Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No comparable soldiers on the Union side were lost to that side. ...
I think that had Jackson not been killed during the Chansellorville campaign, things would have been much different at Gettysberg.
With Jackson's ability to control and command his loyal troops, the chaos that happened at the onset of Gettysberg would not have happened. Lee did not want to engage the Federals until his full army had reached the lines, that would have also allowed Stuart's cavalry to get on scene and prevent the flanking and envelopment of the Confederate's light artillery during the first day's chaotic engagements, The light artillery which would have been brutal on the Federal flanks if they had been able to deploy. A concerted assault would have most likely routed the Federals, who were on the verge of doing so anyway.
Lee literally lost his right-hand man with Jackson's death.
That is a possability, but also consider, at the onset of the battle, the Confederates engaged peicemeal against Lee's wishes. As Lee's two armies pressed the attack, it drove the Federals back through town, where Lee didn't want them to go.Good point, but the Feds had control of the high ground and were desperate enough to hold it at all costs. The battle would have ended in a draw of sorts, with 'rebs having to retreat due to logistics issues.
And still, General Grant would defeat the southern troops in the west just as soundly and perfectly as what unfolded historically wise.
A quote from "West Point Atlas of American Wars" This is regarding the Federal Army just prior to the Battle of Pittsburg Landing. "Sherman did not expect an attack from the south and Grant was even less suspecting." Another quote about Grant. " But he did not reach the field of battle until 8:30 AM, having left his breakfast table at Savannah about 6:30 AM upon hearing gunfire. Now he labored with all his energy to restore balance to a situation which his earlier carelessness and overconfidence had permitted to develop." Grant had been surprised by Johnston.
And Grant rallied his generals and eventually won. Mainly due to the confederate troops stopping to loot the federal camps.
That doesn't mean that Grant was the better general. It just means that Confederate commanders at the platoon, company and battallion levels could not control thier men...
Luck might be everything, but a lucky commander is not the same thing as a good commander. And you said yourself that Grant mainly won because the Confederates went out of control - not the fault of the hungry men, but certainly the fault of weak and ineffective junior officers.
You then go on to say that Grant won in large part due to his organisation of his troops. Which do you think was more important? If it was Rebel disorganisation, then you have done nothing to prove that Grant was superior to Lee as a general...
The Army of Northern Virginia was a well disciplined Army with high morale even though they were starving and most of them didn't even have shoes. Grant was a great general mostly because he was aggressive. He was not scared to take huge risks. The Confederacy at the start of the war seemed to be very rich in good leaders, some of them veterans of the Mexican campaign. Bobby Lee had it in his blood as well from his famous father, Light Horse Harry Lee.