If Jackson Had Survived?

[Gigapump]

Granted you can argue that the Confederate Generals were the cream of the crop, but that does not change the fact that the Union generals all grew into their rolls as superior generals. Hell, going by most of their rhetoric and how they applied it, and eventually won because of it shows who is the winner and superior.

That said though you can't deny that Lee did have a considerable level of genius, yet that said he was way too mindful of the Napoleonic way of was and wanted to achieve a Cannae/Austerlitz. Chancellorsville is the only time that came close for him. The only two generals that achieved such a victory at either destroying or capturing an army are Sherman and Grant.

ANd Jackson, well, one problem here is that the SHenanadoah campaign, the SHenanadoah was also a pro-confederate region. Sherman and Grant cut themselves off from their supply lines and destroyed enemy territory. Jackson never really did that.

In the end though, the War was won in the west.

....

maybe in the end it comes down to the whole War strategy vs battle tactics concept.

Of course the Shenandoah reigon was confederate. That didn't change things all that much. Especially considering that absolutely nobody is mentioning that Lee was at a disadvantage in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Jackson was outnumbered many times over, and still utterly crushed his enemy and drove them off.

 

[Gigapump]

You do realize that the Confederate States of America was the size of European Russia with good defensive terrain right? Virginia had little room to maneuver and the only way forward is to attack. With the good terrain of Northern Virginia and little room to maneuver, it is easy to see why Virginia held on for so long. In the Western Theatre, with its vast space to maneuver the Union had victory after victory.

All union generals were incompetent? Then explain the surrender of Fort Henry AND Donelson, Vicksburg, and the fall of Atlanta and Savannah and the Shenendoah Valley to the Union along with the destruction of Hood's army at Nashville (the only true destruction of an army during the American Civil War).

All Confederate generals were brilliant? Then explain to me the presence of men like Leonidas Polk, Van Dorn, Sterling Price, Braxton Bragg, Benjamin Huger and William Pendelton (artillery chief of the Army of Northern Virginia).

I never said all generals on either side were one way or another. You just worked yourself into a fit and read it wrong.

 

[Gigapump]

While I shall agree that Second Bull Run was very impressive, I shall point out that Lee's performance in the Maryland campaign was quite poor. When Lee divided his army, the force that seized Harper's Ferry was not outnumbered by the garrison, it outnumbered the garrison. About 30,000 rebels against 17,000 Union soldiers. Secondly, the seizure of Harper's Ferry was not very impressive, it was ground that would require an immense garrison to defend the three mountains. Frankly, I could have seized Harper's Ferry with 30,000 men.

Another failure of Lee was his decision to divide his army. Both Longstreet and Jackson opposed the idea of dividing the Army of Northern Virginia into five parts and using 3/5 of it to capture Harper's Ferry. Lee splitting his army into five pieces nearly enabled the destruction of each of those pieces in detail; in fact, Union VI Corps commander William Franklin seized Crampton's Gap, and was poised to crush at least one of Jackson's divisions and save Harper's Ferry, but he managed to convince himself he was outnumbered instead. Instead of splitting his army, he should have taken up position at South Mountain and from there smash McClellan.

Lastly, the battle of Antietam itself is a mistake. When McClellan cornered the rest of Lee's army at Sharpsburg, where, thanks to Lee failing to take use of McClellan's hesitation to withdraw, he risked having most of his army destroyed. With a inferior force, he fought on a battlefield where he had one relatively easily interrupted escape route if he lost.

Vicksburg and Shenendoah campaign? You're right, there is no competition. Grant's Vicksburg campaign was by far the superior campaign.

Strategically, the Vicksburg campaign bagged 30,000 men of the Confederacy and split the CSA in half. In comparison, Jackson drew off Union men that could have been sent to Richmond.

In terms of logistics, Grant cut himself off his supply lines and operated in hostile territory. Jackson in the meanwhile operated in friendly territory.

You say he drew off men as if he hadn't saved Richmond and acted as a sponge for nearly 75,000 Union soldiers in total with his tiny army, that, in its zenith, was around 14,000 men. And half is pretty generous. Texas was a wasteland back then, they already had the populous parts of Louisiana in hand, and Arkansas was very minor as well. He just lobbed off the national equivalent of a left foot.

 

[CalBear]

You're basically just admitting that the Union generals were pretty bad. The only way to prove Lee wasn't an amazing general is to say that the Union generals were the opposite, and that he was just okay. Also, I can't say I've ever heard the acronym OPFOR.

Of course there were a number of terrible Union Generals, just as there were a number of terrible Confederate Generals.

OPFOR = OPposing FORce.

Grant fought in more places. Of course he won victories against weaker opponents throughout the west. Nearly all of the eastern war was in Virginia. Only 2 campaigns even left it.

And the West, under Grant, was where the Confederacy LOST THE WAR. Once Grant took Vicksburg it was literally a question when the already dead body fell over. It might not have been obvious at the time, but today it could not be more clear.

 

[jahenders]

No, Grant really was a butcher. And that's not just Lost Cause...his contemporaries on both sides identified him as such, some of them meaning it as a criticism, others as a compliment (and I think both have validity). I actually think Lee's overrated, but saying his soldiers were more likely to die is a non-point considering that he lost and that a huge chunk of casualties happen after one side breaks.

Actually, the facts suggest otherwise. If you compare casualty rates from all of Grant's battles to all of Lee's, Lee was the real butcher.

There was a good article in Civil War Times back in 2011, but they dorked up the key charts.

This article suggests the fix:
http://www.scottmanning.com/content/busted-grant-lee-casualties-chart-in-civil-war-times/

 

[jahenders]

Let's say Jackson decided on a whim that he didn't really want to go out to check out the state of his troops that faithful night at Chancellorsville.

What would change?

Well, for one, Gettysburg would have certainly been a Confederate victory. It was lost to them for the main reason that Ewell failed to take a key hill. Undoubtedly, Jackson could have taken it. But how much of a victory would it have been? Would it be something like First Manassas, or more similar to, say, Second Manassas? Personally, I think it would've been slightly more slim victory than the usual Lee special, seeing as how the AotP was larger than ever before, and beginning to get the hand of their cavalry for once.

Still, the implications of a medium sized Confederate victory at Gettysburg would be enormous. Lee would continue to be able to march through Pennsylvania and deal enormous material damage.

However, Lee isn't Sherman. This would hardly be a March to the Sea, for the main reasons that Lee probably wouldn't destroy all towns in his path, and that he would have a large army opposing him. Regardless, many towns would be drained to supply his army as he doubtless shifted continuously eastward. Grant would finally be put in place as the new head of the Army of the Potomac, while Lee would continud rolling their right flank slightly in his push to Philadelphia. Finally, the Army of the Potomac was directly between the Army of Northern Virginia and Washington.

Grant would advance forward in an attempt to surge past the Confederates as their supply trains strained to supply them, and stop them before they reached Philadelphia.

Lee, unsurprisingly, anticipated a move similar to this, and shifted his forces to a series of defensive hills surrounding Upper Providence Township. Jackson, having immense artillery expirience gained from leading the VMI artillery squad before the war, ordered the cannons to be position in the prime locations near the center of the hills.

Knowing Grant, it seems likely that he'd swarm his forces forward in the way that he did in virtually every one of his battles. It could easily be assumed that a situation similar to Cold Harbor could occur, only with much greater repercussions. With a larger army available to both side, the casualty rate would be far larger, which would have a more profound effect on the AotP than the QoNV. Grant would more likely than not become yet another general in a string of Union generals humiliated by Lee.

Now deep in Pennsylvania, and near Philadelphia, and no army nearby to oppose him immediately, Lee, even with rickety supply lines, would probably reach Philadelphia and sack it. Utterly sack it. An orgy of looting and burning would rip through the city, causing massive material damage and seizing enough supplies from the Union warehouses to keep the army fed and clothed for months. Collassal supplies of artillery, horses, and weapons would be incorporated into the impoverished, barefoot, ascendant army. Critical railroad junctions would suddenly be cut off. Confederate engineers would melt and bend huge stretches of railroad in the area, rendering them irreparable.

Washington would be in panic. The second largest city in the nation would be gone. The Army of the Potomac would be in ruins. Washington was under direct threat. They called for even more men to join, desperate to create an army big enough to crush the AoNV.

Meanwhile, as the AotP slowly began to regather itself and reorganize, Lee suddenly smashed into their right in Downingtown. He began to rapidly roll them back, with Jackson spearheading the attack. It was a rout.

The Union army, then under the command of Meade, would have to pull their left back and withdrawal all the way to the safety of Maryland. Now content with the safety of his army to push north unmolested, Lee quickly set out to advance northward on a quest to ravage as much of the north as possible, living off the land as they went in the hopes of forcing a Union surrender.

By my estimates, it'd be similar to Sherman's March to the Sea, only not quite as destructive. As the AotP built back up in Washington, Lee would push north and begin draining supplies from Pennsylvania.

Would he reach New York State? New England, even? Would this be enough to actually win the US Civil war?

If Jackson lived, there's a good chance Gettysburg might not even take place and, even assuming it did, there's no reason to assume that it will be a "certain" CSA victory. It could be a victory, but many things could have caused that.

If they won, Lee could march through some of Pennsylvania, but it wouldn't dare to go far or he'd risk being cut off and crushed with no escape. He might threaten Philadelphia, but he's not going to get there for two reasons:
1) His generals (including Jackson) would probably convince him it would be a trap to go there.
2) Union forces would rally and prevent him from taking it.

Even if he wins decisively at Gettysburg, Lee is in no position to "march to the sea."

 

[Johnrankins]

Of course the Shenandoah reigon was confederate. That didn't change things all that much. Especially considering that absolutely nobody is mentioning that Lee was at a disadvantage in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Jackson was outnumbered many times over, and still utterly crushed his enemy and drove them off.

Since Lee was the one who placed in army in MD and PA he is the one to blame for that. He could have attacked in US occupied CSA areas. He chose to invade the Union where he would be at a disadvantage. He could have also went west, perhaps to Vicksburg. He never looked at the war as a whole. If it happened outside Virginia he didn't care about it. It might well have helped if he went to MS and left Longstreet in VA.

 

[Johnrankins]

Actually, the facts suggest otherwise. If you compare casualty rates from all of Grant's battles to all of Lee's, Lee was the real butcher.

There was a good article in Civil War Times back in 2011, but they dorked up the key charts.

This article suggests the fix:
http://www.scottmanning.com/content/busted-grant-lee-casualties-chart-in-civil-war-times/

I didn't realize that the percentages were that lopsided. Not only did Grant have a smaller percentage of causalities than Lee but a smaller number . Considering Grant led the larger army it is really heavily on his side. Lee bled his army white but I knew that already.

 

[jahenders]

Since Lee was the one who placed in army in MD and PA he is the one to blame for that. He could have attacked in US occupied CSA areas. He chose to invade Union where he would be at a disadvantage. He could have also went west, perhaps to Vicksburg. He never looked at the war as a whole. If it happened outside Virginia he didn't care about it. It might well have helped if he went to MS and left Longstreet in VA.

Agreed and it has been said that he didn't truly have a vision for winning the war (though certainly a tough task). Some have suggested that if Jackson survived, and Lee listened to him, he might have provided better options for winning the war. Again, that's hard, but (for instance) he might have urged Lee NOT to give battle at Gettysburg but, instead, seize good defensive ground to the East to try to force the Union to attack him (since he'd be a potential threat to DC and Philly). This option (sans Jackson) is covered pretty well in the Gingrich/Fortschen book Gettysburg.

 

[acrsome]

Grant lost a LOT OF battles.

You are confusing battles with campaigns- the people that you are responding to are talking about campaigns. One could easily and defensibly argue that the latter are the true purview of generals who are in the positions that Grant and Lee were in- as well as winning the war as a whole. Yes, Grant lost battles. So did Lee. So by your own logic Lee sucked, right? No, clearly not. Lee was very competent. But Grant, Sheridan, and Sherman were better- and a couple of those I would argue were actually brilliant. Lee spent most of the war running away from his battlefield "victories." What does that tell you?

You also say that he outnumber Lee 'less than 2:1', as if it's some sort of big achievement that he won because it wasn't quite 2 to 1.

It is when one considers that since the invention of gunpowder the conventional wisdom has been that it takes 3 to 1 odds to have a realistic chance to carry a prepared defense. And in this era the defense was probably even more strong than that. Especially at Petersburg for Chrissakes! I mean- do you understand what those defenses were like? I would propose that if you consider 2 to 1 to be good odds then that just unmasks a hole in your knowledge base. Which is hardly shameful- we all have them. The entire ACW is a weak spot of mine, actually. IIRC the very first attacks on Petersburg did have 3 to 1 odds, but failed. I won't get into details, but by any rational definition Petersburg was open to capture on June 15 (a troop of Boy Scouts could have taken the city) but the Union failed to follow up their attack. This was before Grant arrived on the scene.

They didn't want to, but the Union army was refusing to leave a fort that belonged to the CSA.

"Perpetual Union", brother, according to the AoC. Perpetual. Then made more perfect by the Constitution. But that's a different subject, albeit much more debatable than "Lee crapped rainbows and pissed Merlot," since you could at least try to claim rebellion as a natural right. And actually, that would be a much more interesting discussion IMO. We could get all philosophical and shit.

And I'll recon by fire, here- are you going to try to convince us that the ACW wasn't about slavery, next? (Just trying to get your measure. That would at least let us know who you are.)

 

[deathscompanion1]

They didn't want to, but the Union army was refusing to leave a fort that belonged to the CSA.

And the traitors were refusing to accept a President who might possibly have gone against his word and murmured loudly about the fact they kept millions of human beings in slavery.

 

[Gigapump]

You are confusing battles with campaigns- the people that you are responding to are talking about campaigns. One could easily and defensibly argue that the latter are the true purview of generals who are in the positions that Grant and Lee were in- as well as winning the war as a whole. Yes, Grant lost battles. So did Lee. So by your own logic Lee sucked, right? No, clearly not. Lee was very competent. But Grant, Sheridan, and Sherman were better- and a couple of those I would argue were actually brilliant. Lee spent most of the war running away from his battlefield "victories." What does that tell you?



It is when one considers that since the invention of gunpowder the conventional wisdom has been that it takes 3 to 1 odds to have a realistic chance to carry a prepared defense. And in this era the defense was probably even more strong than that. Especially at Petersburg for Chrissakes! I mean- do you understand what those defenses were like? I would propose that if you consider 2 to 1 to be good odds then that just unmasks a hole in your knowledge base. Which is hardly shameful- we all have them. The entire ACW is a weak spot of mine, actually. IIRC the very first attacks on Petersburg did have 3 to 1 odds, but failed. I won't get into details, but by any rational definition Petersburg was open to capture on June 15 (a troop of Boy Scouts could have taken the city) but the Union failed to follow up their attack. This was before Grant arrived on the scene.



"Perpetual Union", brother, according to the AoC. Perpetual. Then made more perfect by the Constitution. But that's a different subject, albeit much more debatable than "Lee crapped rainbows and pissed Merlot," since you could at least try to claim rebellion as a natural right. And actually, that would be a much more interesting discussion IMO. We could get all philosophical and shit.

And I'll recon by fire, here- are you going to try to convince us that the ACW wasn't about slavery, next? (Just trying to get your measure. That would at least let us know who you are.)

Slavery was a major influence, but it wasn't the full reason. Most of the south was afraid that slavery was only the start. Slavery certainly wasn't the reason most men on either side fought.

 

[acrsome]

Slavery was a major influence, but it wasn't the full reason. Most of the south was afraid that slavery was only the start. Slavery certainly wasn't the reason most men on either side fought.

Hmm. A lot of waffling, but I guess you aren't totally a lost cause.

See what I did, there?

I could have been more precise. Over what issue did the Southern states secede?

 

[Gigapump]

Hmm. A lot of waffling, but I guess you aren't totally a lost cause.

See what I did, there?

Lol, in fact I did. I'm just saying, it was the straw on the camels back. Granted, a gigantic straw. But there's no way secession would've been started if that was the only reason. And the Confederate men, nearly all of which owned no slaves, wouldn't have fought so fiercely till the very end if it was entirely for slavery.

 

[acrsome]

[1] But there's no way secession would've been started if that was the only reason. [2] And the Confederate men, nearly all of which owned no slaves, wouldn't have fought so fiercely till the very end if it was entirely for slavery.

1) Yes, in fact that's what happened, by any rational standard. To what other straws do you refer? Tariffs? Were tariffs a contemporary issue? Sure, but it was no tariff that precipitated the war. Because in fact the South won almost every political fight that they ever got into over tariffs (they really were sore winners) and I would challenge you to name the one that was passed that led to hostilities. Tariffs were only proposed as a reason for secession long after the war, by Lost Causers. Among the seven* states that declared their reasons for secession how many times does the word "tariff" appear? Zero. How about "slave" or "slavery"? Ninety-eight. (Feel free to ctrl-F whatever phraseology you like for yourself.)

What precipitated the war was the election result, and the threat that it represented to slavery and thus the planter elite.

2) They were fed a line of bullshit about "states' rights" by the planter class. So they were as much victims as anyone else, I guess. The only "state right" in question was the right to keep slavery legal. We can point you at the other usual primary sources if you like.

* Edited because until now (due to Calbear's mention) I had never come across the declared secession reasons for Florida or Alabama. Florida's was passed but never published. Alabama's is, shockingly, the least damning, which is probably why you don't find it quoted everywhere.

 

[Johnrankins]

Lol, in fact I did. I'm just saying, it was the straw on the camels back. Granted, a gigantic straw. But there's no way secession would've been started if that was the only reason. And the Confederate men, nearly all of which owned no slaves, wouldn't have fought so fiercely till the very end if it was entirely for slavery.

About one in three Southern families owned slaves. So most people down South either owned slaves or were friends with people that did. There are also a host of people who made money off of slavery that didn't necessarily own slaves themselves including bankers, insurance salesmen, shackles and whip manufacturers etc. Also a lot of Poor Whites took some pride in the fact that "At least they weren't slaves" and felt if the slaves were freed they would be lowered to the same level as Blacks.

 

[Urcea]

Lol, in fact I did. I'm just saying, it was the straw on the camels back. Granted, a gigantic straw. But there's no way secession would've been started if that was the only reason. And the Confederate men, nearly all of which owned no slaves, wouldn't have fought so fiercely till the very end if it was entirely for slavery.

The Slave Power had successfully created the Southern identity to tie into their particular institution - an assault on it was an assault on the South, on the "Southern way of life", etc.

Of course, the racist populism that would sprout up after the initial wave of reclaimers supports the idea that the separation of peoples and the subservience of one race was ingrained in the culture of the time.

 

[CalBear]

Lol, in fact I did. I'm just saying, it was the straw on the camels back. Granted, a gigantic straw. But there's no way secession would've been started if that was the only reason. And the Confederate men, nearly all of which owned no slaves, wouldn't have fought so fiercely till the very end if it was entirely for slavery.

Pretty to think so.

Unfortunately the secession Declaration of causes of the seven original Confederate states lay out the reason as Slavery

Alabama: Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the officers of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security...

Florida: That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves.

It is in so many words saying to you we will not burn you at the stake but we will torture you to death by a slow fire we will not confiscate your property and consign you to a residence and equality with the african but that destiny certainly awaits your children – and you must quietly submit or we will force you to submission – men who can hesitate to resist such aggressions are slaves already and deserve their destiny.

Georgia: For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Louisiana: No Declaration of causes was published.

Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

South Carolina: The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue. The entire document mentions NOTHING but slavery.

Texas: She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy.

Many of the common soldiers may well have had no slaves. However, that is, in no small part, thanks to the reality that anyone who owned 15 slaves was exempt from the Confederate Draft (the Union allowed a similar out for those with means since they could hire a substitute to take their place). As is usually the case, it was "a rich man's war and a poor man's fight".

Lastly, more studies than can be easily read indicate the same thing, men in combat do not fight for grand causes, they fight for their mates/battle buddies/squadies, in short they fight for each others. Despite this sense of obligation, according to Confederate records, 103,000 troops deserted during the war. Move over that figure in likely far higher, since it does not include men who were voluntarily captured (prior to 1863 PoW were routinely paroled, allowing them to return home since they had given oath that they would no longer bear arms in the war), self wounded (trigger fingers were especially vulnerable to this practice, loss of a joint was usually enough to be invalided home) and plain old cooking of the book by state authorities, both to make things look better as well as prevent the disgrace of the deserter's entire family. Depending on who is doing the math, as many as 2 in 3 Confederate troops deserted during the war.

 

[acrsome]

Next, for fun, we'll discuss the Confederate Battle Flag.

 

[CalBear]

Next, for fun, we'll discuss the Confederate Battle Flag.

Not in this Forum.