One of the most popular "What If..." questions: Stonewall Jackson

CivilWarTalk

Lieutenant General
- ★★★ -
Managing Member & Webmaster
Joined
Apr 1, 1999
Location
Martinsburg, WV
If Jackson had not been killed and had managed to survive at least through the remainder of the war, what would have happened different? Would Gettysburg have ended differently? Would the war have lasted longer? Would Stonewall be as popular today if he had not died?

I hope you enjoy chewing on this question
happy.gif
 
LOL, one of the favorite "what ifs" of all CW discussions.

Let's say Jackson made the difference at GB and it became a win in the CSA column.

Part of Lee's and Davis' strategy for GB encompassed that a win would 1) break northern morale; 2) gain foreign recognition and intervention; and, 3) allow them to move against and capture Washington.

1) As we see frequently throughout the CW, morale seems to tighten up when a loss occurs. Manassas did not send the Union home front skedaddling, but rather spurred on the growth of the Sanitary Commission; editorials promising to go forward; the development of the Christian Commission; and a resurgence of volunteers.

2) Foreign recognition and any possibility of intervention had already turned into a pipe dream by 1863. The French saw no advantage to getting involved; the British government was hamstrung by their population's opposition to slavery; Russia and Austria-Hungry leaned towards the north. Northern trade and the great distance from Europe along with Europeon political gamesmanship assured that the best any government would or could do was to nibble at the edges of the American conflict.

3) Win or lose, Lee's ability to move on Washington was problematic. Even if you flip the casualty figures of GB, Meade's AoP would still be left with a pretty strong army at Lee's back. Then there was the powerful western armies that had knocked off VB. It was connected by railroads in the hands of the Yankees, who had such men as Dodge, Haupt and Miegs to work magic for moving troops Eastward. Washington itself was a fortified town, well wringed with entrenchments and heavy artillery. As we well know, sieging a capital city is not the same as toppling Vicksburg or Gettysburg. I propose the siege would have been as long and deadly as either Richmond or Vicksburg. Plus you also have to wonder how Lee would supply his seige army with Meade moving at his back and Grant, Sherman etc. al. rushing eastward.

I doubt Jackson would have made much difference in the overall outcome of the war.
 
With StoneWall in command (Of his Corp) Gettysburg would have ended on day 1 with the Union falling back to Meade's Pipe Creek Line. However, I believe we would have seen the same result only 20-30 miles from Gettysburg at or around the Pipe Creek line.

If Jackson or Ewell would have advanced and would have taken the hills...what then? The Gettysburg line would have fallen. The Pipe Creek line would have been solidified. The Army of Northern Virginia could have either circled to the east and north and presented itself in a strong defensive position between the Federal army and Washington (this was still an option at the end of the first day at Gettysburg). Or...the enemy was on the Pipe Creek line in a weakened state having lost two corps of troops. An assault on a well established defensive line near Pipe Creek may have produced the same results that were produced at Gettysburg. Would Lee have swung to the east and north as Longstreet wanted? Or would he have went after the Federal army at Pipe Creek? What if?
 
The Union Army always seems to come back from defeat, doesn't it? Even if Jackson had been there at Gettysburg, would he have acted differently? What if Day 1 it was his Corps in the rear?

What if he had been on the planning of the 3rd day? Would he have accepted his orders or would he have talked to Lee about the impossible assault on the center? Could Jackson talk Lee out of it? Or was he Lee's faithful right arm?

Lot of questions, ain't there?

Unionblue
 
I agree with Neil you don't know what would happen because it never did so I think Jackson would have help but I don't know if ti would have changed the out come of the war.
 
Had Old Jack not fallen, I do not believe Gettysburg would have taken place. He would have pressed the attack and sent the Union forces back towards Washington. The Campaign would have become a more aggressive one with Stonewall forcing the Union forces to draw a line of battle far short of Gettysburg. If it went that far North, Harrisburg would have fallen and Philadelphia and Baltimore may have become threatened. Gettysburg would not have had to become the rallying point of the ANV.
 
Hard to know. CSA forces did get to the Harrisburg area before the battle, and found all the bridges across the Susquehanna river burned, and militia waiting on the other side. The Susquehanna would be very difficult to cross for a CW army. A lot of pontoons would be needed. Anyone know if Lee had a pontoon train with him? I never heard that he did, but...
Jackson might have taken Cemetary hill the first night. If so, I suspect the Pipe Creek line would have been the location of the major battle.
I think it should not be overlooked that the AOP was fighting on home ground, where they knew the roads,and the terrain, and the ANV didn't- the complete opposite of the usual situation. And, defending home ground certainly stiffens morale.
I think Connie's exactly right about Lee not being able to beseige Washington.
I think Jackson's presence might have changed some of the place names we now hold famous, but not the end result.
 
Jackson's presence at Gettysburg, probably would have made a much smoother operation. Lee and Jackson worked together very well. Providing no other events changed, the union army, would still have the high ground, with its advantages. The ending of the battle would probably have been the same. Also as to the winning the war, Jackson was just one man, and the south needed much more than that, to win. It's doubtful that the war would have lasted longer even with Jackson, due to the shortage of supplies.

Gunsmoke
 
God how I hate "What If" questions. What if the Spencer Rifle had been adopted by the Union Army instead of the Springfield (it very nearly was in 1862). What if Reynolds had survived, what if the pontoons would have arrived a week earlier for Burnside, what if Hooker hadn't been knocked out of kilter by that brick. There are so many questions of the What If variety. The point is it didn't happen. Lee still had Longstreet who IMHO was a far superior commander of men than Jackson. As Jackson himself so aptly put it many times... "The reputation is not mine but my mens."
 
I really enjoy, pondering over "what if" questions. In order to answer them properly, one must know a little more, than just the basic facts, of a topic. Which encourages a deeper study, on the subject. These topics, can be fun to work with. It's certainly true, that they didn't happen, and discussing them, doesn't change history, but its also true, that discussing only facts, doesn't change things either. Both tools, can be used for fun and learning, and thats what discussion, should be about. As for myself, I would enjoy seeing a few more, of the "what if" questions.

Gunsmoke
 
Gunsmoke, I kinda see it the same way. The biggest what if question, what if the South had won the war? Would slavery have ended or died out as many on this board claim? Or would it continue and still exist in the 20th century?

What if questions make you learn more about your subject, make you but your cherished heroes and their ideas on trial, and most importantly, make you THINK!

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Unionblue, I've given thought to that question several times.
The civil war, started in the infancy, of the industrial revolution. One of the things, that greatly increased, the need for more slave labor, was the invention, of the cotton gin. The cotton gin, made it easier to separate, the seeds, from a variety of cotton, that was almost impossible, to seed, by hand. Also this cotton plant would grow much easier, and in a wider variety of places. If the south had won the war, I believe the industrial revolution, would have continued, but at a slower pace. Still, as farm machinery would be invented, it would have taken the place of the plantation labor. In the long run, the cost of using machinery, would be cheaper, than the expense of keeping slaves. If slavery continued at all, it probably would have been, in the form of a housekeeper, or house labor, or a personal servant, and slavery in that form, would have probably ceased to exist after awhile.

Gunsmoke
 
Gunsmoke, that's where I have to shear off from your point of view. If the South had won, I think slavery would have been more widespread and would have lasted longer, even into the late 20th century!

It has often been said the slavery is the oldest of vices and is also the hardest to root out. I think the South would have expanded it's territory by invading south of the Rio Grande and by taking Cuba. Slavery would have become a 'Cherished' institution and a way of life for the South.

Even if machinery would have been developed to harvest cotton more effectively, who would have run the machinery? Slaves, of course. No white man would have dared taken on labor traditionally handled by slaves.

I think the peculiar institution would have lasted far longer than anyone on this board could imagine. Look at the attitudes towards blacks AFTER the Civil War. And that is after they had been freed. Imagine if slavery was still the norm during the 1950's and 60's. That is my big 'What if' and I am afraid it would have been more likely to happen than any other historical scenario.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Yes, that could have happened. There, might could have been some future problems, that the south would have run into, when attempting to deal, with nations, that didn't support slavery. Which could have made slavery a burden to keep. But all we can do is speculate, which is part of the fun of the "what if" questions.

happy.gif
Gunsmoke
 
No doubt if jackson would have been at GB they probably sweep the field on the first day, but i agree the over all out come would still rely on political victories rather than battle field victories. I would ask you if Lee wins at gettysburg at the least attempts to siege washington or take it would lincoln been able to hold office, and even if lee has to abandon washington would lincoln have been re elected in 1864? I say he wouldn't have. The people would have lost all faith in him, and Mcclellan would have easily won, thus ending the war by political means. Fact is no matter how much you admire the courage of the southern man they could never have Militarily defeated them. Their best hope was winning the war of attrition they eventually lost. So it depends on how you look at it. But i question the ability of the lincoln administration to keep up an un popular war had lee marched through the streets of washington. Do not forget even though the NOrth won at Gettysburg the riots and anarchy going on in the north was almost ready to tear the northern states apart. just imagine the anarchy had the south won. Lincoln was never that popular. he more popular in death than he ever was in life. Thanks
 
The more i sat there and thought about it the more obvious it becomes what a disaster it would have been had Jackson been there and Lee gained the victory. Granted The AOP would still be more than able to put up a fight, but their moral would have been terribly low, and they would have had to re group and chased lee. of course we know the AOP was never very fast. more like a Giant lumbering blue snake. And who says lee would go to Washington?. Before the AOP is able to recover and pursue Lee could be sitting in new York for all we know , since it is purely speculation. Lee has all the advantage at this point . though he is cut off from home he can supply himself thanks to the great state of New York. Once the AOP caught up with him if they ever did Lee would be dug in waiting for them. But most likely lee would have simply out maneuvered them as he always did and taken a scenic loop around the northern states with nothing but green troops and militia to stop him. I really don't see Lincoln recovering from such embarrassment. knowing the Northern army they would have panicked and called the troops in from the west to come help. All Speculative of course. thanks
 
It would have been interesting if Lee had won Gettysburg. I don't think, that he would have had the forces, to have beat the fortifications, and troops, that were stationed around Washington. His greatest hope, would have been in northern representatives, to vote to stop the war, or Lincoln's loss of the election. The only other variable factor in this, would be how much Lincoln's approval rating would go up, with the fall of Vicksburg

Gunsmoke
 
I don't honestly think Jackson would have made the difference at Gettysburg... For the first time since the beginning of the War the Unmion had a COMPETANT General in charge of the AOP. Meade was an unknown quantity to Lee and Stuart still failed to be "the eyes of the ANV." Jacksons old Corps still performed admirably at Gettysburg... Remember one thing, it is the men that make the General; a General can lead and inspire them but it is the enlisted men who do the bleeding and dieing. Jackson old Corps fought well, would they have done better if Jackson was there? Personally I think that question dishonors fine fighting men. They fought every bit as splendidly after Jacksons death as before.
 
I think that Jackson would have made a big difference at Gettysburg. Enough to have caused the battle to be a clear tactical victory for Lee. Maybe not enough to have forced a massive Union retreat, but enough to set the Union back once again. Everything continues in disarray and Lincoln loses the election of 1864. McClellan sues for peace, gets it at a terrible cost and the Union is hopelessly fractured (not just north and south, but ultimately into any number of regional alliances).

On the bright side, McClellan never bothers to become Governor of New Jersey and thereby fails to start NJ on a path of bad governance that continues unbroken to this day. :smile:
 
Back
Top