What if "Stonewall" Jackson had survived the war and served with Lee

[Cpt. Steinhauer]

Just wondering about Stonewall. he died at Chancellorsville in May 1863. if he had been at Gettysburg and led his forces instaed of Dick Ewell. would he have been futile or sucessful?

[Mr King]

Hello! I see that this was your second post so I take it you're new here. Welcome to the Board. I think there is already a thread on this topic.

But since I didn't post on it, I'll post on here instead. If Stonewall Jackson had lived and returned to command. Then the battle would probably never have taken place in Gettysburg. Jackson and Ewell were two different generals. With Jackson and his swift lightning movement of his troops who were also known as "Jackson's foot cavalry. He was a far better leadership than Ewell.

But if the battle did take place in Gettysburg and Jackson was where Ewell was in the afternoon on July 1, 1863, then he would have pushed his people forward and captured , was it Culps Hill? and/or Cemetary Hill? This would have dramatically altered the Campaign's battle strategies. Had this happened, then I think the confederates would have won the Gettysburg Campaign.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by Mr King

Hello! I see that this was your second post so I take it you're new here. Welcome to the Board. I think there is already a thread on this topic.

But since I didn't post on it, I'll post on here instead. If Stonewall Jackson had lived and returned to command. Then the battle would probably never have taken place in Gettysburg. Jackson and Ewell were two different generals. With Jackson and his swift lightning movement of his troops who were also known as "Jackson's foot cavalry. He was a far better leadership than Ewell.

But if the battle did take place in Gettysburg and Jackson was where Ewell was in the afternoon on July 1, 1863, then he would have pushed his people forward and captured , was it Culps Hill? and/or Cemetary Hill? This would have dramatically altered the Campaign's battle strategies. Had this happened, then I think the confederates would have won the Gettysburg Campaign.

I quite agree with your assessment of Jackson. He had many times proven his ability to move men and equipment efficiently and he had Lee's ear as far as strategy was concerned. I suspect Stonewall could have added some variety to the attack and arranged for it to happen. My gg grandpa Rouse was with the 48th Virginia Infantry attacking Culp's hill. Maybe the Good Lord had held Jackson out of that fight to hasten the end of the war. I guess we'll never know.

[M E Wolf]

Dear Captain Steinhaur,

First, welcome to the forums.

In regard to General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, if he were to survived and lead forces at Gettysburg campaign; I am looking at things leading up to the Chancellorsville, Virginia campaign; in which General Richard Garnett was under charges by General Jackson; to which may or may not have determined his part in "Pickett's Charge."

Further, I highly doubt if General Jackson would have put up with the stunts pulled by General A.P. Hill, and or his sicknesses he suddenly seemed to be inflcted after Chancellorsville; as well as Ewell's failure to take an unoccupied hill. Nor, do I see General Jackson putting up with General JEB Stuart's lack of reports and or intelligence flow back to Headquarters. Jackson's discipline of troops was recognized early on in the Civil War; to which his troops were borrowed for a guest from France; in 1861 shortly after the First Battle of Bull Run/Manassas; the parade held around Munson Hill (near Falls Church, VA). There was no sloppy conduct or performance in his rank and file.

General Lee's two best warriors - Jackson and Longstreet; would have ballanced each other out; Jackson's aggressive attack and Longstreet's agressive defense. This was, in my opinion; the magic recipee of success with Lee's brilliant mind and two generals to which created the harmony; not the fractured and odd number of generals in command; Longstreet, Hill and Ewell; to which majority rules in commanding situations. This is why there is one commanding officer. This balance again; would be demonstrated prior to Chancellorsville; by Longstreet delgating the scouting, intelligence gathering and the like; not putting himself in harms way per se. Whereas, Jackson did everything himself and reverse flowed back to his commanders. This 'balanced' Longstreet and Jackson; giving Lee the two versions to come to a conclusion.

I can only assume, that Jackson's assignment would be that of Longstreet; Longstreet would have been put into his best qualities of defense; where Hill and Ewell would have been perhaps; to which his lead scouts, pioneers, vedettes and pickets may have been more subtle and not entangled with General John Buford's cavalry; which was a probe.

Further, the weight of carrying out Lee's plans; would have been the burden of both Longstreet and Jackson; as has been the case before; and not just on Longstreet's shoulders alone; as Hill and Ewell had already made indications of lacking Jackson's fire and aggressive nature.

It has also been indicated by the writings of Col. Walter H. Taylor; General Lee's aide; General (then Major Moxey Sorrel), General Longstreet's aide; that when the three generals met; it was a time of brilliant planning and cooperation. Further, Longstreet although senior in rank to Jackson; would not use 'seniority' at all; as he was a soldier who knew when the right person to lead a battle was at the head of it. Which to me; shows me Longstreet wasn't in for the glory but, the good of the service, e.g. CSA.

I also got a sense, reading General Longstreet's Manassas to Appomattox; General Moxey Sorrel's Recollections of a Soldier; Longstreet had a great fondness for Jackson and with that--respect. So, I do not see a rival attitude.

Further, I am also seeing Jackson a bit reckless with his agressive style of commanding; to which Longstreet's caution and passive style of commanding, e.g. delegating responsibilities, assigning to the most qualified for that particular mission, etc.; is another harmony of opposites.

Both Longstreet and Jackson had the loyalty of their men and their commands. Where it went unhinged, in my opinion -- the once united corps of Jackson's was divided--between two Generals who lacked the agressive and follow through Jackson had. While staff on down mourned and dwelled on missing what they used to have with Jackson; they should have tried to find what was good in their new commanders and work with the positives and not totally dwell on the negatives.

With the loss of Jackson; Lee found himself with three passive style leadership style Generals. Only when General Gordon finally rose in ranks; did he find a similiar "Jackson." By that time, it was too late.

And, it cannot be dismissed that the Union Army had grown up and wised up as well. Cavalry got better, arms were better, Hancock the superb was in the right place at the right time; Buford had changed his own Cavalry as to be a big challenge to any Cavalry of the CSA; getting rid of nonsense tactics and arms that did not fit the situation any longer.

For me, there are always new lessons to be learned--even 147 years later; to which can apply to today and perhaps -- tomorrow.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[5fish]

Let me throw a wrench into this mix. As it is known, Lee had order his Corp. Commanders to avoid getting into an engagement with ant large union force.

What Gen. Jackson have disregarded Lee directive and engage the union 1st and 11th corp north side of Gettysburg or kept his Corp moving towards Cashtown...

Before we talk about Gen. Jackson clearing the high ground, we must figure if Gen, Jackson would go against Lee's directive....


Note: No one else was following orders very well during this campaign into the north. Maybe, Gen. Jackson would no have follow orders well either. I think there was something in the water that cause this inability of Lee's general to follow orders well....

[timewalker]

5fish, you hit on one of the most important aspects of this what-if. Practically everyone writes, "What if Jackson had been at Gettysburg" and then assumes that everything else would have unfolded exactly the same, but with Jackson in the place of Ewell and Hill. But simply having Jackson in command when the AoNV crossed the Potomac completely changes the dynamics of the campaign. With Jackson in command, the troops would no doubt have marched faster and perhaps even by a different route. Maybe even have reached Harrisburg before the Federal army comes up.

In other words, with Jackson in command of one of the two corps, I do not think there is any Gettysburg at all and the possible iterations of what would have happened are too vast to calculate.

Kind of whimply answer, I know.

[Cpt. Steinhauer]

Originally Posted by Mr King

Hello! I see that this was your second post so I take it you're new here. Welcome to the Board. I think there is already a thread on this topic.

But since I didn't post on it, I'll post on here instead. If Stonewall Jackson had lived and returned to command. Then the battle would probably never have taken place in Gettysburg. Jackson and Ewell were two different generals. With Jackson and his swift lightning movement of his troops who were also known as "Jackson's foot cavalry. He was a far better leadership than Ewell.

But if the battle did take place in Gettysburg and Jackson was where Ewell was in the afternoon on July 1, 1863, then he would have pushed his people forward and captured , was it Culps Hill? and/or Cemetary Hill? This would have dramatically altered the Campaign's battle strategies. Had this happened, then I think the confederates would have won the Gettysburg Campaign.

you say if Jackson had been alive, Gettysburg wouldn't have happen. the Union army was close behind Lee. there would've been a battle soon. where would you predict it would be.

yes Jackson was successful with his Foot Calvary. Ewell is a totally different general to Jackson. ewell isn't as tough as Jackson. at clups hill, he stopped the attack, as would jackson would keep on going. his men look toward him as a hero. they would've done better under jackson than ewell.

[PvtClewell]

To me, the question would be which Jackson are we talking about? The one who fell asleep for an hour at White Oak Swamp, the one who nearly lost Cedar Mountain (while trying unsuccessfully to pull his rusted sword out of its scabbard), the one who left a gap uncovered at Fredericksburg, or the one who conducted the Valley campaign, fought brilliantly at Second Manassas, and conducted the flank march at Chancellorsville? There's too many variables to say with any certainty what Jackson would have done ay Gettysburg. Depends which Jackson shows up. There are no guarantees he'd have done anything we might suggest based on his previous performances. Anyway, he is still under Lee's command, and Lee wasn't particularly at his best in the Gettysburg campaign.

[diddyriddick]

"To me, the question would be which Jackson are we talking about? The one who fell asleep for an hour at White Oak Swamp, the one who nearly lost Cedar Mountain (while trying unsuccessfully to pull his rusted sword out of its scabbard), the one who left a gap uncovered at Fredericksburg, or the one who conducted the Valley campaign, fought brilliantly at Second Manassas, and conducted the flank march at Chancellorsville?"

Well said, Pvt! As a corps commander, Jacksons reputation is based largely on Chancellorsville. And had Hooker fulfilled his original plans there instead of getting cold feet, it wouldn't have mattered; Lee would have been destroyed.

[Cpt. Steinhauer]

Originally Posted by PvtClewell

To me, the question would be which Jackson are we talking about? The one who fell asleep for an hour at White Oak Swamp, the one who nearly lost Cedar Mountain (while trying unsuccessfully to pull his rusted sword out of its scabbard), the one who left a gap uncovered at Fredericksburg, or the one who conducted the Valley campaign, fought brilliantly at Second Manassas, and conducted the flank march at Chancellorsville? There's too many variables to say with any certainty what Jackson would have done ay Gettysburg. Depends which Jackson shows up. There are no guarantees he'd have done anything we might suggest based on his previous performances. Anyway, he is still under Lee's command, and Lee wasn't particularly at his best in the Gettysburg campaign.

i'm talking about Stonewall Jackson. the swift general. the jackson that fell that Chancellorsville.