Jackson survives

jeffking

Banned
How would the Civil War have developed if Stonewall Jackson had survived his wounds at Chancellorsville? IMO that single death ended any chance for Confederate victory in the war. If the more able and aggressive Jackson had led the offensive on the union left at Little Round Top there is no doubt they could have easily rolled the Union lines and flanked them, with a hole punched through all it took was for Stuart to storm his cavalry forward and completely encircle the Unions, we could have had a replay of Cannae all over again.
 
If he was well enough for for service in the Gettysburg campaign it would have had an effect. Jackson moved FAST. The fight might have taken place at Pipe Creek instead, with who knows what results. The war would end the same way though
 
We'd see more Confederate victories, but it's basically impossible for the Confederates to win without foreign (British) involvement.
 

jeffking

Banned
If the Confederates were able to encircle the Union army and force a history changing battle such as Saratoga was, there is no doubt the British and French would have intervened.
 
Think of Jackson like Erwin Rommell. He was a brilliant commander, but ultimately had to do what his superior told him. In this case, that was Lee. And Lee, while himself more than capable, made some questionable decisions as the war went on. Nevertheless, the issue is simple manpower. Rommell didn't have it; Jackson didn't have it. They might win in specific battles, but how many of their own forces fell vs the enemy?

Say Jackson loses 100 for every 200 he kills; that still means he'll run out of men MUCH faster than the Yankees will. That's the question you've to ask yourself. I began writing a TL where Jackson lives, goes on to help win the analogous-Gettysburg, but... the CSA still loses the war. After the amount of research I did, I'm of firm belief that the Brits and French will simply not intervene until such time as the Confederates are pounding down Washington - which they simply cannot do.

Sorry, Chap. End of story.

Now... I looked into it before I finally gave up on the TL, BUT here's a better question - what if Jackson lives... AND is sent to the Western theater? Against Grant and Sherman? I don't care who you are, Grant was not an imaginitive commander; he would have fit in well with a 20th century Russian or Chinese army of 'mass attack' tactics. He employed simple strategies and relied upon numbers. Meanwhile, he let Sherman off the leash. Sherman had the same mentality that Jackson did (war to the hilt, or "total war" - making the enemy howl and all that), but still I'd wager Jackson is a better battlefield commander.

His command in the west MIGHT - and only might - give the Union enough trouble and pause there to lengthen the war, but again... to what end? Numbers were still the factor. The only thing I see is if Jackson and Lee, in both theaters at about the same time, each crush a numerically superior force to such a degree that 1) Lincoln has a fit leading to... 2) the Union commanders getting sacked, thus 3) the Brits and French see an opportunity to take the USA down a peg.
 
Last edited:
Jackson in reality was a tactical blithering idiot but a brilliant strategist. In this he's a direct parallel to Sherman (also in having a view of war suited to burning everything to the ground if it'll win a short war instead of prolonging it). Jackson kept making basic tactical errors into the Chancellorsville battle, and never properly developed the ability to tactically run a corps. Against Grant, who took far less casualties than Lee, Jackson will be smashed so fast his legend would shrivel on the vine permanently. If Jackson lives his pattern of continual turnover of generals and repeated damn fool tactical mistakes will lead to one such mistake against Grant, and that will lead to a scenario where at a minimum Lee will need all his skills simply to bail his army out of another Jackson fuckup.
 
Think of Jackson like Erwin Rommell. He was a brilliant commander, but ultimately had to do what his superior told him. In this case, that was Lee. And Lee, while himself more than capable, made some questionable decisions as the war went on. Nevertheless, the issue is simple manpower. Rommell didn't have it; Jackson didn't have it. They might win in specific battles, but how many of their own forces fell vs the enemy?

What an insult to Irwin Rommel. Rommel was a tactical genius and a strategic blithering idiot. Jackson was a strategic genius but tactically never learned how to use 1,700 men properly. Lee assigned him the smaller wing of his army for a damn good reason. Jackson's continual mistakes bely his reputation just as thoroughly as the real A.S. Johnston never deserved *his* reputation. As a strategist Jackson's on par with Sherman, like Sherman he didn't have what it took to be a field general, end of discussion.

Sorry, Chap. End of story.

Now... I looked into it before I finally gave up on the TL, BUT here's a better question - what if Jackson lives... AND is sent to the Western theater? Against Grant and Sherman? I don't care who you are, Grant was not an imaginitive commander; he would have fit in well with a 20th century Russian or Chinese army of 'mass attack' tactics. He employed simple strategies and relied upon numbers. Meanwhile, he let Sherman off the leash. Sherman had the same mentality that Jackson did (war to the hilt, or "total war" - making the enemy howl and all that), but still I'd wager Jackson is a better battlefield commander.

Not an imaginative commander? Grant's Vicksburg and Fort Donelson campaigns bely this. His "unimaginative" left-flank maneuvers around Lee's flanks in six weeks left Lee in the kind of static, immobile warfare that crushed his army as his army was completely unsuited for it. Grant also did not engage in mass frontal attacks, his record of losses was far less than that of Lee, who did engage in mass frontal attacks despite overall CS numerical inferiority in a repetitive, depressing, idiotic fashion. But then Lee's not really rated as a general so much as the Lost Cause's twisted Jesus Christ mockery.

His command in the west MIGHT - and only might - give the Union enough trouble and pause there to lengthen the war, but again... to what end? Numbers were still the factor. The only thing I see is if Jackson and Lee, in both theaters at about the same time, each crush a numerically superior force to such a degree that 1) Lincoln has a fit leading to... 2) the Union commanders getting sacked, thus 3) the Brits and French see an opportunity to take the USA down a peg.

On the contrary, he'd just be a replay of Braxton Bragg and we know how *he* wound up doing.
 
If he was well enough for for service in the Gettysburg campaign it would have had an effect. Jackson moved FAST. The fight might have taken place at Pipe Creek instead, with who knows what results. The war would end the same way though

Not exactly. If Jackson, like Longstreet, would have expected Lee to hold to the defensive Jackson, like in the Seven Days' would have dawdled for the entirety of the third day of Gettysburg and ruined Lee's army for good. Jackson also turned over his subordinates after every single battle, and had a complete lack of sympathy for his soldiers that rivaled Braxton Bragg's. He's what Bragg would have been had Bragg stayed a corps commander, Braxton Bragg is Jackson as an independent army commander.
 
Top