Death of Jackson vs. Death of Stuart. Which loss was more detrimental to the Confederacy?

Pete Longstreet

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Location
Hartford, CT
Like the title states, which loss was a bigger blow to the Confederacy. Obviously one was an infantry commander and the other calvary, but based on what they accomplished in their respected positions, which general was more vital to the South....

What do you CWT members think? And what did any soldiers of that time period think?

Longstreet thought that the loss of Jackson was a "great misfortune" and that they "faced a future bereft of much of it's hopefulness." But said of the death of Stuart "his loss was possibly a greater loss to the Confederate army than that of the swift moving Jackson"
 
Both were capable leaders. Stuart, the somewhat flamboyant and dashing cavalier versus the pious and somewhat rigid corps commander, Jackson who studied and relied on biblical tactics. Tough choice, but I have to come down on the side of Jackson. We will always wonder how the Battle of Gettysburg would have turned out if Jackson had been in command of his corps instead of Ewell. It is likely that Jackson would have failed as a cavalry commander, but he excelled as an infantry commander and the infantry decided most all of the Civil War battles. Moreover, Lee had great confidence in Jackson. Jackson, in turn had the ability to understand exactly what Lee expected of him. The two worked very well together each having confidence in the abilities of the other.
 
Vote Here:
The question posed in this thread raises an interesting issue. Had he lived, would Jackson have continued to enhance his reputation or would it remain stable or even diminished as a result of the falling prospects of the Confederacy? Jackson's passing occurred at the height of his fame, and his renown was enshrined forevermore, even to the extent that serious flaws in his leadership (such as his role during the Seven Days Battles) have been glossed over in public perception.
I think Jackson’s godlike legacy is probably because of when he died and how he died. His death was at the high point of the Confederacy. If he had lived, I doubt his reputation would have remained as it has. A few reasons... within that 2 year period until Appomattox, I'm sure he would have made a mistake or two, and also the collapse of the Confederacy would have probably diminished his legacy a bit. Who knows... maybe he would have even taken the blame for the collapse... since Lee's reputation was untouchable.
 
Vote Here:
Pete,

It's an interesting question to ponder. Without a doubt Stuart was a major player and other than being embarrassed at Brandy Station as well as his curiously poor performance in the Pennsylvania invasion his record was very solid. Stuart's ride around the AOP during McClellan's Peninsula Campaign gave Lee enormously valuable intelligence that helped to eliminate the real jeopardy that Richmond was facing at the time. But I will cast my vote for Jackson for many of the reasons that other members have already posted. We will never know how things would have turned out had Jackson lived but considering the Confederate momentum after Chancellorsville as well as Jackson's natural aggressiveness it would be hard to imagine that he would not have outperformed Richard Ewell at Gettysburg.

Bill
 
Vote Here:
I honestly could argue this both ways. On the one hand, Jackson was a fine corps commander who was sorely missed after Chancellorsville (although I believe that Ewell was not much of a drop-off from Jackson's performances which could be up and down) although Ewell stepped ably into the vacancy while Hill faltered due to his ill health. In Stuart, Lee lost probably the best pure cavalry officer that the war produced (but again, a very capable officer named Wade Hampton stepped up after Stuart's death and became an excellent cavalry commander in his own right).

Ryan
 
Vote Here:
Just by juxtaposing the death of one with the other; supposing Stuart had been killed at Chancellorsville and Jackson at Yellow Tavern. Stuart's loss in May of 1863 would have stung for a time, but again as others have mentioned, it could be overcome. And with Jackson's driving force and push against all odds by June of 1864 would have moved the confederacy into a much more advantageous position.
Lubliner.
 
Vote Here:
That was precisely Lee's strength and weakness. Dealing with a Jackson, who could effectively run with the ball given only broad directions, meshed with Lee's preference for giving his subordinate commanders much leeway. But at the same time, this did not necessarily work with Stuart. Lee's somewhat confused order to Stuart at the start of the Gettysburg campaign was interpreted by Stuart in a manner that was probably at odds with Lee's thinking. But that was not the fault of Stuart, who understood his instructions as giving him the flexibility of selecting a route to link up with Ewell's right flank that was not necessarily consistent with Lee's thinking. In that case, Lee would have been better served if he had spelled out his intentions more definitvely.
Did Lee maintain contact with his separate corps as they moved into Pa? How is it that Stuart was the only one to have "interpreted" Lee's thinking in the way that none of the other commanders did? Then this battle came upon both armies in a manner that neither armies were prepared in advance.What was Stuart doing prior to this ,was not the calvary's main duty to cover the flanks and to scout for the movements of other armies.? Would one agree that the main error from the start from Va. was a lack of communication among the corps to Lee and that from Lee to his commanders? Did Lee really need to bring his entire army into a region that none at traveled? Early went very close to Washington with a much smaller force.If I fault Lee for anything is that he risked the Confederacy on this move and the dice came up "snake eyes". This was an invasion on to unfamiliar ground . and Stuart should have been near.
 
Vote Here:
I think Jackson’s godlike legacy is probably because of when he died and how he died. His death was at the high point of the Confederacy. If he had lived, I doubt his reputation would have remained as it has. A few reasons... within that 2 year period until Appomattox, I'm sure he would have made a mistake or two, and also the collapse of the Confederacy would have probably diminished his legacy a bit. Who knows... maybe he would have even taken the blame for the collapse... since Lee's reputation was untouchable.
You pose an interesting question. We can speculate and offer opinions, but we will never really know, Jackson suffered a wound that would prove mortal at the battle of Chancellorsville. Having had his arm amputated, he developed pneumonia, for which there was no effective treatment. I suspect he would have remained Lee's most trusted subordinate, however his reputation would have diminished, primarily because Lee was viewed as infallible. Any failures would have been blamed on subordinates, including Jackson. As Confederate fortunes flagged, so too would reputations for all but the venerated Lee. To be sure, like all great men, Jackson had his flaws and well known peculiarities. Those aside, I suspect the blame for any error he made or setback he suffered by following orders from Lee, would have attached to Stonewall and not the sainted Lee.
 
Vote Here:
I think Jackson's death had a much larger impact on the confederacy than Stuart's. While I like Stuart and he had a great career and record, his death came later and after the chance for victory had passed. Also, Hampton was not much, if any, of a drop off in talent as a replacement. Jackson simply could not be replaced nor was a suitable replacement ever found throughout the duration of the war. The Jackson/Longstreet team under Lee forged victory after victory and they had developed a chemistry that was never matched on either side. All anyone has to do is look at the very next major battle, Gettysburg, to see just how sorely mighty Stonewall was missed. Til my dying day, I will believe that had Jackson been with his corps on the first day he would have taken the high ground at Gettysburg and there would never have been a Pickett's Charge and the resulting defeat. The south most likely would not have won the war but I am certain many things would have been different had Jackson survived.
 
Vote Here:
Did Lee maintain contact with his separate corps as they moved into Pa? How is it that Stuart was the only one to have "interpreted" Lee's thinking in the way that none of the other commanders did? Then this battle came upon both armies in a manner that neither armies were prepared in advance.What was Stuart doing prior to this ,was not the calvary's main duty to cover the flanks and to scout for the movements of other armies.? Would one agree that the main error from the start from Va. was a lack of communication among the corps to Lee and that from Lee to his commanders? Did Lee really need to bring his entire army into a region that none at traveled? Early went very close to Washington with a much smaller force.If I fault Lee for anything is that he risked the Confederacy on this move and the dice came up "snake eyes". This was an invasion on to unfamiliar ground . and Stuart should have been near.

Lee's instructions to Stuart required him to protect Ewell's right flank, but was unclear as to the chosen route. Stuart had left behind I believe it was 2 brigades to scout for Lee. Overall, I agree that Lee bears much responsibility for the failure of the Gettysburg incursion. Lee was often lackadaisical about issuing clear instructions to his commanders. On the larger issue, the failure of Lee's aggressive movement northwards only diminished the fighting capacity of the ANV, and spelled the ultimate end of the Confederacy.
 
Vote Here:
The question needs to be further refined. Certainly the times of their deaths is important. IMO Jacksons death affected the battle of Gettysburg more than the absence of Stuart there.

Lees genius during the Seven Days, was dependent more on Stuarts Ride Around the AoP, than Jacksons late arrival in the battle itself, i.e., Lees strategy, upon which his tactical use of Jackson, was dependent upon the strategic information supplied by Stuart. Which was more important, is dependent upon what the question is trying to resolve, strategic or tactical.

I think most southerners at the time and later believed that Jacksons death lost the confederacys war for independence.
 
Vote Here:
That was precisely Lee's strength and weakness. Dealing with a Jackson, who could effectively run with the ball given only broad directions, meshed with Lee's preference for giving his subordinate commanders much leeway. But at the same time, this did not necessarily work with Stuart. Lee's somewhat confused order to Stuart at the start of the Gettysburg campaign was interpreted by Stuart in a manner that was probably at odds with Lee's thinking. But that was not the fault of Stuart, who understood his instructions as giving him the flexibility of selecting a route to link up with Ewell's right flank that was not necessarily consistent with Lee's thinking. In that case, Lee would have been better served if he had spelled out his intentions more definitvely.
As you stated, Lee gave much trust in his subordinates, sometimes at a fault. For example, Ewell on the first day, giving orders to take the hill "if practicable". Or to Stuart on his ride around the army. Although on July 3rd, he was very clear about his orders. Like previously addressed, that's why the team of Lee, Jackson and Longstreet worked. Remove any one of them, and the machine begins to stall and lose momentum.
 
Vote Here:
Did Lee maintain contact with his separate corps as they moved into Pa? How is it that Stuart was the only one to have "interpreted" Lee's thinking in the way that none of the other commanders did? Then this battle came upon both armies in a manner that neither armies were prepared in advance.What was Stuart doing prior to this ,was not the calvary's main duty to cover the flanks and to scout for the movements of other armies.? Would one agree that the main error from the start from Va. was a lack of communication among the corps to Lee and that from Lee to his commanders? Did Lee really need to bring his entire army into a region that none at traveled? Early went very close to Washington with a much smaller force.If I fault Lee for anything is that he risked the Confederacy on this move and the dice came up "snake eyes". This was an invasion on to unfamiliar ground . and Stuart should have been near.
One of the issues with the Stuart Gettysburg ride, was his other rides around the armies took only 3-4 days, respectively. But during those rides, the Army of the Potomac was stationary. At Gettysburg, the AoP was moving and thus created greater distance for Stuart to cover. I believe he was gone for about 8 days during the Gettysburg ride, which proved about fatal. You make some good points on the breakdown of communication.
 
Vote Here:
I would say General Jackson if he had survived I think he would have kept the war in the south they would have never gone to Gettysburg. Kept it in around Richmond and Petersburg. But even then I think Grant would have come around from the west go south and the rear of Jackson and Lee and surrounded them with the whole entire army.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top