Chancellorsville This was not a slam dunk

[121st PA Vols]

Actually, as pointed out in another post, the 4 AM start was Jackson's initial and optimistic assessment to Lee when they initially came up with the plan but the extension of that starting time was due to confirming the location of the proper roads, etc. It wasn't because Jackson was ill or, as the poster originally claimed, Jackson overslept.

I'm trying to figure where I got that (4:00 AM) information thinking it was a video from a respected source, The American Battlefield Trust. It was the vid where they drove the route taken to Howard's right. They (Pfanz's son et al) did a good job on the Hazel Grove video, I mean, the Battle of Hazel Grove as well. Thanks. I'll look into that more.

 

[New Haven]

I've made a number of approaches to climbs in wilderness areas over what the USFS generously labels "unmaintained trails". Those "trails" inevitably have true blowdowns. That isn't characteristic of the type of vegetation presented in the Wilderness. Jackson hit the XI Corps on its flank and - like it or not - the result was that the Corps was driven back a good distance. How on earth would a "frontal assault" have produced a better result? Any general who foregoes a flank attack opportunity such as Howard/Devens/et al gave to Lee/Jackson needs to re-take a course at the CGSC.

Maybe Jackson would still be alive and not attacking in the dark. Maybe a strategic retreat from the battlefield in the same way Hooker did? Hooker was still alive, Jackson not so much. Maybe dividing your army wasn't such a smart idea after all. I doubt VMI had a new class that fall entitled "Night attacks in the Wilderness" --If ANV liked the idea of "dividing their army" Hooker was there to help. His visit caused a 22% reduction in force for the ANV that really divided their army. --------Belfoured, this might help you understand my position on Chancellorsville. It is a comment I have made to several others on this blog.
Hello again, Luk. Would you care to comment on this casualty list above. Either the AOP did some damage on the ANV on May 2, or there were more self-inflicted casualties than just the Jackson/Hill fiasco. After the Civil War there were a lot of Southern people manufacturing stories about what happened. They would make one think there were no Confederate casualties at Chancellorsville and they liked to say that it was "Lee's Greatest Victory", which it was not. Lee suffered a massive reduction in force from Hooker's visit and Lee himself says that the battle was worthless. That doesn't smell like victory to me.
The story tellers knew that they needed an Eastern theater hero because of the shameful Confederate performance in the Western theater, where their Generals were attacking each other with petty fights over minutia. But they didn't stop there. It was not enough for them to simply deify Lee and Jackson. No, they had to go on to play a zero sum game where they also had to demonize Grant and Sherman. None of what they said about Grant and Sherman was true. I have found in the business world when there is one lie, there are usually a pack of them hiding right behind the first ones. I was ok with them saying our guy is the greatest, Lee/Jackson cool! But I smelled a rat when they started the silly Grant is a butcher and a drunk. Grant had 3 Confederate armies surrender to him. Lee had NONE. In just under 30 months of active field command, Lee suffered 209,000 combat casualties, about 7000/month, and accomplished nothing except the slaughter and delay of the ultimate rebel defeat. In 42 months of active field command, Grant conquered huge swaths of territory, compelled the surrender of three rebel field armies, opened all the western rivers to US navigation and commerce, cut the south off from the salt, beef, hogs, mules, and grain of the west, positioned Sherman's army to fall upon Atlanta and then sweep through the rest of the southern logistical base, came east and pounded Lee's army into entrenchments, and won the war. Luke Freet, one can understand your position, if you surrender Chancellorsville as Lee's Greatest Victory there isn't much left. This is your comment from above -
"I told him this when he first started these threads, apparently he doesn't listen to anything he's told."
So Belfoured I've been "told" a lot of things in my life. If something seems out of place I have the intellectual curiosity to investigate. When I smell a rat there are usually a few more in the woodpile. I am ready to discuss any of these issues further. The matter of what constitutes victory on a battlefield is one of them, but I think you understand by now that the mere possession of a segment of the battlefield is not the only metric in that evaluation.

 

[Jamieva]

Copypasta

 

[New Haven]

Jackson's assault took additional time because of 2 major issues: 1) Based on preliminary information, the original route march envisioned a right turn from the Brock Road onto the Orange Plank Road. Upon reaching the intersection, it was ascertained that such a route would not hit the flank, but rather the front of XI Corps. The subsequent revised route to the Orange Turnpike added several hours but placed Jackson in the proper position for assault; 2) The narrow route march in a forested region meant that upon reaching the final jumping off point, Jackson needed to organize the brigades in line of battle formations that ranged over a mile in length.

So noted-

 

[Belfoured]

Maybe Jackson would still be alive and not attacking in the dark. Maybe a strategic retreat from the battlefield in the same way Hooker did? Hooker was still alive, Jackson not so much. Maybe dividing your army wasn't such a smart idea after all. I doubt VMI had a new class that fall entitled "Night attacks in the Wilderness" --If ANV liked the idea of "dividing their army" Hooker was there to help. His visit caused a 22% reduction in force for the ANV that really divided their army. --------Belfoured, this might help you understand my position on Chancellorsville. It is a comment I have made to several others on this blog.
Hello again, Luk. Would you care to comment on this casualty list above. Either the AOP did some damage on the ANV on May 2, or there were more self-inflicted casualties than just the Jackson/Hill fiasco. After the Civil War there were a lot of Southern people manufacturing stories about what happened. They would make one think there were no Confederate casualties at Chancellorsville and they liked to say that it was "Lee's Greatest Victory", which it was not. Lee suffered a massive reduction in force from Hooker's visit and Lee himself says that the battle was worthless. That doesn't smell like victory to me.
The story tellers knew that they needed an Eastern theater hero because of the shameful Confederate performance in the Western theater, where their Generals were attacking each other with petty fights over minutia. But they didn't stop there. It was not enough for them to simply deify Lee and Jackson. No, they had to go on to play a zero sum game where they also had to demonize Grant and Sherman. None of what they said about Grant and Sherman was true. I have found in the business world when there is one lie, there are usually a pack of them hiding right behind the first ones. I was ok with them saying our guy is the greatest, Lee/Jackson cool! But I smelled a rat when they started the silly Grant is a butcher and a drunk. Grant had 3 Confederate armies surrender to him. Lee had NONE. In just under 30 months of active field command, Lee suffered 209,000 combat casualties, about 7000/month, and accomplished nothing except the slaughter and delay of the ultimate rebel defeat. In 42 months of active field command, Grant conquered huge swaths of territory, compelled the surrender of three rebel field armies, opened all the western rivers to US navigation and commerce, cut the south off from the salt, beef, hogs, mules, and grain of the west, positioned Sherman's army to fall upon Atlanta and then sweep through the rest of the southern logistical base, came east and pounded Lee's army into entrenchments, and won the war. Luke Freet, one can understand your position, if you surrender Chancellorsville as Lee's Greatest Victory there isn't much left. This is your comment from above -
"I told him this when he first started these threads, apparently he doesn't listen to anything he's told."
So Belfoured I've been "told" a lot of things in my life. If something seems out of place I have the intellectual curiosity to investigate. When I smell a rat there are usually a few more in the woodpile. I am ready to discuss any of these issues further. The matter of what constitutes victory on a battlefield is one of them, but I think you understand by now that the mere possession of a segment of the battlefield is not the only metric in that evaluation.

You appear to assume that posters who disagree with you aren't "intellectually curious" and simply believe what they are "told". I can assure you that there are several posters here who can "school" you on a lot of this. As for "discuss[ion] of any of these issues", it's clear by this point - in this and numerous other threads you have started on the same general topic - that you refuse to accept or assimilate the information you've been given that is based on actual sources and careful study. So stop the pretense.

 

[New Haven]

You appear to assume that posters who disagree with you aren't "intellectually curious" and simply believe what they are "told". I can assure you that there are several posters here who can "school" you on a lot of this. As for "discuss[ion] of any of these issues", it's clear by this point - in this and numerous other threads you have started on the same general topic - that you refuse to accept or assimilate the information you've been given that is based on actual sources and careful study. So stop the pretense.

I stand by the last post. Read it again so you won't waste any time.

 

[Lubliner]

Copypasta

Ragu please.
Lubliner.

 

[CowCavalry]

Ragu please.
Lubliner.

"its in there"

 

[dlofting]

I stand by the last post. Read it again so you won't waste any time.

In the time you've been on this board I've seen your previous post at least 10 times in different places. I get your gist. You think Chancellorsville was a Union victory because the ANV suffered significant casualties and lost Jackson. I disagree, as does everyone else. Can we just leave it at that unless you have any information you haven't already posted.

 

[JackADriscoll]

I don't think we are covering any new intellectual ground here. Was Chancellorsville costly? Yes absolutely. Was making a night recon risky? Yes absolutely and it cost him. Was Chancellorsville a Confederate victory? Yes but it was one that was too expensive and didn't win much. again it's winning yourself out of an army. Were Lee and Jackson good commanders? Yes. Were they the best of all time? No. I guess I do not know what we are trying to prove here that isn't already kinda in the books.

 

[121st PA Vols]

I don't we are covering any new intellectual ground here. Was Chancellorsville costly? Yes absolutely. Was making a night recon risky? Yes absolutely and it cost him. Was Chancellorsville a Confederate victory? Yes but it was one that was too expensive and didn't win much. again it's winning yourself out of an army. Were Lee and Jackson good commanders? Yes. Were they the best of all time? No. I guess I do not know what we are trying to prove here that isn't already kinda in the books.

No offense to anyone but isn't this, ok....more or less, Chancellorsville 101? But hey, I'm always open to learning.

It reminds me of a rare moment where Dad actually talked about the war as a B-17 pilot, that after a while the raids over German cities were doing little more than moving the rubble around.

 

[Jamieva]

No offense to anyone but isn't this, ok....more or less, Chancellorsville 101? But hey, I'm always open to learning.

It reminds me of a rare moment where Dad actually talked about the war as a B-17 pilot, that after a while the raids over German cities were doing little more than moving the rubble around.

It's the cliff notes version or the chancellorsville for dummies version, yes. These are basic indisputable facts.

 

[New Haven]

In the time you've been on this board I've seen your previous post at least 10 times in different places. I get your gist. You think Chancellorsville was a Union victory because the ANV suffered significant casualties and lost Jackson. I disagree, as does everyone else. Can we just leave it at that unless you have any information you haven't already posted.

Thank you I know how you feel. But there are still a lot of people here on this blog and elsewhere that appreciate what I am saying. In that regard my posts are certainly not aimed at you but for people who have been told that a different story on earlier books and media. I'll give you an example. But , first of all, did you read my earlier comments to others this morning about the lies and more lies Grant and Sherman. The lies started from the crackerbox meeting at Chancellorsville according to Chris Mackowski at ABT. I am finding that a lot of people from here are not watching their 160 series. did know that this site awards badges for the number of posts and I just got one so someone is listening.

 

[New Haven]

I don't think we are covering any new intellectual ground here. Was Chancellorsville costly? Yes absolutely. Was making a night recon risky? Yes absolutely and it cost him. Was Chancellorsville a Confederate victory? Yes but it was one that was too expensive and didn't win much. again it's winning yourself out of an army. Were Lee and Jackson good commanders? Yes. Were they the best of all time? No. I guess I do not know what we are trying to prove here that isn't already kinda in the books.

Aha , which books, you have a trilogy of Shelby Foote fabrications who refused to provide citations. A lot of people read him and believed his stuff as gospel. You have no source to quote that disagrees with him. Don't you think it is time for a new exploration of what happened. Have you viewed the ABT 160 series? Do you visit their ECW blog? More importantly have you viewed any Edward Bonekempers work? All of these people are credentialed. Buy few on this blog recognize them. Maybe it's time to open the door a bit and let some sunlight in.

Here is a partial reviews of His Book "How REL Lost the Civil War". For a lot of people here this is anathema. But you Jack Driscoll have a chance here to open your ears and listen to a scholarly work that is quite contrarian to the beliefs of many on this blog. Here is one review of the book. Author Edward H. Bonekemper, III, builds a solid and succinct case for the fact that Robert E. Lee ignored the obvious strategy when outnumbered 4-to-1 and having only to defend Southern borders to win independence. Simply being outnumbered did not mean the South could not win. Instead, Lee bled his army with head-on charges, capped off by Picket's Charge at Gettysburg. By 1864 and 1865 he had destroyed his army. A simple no from you Jack proves my case that the door is not open here. Actually, I owe a debt here because I find the negativity inspiring. Thus, I must continue.

 

[JackADriscoll]

No offense to anyone but isn't this, ok....more or less, Chancellorsville 101? But hey, I'm always open to learning.

It reminds me of a rare moment where Dad actually talked about the war as a B-17 pilot, that after a while the raids over German cities were doing little more than moving the rubble around.

I'm not offended I just thought I was summing up the discussion

 

[JackADriscoll]

This is a different conversation outside the scope of Chancellorsville. If Lee wants to win the war all he has to do is send his army into the hills as guerrilla bands ala Vietnam and bleed the whole country white.

Nobody is quoting foote. Foote was a novelist that wrote a civil war series. He was like listening to your grandpa by the fire. If you want to make sure Grandpa was accurate then you may have to fact check him. Foote was a great story teller but not a historian.

Please do not make ad hominem attacks against me or demand I admit to anything. I would not do the same to you I do not even know what we are disagreeing about except that Chancellorsville was a Confederate tactical victory. I even think Chancellorsville was a strategic union victory just it took a little bit for the strategy to shake itself out. It was like the way to the strategy without knowing it yet. So I know what we are even discussing could you give the thesis of your point in a short paragraph?

This is how I understand your position. Chancellorsville was a tactical and strategic union victory. Jackson was a bad commander and had he survived he should have been removed. Lee was a butcher like some folks think grant was. The lost cause is still prolific and why people think it was a great victory. Have I missed anything?

 

[Jamieva]

 

[121st PA Vols]

I'm not offended I just thought I was summing up the discussion

Good. Because I was agreeing with you, in my own clumsy way I guess.

 

[Belfoured]

I stand by the last post. Read it again so you won't waste any time.

If avoiding a waste of time were at the top of my agenda, that's exactly why I wouldn't read it again. It's not as if it's going to make more sense as it ages.

 

[New Haven]

If avoiding a waste of time were at the top of my agenda, that's exactly why I wouldn't read it again. It's not as if it's going to make more sense as it ages.

Maybe it would be good for you to not read my posts -I'll be exploring Bonekempers book next and it might be too much for you. As a matter of full disclosure I should tell you that criticism is welcome and , for me needed. You inspire me. Here's where we are going next.
Here is a partial reviews of His Book "How REL Lost the Civil War". For a lot of people here this is anathema. But you ?????? have a chance here to open your ears and listen to a scholarly work that is quite contrarian to the beliefs of many on this blog. Here is one review of the book. Author Edward H. Bonekemper, III, builds a solid and succinct case for the fact that Robert E. Lee ignored the obvious strategy when outnumbered 4-to-1 and having only to defend Southern borders to win independence. Simply being outnumbered did not mean the South could not win. Instead, Lee bled his army with head-on charges, capped off by Picket's Charge at Gettysburg. By 1864 and 1865 he had destroyed his army. A simple argument proves my case that the door is not open here. Actually, I owe a debt here because I find the negativity inspiring. Thus, I must continue.

Lee's bleed rate was higher than all of the other Confederate generals combined and they were supposed to be not as bright as Lee.