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


The death of TJ Jackson - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu May 10th, 2012 08:09 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
Gettysburger
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 19th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 28
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Since today is the 149th anniversary of the great generals death, does anyone care to make a comment regarding how the war would have been fought if Jackson had lived?

With my interest in Lost Cause ideology, I think many would suggest the death of Jackson resulted in much more than the tactical changes Lee had to make to the ANV after Chancellorsville.



You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Thu May 10th, 2012 02:12 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top


I'm not sure the army lost its aggressiveness. I think mostly it lost high-level competence.

 

for example - Jackson did his own reconnoitering.

 

it's difficult to imagine him at Gettysburg starting a march to the right, being discovered and doubling back to a concealed route and the attack being thus delayed ...

 



You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri May 11th, 2012 01:27 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1020
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

What ifs are difficult. To assume that if Jackson had not been killed at Chancellorsville and hence had been commanding a corps at Gettysburg and later battles and that would have made a difference in the eventual outcome of the Civil War, is to assume that Jackson would never have been killed or severely wounded at any other point in the war.

It also assumes other factors, such as his Stonewall Brigade, in fact, his entire corps, would have remained mainly intact also throughout the war. It assumes that Jackson would always have been functioning at his best.

It even assumes variables such as Jefferson Davis assigning Jackson to command the Army of Tennessee to replace Joseph E. Johnston which isn't out of the realm of possibility if and only if Jackson had survived (and Lee would have allowed it.)

I do sometimes wonder, however, if Lee's thinking at Gettysburg was not at least somewhat impacted by the recent loss of his right hand man, Jackson. For example, maybe Lee lacked complete confidence in his other corps commanders, Longstreet, Hill and Ewell. Plus Lee had to deal with Ewell's recalcitrance and, of course, the untimely flare up of Hill's chronic disease. Lee surely would have been more comfortable with Jackson by his side. His absence had to have plagued Lee.



 Posted: Fri May 11th, 2012 12:49 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

mathematically,

Hill + Ewell < Jackson



You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 12:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1020
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Even though I don't like what ifs and alternative histories, I do have to wonder that if Jackson had been at Gettysburg, would he have agreed with Longstreet and Hood that Lee should outflank the Union left and get in their rear, cutting their main route of escape and supply?

Something tells me Jackson would have seen this and woud have been able to convince Lee that such a flanking maneuver was better than a frontal assault.

As it was, Longstreet and Hood could not convince Lee, so we all know what happened instead. Yes, if Jackson had been there Days Two or Three, if even there had been a Day Three, could have been very different. All this is just a "what if" though.



 Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 03:21 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Longstreet was Lee's "War Horse." He pleaded with Lee to do the flanking maneuver and Lee brushed him off. Lee thought Meade being new to command would make a mistake and by being aggressive it would bring that about. I don't think Stonewall Jackson would have been any more convincing than Longstreet in convincing Lee to outflank Meade.



 Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 04:38 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
Joel Smith
Member
 

Joined: Sat May 12th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 5
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I probably think of alternatives more simply, but in my mind the only chance the South had hung on the election of 1864. Once Lincoln wins it's basically just a matter of time.

Now, if y'all are saying that a loss at G/burg means a victory for McClellan, then that's another deal entirely...Not outside the realm of possibility of course.



 Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 08:25 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

 

That's what I mean by aggresiveness. He was not one to delay an attack.

well, there wre many competent generals that were not aggressive - George Thomas springs to mind at the army level; James Longstreet at the corps level...



 Current time is 05:30 am
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 1.3198 seconds (87% database + 13% PHP). 31 queries executed.