Stonewall Jackson on A.S. Johnston

I agree it was his first battle and he certainly would have learned from it. And what a first battle! It involved over 100,000 men. Lee, Jackson, and Grant all failed in their first battles and they were piddling affairs in comparison.

Beauregard formulated the stacked corps approach at Shiloh. Johnston's plan was to have the corps attack side by side. No one really knows why Beauregard's plan was implemented. Maybe because Jordan was the one who drafted up the orders and he was Beauregard's staff. Everyone always comments about the stacked corps being a problem but I wonder if it really made much of a difference. The terrain at Shiloh was so wooded that any army organisation would have broken down pretty quickly into bands of disorganised men shooting at one another. Plus it was one of the first battles of the war, and the inexperience of all involved would have added to the chaos anyway. I don't think the stacked corps vs. arrayed corps had that much of a difference. The crucial factor was the delay in the attack. If it had happened on the 5th or even earlier as Johnston had planned then Buell would not have been close enough to support Grant and turn the tide of the battle.

I don't fault Johnston for being at the front of the lines. His men had no experience and needed direction. Beauregard also exposed himself to direct fire on day two, Grant was almost killed, and Sherman was peppered with bullets. Another army commander, Lyon, was killed leading his men at Wilson's Creek in 1861. In such an early battle as Shiloh, Johnston probably needed to be at the front or the men and officers would milled around aimlessly.

Upton used the stacked offense at Spotsylvania, Grant used it at the Petersburg breakout.
Some learned.
 
Upton used the stacked offense at Spotsylvania, Grant used it at the Petersburg breakout.
Some learned.

The critical difference was that Upton's attack consisted only of units from his own brigade; Grant's enlargement on May 12 extended to Hancock's entire Second Corps. Johnston's included FOUR different corps with no overall commanders other than himself and Beauregard, leading to a command control nightmare as small units like regiments, batteries, and even brigades found themselves being ordered about by superiors they didn't know or know if they should obey. This was in large part responsible for some of the balking mentioned earlier. Upton and Hancock had NO such problems directing their own men, to whom they were well-known.
 
The critical difference was that Upton's attack consisted only of units from his own brigade; Grant's enlargement on May 12 extended to Hancock's entire Second Corps. Johnston's included FOUR different corps with no overall commanders other than himself and Beauregard, leading to a command control nightmare as small units like regiments, batteries, and even brigades found themselves being ordered about by superiors they didn't know or know if they should obey. This was in large part responsible for some of the balking mentioned earlier. Upton and Hancock had NO such problems directing their own men, to whom they were well-known.


True about the difference. Both were stacked offenses.
 
IMO, Jackson's knowledge of A. S. Johnston come from hearsay (and the media). I always wondered if A. S. Johnston was overrated. The surprise attack at Shiloh was brilliantly conceived and poorly executed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ole
While I don't think A S Johnston was the savior of the South, I think he was a darn good soldier. Davis, who did worship the ground Johnston walked on, just gave him the whole load and said, "Protect!" then went on to the eastern theater. It was a gi-normous department! And there was a lot going on in every corner of it. Johnston was majorly handicapped right out the gate. He was immediately dumbfounded by the insubordination and unhappy independence of several of his officers and expressed, on more than one occasion and in different words, that unless people started pulling together the ship was going down! Of course, being the captain he'd be the guy going down with it even if it wasn't his fault. He did well keeping the Union guessing - that was a brilliant strategy to make up for fewer numbers and less supplies. He had very little, really, to supply the men he had. But in the end, he's one of those promising officers we'll never really know about. I always have a little bit of a soft place for the men who were killed the first couple years who might have won the war sooner than Grant did....or not!

Jackson's statement, in the OP, is curious but the last thing he had heard about Shiloh was Beauregard's announcement of victory and Johnston's death. Next day, as we know, was Grant's day to whip 'em. Part of what Jackson was sent by Lee to do in the Valley was designed to alleviate some of the pressure on A S Johnston. I may be mistaken, but I believe Jackson did not have a high opinion of Johnston's successor, Beauregard.
 
Would it be safe to say that after Johnston's death that the war in the west was doomed? I've read about Braxton Bragg at Chickamauga. It appears he only won that battle because of Longstreet's Corp.
I admit a certain level of ignorance to the western campaign but, what I have read most large scale battles in the west ended up as Union victories.
I am more knowledgeable of the eastern campaigns. If I am wrong in my assumption please forgive.
 
Would it be safe to say that after Johnston's death that the war in the west was doomed? I've read about Braxton Bragg at Chickamauga. It appears he only won that battle because of Longstreet's Corp.
I admit a certain level of ignorance to the western campaign but, what I have read most large scale battles in the west ended up as Union victories.
I am more knowledgeable of the eastern campaigns. If I am wrong in my assumption please forgive.


Well, the war in the west went sour for the Confederacy for many more reasons than simply Johnston's death. However the main reason for the South's defeat in the west can be attributed to poor generals. Whether Johnston would have grown into a commander of such a caliber to hold back the blue tide is debatable. He would likely have done much better than Bragg or Hood or the other Johnston did.
 
This is where I put a lot of blame for the losses in the West on Davis. He gave A S Johnston a staggering load and despised Stonewall Jackson. (Who despised him right back!) He believed Johnston somehow had superhuman powers to secure the western Confederacy with toothpicks and slingshots, and Jackson was a tetched blue light preacher who needed a podium not a cannon. Poor Lee didn't know this when he introduced them and was surprised when they glared at each other. "Why, President Davis, this is our Stonewall Jackson!" Yeah, right... Jackson - uh-huh, right... You could have put ice cube trays on their shoulders and they would have froze hard as rocks in two seconds!
 
Well, the war in the west went sour for the Confederacy for many more reasons than simply Johnston's death. However the main reason for the South's defeat in the west can be attributed to poor generals. Whether Johnston would have grown into a commander of such a caliber to hold back the blue tide is debatable. He would likely have done much better than Bragg or Hood or the other Johnston did.
I know that Bragg wasn't popular among his men, Sherman was delighted to learn Joe Johnson was replaced by Hood. (finally come out from defensive positions and fight).
Which Generals in particular would catch "most" of the blame?
So far the only Generals That I have read about who where anywhere near effective were Cleburne, and Forrest.
 
I think many of the reasons the war in this in the West was hard on South was because of the rivers that provided an easy avenue for invasion and supply the northern army. Then it was the generalship, particularly those of a political bend, who were found lacking. Then the strategic dogma that Davis had chosen in defending every inch of ground proved simply impractical. Still if Johnston and of lost at Shiloh he probably would've been the one replaced because of public outrage. Still I believe if he had of survived his wound we would've seen him on a Civil War Battlefield again. Like other generals he would have been recycled back into command, as in the case of Lee, Joe Johnston & Beauregard. But alas the "what if's" remain unanswered...
 
Nearly all of what I had to say has been said, but I still have one.

Johnston's biggest booboo was letting Beauregard command. Johnston's strategy was to peel the Yanks away from the river and push them into the swamp. Sounds reasonable. However, his plan was replaced with a grandiose Napoleonic movement resembling a Keystone Kops Klip.
 
Nearly all of what I had to say has been said, but I still have one.

Johnston's biggest booboo was letting Beauregard command. Johnston's strategy was to peel the Yanks away from the river and push them into the swamp. Sounds reasonable. However, his plan was replaced with a grandiose Napoleonic movement resembling a Keystone Kops Klip.

That plan very likely would have worked - it would have been as successful as Jackson's flank attack at Chancellorsville. The second big goof was Beauregard's not telling anybody where he was. Forrest confirmed beyond any shadow of a doubt that Buell had arrived but he couldn't find anybody to tell it to! He spent half the night trying to find the boss man. Johnston didn't mess up; he tripped over Beauregard.

Incidentally, Jackson didn't think much of Napoleon. Not only was the Corsican an atheist and had almost become a Moslem (they had a certain requirement he didn't feel committed enough to follow...ahem!), but he didn't think Napoleon was a great general. Waterloo was the only battlefield he visited and later when he was asked why he thought Napoleon lost that battle, Jackson promptly replied, "Because God stopped him right there!"
 
It's a shame Jackson never got the nod for command in the west. Jackson with Cleburne and Hood as corp commanders!

I am sure Jackson would have been given an "Official" version of what happened, and he seems to be a man that wouldn't have spoken ill of someone even if he thought it.

The big thing about the war in the west to me is this: If ASJ had lived odds say he would have been better than Bragg, Beauregard, and Hood. I mean, if he wasn't a Jackson or Lee, he might have been a Longstreet or Thomas. I'd take solid and reliable over Bragg any day.

Jim
 
If Jackson was given command in the west, I wonder how he would have gotten along with Forrest? I bet that would have been an interesting meeting. Than again, They probably would have gotten along famously.
 
If Jackson was given command in the west, I wonder how he would have gotten along with Forrest? I bet that would have been an interesting meeting. Than again, They probably would have gotten along famously.

Forrest would have supplied Jackson with great real time intelligence and been able to execute any order Jackson gave. However, I have no doubt whatsoever Jackson would have had him arrested within a week!
 
Forrest would have supplied Jackson with great real time intelligence and been able to execute any order Jackson gave. However, I have no doubt whatsoever Jackson would have had him arrested within a week!

At which point we would have a duel/brawl between Jackson and Forrest. I'm taking 5 to 1 odds on Jackson.
 
At which point we would have a duel/brawl between Jackson and Forrest. I'm taking 5 to 1 odds on Jackson.

I'll take that bet! At one time Jackson had all his lieutenants in the pokey and Lee had to let them out - no commanders. Jackson was challenged to some duels, but never fought one. He challenged at least once but his Christianity took hold. "I'll fight you, sir! I'll fight you! No...no, I won't, sir. I won't!"
 
I'll take that bet! At one time Jackson had all his lieutenants in the pokey and Lee had to let them out - no commanders. Jackson was challenged to some duels, but never fought one. He challenged at least once but his Christianity took hold. "I'll fight you, sir! I'll fight you! No...no, I won't, sir. I won't!"


Yeah, but in a fight, you always bet on the crazy guy. :O o:
 
There is a fun novel called Stonewall Goes West, where Jackson survives his wounding and goes on to replace Bragg as the Army of Tennessee's commander.

I mention it because of the connection, since Jackson effectively becomes Johnston's successor.

Stonewall Jackson commented on the death of A.S. Johnston in a letter to his wife on April 11, 1862...

"God gave us a glorious victory in the Southwest (at Shiloh), but the loss of the great Albert Sidney Johnston is to be mourned. I do not remember having ever felt so sad at the death of a man whom I had never seen..."

In a little more than a year, Jackson would join Johnston and thousands of others as martyrs to their countries. I wonder how the course of the war would have altered if Jackson and Johnston had survived.



View attachment 21097 View attachment 21098
 
Back
Top