Stonewall Jackson

[rpkennedy]

I'm one of those of the opinion that Jackson is somewhat overrated. He could be very good but he could also be very questionable. Much of his mythos comes from the fact that he dies amidst a great victory, which turns out to be the last great victory for the Army of Northern Virginia. There are those who can't help but speculate on "what-is" because of this.

R

 

[Elennsar]

I guess my question, as someone who broadly agrees with your point, R, is how far that can go? Even if we treat him as a merely average corps commander, he is an experienced one - Ewell and Sickly Hill aren't.

 

[rpkennedy]

I guess my question, as someone who broadly agrees with your point, R, is how far that can go? Even if we treat him as a merely average corps commander, he is an experienced one - Ewell and Sickly Hill aren't.

Indeed. But can we say, with any degree of certainty, that he would've acted any differently than Ewell?

R

 

[Elennsar]

Indeed. But can we say, with any degree of certainty, that he would've acted any differently than Ewell?

R

I'd say about a 30% degree of certainty here, with 70% the point I'd assert it as probable.

It's entirely possible, but by no means a given. If you put him in A.P. Hill's position relative to the town I think it matters more than Ewell's.

 

[johnnydef47]

I would think he would have been more aggressive than Ewell. although speaking on the military side of things as was said in an earlier post I tend to believe the failures of the Union generals made him look far better than he actually was

 

[Elennsar]

What exactly does "more aggressive than Ewell" actually translate into though?

Ewell doesn't have a lot to work with if he's going to make an attack immediately up against the hill/s south of Gettysburg, and on day 2 "more aggressive" crashes into 12th Corps with bloody consequences for Jackson's old division (most likely).

 

[rpkennedy]

I'd say about a 30% degree of certainty here, with 70% the point I'd assert it as probable.

It's entirely possible, but by no means a given. If you put him in A.P. Hill's position relative to the town I think it matters more than Ewell's.

My guess is that, if he was able to take the field, Jackson is commanding the Second Corps and Ewell has the Third. After all, Ewell was Jackson's hand-picked successor so I'd think that Lee gives him the new slot.

R

 

[Drew]

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

What do you mean "down another 10-20,000 men?" Is this in addition to the 25,000 casualties they suffered in victory? I think the number is arbitrary, but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm speaking of public perception, a long string of Confederate victory, finally broken.

Lincoln's reaction to Chancellorsville is well known. I'm speaking of Lincoln's political predicament, had Gettysburg gone the same way.

"Now what?" Beats me, in a military sense, except Washington without the AoP is now exposed and the press and foreign diplomats are going wild at the futility of preserving the Union.

I don't usually do "what if" threads, but this is a big one. General Jackson died in Virginia, so we'll never know.

 

[rpkennedy]

I would think he would have been more aggressive than Ewell. although speaking on the military side of things as was said in an earlier post I tend to believe the failures of the Union generals made him look far better than he actually was

Ewell was pretty darn aggressive considering the circumstances. I tend to agree that Ewell did everything practicable on July 1st and that Jackson would not have been able to do much more.

R

 

[johnnydef47]

bloody consequences for sure. perhaps he would have tried an attack at night although we know that didn't work out for him. I really doubt there would have been any major changes to the war if Jackson had lived. maybe something politically but most likely the best outcome for the south would have been nothing more than a longer war most likely with the same outcome

 

[Elennsar]

My guess is that, if he was able to take the field, Jackson is commanding the Second Corps and Ewell has the Third. After all, Ewell was Jackson's hand-picked successor so I'd think that Lee gives him the new slot.

R

I'd certainly rather pick Ewell. Hill has a good record, but Ewell - "eccentric one or not" - comes off to me as steadier.

Hill is the one who "After reading that he picked the worst route to Sharpsburg, my opinion of his judgment - as opposed to guts - plummeted."

But Lee thinking of him as "the best of his grade with me" might complicate that. Wouldn't be the first time he preferred a guy and Jackson gave way.

That would be interesting to explore on its own. Forget Jackson with 2nd Corps. What does Ewell with 3rd mean?

What do you mean "down another 10-20,000 men?" Is this in addition to the 25,000 casualties they suffered in victory? I think the number is arbitrary, but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm speaking of public perception, a long string of Confederate victory, finally broken.

Lincoln's reaction to Chancellorsville is well known. I'm speaking of Lincoln's political predicament, had Gettysburg gone the same way.

It is arbitrary - "Let's half again to double the causalities of Gettysburg to represent the Union army falling apart."

Politically there will be howls, but what exactly are those howling going to actually be able to do? Lincoln's reelection isn't coming up for another year.

"Now what?" Beats me, in a military sense, except Washington without the AoP is now exposed and the press and foreign diplomats are going wild at the futility of preserving the Union.

I don't usually do "what if" threads, but this is a big one. General Jackson died in Virginia, so we'll never know.

Before we assume DC is ripe for the plucking, this is what DC has on July 10:
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/c...o0045:2;view=image;seq=640;size=100;page=root (for details, start on page 635)

French and other troops in the Middle Department area easily add ten thousand infantry even before anyone else is hastily pulled - I'm only looking at the OTL number to give a minimium.

And "nothing from the Army of the Potomac makes it back" seems pretty extreme - even for a Civil War Cannae.

Sure, this is a big deal. It's a huge deal. But its not "game over" - Vicksburg still fell, Bragg is kicked out of Middle Tennessee - its 3rd and long, but its not over.

 

[Drew]

Politically there will be howls, but what exactly are those howling going to actually be able to do? Lincoln's reelection isn't coming up for another year.

Empower peace Democrats, sap the will of the North to fight, insight foreign diplomats to rethink their positions. The contingency undermines Lincoln, basically.

 

[Elennsar]

They can't have a vote of no confidence in Lincoln (and can hardly get a military coup to back them), to name the most potent what that could be expressed in government, though.

I think it has to be something more than "Chickamauga, but in Pennsylvania." to have long term effects, personally.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

Even if Jackson had lived to continue fighting, you still have the Grant and Sherman juggernaut moving along. I'm just not convinced that after losing control of the Mississippi and a lot of Confederate territory Jackson could have turned the tide.

 

[Drew]

They can't have a vote of no confidence in Lincoln (and can hardly get a military coup to back them), to name the most potent what that could be expressed in government, though.

I think it has to be something more than "Chickamauga, but in Pennsylvania." to have long term effects, personally.

Correct, they can't have a "no confidence vote," but they (Congress) can pass appropriations and other bills reflective of constituent sentiment and effectively reign in the war effort. Plus, the pesky Europeans, who were a lot bigger than us in those days. It's really not a stretch for the people of the North to say "to heck with it," had there been a serious defeat at Gettysburg.

 

[Elennsar]

And of course those who are opposed to that are completely powerless and ineffectual.

I don't mean to strawman your position - I just think that the Union resolve to win the war is more often understated than overstated, especially when talking "yet another defeat in the Eastern theater." No one is going to be very surprised at the Army of the Potomac failing, and depending on how serious we're talking about nothing is threatened more than was before the battle.

Especially not when news of Vicksburg is a pretty loud statement on the direction the war is going - I wouldn't want to say its a given support won't sag, but there's very much the chance of a defeat making people want it avenged rather than giving up if things like Vicksburg indicating that the war isn't all defeats is promoted.

August 1864 and December 1862 are much bleaker in that regard. Its not just a single battle, its failure on all fronts - bloody, obvious failure in the East, but there's no good news to indicate that this isn't a trend the way any news of Gettysburg mauling the AotP has news to counter it.

But the main thing I think is a no go:

I'm sure it would delight Napoleon and some British leaders, but even formal recognition is going to need more than one win to stick. This isn't like France looking for an opportunity to beat up Britain in 1777.

 

[KansasFreestater]

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.

You're the first person in a long while that I've heard say this. As a shameless Grant fan, I say thank you, Billy Yank!

 

[Saruman]

I think this collection of generals handed several key victories to Lee & Jackson which enhanced these Confederate leaders' reputations.

Same goes for Grant. He defeated the worst two generals in the Confederacy at Donelson (Floyd and Pillow), the reticent and indecisive Pemberton at Vicksburg, and the demoralised and broken Bragg at Chattanooga. In each of these battles he also outnumbered his opponent by a considerable margin. If Lee and Jackson did indeed face "dud" Union generals, then at least they had the major disadvantage of always being outnumbered and under-supplied.

 

[Billy Yank]

Same goes for Grant. He defeated the worst two generals in the Confederacy at Donelson (Floyd and Pillow), the reticent and indecisive Pemberton at Vicksburg, and the demoralised and broken Bragg at Chattanooga. In each of these battles he also outnumbered his opponent by a considerable margin. If Lee and Jackson did indeed face "dud" Union generals, then at least they had the major disadvantage of always being outnumbered and under-supplied.

My compliments Pvt. Saruman, Can't argue w/you about Gen. B. Bragg's capabilities. I think there's a broad consensus that he had his share of failures. I would push-back a little on Pemberton, hwvr. I think he made Grant work pretty darn hard for the Vicksburg victory/surrender.

Since the thread is about Jackson, let's insert him at Vicksburg and Chattanooga. Would Jackson have saved Vicksburg? Not sure what he could have done to save Vicksburg. Once Grant got the "position" on Pemberton, coming in from the south and the east, it was a fait accompli, albeit a "grinder."

Chattanooga was somewhat more fluid, to my way of thinking. Jackson, in place of Bragg, probably would have made a significant influence on the outcome as he favored and excelled at maneuvering in space.

In summary, I believe Grant earned Vicksburg and, to a lesser extent, Chattanooga, whereas Lee & Jackson were handed 2nd. Bull Run, Fredericksburg & Chancellorsville because of obvious blunders by Little Mac, Burnside & Hooker. (I'll subtract Antietam since the outcome was a relative draw.)

 

[Nathanb1]

My compliments Pvt. Saruman, Can't argue w/you about Gen. B. Bragg's capabilities. I think there's a broad consensus that he had his share of failures. I would push-back a little on Pemberton, hwvr. I think he made Grant work pretty darn hard for the Vicksburg victory/surrender.

Since the thread is about Jackson, let's insert him at Vicksburg and Chattanooga. Would Jackson have saved Vicksburg? Not sure what he could have done to save Vicksburg. Once Grant got the "position" on Pemberton, coming in from the south and the east, it was a fait accompli, albeit a "grinder."

Chattanooga was somewhat more fluid, to my way of thinking. Jackson, in place of Bragg, probably would have made a significant influence on the outcome as he favored and excelled at maneuvering in space.

In summary, I believe Grant earned Vicksburg and, to a lesser extent, Chattanooga, whereas Lee & Jackson were handed 2nd. Bull Run, Fredericksburg & Chancellorsville because of obvious blunders by Little Mac, Burnside & Hooker. (I'll subtract Antietam since the outcome was a relative draw.)

It is possible Jackson wouldn't have gotten himself trapped in Vicksburg like Pemberton did. Really. Just very un-Jackson-like. And Grant might just have been wondering in which swamp on what side of the river he'd pop up on. I am, of course, assuming he wouldn't be toddling around zombie-like, having arisen from the dead as he often does at Gettysburg, according to one of our best wags.