Stonewall Jackson

[johnnydef47]

I am almost afraid to ask this question because I know there is no real answer but assuming that Jackson was one of if not the best general of the war, (another subject I know) I have heard it said (many times among southern sympathizers) that had he lived the war would have turned out differently. I am curious if anyone, and I know its speculation, has any real thought on how this may have been

 

[Caswell Ranger]

Huh wuz a lot holier and meaner and felt good about it.

 

[Caswell Ranger]

Huh wuz a lot holier and meaner and felt good about it.

 

[Caswell Ranger]

He was a real bastard, but he was our bastard. That's why we love him.

 

[Stony]

Wrong question and you will soon find out.

 

[johnnydef47]

I am sure it is but I cant help but wonder what people think about it

 

[brass napoleon]

Andrew Jackson?

 

[Elennsar]

I'm going to put my vote down for "the war ends the same way". The details may vary - we'd have to get in depth to compare possible specifics, not just say "He has 2nd Corps at Gettysburg" - but he doesn't have some special gift that makes me think his tactical decisions will be better than Ewell's and Hill the Sickly (as distinct from Hill the Snarky, aka Daniel Harvey).

 

[johnnydef47]

I tend to agree. I have always like Jackson but I just cant think of a specific event where his being there would have made some huge difference in the end. maybe changed a battle or two but not the war

 

[NedBaldwin]

I am almost afraid to ask this question because I know there is no real answer but assuming that Jackson was one of if not the best general of the war, (another subject I know) I have heard it said (many times among southern sympathizers) that had he lived the war would have turned out differently. I am curious if anyone, and I know its speculation, has any real thought on how this may have been

Southern sympathizers are prone to look for alternatives that might have changed the outcome. By dying in the first half of the war, Jackson leaves open a lot of speculation. By giving the impression of talent, this speculation takes on a grander scale. But its just wishful thinking.

 

[Elennsar]

Southern sympathizers are prone to look for alternatives that might have changed the outcome. By dying in the first half of the war, Jackson leaves open a lot of speculation. By giving the impression of talent, this speculation takes on a grander scale. But its just wishful thinking.

This is purely for the sake of getting you to elaborate, not to be argumentative:

1) Impression of talent?

2) Wishful thinking about Jackson, or just as a "What ifs are no more than that" in general?

 

[Caswell Ranger]

I can only speculate, (choke) reluctant to use that word, Jackson would have put a wet towel over Lee at Gettysburg, but let's help the OP's question.

 

[NedBaldwin]

1) Impression of talent?

To me, the standard slogans (ie "one of if not the best general of the war") is much more myth than reality.

2) Wishful thinking about Jackson, or just as a "What ifs are no more than that" in general?

[/QUOTE]
As you said in the earlier post, "the war ends the same way". Its wishful thinking that this one individual is going to change the outcome

 

[Sons of Liberty]

Jackson had his moments of brilliance, of this there is no doubt, but I doubt if it would've made one bit of difference. The South still had too many other things going against it. (Men, material, etc.) My vote would also be no.

 

[Elennsar]

To me, the standard slogans (ie "one of if not the best general of the war") is much more myth than reality.

As you said in the earlier post, "the war ends the same way". Its wishful thinking that this one individual is going to change the outcome

Well, "one individual" is one of the senior officers in one of the strongest armies of the Confederacy. That's not just a random pebble.

 

[Rebforever]

I think Jackson would have done more the 1st day than Ewell did. IMO
And I also believe he would have influence Longstreet to do better.

 

[BillO]

I think Jackson would have done more the 1st day than Ewell did. IMO
And I also believe he would have influence Longstreet to do better.

IMO he would have made the biggest difference on the second day. He would have used all his troops. There wouldn't have been a third day.

 

[johnnydef47]

I think a good point on the matter is the series of book that newt Gingrich wrote. It was an alternate history of the war with no crazy twist all very strong possibilities and (spoiler alert) the war pretty much ends the same way

 

[E_just_E]

The only thing that could had changed the outcome of that war after Jackson's death, did not involve any of the Confederate Infantry or Artillery. It involved a light bulb that flashed in JEB Stuart's mind on June 28th, 1863, which he entertained, but eventually let go because he followed Lee's orders. Which is pretty ironic, since Stuart was practically crucified for following those orders during the Gettysburg Campaign, and could probably single-highhandedly won the war, had he not done so. But this is another long discussion.

The CSA was pretty much on life support when Jackson died. If he lived, could he have captured Harrisburg? I doubt it. If not he could had slightly prolonged the life support. Maybe.

 

[Billy Yank]

Far too much emphasis is placed on the greatness of Lee & Jackson, in my opinion. It is the failures of Little Mac, Burnside & Hooker that elevated Lee & Jackson. Lincoln knew this. Had U.S. Grant entered the fray earlier, the war would have been shorter, fewer lives would have been lost, and Lee & Jackson would have been relegated to historical mediocrity. Consider inserting Grant at 2nd. Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Antietam and Chancellorsville.