Sheridan Stonewall Comparison with Jubal Early

[ETNConfederate]

Ramseur could be said to be Early's "Stonewall Jackson." Early developed a trend of mentioning him first in battle accounts.

 

[SSVilla]

View attachment 532781

I loved this. I had a well needed laugh

I'll share this description below because it made me laugh when I first read it. Cadwallader could spin quite the tall tale, but he did have me wondering about this anecdote of Early lobbing shells at Fort Stevens and then lying supinely thinking that was a job well done.

"I have always wondered at Early's inaction throughout the day, and never had any sufficient explanation of his reasons. Our lines in his front could have been carried at any point, with the loss of a few hundred men. Washington was never more helpless. Several wide turnpikes led directly to it. Any such cavalry commander as Sheridan, Wilson, [Wade] Hampton or [J. E. B.] Stuart, could have ridden through all its broad avenues, sabred everyone found in the streets, and before nightfall could have burned down the White House, the Capitol and all public buildings. It has been stated that Early supposed it was fairly protected by federal troops. But this is a very poor excuse. As an army commander, it was his business to inform himself in such cases. His spies and Provost Marshals could have given him all these facts. Yet he spent the day supinely; and when he was about ready (in his own mind) to swoop down upon it, he found it strongly and sufficiently reinforced."

From Three Years with Grant by Sylvanus Cadwallader.

 

[SSVilla]

Gallagher is probably right. He usually knows what he's talking about. I kind of think Jack is overrated. I think his boss was a lot better strategist and tactician. Jackson was a robot: attack!

I really like Gallagher. He knows his stuff, but beyond that I trust him implicitly because he's uninfluenced by the Lost Cause and is very well informed.

 

[R. Porter]

I can remember a new biography of Jackson came out years ago, don't remember title or author because I listened to it on CD while driving to Newark, OH, or Georgetown, KY, so I didn't retain details like I should have. One thing I did remember was being amazed at the author's low opinion of Lee as a strategist compared with Jackson. The author mentioned several cases where Jackson made "brilliant" strategic suggestions that Lee shot down. This may have helped along the behavior that Jackson adopted of not informing his staff of his plans in advance (I don't remember if the author suggested any connection.) The author did suggest that Lee wasn't quite the gifted commander that history has made him out to be.

 

[Rebforever]

I loved this. I had a well needed laugh

I'll share this description below because it made me laugh when I first read it. Cadwallader could spin quite the tall tale, but he did have me wondering about this anecdote of Early lobbing shells at Fort Stevens and then lying supinely thinking that was a job well done.

"I have always wondered at Early's inaction throughout the day, and never had any sufficient explanation of his reasons. Our lines in his front could have been carried at any point, with the loss of a few hundred men. Washington was never more helpless. Several wide turnpikes led directly to it. Any such cavalry commander as Sheridan, Wilson, [Wade] Hampton or [J. E. B.] Stuart, could have ridden through all its broad avenues, sabred everyone found in the streets, and before nightfall could have burned down the White House, the Capitol and all public buildings. It has been stated that Early supposed it was fairly protected by federal troops. But this is a very poor excuse. As an army commander, it was his business to inform himself in such cases. His spies and Provost Marshals could have given him all these facts. Yet he spent the day supinely; and when he was about ready (in his own mind) to swoop down upon it, he found it strongly and sufficiently reinforced."

From Three Years with Grant by Sylvanus Cadwallader.

Early's job was to draw Grants army down at Petersburg and he accomplished that.

 

[JerryD]

Interesting comparison. IMO, Jackson does have an exalted opinion, and Early I think does not get the credit he deserves. That being said, Jackson is still superior to Early. At the end of the day I have always maintained that Early's Valley Campaign of 64 was a dismal failure. It did not relieve the pressure on Petersburg, his losses helped paved the way for Lincoln's re-election, it resulted in the Burning Time in the Valley, and ultimately Lee had to relieve him due to a loss of confidence by the public and the troops under him. At least those were the reasons Lee cited in his letter to Early relieving him from command. Its hard for me to imagine him being a success AND relieved of command.

You will hear people talk about how close he was to actually winning battles, or about the forces he faced. Which are all true. But there are no moral victories in war. You either win or lose. Early ended up losing and was fired for it. So the campaign was a failure.

 

[ETNConfederate]

Siege of Vicksburg- 98 days
Siege of Petersburg- 292 days

Sherlock Holmes, via Arthur Conan Doyle, tells us when you eliminate all improbable factors, whatever remains, no matter how implausible it may be, MUST be the truth.

The sole difference between Vicksburg and Petersburg is an independent Confederate force siphoning US manpower. With 50k casualties from the Overland Campaign, the US lacked manpower to chase Early, garrison Washington and storm Petersburg.

Once Sheridan's 35,000ish troops returned to Petersburg, weather was all that prevented an attempt to reduce Petersburg by force. And even in March, Grant eliminated Petersburg by making Richmond untenable.

 

[JerryD]

Siege of Vicksburg- 98 days
Siege of Petersburg- 292 days

Sherlock Holmes, via Arthur Conan Doyle, tells us when you eliminate all improbable factors, whatever remains, no matter how implausible it may be, MUST be the truth.

The sole difference between Vicksburg and Petersburg is an independent Confederate force siphoning US manpower. With 50k casualties from the Overland Campaign, the US lacked manpower to chase Early, garrison Washington and storm Petersburg.

Once Sheridan's 35,000ish troops returned to Petersburg, weather was all that prevented an attempt to reduce Petersburg by force. And even in March, Grant eliminated Petersburg by making Richmond untenable.

Well, this just is not true. At Vicksburg Grant shut off all access to Vicksburg via land, and the Navy shut off all access via water. It was truly surrounded and Grant just starved them out. Grant was never able, and would never be able, to completely surround Petersburg and Richmond. I have heard military historians say that in fact, what we call the Siege of Petersburg was not actually a siege at all.

 

[SSVilla]

Interesting comparison. IMO, Jackson does have an exalted opinion, and Early I think does not get the credit he deserves. That being said, Jackson is still superior to Early. At the end of the day I have always maintained that Early's Valley Campaign of 64 was a dismal failure. It did not relieve the pressure on Petersburg, his losses helped paved the way for Lincoln's re-election, it resulted in the Burning Time in the Valley, and ultimately Lee had to relieve him due to a loss of confidence by the public and the troops under him. At least those were the reasons Lee cited in his letter to Early relieving him from command. Its hard for me to imagine him being a success AND relieved of command.

You will hear people talk about how close he was to actually winning battles, or about the forces he faced. Which are all true. But there are no moral victories in war. You either win or lose. Early ended up losing and was fired for it. So the campaign was a failure.

You have a well reasoned opinion. I kind of thought the same but on balance? I don't know enough to make that comparison.

Here's Grant's opinion on it. The Lost Cause was already pumping Jackson up to exaggerated proportions. While not disparaging him at all, and frankly seeming at times nostalgic talking of a dead man, a youthful friend he once knew, Grant tried to paint a more realistic picture.

Ultimately, we don't know how Jackson would have done later. Early however, cannot evade the responsibility for his actions. Part of his responsibility was using his best judgement and his forces to the best effect. He misjudged Sheridan and squandered his army. As you said, his defeat even helped Lincoln's reelection when things had been looking so tough for Lincoln and the public was so war weary. He didn't grasp that the burden was on Sheridan to conquer him, not the reverse. He should have been acting more cautiously.

I think the public fallout he faced is the consequence of the civilian population not appreciating that he had attracted the Federals attention, such that they never would have gone there and been burning things except for Early's activities that resulted in no material benefit and instead caused much destruction. It doesn't matter ultimately to public perception all the good intentions, etc. Public perception can be cruel in that regard but it must be accounted for.

What benefits were obtained from all that? What had worked against McClellan, McDowell, and a slew of political generals, including Lincoln, Halleck and Stanton who tried to conduct the war from a desk in 1862 was not going to work against Grant and Sheridan. When we talk about the changing conditions that has to be accounted for.

When Lee decided to surrender at Appomattox he cited several reasons for rejecting a guerrilla war. One was that he was too old for it. The other was that it would inevitably get the federals to burn and destroy property to root the guerrillas out from wherever they were hiding and in that way bring much destruction to areas that were still untouched by the war. I think that Lee learned from the Jubal Early experience in the valley. And that experience had been negative had generated pushback from the civilian population. What's worse it didn't even prevent Early's defeat or men deserting him.

 

[JerryD]

You have a well reasoned opinion. I kind of thought the same but on balance? I don't know enough to make that comparison.

Here's Grant's opinion on it. The Lost Cause was already pumping Jackson up to exaggerated proportions. While not disparaging him at all, and frankly seeming at times nostalgic talking of a dead man, a youthful friend he once knew, Grant tried to paint a more realistic picture.

View attachment 532841

View attachment 532842
View attachment 532843

Ultimately, we don't know how Jackson would have done later. Early however, cannot evade the responsibility for his actions. Part of his responsibility was using his best judgement and his forces to the best effect. He misjudged Sheridan and squandered his army. As you said, his defeat even helped Lincoln's reelection when things had been looking so tough for Lincoln and the public was so war weary. He didn't grasp that the burden was on Sheridan to conquer him, not the reverse. He should have been acting more cautiously.

I think the public fallout he faced is the consequence of the civilian population not appreciating that he had attracted the Federals attention, such that they never would have gone there and been burning things except for Early's activities that resulted in no material benefit and instead caused much destruction. It doesn't matter ultimately to public perception all the good intentions, etc. Public perception can be cruel in that regard but it must be accounted for.

What benefits were obtained from all that? What had worked against McClellan, McDowell, and a slew of political generals, including Lincoln, Halleck and Stanton who tried to conduct the war from a desk in 1862 was not going to work against Grant and Sheridan. When we talk about the changing conditions that has to be accounted for.

When Lee decided to surrender at Appomattox he cited several reasons for rejecting a guerrilla war. One was that he was too old for it. The other was that it would inevitably get the federals to burn and destroy property to root the guerrillas out from wherever they were hiding and in that way bring much destruction to areas that were still untouched by the war. I think that Lee learned from the Jubal Early experience in the valley. And that experience had been negative had generated pushback from the civilian population. What's worse it didn't even prevent Early's defeat or men deserting him.

Excellent post! And I have to say that I think Grant is spot on with respect to Jackson.