Stonewall Jackso at Gettysburg: Jackson's Charge instead of Pickett's Charge?????

I think it is disengenious (1) to presume that Lee would do Meade the favor of attacking him. Pipe Creek was as strong a position as Lee's line at Fredericksburg, if not more so. (2) Though Lee attacked strong positions at OTL Gettysburg, and if his blood was up, no one could dissuade him from attacking, so I suppose anything is possible. (3)

1) If you are going to accuse someone of being disingenuous, then spell it right! Otherwise, it looks euphuistic.

2) More so. At least at Fredericksburg there was the remote possibility of flanking the enemy's far left. At Pipe Creek, it would be head on or nothing.

3) Exactly. Every battle he'd ever fought left him in command of the field. Only Malvern Hill was a disaster based on concentrated firepower, and Antietam a battle that left his enemy very badly bloodied and only the result of McClellan's intelligence gift.

Add on yet another victory with a "Little Gettysburg", the first Confederate victory on Union soil, and his appetite for battle could well become insatiable.

Also, the taking of Cemetery Hill would have been extremely costly, if not impossible, by direct assault. Howard was able to squeeze together a hundred guns on the Hill. Any attack would have been Malvern Hill all over again. Jackson would have seen this, and gone after Culp's instead, forcing the abandonment of Cemetary.

I've never seen where anyone ever suggested the striking point on Day 1 be anywhere but Culps Hill. You are quite right.
 
This is a point I wish more people grasped. Gettysburg was not the decisive battle of the war. In fact, I don't think there was a decisive battle. The South could have lost the war before Gettysburg and they could have won the war after it.

When you read the letters and diaries of Confederate soldiers in the months leading up to the 1864 spring campaign, you find little discouragement and high morale. They expected the coming campaign to be decisive and they expected to win it. Gettysburg was seen as essentially another Sharpsburg - they might not have won, but neither did they think they had lost. One phrase that is often repeated in letters of Confederate soldiers in the spring of 1864 is, in effect, "Lee has never been defeated."

???:confused:

It was decisive in that the war never came north again, except in suicide raids. It was decisive in freezing the outside world from recognizing the South as an independent nation. What you describe reflects the average Southerners' state of mind, not the facts on the ground. I.E., the front lines.

The Eastern Theater remained a see-saw yes. But then the war was won in the West. I wonder how optimistic the letters of the Army of Mississippi, Army of Tennessee, and the "armies" of the Trans-Mississippi were? And how much denial was going on? Many did not lose hope until Lee surrendered, and many kept fighting still. So just how far did things have to go before reality beat positive morale?
 
1) If you are going to accuse someone of being disingenuous, then spell it right! Otherwise, it looks euphuistic.

2) More so. At least at Fredericksburg there was the remote possibility of flanking the enemy's far left. At Pipe Creek, it would be head on or nothing.

3) Exactly. Every battle he'd ever fought left him in command of the field. Only Malvern Hill was a disaster based on concentrated firepower, and Antietam a battle that left his enemy very badly bloodied and only the result of McClellan's intelligence gift.

Add on yet another victory with a "Little Gettysburg", the first Confederate victory on Union soil, and his appetite for battle could well become insatiable.
I apologize for making a kind of non-statement at the end of the first paragraph, I just wanted to say that Pipe Creek would not necessarily mean doom, as long as Lee had some sense and chose not to engage.
I've never seen where anyone ever suggested the striking point on Day 1 be anywhere but Culps Hill. You are quite right.
The more entertaining question of Jackson-At-Gettysburg scenarios has more to do with Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill on the evening of the first day.
This is what prompted my second paragraph.
 
The stickler in me wants to point out that, had Jackson lived, butterflies would ensure that the Battle of Gettysburg almost certainly never takes place because the two months preceding it would have gone completely differently than they did IOTL. Having said that...

I know that. That is why i put an "assumption butterfly net" in the first sentence.


The more entertaining question of Jackson-At-Gettysburg scenarios has more to do with Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill on the evening of the first day.

Are you referring to Culp's Hill on Day 1? I think everyone can agree with that.:)

Like understanding Lee's order to take the hills north of Gettysburg. Unlike Ewell, Jackson probably would have taken them, no matter the cost.

Perhaps i should have put this in the OP, that i already know enough about Trimble and his argument with Baldy Ewell on Day 1 about taking a Division/Regiment/Brigade and wanting to take that hill. I would already suspect that Trimble would most likely have died in the attempt, TBH. IF anything, i would like to see Jackson take those hills, but die in the attempt.

I wanted to ignore that fact that Jackson would most likely have taken and secured those hills on Day 1 in favor of something else, hence why i chose Picketts charge.

If Jackson is still alive he probably dies charging the line instead.

Yeah. Better to lose a commander like Jackson and also lose the battle.

This is a point I wish more people grasped. Gettysburg was not the decisive battle of the war. In fact, I don't think there was a decisive battle. The South could have lost the war before Gettysburg and they could have won the war after it.

When you read the letters and diaries of Confederate soldiers in the months leading up to the 1864 spring campaign, you find little discouragement and high morale. They expected the coming campaign to be decisive and they expected to win it. Gettysburg was seen as essentially another Sharpsburg - they might not have won, but neither did they think they had lost. One phrase that is often repeated in letters of Confederate soldiers in the spring of 1864 is, in effect, "Lee has never been defeated."

Gettysburg was decisive in that the Confederates never went North again.

But yes. The Confederates certainly believed before the Wilderness campaign that Lee had never been defeated and they were highly looking forward to the campaign. The fact that Grant was there certainly meant little to them. They believed that like any other commander of the Army of the Potomac that he would be defeated and would soon scamper North. Hell, even the Union soldiers believed that. If anything the only person who believed otherwise seemed to be Longstreet.

But that said. The battles in the west always seemed more decisive. I would say that Nashville certainly shows that.
 
Where and when? His troops would be on the wrong flank, and frankly the consensus seems to be that with Jackson alive there is only a "little Gettysburg".

Well I just mean that if it ends up being Jackson leading an analogue of Pickett's charge he probably ends up perishing there instead. Absent a Confederate victory I find it hard to believe he dies at peace.
 
???:confused:

It was decisive in that the war never came north again,

except in suicide raids.

So there

Jubal Early would beg to differ. So would the good citizens of Chambersburg.

I did post "suicide raids".:rolleyes: I don't think that the shattered elements of Early's forces as they crawled out of the Shenandoah Valley would be very ready to differ. Nor Sheridan and his rapidly pursuing veterans. But yeah, I'm sure ol' Jubal will be happy to regal you with tales of his dining in the White House!:D
 
Top