Stonewall Survival.
- Thread starter flamelord
- Start date
67th Tigers
Banned
IMHO (and people often take exception to this opinion/ analysis) Jackson was not a very good Corps Commander, he'd been promoted to his level of incompetence. His attack at Chancellorsville some will hail as a great success, but he took a massive chunk of the army and got very little return on it (disrupting 10% of the Union Army for an investment of 50% of his).
In much the same manner, statistical analysis* has shown Lee was a perfectly average CS general in combat. The only real standout commander is Longstreet, and he's tarred with the assault on the 3rd day of Gettysburg.
In the same manner, I regard Grant, Sherman and Sheridan (well less so Sheridan) as being grossly inferior to Thomas or Reynolds (or even Sickles). However, they were the hard men willing to hold the Union Army together by noose and lash during the crises of the wars final year....
* The same analysis shows that if forces were matched in numbers, the CS would win combats, if the US had a significant strength advantage they'd win, but if the US had too much strength then they'd stalemate rather than winning. It's an interesting result.
Not at all. Jackson was useful against commanders like McClellan, Pope, and Hooker. Against sterner generals such as Meade and Grant, I don't think Jackson would be as spectacular and effective.
I agree with 67th Tigers that Jackson was a poor Corps Commander but not for the same reason used in that post. Jackson was a poor corps commander because he tried to do everything himself and didn't prepare officers under him for higher levels of command, meaning that in the event of his death there was no one capable of taking over.
There is no denying the Jackson was quite brilliant...mostly highlighted in his Valley Campaign...but one man cannot win a war and the odds the CSA faced would eventually overwealm them.
I still maintain that there was a chance for the Confederacy to gain its independance but by the aftermath of Chancellorsville that chance has all but gone...it would take only a matter of months for the chance to fade entirely.
There is no denying the Jackson was quite brilliant...mostly highlighted in his Valley Campaign...but one man cannot win a war and the odds the CSA faced would eventually overwealm them.
I still maintain that there was a chance for the Confederacy to gain its independance but by the aftermath of Chancellorsville that chance has all but gone...it would take only a matter of months for the chance to fade entirely.
I consider Jackson to be a great leader, but on a Strategic scale, he probably couldn't have led the entire CSA, but he was as good as it gets as it gets as a secondary Commander in my mind. If you gave him a task, he would tackle it, or die in the progress. This might sound like a failure on his part, but if your commander tells you to do something, with no other options at the time, and no leeway to react to changing events, this is your guy.
He was brave to a fault, valued the lives of his men, unlike some Northern Generals, and fought like a lion.
Not the Greatest General, but certainly one onf the greatest Corps Commanders of his time.
JMO
He was brave to a fault, valued the lives of his men, unlike some Northern Generals, and fought like a lion.
Not the Greatest General, but certainly one onf the greatest Corps Commanders of his time.
JMO
67th Tigers
Banned
How did he gain this reputation?
He only flanked once*, and balls it up (Chancellorsville). Instead, his command was characterised by extremely violent frontal attacks, his best work was carried out in the Valley and not a flanking movement to be found.
Longstreet OTOH launched a masterful turning movement at 2nd Manassas.....
* AP Hills flanking counterattack at Antietam against Burnside was not initiated by Jackson, but Longstreet.
Against weaker commanders like Hooker, yes. Chancellorsville was a special case anyway. The Confederates wouldn't get another opportunity like that with generals like Grant.
In a war of maneuver like the ACW Jackson was a very good if not a superior commander. He was able time and again to get his troops to where they were needed most. Had he not died after Chancellorsville he may well have pushed his Corp hard enough on the first day at Gettysburg to capture the high ground. This would have forced the AOP to attack as Lincoln was pushing it to do.
Would the CSA have won with a victory at Gettysburg? Only if France and Great Britain decided to recognize it after this victory.
To say Jackson was not a good commander is to misunderstand the ACW in the Eastern Theater. It was at all times a war of maneuver, unfortunately for the solders WoMs do not work so well with the " modern weapons " of the period. Time and again the side that was forced to attack was butchered. That it was usually the Union forces in 1861-1863 was due in part to Jackson's ability to push his troops farther and faster than his opponents, the Valley Army was nicknamed " Jackson's Foot Cavalry " for a reason.
Jackson could have taken the hill, but not without serious losses. It would have been another Malvern Hill. They could have eventually taken it because the union forces on the hill had limited ammo. I don't think the south could have survived another victory like Chancellorville, in which they win but take outrageous losses. You also have to remember that the main point of gettysburg, besides all the aforementioned items in this thread, was to draw away union troops from vicksburg. So they could have won gettysburg while grant wins vicks burg and becomes general of U.S. forces.
Pretty much. Gettysburg was a battle that shouldn't have been fought in the first place. If you really want to win that battle in a hurry or get the South out of there before more damage is done, you don't need Jackson. You need Stuart there earlier to provide Lee with much needed information. Dixie Victorious covered a scenario based on this POD, but it's not likely it would have played out like that.
There's certainly no guarantee that Jackson would have taken that hill if he was present on the first day. He could have been repulsed if he tried. The point is the Confederates were tired after a day of fighting. They could have retreated across the Potomac after the first day with the majority of the army intact, which is what Stuart might have suggested. The north might claim victory, but it wouldn't be as large as the combined victories of Vicksburg and Gettysburg.
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
So, do we have any Longstreet becomes Supreme Confederate Commander TLs?(Oh man, how did Turtledove miss that one? Would be such a great title for a Confederate Lead Alliance 
)
)Without Jackson, there is no victory in the Wilderness 1863 for the south. Numerous southerns, notably Alexander, claimed that it was the best union plan of the war and if not for Jackson's maneouver they would've lost the war there. All the 3 year terms were up for the union soon in that fight, and a victory there would've led to a MASSIVE union army finally getting through the "river line" to Richmond.