Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Stonewall at Gettysburg - Battle of Gettysburg - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Oct 26th, 2011 07:56 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I've been thinking recently about what if Jackson wasn't killed at chancellorsville and he had participated at Gettysburg. If Stonewall was at gettysburg and the battle would have gone the same for the first 2 days what do you think Stonewall's reaction would have been if Lee had asked him to assault the federal center like he did Longstreet? I somewhat believe Jackson would have attacked as ordered but then again I believe he would have been horrified at the proposal to attack such an impregnable position. What do you think? Do you think he would have acted much like Longstreet trying to persuad Lee not to or do you think he would have done his duty as ordered?



 Posted: Wed Oct 26th, 2011 09:17 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 830
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I'm falling onto Chancellorsville here as I think of this. I think Jackson might have suggested Longstreet attack as Lee had ordered but then he take his corps and try a flanking attack. Have Meades attention focused on his center so he doesn't expect an attack on the right or left flanks. I don't know, I'm probably off the mark there. But my thinking is that Jackson might have believed that after two days one of the flanks might have been weakened to strengthen the other.

Last edited on Wed Oct 26th, 2011 09:21 am by Hellcat



 Posted: Wed Oct 26th, 2011 10:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

well thats kinda what Lee had in mind, longstreet attack the center while ewell attacked the union right flank and stuart moving behind the union lines to cut down any federals trying to flee. But because of miscommunications of acustical barriers Longstreet and ewell couldnt cordinate their attacks



 Posted: Wed Oct 26th, 2011 11:41 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Here is my take on the what if. When Stonewall Jackson gets word his men are engaged at Gettysburg, he tells his men to disengage as he does not know the country and his orders from Gen. Lee is not to bring on a general engagment. The battle never happens or not as we know it. That is what A.P. Hill should of done.

Just some thoughts, Pender



 Posted: Thu Oct 27th, 2011 12:41 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 830
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

But Pender, the initial question says July 1st and 2nd happen as they did, but what would Jackson have done on the 3rd. Would he have acted like Longstreet and tried to persuade Lee not to carry out the assualt on the third day or would he have followed orders. Jackson would have done things differently, that's for sure. But if things had gone as they had on the first two days what would he have done?

I'm not sure the acustical barriers would have made as much of a difference. Yeah I know they were there and there not being there could have made a difference on what the generals did. But my thinking is didn't Lee have problems with Ewell or someone not following orders on the first two days. Who was it Lee ordered to take the Round Tops on like the first day and their not taking them allowed Federal forces to hold them on day two. I'm wanting to say it was Ewell, but it might have been someone else. So it could have still been possible for things not to have been followed on day 3 with coordinating the attack.



 Posted: Thu Oct 27th, 2011 11:24 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Lee told ewell on the evening of the first to take culps hill if practicalable. One thing i know for sure Jackson was one of the most aggressive commanders on either side probably only second to NB forest. Lee and Jackson was a pair that in my opinion could not be conquered. Could ya'll imagine what the war would have been like it NB Forest had been in the ANV? Three very opposite men, Lee the Gentleman, Jackson the religious fanatic and Forest the savage! Who could have stopped them? lol



 Posted: Thu Oct 27th, 2011 11:51 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

and even if the Confederates win the battle of Gettysburg, the ANV still could not have decisively crushed the Army of the Potomac, and Grant still would have taken Vicksburg. I really don't see this changing the war much. 1863 wasn't an election year, so the war policy would not have changed. Grant opening the Mississippi and the Emancipation Proclamation would have neutralized any diplomatic benefit in Europe. Just my $.02

Mark



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 05:34 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ANV could have crushed the AOTP, they nearly did it several times, 2nd Manassas for instance. Lee's plan wasnt only to crush the AOTP but to cut washington's lines of communication and supply. Also England could have very easily supported the CSA, brazil was a colony of England at the time and brazil had an active slave economy. With the morale of the north during the spring of 1863 the war could have and probably would have been in the south's favor if Lee could have achieved a victory of any kind especially a decisive victory



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 08:18 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 830
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

csamillerp wrote:  Three very opposite men, Lee the Gentleman, Jackson the religious fanatic and Forest the savage! Who could have stopped them? lol
That's assuming they could have worked well together. The question is could they have worked well together. We do know that Grant feared Forrest, so he may have had respect for him as a cavalry general. But had Forrest been back East prior to Jackson's death, what would have happened out west? Vicksburg might have been very different, same for the retreat from Shiloh.



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 09:21 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

csamillerp wrote: ANV could have crushed the AOTP, they nearly did it several times, 2nd Manassas for instance. Lee's plan wasnt only to crush the AOTP but to cut washington's lines of communication and supply. Also England could have very easily supported the CSA, brazil was a colony of England at the time and brazil had an active slave economy. With the morale of the north during the spring of 1863 the war could have and probably would have been in the south's favor if Lee could have achieved a victory of any kind especially a decisive victory

"Could have" and "nearly did" are never enough, "should have but didn't" is more like it.

Brazil, a colony of England? I don't think so. Brazil was mainly a Portuguese colony with some French enclaves

 



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 10:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

csamilerp, I am talking about a Austerltiz type victory that so devastates an army that it cannot take the field again without significant reorganization. The only times this happened during the Civil War is when an army holed itself up and was captured (Donelson, Vicksburg, Petersburg/Appomattox). Nashville would probably also qualify. I cannot see any way the ANV could have accomplished this kind of feat at Gettysburg with Jackson, Lee, Forrest or any other commander given the numbers. The ANV cannot threaten Washington until the AOP is eliminated.

What evidence do you have that public mood in the north would have changed so much as to demand an end to the war in 1863? Citizens made their will evident at the ballot boxes and 1863 was an off year election. There were anti-draft race riots in 1863, but even this did not come close to affecting war policy. In 1862, Democrats made a large comeback because of war stagnation, and in 1864 Republicans (or actually it would be more accurate to call them the War Party) regained their large majorities.

Fedreb, thanks for the clarification on Brazil.

Mark

Last edited on Fri Oct 28th, 2011 11:20 am by Mark



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 11:21 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 830
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

There's another problem with Brazil being a colony of England in the 1860s. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. It abolished slavery throughout the British Empire except for in the East Indies, Ceylon (Sri Lanka today) and St. Helena. (http://www.pdavis.nl/Legis_07.htm see paragraph 64 towards the bottom of the page). Slavery would have been illegal in Brazil under this act. And Brazil was it's own Empire from 1822 to 1889 after it gained independence from Portugal in 1821. 



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 05:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ya'll are right. but didnt England recognize brazil as a nation? hadnt england recognized the US as a nation? That was the big question whether or not England could recognize the Confederates as a legal nation if it gained it's independence. Mark how could you say that the Confederates could not crush the AOtP? Look at Chancellorsville? 2:1 odds! You cant say anything is impossible. Lee and Jackson fought and defeated "impossible" odds so why couldnt they destroy the AOTP? Lee seriously believed he could and would destroy the Union army and frankly i believe he knew a bit more about his abilities and that of his subordinates then we'll ever know. Gettysburg was Lee's worse battle not because of being slightly outnumbered of because his troops didnt have the ability to win but because of lack of intel on the enemy location, miscommunication and ultimately luck.



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 08:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Chancellorsville did not destroy the AOP. Hooker just pulled it back across the river. It was still able to fight again. I'll agree with you that Lee did believe that he could destroy the AOP as a fighting force, but that doesn't make him right. Just my assessment using the one advantage I have over Lee: 20/20 hindsight.

Mark



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 09:52 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 830
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

We've recently been talking about Chancellorsville in a McClellan thread. One of the things that got me was that Hooker actually took fewer casualties percentage wise than were inflicted on Lee. If you simply look at the numbers The Army of the Potomac suffers several more thousand casualties than the Army of Northern Virginia. But if you look at the percentage of casualties to the size of the force engaged Hooker suffers 13% to 15% percent of his total force as casulaties while Lee suffers 21% to 22%. Massive defeat for hooker, but because he had the larger force (by several tens of thousand men) he takes a smaller percentage.



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 11:42 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
16th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ok first i never said Lee destroyed the AOP at chancellorsville, their presence at gettysburg is proof of that but for an army of maybe 50,000 effectives to nearly destroy an army of 120,000-130,000 states that it is all too possible for Lee with 75000 effectives to destroy an army of 95000. If jackson would have launched his attack earlier and if he hadnt been wounded then its very likely Lee would of at the very least destroyed a large portion of the AOP. A battle isnt only about numbers more then anything it's about morale, and with Lee's army having never been defeated (unless you consider antietam a defeat)i'd say he had the army with the highest morale especially when watching the entire union right flank rout



 Posted: Sat Oct 29th, 2011 09:42 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
17th Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

If it is your opinion that Chancellorsville was agreat CSA victory then you should really consider Antietam a CSA defeat. Both battles ended with one side withdrawing across a river with the other side not pursuing them.In both instances they lived to fight another day.



 Posted: Sat Oct 29th, 2011 10:41 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
18th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

fedreb wrote: If it is your opinion that Chancellorsville was agreat CSA victory then you should really consider Antietam a CSA defeat. Both battles ended with one side withdrawing across a river with the other side not pursuing them.In both instances they lived to fight another day.

fedreb, not only is it csamillerp's opinion that Chancellorsville was great victory but mine also. It is also a great CSA victory to many historians and authors. The victory was so great the U.S. armed forces has studied the battle every since. No Lee's army did not destroy the AOTP, but in my opinion that is the closes Lee came. Lees and Jacksons strategy was a master piece. Especially considering most of Longstreet's Corp. was not with him. Also the total force of the union army was 133,868, Lee's force was 57,352.

Why should csamillerp consider Antietam a CSA defeat? Both armies withdrew from each other after each battle during the war. The union army withdrew from Hood after Franklin, I would not consider Franklin a CSA victory. Most historians consider Antietam a draw. But according to Stephen W. Sears considering McClellan had Lees lost orders, and knew Lee's movements. And for Lee to fight him to a draw, that he would give Lee the better day.

Pender



 Posted: Sat Oct 29th, 2011 12:21 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
19th Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Pender,
I never said that it wasn't my opinion either, just that there are so many "ifs" in the contentions, if Jackson had attacked earlier, if he hadn'd been wounded, if Lee had pressed on harder before Hooker withdrew then maybe the AotP would have been destroyed but that goes the same for Antietam and probably many other battles too. If A.P Hill hadn't made it in time,if McClellan had committed all his troops and pressed Lee on the 18th rather than sit and watch then maybe Antietam would have been the decisive victory in the East. And yes I do read Sears and and many others but surely we are playing "What Ifs" here.I agree with you about Franklin, but "if" Hood and the AoT had been more on the ball at Spring Hill then would Franklin have happened at all, or Nashville, and would Sherman have had to about turn and follow Hood to the Ohio? None of that happened of course so speculation is all we have.



 Posted: Sun Oct 30th, 2011 05:26 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
20th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

the point is you cant say it was impossible for Lee to have destroyed the AoTP, again if Lee could do what he did while out numbered almost 3 to 1 the surely it's possible for him to do it against an army of only 95000. I also consider antietam to be a great victory for CSA... pender said it all, for an army to trapped with it's back against a river and out numbered like it was Lee achieved a tactical victory in repelling Mcclellan's attacks for 12 hours and being able to withdraw. No commander had a greater advantage then McClellan did during Antietam. The difference between McClellan at Antietam and Lee at Chancellorsville is Lee did press the attack. Once Lee lost the advantage of surprise he did lose his chances of destroying the AoTP. No 50,000 men can achieve much success in frontal assaults against 130,000 men.



 Current time is 08:17 am
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2114 seconds (10% database + 90% PHP). 29 queries executed.