Extra Dossier: Stonewall Jackson

[rickvox79]

The "What If" of Stonewall Jackson being alive at Gettysburg has been posed a million times, it seems, over the years but why not one more thread on it! Civil War Monitor asked a panel of historians their thoughts on Stonewall Jackson, one question they asked that they didn't have enough room for in their magazine was the often asked "What if Stonewall would have been at Gettysburg" question. The link below has brief responses from that panel of historians on that question:

http://civilwarmonitor.com/analysis/extra-dossier-stonewall-jackson

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

I think the answer would have been "Yes" the battle would have been different. I think Jackson would have taken Culp Hill on the first day and held the line and maybe moved on toward Cemetery Ridge.

The second factor would have been that Lee would have been more aggressive than he was. He would have allowed A.P. Hill's leading men to not just seek out the town and not force a general engagement. This pause caused the Union army to gain a solid foothold on Cemetery Ridge. Well... Buford and Reynolds doing a great job of falling back.

Third factor I think, is the entire campaign would have been different. Lee plans would have been conversed and analyze with Jackson as him trusting him for insight. You have to remember this was the first time Lee was going about leading two new Corp commanders, A.P. Hill, and Richard Ewell. Lee wasn't all that sure of their command, he respected them both and admired their qualities but to see them handle themselves as Corp commanders in battle that was the unknown to him.

Lee would have acted braver, more decisive, and more aggressive with Jackson at his side. I do not think "just" Jackson would have made the difference it goes beyond just what his troops could have accomplished but rather how Lee was to orchestrate this campaign with his trusted Jackson, that would have made a difference.

 

[Jamieva]

I think the answer would have been "Yes" the battle would have been different. I think Jackson would have taken Culp Hill on the first day and held the line and maybe moved on toward Cemetery Ridge.

The second factor would have been that Lee would have been more aggressive than he was. He would have allowed A.P. Hill's leading men to not just seek out the town and not force a general engagement. This pause caused the Union army to gain a solid foothold on Cemetery Ridge. Well... Buford and Reynolds doing a great job of falling back.

Third factor I think, is the entire campaign would have been different. Lee plans would have been conversed and analyze with Jackson as him trusting him for insight. You have to remember this was the first time Lee was going about leading two new Corp commanders, A.P. Hill, and Richard Ewell. Lee wasn't all that sure of their command, he respected them both and admired their qualities but to see them handle themselves as Corp commanders in battle that was the unknown to him.

Lee would have acted braver, more decisive, and more aggressive with Jackson at his side. I do not think "just" Jackson would have made the difference it goes beyond just what his troops could have accomplished but rather how Lee was to orchestrate this campaign with his trusted Jackson, that would have made a difference.

Lee attacked for 3 straight days how could you ask him to be even more aggressive?

Even with Jackson around he doesn't have Stuart telling him where and in what numbers the AotP is.

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

Lee attacked very well defended areas for two of those days. But Lee was not aggressive on July 1st not until he knew a battle was going to happen and it wasn't going to be a simple skirmish for a town. (Gettysburg). The being aggressive is saying that Lee sent orders to not be caught up in a general engagemnt on July 1st.

The "What if's "could even reach as far as to Lee not needing Stuart to be out of communications. Again I point to Factor 3, Lee would have brought a different plan if Jackson were there I do believe.

Lee felt he needed more information and needed it while his army was trodden over enemy soil. Maybe Lee felt uneasy and he was not allowing his new Corp commander the opportunity to advance far out in front enough to not have a need for Stuart to sweep around the Union army.

Jackson would have questioned this and maybe suggested something way different than to send the cavalry away….who knows…….. I just think Lee was blind and he didn't have his best commander that he could lean on to throw his ideas and thoughts around.

Lee trusted Jackson very much. He trusted him in command when Lee was not near him as in the Valley Campaign. Lee trusted Jackson on splitting the army and marching around the Union right at Chancellorsville. Lee had not found that trust in Ewell, Hill or even Longstreet. Longstreet tried to tell Lee that attacking was not a favorable option but yet……… Lee allowed himself to decide even with opposition. I never read or heard of a Jackson/Lee disagreement on tactics, they worked out the best plan between them…so I think this too would have happened on July 1st and beyond.