Stonewall Jackson

[Nathanb1]

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!

I like Grant very much....but don't assume Jackson is Pemberton. In fact, assume he's not.

 

[Nathanb1]

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.

Maybe he'd have gotten more ticked off than Lee about the government, gone to Richmond, and lopped off some heads with his rusty saber. That would have been a positive change. That being said, I can also see him being more likely to go run amok in the mountains instead of surrendering as Lee did. And he was pretty good at that.

Otherwise, not much difference.

 

[NedBaldwin]

....Jackson did indeed face "dud" Union generals, then at least they had the major disadvantage of always being outnumbered and under-supplied.

When I look at some of Jackson's wins over these "dud" generals I dont see that he had the disadvantage of numbers.
According to the NPS:

Front Royal -- US 1,063 vs CS 3,000 [~2.8:1 in Jackson's favor]
Winchester -- US 6,500 vs CS 16,000 [~2.4:1 in Jackson's favor]
Port Republic -- US 3,500 vs CS 6,000 [~1.7:1 in Jackson's favor]
Cedar Mountain -- US 8,030 vs CS 16,868 [~2.1:1 in Jackson's favor]

 

[Billy Yank]

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.

I guess Forrest got himself out of there and just plain skedaddled. Vicksburg still fell, hwvr.
Jackson might have circled back (east) to Raymond, MS or thereabouts to coordinate w/Johnston or something to that effect, but who knows?

 

[Nathanb1]

I guess Forrest got himself out of there and just plain skedaddled. Vicksburg still fell, hwvr.
Jackson might have circled back (east) to Raymond, MS or thereabouts to coordinate w/Johnston or something to that effect, but who knows?

Uh. Forrest was a bit busy. As a matter of fact, he wasn't anywhere near Vicksburg and wasn't supposed to be, was he?

 

[E_just_E]

Re: Jackson vs. Ewell at Gettysburg. Really have to place that question in the correct context. And that is that a. Gettysburg was an accident and b. it was not Ewell's target, until his backed off his original target.

So the question should be: Could Jackson capture Harrisburg, if he were leading what was Ewell's Corps? I doubt it. Jackson was good in surprise attacks and coming from ways nobody expected him. Not sure that he would have much of luck going through 2 Forts with 10,000 militia to get a Corps through a 10-15 feet wide bridge and to the other side intact and safe through another 10,000 some militia...

 

[NedBaldwin]

Re: Jackson vs. Ewell at Gettysburg. Really have to place that question in the correct context. And that is that a. Gettysburg was an accident and b. it was not Ewell's target, until his backed off his original target.

So the question should be: Could Jackson capture Harrisburg, if he were leading what was Ewell's Corps? I doubt it. Jackson was good in surprise attacks and coming from ways nobody expected him. Not sure that he would have much of luck going through 2 Forts with 10,000 militia to get a Corps through a 10-15 feet wide bridge and to the other side intact and safe through another 10,000 some militia...

Isnt Harrisburg on the far side of a river that is like 0.5 - 0.75 miles wide? So like 4 x wider that the Potomac.

 

[E_just_E]

Isnt Harrisburg on the far side of a river that is like 0.5 - 0.75 miles wide? So like 4 x wider that the Potomac.

About a mile wide or so. This is a contemporary engraving, and the following a modern aerial, but you can tell the size of the endeavor:

 

[Elennsar]

"Please do not inline Project Gutenberg images."

Still. Just judging by the modern photo, you're not going to just splash across that river.

 

[Nathanb1]

Moved to Jackson Forum as more appropriate and at request of forum host.

 

[rpkennedy]

"Please do not inline Project Gutenberg images."

Still. Just judging by the modern photo, you're not going to just splash across that river.

And the only way across is the bridges. The river is deceptively deep and can be swift moving in the middle.

R

 

[BillO]

Ewell was a competent commander. He knew how to lead, organize and correctly position his troops. The difference between the two was attitude. Ewell always tried very hard to follow orders and not make a mistake. Jackson always tried very hard to win and let the rest take care of itself. In a wartime leader these small differences in outlook and attitude are huge.

 

[Saruman]

When I look at some of Jackson's wins over these "dud" generals I dont see that he had the disadvantage of numbers.
According to the NPS:

Front Royal -- US 1,063 vs CS 3,000 [~2.8:1 in Jackson's favor]
Winchester -- US 6,500 vs CS 16,000 [~2.4:1 in Jackson's favor]
Port Republic -- US 3,500 vs CS 6,000 [~1.7:1 in Jackson's favor]
Cedar Mountain -- US 8,030 vs CS 16,868 [~2.1:1 in Jackson's favor]

That's tactically. Strategically it was 40,000 US vs 17,000 CS in the valley. It was Jackson's superior generalship that enabled him to strike portions of the enemy with overwhelming force.

 

[Saruman]

Once Grant got the "position" on Pemberton, coming in from the south and the east, it was a fait accompli, albeit a "grinder."

Historian Edwin Bearss states that Grant's impetuous pursuit after the battle of Port Gibson gave "the Confederate leaders a chance to destroy or maul one of his corps." If an aggressive general like Jackson were in command, this may have occurred, so I don't agree that the fall of Vicksburg was necessarily a fait accompli.

 

[NedBaldwin]

That's tactically. Strategically it was 40,000 US vs 17,000 CS in the valley. It was Jackson's superior generalship that enabled him to strike portions of the enemy with overwhelming force.

In my opinion his generalship wasnt the reason. It was the decision makers in Richmond and Washington. But at least we seem to agree that he did not have the disadvantage of being outnumbered in any of those battles.

 

[Elennsar]

And if he hadn't exercised better judgment in the field than the Federal commanders, I do not see him pulling off tactically outnumbering his opponents.

 

[ole]

A basic no-no since forever is to not attack across a river. At any given point during the attack, only a portion of your army is across and can be overwhelmed. Same for a closely pursued retreat.

One example I can think of was Johnston's plan to attack Union troops while they were crossing Peachtree Creek. He was replaced before the attack took place by Hood's plan to attack the Federals when they got across. Huh?

 

[ole]

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.

It is probable that Jackson wouldn't have gotten himself trapped in Vicksburg.

The problem there was Johnston was ordering Pemberton to get out of Dodge and Davis was telling him to hold on. Had Pemberton left (Vicksburg was all but useless at the time) he could have added about 30,000 troops to Johnston's, and given Grant real fits.

Would Jackson, in Pemberton's place, have complied with the wishes of Davis or Johnston?

 

[ole]

Uh. Forrest was a bit busy. As a matter of fact, he wasn't anywhere near Vicksburg and wasn't supposed to be, was he?

Part of Grant's strategy: keep Forrest the hell away from his investment of Vicksburg. Grierson and Streight were part of that deception. I think there was a third, but I disremember who it was.

Forrest's people were hell on wheels and neither Grant nor Sherman wanted him anywhere near their area of operation. One of the reasons Sherman began his march is that Forrest was ready to turn his attention to the line from Nashville to Atlanta. Sherman could not long remain in Atlanta -- he had to leave.

 

[Billy Yank]

Historian Edwin Bearss states that Grant's impetuous pursuit after the battle of Port Gibson gave "the Confederate leaders a chance to destroy or maul one of his corps." If an aggressive general like Jackson were in command, this may have occurred, so I don't agree that the fall of Vicksburg was necessarily a fait accompli.

Merry Christmas, Pvt. Saruman. Port Gibson was in early May...almost 9 wks. before Pemberton surrendered at Vicksburg. I guess anytime one subtracts an entire corps from a battle equation, the odds dynamically shift. The point of no return, in my mind, occurred when Grant was at the gates of Vicksburg and began to lay siege. By that time, it was over. My hypothesis had Jackson in Vicksburg, substituting for Pemberton, not out on the approaching trails, as you suggest.

Different set-ups entirely, but I concede your point.