Stonewall Jackson

[E_just_E]

Consider inserting Grant at 2nd. Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Antietam and Chancellorsville.

I'd argue that the War was won in the West. Take Grant from there, keep Halleck and it could had been worse for the Union

 

[Billy Yank]

I'd argue that the War was won in the West. Take Grant from there, keep Halleck and it could had been worse for the Union

Insert Gen. Geo. H. Thomas, the Rock of Chickamauga, Sledge of Nashville.

 

[E_just_E]

Insert Gen. Geo. H. Thomas, the Rock of Chickamauga, Sledge of Nashville.

Slow Trot Thomas?

 

[Billy Yank]

Slow Trot Thomas?

Yes, Thomas did have, "the slows," but don't forget Lee had a few derogatory nicknames, too, viz., Granny Lee & King of Spades.

 

[Henry Whitworth]

I dunno. What if he was killed sooner? Jackson certainly never shied from the fire zone. What if he was killed in Mexico? Or what if Lee got lost scouting for Scott outside of Mexico City and got saved by a beautiful woman with a gourd full of water and he wound up settling down and raising a bunch of cute little ninos in Puerto Vallarta?

 

[Elennsar]

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.

If we insert Grant, are we just throwing him in Pope's place (say) and scrambling to make sense of how he would interact with all those individuals in the Union army from August 28 on, or does he get to do things differently from before Pope has worn out his cavalry and misdeployed his infantry?

And I'm really not convinced of Grant as a supergenius for war who could smash aside Lee and Jackson like that.

Antietam? Sure. Chancellorsville? We know how Grant handled that sort of thing. Fredericksburg doesn't really play to him being better than Burnside if the only difference is who has the army on that terrible day.


But my real question is: As someone who voted against Jackson changing the war's course, why is it that he's treated as entirely irrelevant? The "The Confederacy was doomed and could not win the war." theory goes beyond his skills or lack of or Grant's skills, after all.

 

[Billy Yank]

If we insert Grant, are we just throwing him in Pope's place (say) and scrambling to make sense of how he would interact with all those individuals in the Union army from August 28 on, or does he get to do things differently from before Pope has worn out his cavalry and misdeployed his infantry?

And I'm really not convinced of Grant as a supergenius for war who could smash aside Lee and Jackson like that.

Antietam? Sure. Chancellorsville? We know how Grant handled that sort of thing. Fredericksburg doesn't really play to him being better than Burnside if the only difference is who has the army on that terrible day.


But my real question is: As someone who voted against Jackson changing the war's course, why is it that he's treated as entirely irrelevant? The "The Confederacy was doomed and could not win the war." theory goes beyond his skills or lack of or Grant's skills, after all.

Excellent points, Col. Elennsar. Despite my conviction that Grant was a "supergenius," my reasoning has more to do with him, by insertion, not making the same documented blunders attributable to Gen'ls. MacClellan, Burnside & Hooker. I think this collection of generals handed several key victories to Lee & Jackson which enhanced these Confederate leaders' reputations. As for poor Pope, despite his arrogance, he didn't deserve being left out to dry by MacClellan.

 

[Jamieva]

if you put Grant in Pope or Mac's spot in mid 62 he still has a roster of bad corps commanders to deal with. Don't forget by the time Grant came east in 64 the AotP had the best officer corps it had for the entire war at that point.

 

[Elennsar]

Sgt Billy Yank: Well, if you want to argue he was, I will happily take you up on a "What if Grant goes east instead of Pope" thread at any time you please (though I might have to get around to reading Return to Bull Run to be able to add anything useful to the discussion!)- I think he had a lot going for him, but "supergenius" is a status I reserve for people whose intelligence is so absolutely amazing that I don't understand half of what they're saying and the other half goes over my head.

So I'm probably pickier about it than you.

But yeah, I think Lee and Jackson had some pretty beatable opponents. But if they hadn't any skills to note themselves, they wouldn't have been able to take advantage of it - a dummy will miss the openings another dummy gives.

It balances out to me thinking Jackson and Lee were pretty good, for all that they were anything but invincible.

 

[Billy Yank]

Sgt Billy Yank: Well, if you want to argue he was, I will happily take you up on a "What if Grant goes east instead of Pope" thread at any time you please (though I might have to get around to reading Return to Bull Run to be able to add anything useful to the discussion!)- I think he had a lot going for him, but "supergenius" is a status I reserve for people whose intelligence is so absolutely amazing that I don't understand half of what they're saying and the other half goes over my head.

So I'm probably pickier about it than you.

But yeah, I think Lee and Jackson had some pretty beatable opponents. But if they hadn't any skills to note themselves, they wouldn't have been able to take advantage of it - a dummy will miss the openings another dummy gives.

It balances out to me thinking Jackson and Lee were pretty good, for all that they were anything but invincible.

Grant was one of these. His written orders were brilliantly simple and understandable.

 

[Elennsar]

That part, I won't argue with for a moment.

And to compare it to Jackson, Jackson's secretiveness seems a rather dogmatic "Two can keep a secret, if one is dead." .

 

[Drew]

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

I'm sympathetic to many of the views put forth here in terms of the difference one man can make. But, we're looking at the battlefields alone. IF Jackson had lived and IF his presence at Gettysburg would have changed the outcome (and that is a mere possibility, but a possibility nonetheless) the political fallout may have been catastrophic for the Union in terms of both Northern public and European opinion. It's a "what if" that goes far beyond who holds Cemetery Ridge.

 

[johnnydef47]

I agree with the political fallout of any success Jackson may have had. a success even a small one for the south at Gettysburg could have cost Lincoln the election and changed everything

 

[Elennsar]

But is there any particular reason why a small win would have such weight?

It's possible, but it's also possible for Lincoln to have choked on a piece of food that just happened to also be poisoned with arsenic by Queen Victoria. Setting up the progression from "Jackson lives" to "meaningful difference in the outcome" needs elaboration for it to convince me (speaking simply as someone who can argue either way).

 

[johnnydef47]

no I wouldn't say there is but the north was weary of losses. I don't think Jackson would have made a huge tactical difference but, if it were to end differently I think it would have had to be political

 

[Elennsar]

The question though is how you get that to be high enough to change the result.

Yes, the North is weary of losses. But one can be weary of losses without wanting peace at any price.

I'm not trying to pick an argument - I just think that the pro-Jackson-matters arguments have a tendency (just like the "Jackson doesn't matter" have their own) to assume that things wouldn't need to change very much, but its rarely very clear why they think a few more thousand causalities would shatter the Union war effort any more than how the "it wouldn't matter, the Confederacy was doomed" have ruled out every possible scenario arising that could occur.

 

[Drew]

But is there any particular reason why a small win would have such weight?

It's possible, but it's also possible for Lincoln to have choked on a piece of food that just happened to also be poisoned with arsenic by Queen Victoria. Setting up the progression from "Jackson lives" to "meaningful difference in the outcome" needs elaboration for it to convince me (speaking simply as someone who can argue either way).

It could have been a huge win, had the flanks been rolled. Gettysburg was no rout, either, so it's really not a stretch.

 

[johnnydef47]

I cant disagree with wanting peace at any price but even Lincoln thought he would be beat in 64. could that not have been a strong possibility if there was another loss say at Gettysburg?

 

[Elennsar]

It could have been a huge win, had the flanks been rolled. Gettysburg was no rout, either, so it's really not a stretch.

Okay. You have a 'huge win" and have the Army of the Potomac down another 10-20,000 men. Now what?

I cant disagree with wanting peace at any price but even Lincoln thought he would be beat in 64. could that not have been a strong possibility if there was another loss say at Gettysburg?

If Lincoln is not re-elected but Sherman is still in the Carolinas in February, does it matter?

 

[johnnydef47]

I think the rest of the war would have gone the same as far as Sherman etc. the thing I wonder is if Lincoln lost in 64 would McClellan have won?