If Johnston and Jackson had lived

renrich · May 28, 2009

Dav, your point about Lee's morale if Jackson had lived is well made. IMO, the key to Gettysburg if Jackson had been alive is that Jackson very possibly could have taken Culp's Hill and Cemetary Hill on the first day, which Ewell did not. That would have changed the complexion of the battle because Lee would have had the good ground and Meade, when he arrived at midnight would have possibly felt that he had to attack Lee the next day instead of the other way around. If and of course this is all conjecture, Johnston's leadership in the West had prevented or delayed the fall of Vicksburg, a CSA victory at Gettysburg may have caused the Union to come to some sort of terms with the CSA. Further, my guess is that, in the event of some terms with the CSA, eventually a reconciliation between North and South would have taken place with the states having a stronger position versus the federal government.

syscom3 · May 28, 2009

If Jackson was at Gettysburg, it is quite possible the south could win. But I would venture to say it would have still been a bloodbath and the south would not have the energy and material to press on.

And there's always the possibility that Meade and his generals would not have attacked Lee unless they (union) were on the better ground for attack.

As for the west, no one in the south was so superior to Grant that they could out general him. The events in the west would unfold as they did.

renrich · May 29, 2009

Well we don't know if Johnston was superior to Grant in generalship since he was killed at Pittsburg Landing. He did surprise Grant at that battle, though, and his reputation at the beginning of the war was substantially better than Grant's. Johnston had quite a reputation, beginning at San Jacinto, I believe.

syscom3 · May 29, 2009

renrich said:
Well we don't know if Johnston was superior to Grant in generalship since he was killed at Pittsburg Landing. He did surprise Grant at that battle, though, and his reputation at the beginning of the war was substantially better than Grant's. Johnston had quite a reputation, beginning at San Jacinto, I believe.

But we do know that Grant continued to win battle after battle.

Its conjecture on what Johnston could have done, but there is no reason to believe he was significantly better than Grant.

imalko · May 29, 2009

My knowledge about American Civil war is somewhat limited in comparison with you guys, so I would allow myself this question: Why you think that Jackson on the first day at Gettysburg would have taken the hights (something that Ewell didn't do)? Yes, he was a great general but not a miracle worker. Even at Chancelorsville the attack had to be halted when night came. To my knowledge same happened on the first day at Gettysburg. And later when Lee pressed for the offensive (culminating with Piccket's charge), why do you think that Jackson could have persuade Lee to abandon this idea when Longstreet was trying to do exactly that but in vain? In my oppinion, outnumbered the Confederate army had no chance to win the battle with Union troops entrenched on the high ground even with Jackson present. They could have won only with a defensive battle on their part (like at Fredericksburg)...

renrich · May 30, 2009

Imalko, If you remember, Hill's corps first made contact with Buford from the west and Ewell came in later from the north. If Jackson had lived there would not have been two corps but one under Jackson so there would have been no waiting for Ewell to get there, understand the situation and deploy for an attack. Furthermore, Jackson was a hard driver of men, (Jackson's foot cavalry in the Shenandoah) and may have gotten to Gettysburg earlier. Lee requested that Ewell, if he thought it was practicable, take Cemetary Hill while there was still enough daylight. Ewell declined to do so. A guess would be that Jackson would have taken that hill. Indeed, Jackson may have done so without Lee's prompting. Remember Henry House Hill and the railroad embankment at First and Second Mannassas. Jackson knew good ground. With Cemetary Hill and Culp's Hill fortified by the CSA, the Union position on Cemetary Ridge would not have been strong and Meade may have been forced to attack, uphill, the next day just as Buford was afraid of.

davparlr · Jun 1, 2009

imalko said:
Yes, he was a great general but not a miracle worker....

In some ways, he was a miracle worker. Marching at speeds unexpected, appearing where he wasn't suppose to be, inspiring his troops to amazing accomplishments. Certainly the South thought so, and the North probably just consided him a demon.

renrich · Jun 1, 2009

Jackson was truly a piece of work. Read a biography about him and he was quite a character. The movie, " Gods and Generals," came pretty close to portraying him correctly. Jackson was not infallible. No man is, certainly not generals. His performance at The Seven Days was spotty but I attribute that to exhaustion from the Shenandoah Campaign. It is hard for us today to understand the sheer physical demands placed on soldiers of that time. At times, Jackson rode 30 miles at night to have a meeting with Lee, turned around and rode 30 miles back to his troops and led them into battle the next day. Even though a relatively young man, that takes a toll.

diddyriddick · Jun 1, 2009

GrauGeist said:
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.

Gonna have to respectfully disagree, Geist. There is no guarantee that Jackson's Corps is even the first one up at Gettysburg. To refresh your memory, both armies came in piecemeal over the 3 days. Moreover, Jackson is not as perfect as some have painted him. During the Seven days he was repeatedly late. Who is to say that he wouldn't have been late at Gettysburg. Finally, Stuart's Cavalry was not delayed by any forces that Jackson could have impacted. Stuart was delayed by Federal Cavalry miles away.

diddyriddick · Jun 1, 2009

GrauGeist said:
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.

His intention was to envelope and drive them to the valley where they'd have to stand and fight in the open. But this didn't happen, like I mentioned, because of the loss of control of his lead elements. Jackson would have had the presence of mind and the control over his men to have kept that from happening.

In the event that Lee was successful in the battle, the door was wide open to Washington. It's true that Grant offered the Union it's first victories in 1862, in Tennessee, but he was far from a force to be reckoned with, especially after the costly victory at Shiloh (6-7 April 1862) that created a massive public dissent regarding the war, and almost cost him is job.

So in looking at the public's attitude regarding Shiloh, and a Union loss at Gettysberg (especially if it was anything like Shiloh), I'd be willing to bet that even if Lee didn't march on Washington, there could have existed a willingness for Lincoln to come to terms with Davis.

Again, Geist I shall respectully disagree. There is no way of knowing Lee's intentions at this point of the Pennsylvania campaign because there is no historical record. The town of Gettysburg is not mentioned anywhere in his despatches; indeed, the only thing that he told Davis was that generally, he was going to engage the enemy SOMEWHERE on northern territory. And to put Gettysburg into perspective, it was sold to Davis as a way of relieving Vicksburg by drawing some of Grant's forces away from the Mississippi. Gettysburg was a meeting engagement. The initial units found each other by pure dumb luck, and then it snowballed from there. In short, Lee had no plan, as far as we know.

diddyriddick · Jun 1, 2009

renrich said:
Dav, your point about Lee's morale if Jackson had lived is well made. IMO, the key to Gettysburg if Jackson had been alive is that Jackson very possibly could have taken Culp's Hill and Cemetary Hill on the first day, which Ewell did not. That would have changed the complexion of the battle because Lee would have had the good ground and Meade, when he arrived at midnight would have possibly felt that he had to attack Lee the next day instead of the other way around.

Ewell's Corps had just fought a bloody battle along Willoughby Run. Reorganizing, rearming, watering an entire Corps and reinitiating forward movement would have been difficult at best. It is telling that though Lee had instructed Ewell to take those hills "if practicable," Marse Robert was never critical of Ewell in any of his letters or memoranda. That only happened after the war at the hands of Lost-Causers like Jubal Early. As to Meade's intentions, he could just as easily dropped back to the Pipe Creek Line, assuming the Rebels had attained the high ground. Again, there is simply no way to justify What-ifs in this context.

diddyriddick · Jun 1, 2009

imalko said:
My knowledge about American Civil war is somewhat limited in comparison with you guys, so I would allow myself this question: Why you think that Jackson on the first day at Gettysburg would have taken the hights (something that Ewell didn't do)? Yes, he was a great general but not a miracle worker. Even at Chancelorsville the attack had to be halted when night came. To my knowledge same happened on the first day at Gettysburg. And later when Lee pressed for the offensive (culminating with Piccket's charge), why do you think that Jackson could have persuade Lee to abandon this idea when Longstreet was trying to do exactly that but in vain? In my oppinion, outnumbered the Confederate army had no chance to win the battle with Union troops entrenched on the high ground even with Jackson present. They could have won only with a defensive battle on their part (like at Fredericksburg)...

For somebody who doesn't proclaim to know the ACW, your thoughts are inciteful. There is simply no way to know what Jackson might have done at Gettysburg. Would he have been the brilliant Jackson of Chancellorsville, or the tardy Jackson of the Seven Days?

renrich · Jun 1, 2009

That is the fun of the what ifs. If we KNEW what Jackson would have done if he had been alive at Gettysburg then there could be no speculation. Jackson was tardy at the Seven Days, IMO, because of exhaustion from earlier, as already mentioned, and because he was new to his position. He was decisive from then on, Second Mannassas, Harpers Ferry, Sharpsburg, Fredricksburg and Chancellorsville and of course earlier at Shenandoah. It does not seem a stretch to me at all to think that he COULD have gotten to Gettysburg earlier than Hill,( and I am not talking about days earlier but rather hours,) who had been one of his division commanders and as earlier mentioned Lee would probably have stayed with the old configuration of two wings rather than three corps. It also does not seem a stretch to say that Jackson COULD have done much better than Ewell and Hill at Gettysburg.

syscom3 · Jun 1, 2009

And with Jackson pesent at Gettysburg early on, what if Meade decides to fight elsewhere and slowly bring his superior numbers and logistics to bear?

Lee was on borrowed time and had to force the battle. Meade didnt have to and could chose his defensive positions.

renrich · Jun 1, 2009

Actually, Meade had to face the urgency from Washington so he had to force an action. Any hesitation on his part and the politicians in Washington would have been howling to replace him. Lee's army was living high on the hog with better eating than they ever had in Virginia. A long drawn out campaign would have hurt him supply wise in ammunition though unless he could capture ammo from the Federals.

imalko · Jun 2, 2009

renrich said:
Actually, Meade had to face the urgency from Washington so he had to force an action. Any hesitation on his part and the politicians in Washington would have been howling to replace him. Lee's army was living high on the hog with better eating than they ever had in Virginia. A long drawn out campaign would have hurt him supply wise in ammunition though unless he could capture ammo from the Federals.

My opinion too. In fact(and correct me if I'm wrong), haven't Longstreet advised Lee not to fight at Gettysburg but to find some other appropriate position and fight a defensive battle because Meed would be under pressure from Washington to attack? Some sort of tactical defensive/strategic offensive in order to spare the army of high casualties.

diddyriddick · Jun 2, 2009

renrich said:
It also does not seem a stretch to say that Jackson COULD have done much better than Ewell and Hill at Gettysburg.

Then we will agree to disagree.

renrich · Jun 8, 2009

We may have a miscommunication here. As far as leadership is concerned, there is no question, on the record, that Jackson was and would have been a more effective corps or wing commander than either Ewell ot Hill. We can disagree that the two corps led by Hill and Ewell might or might not have accomplished more under Jackson. However, I don't see how, given Jackson's record, from the Mexican War onward, that one can categorically state that Jackson's men COULD not have done better than the two corps led by his replacements. In Jackson we are talking about one of the great combat leaders of all time. Incidently, on the night of 28, 29 June Lee ordered all his units to gather at Cashtown, which according to the West Point Atlas offered a strong defensive position. It may be that Lee was planning to get the Union Army to attack him on favorable ground for the CSA. With that in mind, given Jackson's history, it is hard to believe that toward the end of the first day's action Jackson would not have attempted to seize Cemetary Hill as Lee requested.

syscom3 · Jun 8, 2009

renrich said:
Actually, Meade had to face the urgency from Washington so he had to force an action. Any hesitation on his part and the politicians in Washington would have been howling to replace him. Lee's army was living high on the hog with better eating than they ever had in Virginia. A long drawn out campaign would have hurt him supply wise in ammunition though unless he could capture ammo from the Federals.

Let me clarify my statement.

Meade wouldnt have sat on his butt like Mclellan did. Meade would have engaged Lee, but not necessarly right at Gettysburg, but perhaps the next set of ridge's south of where the battle was actually fought.

If Johnston and Jackson had lived

Chief Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Chief Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Chief Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Chief Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads