smith to 'write.' Just as Lee depended on Major Marshall, a learned man. With a proper staff to which could 'temper' and manipulate the mood of Jackson --I could then be swayed to think he would be adequate. Athough a hero in the Mexican War, great on the battlefield --Commanding Officers were many hats, to include paperwork, politics, diplomacy, etc.
Jackson would have not tolerated the disciplinary problems and be so 'forgiving.' Jackson's background does not lean towards Administrative. Commanding officers had to be administrators also-He would have had to have exceptional Chief of Staff, Asst. Adj. General around him, like Lee did.
Longstreet, I think with his past Army experiences in many fields, to include 'Staff Officer,' he would have known how to manipulate the paperwork and influence command. One has to remember Jeff Davis is former Army, as well as Secretary of War--Davis was micro-manager also.
What is found with both Jackson and Longstreet--they had troops to whom were very fond of their Commanding officers. Longstreet seemed more 'reachable' and in touch with his men in the lower ranks; whereas Jackson was remote with the exception of his circle.
I wager, Jeff Davis would have chosen someone who would feed him reports and feed his control needs and ego.
Jeff Davis may have put in his favorite people; to which would have lead the course of the Confederate Army on many different paths. However, I think the Confederate Army would have been better off, if given just Jackson or Longstreet as next Commander--to go with Longstreet. He would have listened to Hood, Lee's favorite General and known since Mexico. I believe if they were in Gettysburg without Lee, things would have been far different--they might not have fought there.
Jackson, I think would have problems going into Maryland, as there was a big upset for Jackson with the idea of 'invasion' of another state. He allegedly made this clear at the beginning of a massing of troops of the Provisional Army of Virginia. It is a vow that was broken, if he was ordered to do so--Jackson might have refused such an order and lean on faith and honor as an justification.
Many 'what ifs' indeed. [Smiles]
One thing is for certain, everybody--regardless of Blue or Grey; really respected and admired General Robert E. Lee. I also believe, he reached such heights by his personality and utter control over his emotions, with his sons in battle and in danger, cousins on the Union side as well as Confederacy; the fact that he took responsibility immediately at Gettysburg--his failure and was 'one of them'--a soldier. The brilliancy of tactics--amazing man. One cannot help but admire the 'man.' He carried 'hope' as his sword.
At the closure of the war, Lee retained his aura. General Grant had built his reputation and was appreciated for his generous terms and the respect he gave General Lee. This took off like wildfire throughout the Confederacy; that Grant did not do anything to humiliate but, to give just respect and now--become all Americans again. This was continued by General Chamberlain at the 'surrender of arms.'
I think General Longstreet in accepting surrender of the Union Army, if things had been different, would have been equally dignified.
Jackson, I think would have done anything to humiliate more, a defeated Army. I don't think Jackson saw into the future or looked for it; just immediate.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
A fine post, M.E., resurrecting an interesting "what if." I am compelled, however, to comment on a few points. But first, I have to ramble a bit.
Earlier, I opined that had Lee been killed at Chancellorsville, the war would have been all but over -- given that only Lee was capable of the dexterity required to keep the Yankee hordes from the gates of Richmond. Only Lee was able to manage Jeff Davis--I don't see anyone else on that side with an equivalent talent.
Quote:
What is found with both Jackson and Longstreet--they had troops to whom were very fond of their Commanding officers. Longstreet seemed more 'reachable' and in touch with his men in the lower ranks; whereas Jackson was remote with the exception of his circle.
I'm not so sure that Jackson's troops were very fond of him (his units had a higher rate of desertions than others).
It really comes down to which of the potential replacements had Davis' ear. Jackson was a hero in the Eastern Theater; there would have been much political pressure on Davis to name him. I do not believe Jackson would have been his first choice.
A permanent leader would have to be submitted to the CSA Congress as an appointment would have necessitated a promotion and that would have to be approved by the Congress. I think we're looking at a political melee the likes of which has, fortunately, not been seen on this continent.
I'm convinced that Longstreet would have been the only viable commander. He was solid, cautious, and a sledge-hammer (when the moment to strike arrived). Who had Davis' confidence? Bragg? Polk (gasp)?
Quote:
Jackson, I think would have problems going into Maryland, as there was a big upset for Jackson with the idea of 'invasion' of another state. He allegedly made this clear at the beginning of a massing of troops of the Provisional Army of Virginia. It is a vow that was broken, if he was ordered to do so--Jackson might have refused such an order and lean on faith and honor as an justification.
Believe you've granted a benevolence to Jackson that he didn't have. Early on, Jackson advocated a hard hand (See Grimsley, Hard Hand of War). He was very much into smiting hip and thigh.
It remains a highly debatable "what if." And it centers on "who" would be chosen. I figure Jackson doesn't make the first cut. It would have to be Longstreet. We can be fairly confident it wouldn't be Beauregard or Johnston.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Lee Killed at Chancellorsville...... 
Linear Mode
