The Value of Stonewall Jackson in the Civil War
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 10:36:22 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  The Value of Stonewall Jackson in the Civil War
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: The Value of Stonewall Jackson in the Civil War  (Read 9747 times)
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 18, 2010, 11:04:41 PM »

The loss of Jackson was also catastrophic, imho.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2010, 02:38:16 PM »

The loss of Jackson was also catastrophic, imho.

At Gettysburg, do you think Jackson would've been able to do what Ewell failed to do, and taken Cemetery Hill?  It seems quite possible the South could've won Gettysburg if Ewell had managed it.
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2010, 08:33:27 PM »

The loss of Jackson was also catastrophic, imho.

At Gettysburg, do you think Jackson would've been able to do what Ewell failed to do, and taken Cemetery Hill?  It seems quite possible the South could've won Gettysburg if Ewell had managed it.

Jackson is one of the most overrated people in human history.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2010, 09:31:59 PM »

The loss of Jackson was also catastrophic, imho.

Yes and no. 

I think had Ewell "Done a Jackson" at Gettysburg, he could have lost his corp, even while taking the ground.  On both sides, the first day's casualties were horrific. The casualty rate was about 1:1.  http://gburginfo.brinkster.net/Casualties.htm


You could have been talking about 7,500 to 10,000 Confederate casualties on the first day.  That was a 10%-15% of the total Confederate forces involved in the campaign.

Even after that, Meade had a second defensive line planned.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2010, 09:39:10 PM »

Even after that, Meade had a second defensive line planned.

Are you referring to Rock Creek? If so that position was much less defensible then Cemetery Hill and Culps Hill. While Rock Creek would have helped block major roads to DC it would have left Baltimore and Philly vulnerable. I'm not sure that Lee would have bounced around the Union Army to go after either city. If he had gone towards Baltimore he would have found local support but would risk having his army blocked in a much worse situation then at Sharpsburg. Taking Philly would have been a moral victory with only a temporary gain and still risking his army. It was certainly good for Lee to go to MD in 1862 but I don't see what particular advantage he would have held by heading north in 1863.

Harry Gilmore and Jubal Early did some damage in 1864 but nothing that would have directly threatened Washington DC. What's interesting about the Early raid is that the Union Army was able to track his movement towards DC by how far up the Potomac their telegraph messages went. Every time a station was unreachable the Union commanders knew that's where Early had just been.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2010, 11:03:30 PM »



Are you referring to Rock Creek? If so that position was much less defensible then Cemetery Hill and Culps Hill. While Rock Creek would have helped block major roads to DC it would have left Baltimore and Philly vulnerable. I'm not sure that Lee would have bounced around the Union Army to go after either city. If he had gone towards Baltimore he would have found local support but would risk having his army blocked in a much worse situation then at Sharpsburg. Taking Philly would have been a moral victory with only a temporary gain and still risking his army. It was certainly good for Lee to go to MD in 1862 but I don't see what particular advantage he would have held by heading north in 1863.

Lee couldn't take Harrisburg, much less Philadelphia.  He couldn't get across the Susquehanna.  Stuart tried.

It was less defensible, but Lee would have lost about 10%-15% of the Army of Northern Virginia (ANV) just to get to Big Pipe Creek.  That doesn't take into account any additional screening actions.

I'm basically saying, by the time Ewell got to to the point where he could have assaulted Cemetery Hill , the only thing he really could have done was win a tactical victory of taking the ground, at a huge cost.  July 2, the next step is to take his depleted forces and attack new defensive position.

By the time Ewell could have "pulled a Jackson," it was too late to change the overall strategic situation.  At best, it would have gotten the ANV 15 miles closer to Baltimore, but they still had 35 miles to go.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tactical victories, but a strategic failure.

BTW:  My application for Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War was submitted last week.  Smiley
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2010, 04:15:08 PM »

As it was, Ewell suffered tremendous casualties trying to take Culp's hill on days two and three. To pull a "Jackson" would have had to occur on day one. At the time he had only Rhodes and Early's divisions up both of which had been spent pushing back the Federal first and eleventh corps. The third Divison called "Jackson's Division", under the commard of Edward Johnson (nicknamed "root"), which included the Stonewall Brigade, was at the time still on the march and would not arive till long after dark. The only possible chance was the fact that had he advanced to Culps hill immediately, he would have faced only the remants of the "Iron Brigade". Along with the rest of the First Corps, the "Iron Brigade" had been badly mauled by AP Hill even costing them there famed corps commander John F. Reynolds, a native of Lancaster Co. PA ironically. However Ewell would have had trouble holding the hill once the fresh twelfth corps came up shortly before nightfull leaving just enough time to mount a quick assault and rout the even more spent troops of Rhodes and Early's divisions.
Logged
mddem2004
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 561


Political Matrix
E: -6.38, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2010, 07:24:39 PM »

The loss of Jackson was also catastrophic, imho.

At Gettysburg, do you think Jackson would've been able to do what Ewell failed to do, and taken Cemetery Hill?  It seems quite possible the South could've won Gettysburg if Ewell had managed it.

Jackson is one of the most overrated people in human history.
Im sorry - but I could'nt let this one slip by without comment...

a) The Valley Campaign of spring 1862 was one of the most brilliant in our nations military history. Tying up three separate federal "armys" and posing a psycological threat to Washington DC while McClellan was laying siege to Richmond kept those forces from joining McClellan on the Penninsula. Six battles and either winning or drawing in each one against forces three times his own... hardly overrated generalship.

b) In the lead up to Second Bull Run he strikes Popes rear, threatens to march on Washington, then attacks Popes columns desparately trying to find him at Groveton, then stands his ground against twice his numbers until Longstreet arrives for the coup de main counter stroke... again... supurb generalship in my book.

c) Lastly, Chancellorsville... who but Jackson could convince Lee to divide his army in the face of overwhelming odds and deliver such a blow to Hooker's morale, nearly crushing his army save for running out of daylight?

Clearly such a statement as "Jackson is one of the most overrated people in human history" could only come from one who knows next to nothing of the man...
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2010, 08:20:10 PM »

The loss of Jackson was also catastrophic, imho.

At Gettysburg, do you think Jackson would've been able to do what Ewell failed to do, and taken Cemetery Hill?  It seems quite possible the South could've won Gettysburg if Ewell had managed it.

Jackson is one of the most overrated people in human history.
Im sorry - but I could'nt let this one slip by without comment...



Clearly such a statement as "Jackson is one of the most overrated people in human history" could only come from one who knows next to nothing of the man...

In the context this was mentioned, Gettysburg, I think Jackson could have taken the Cemetery Hill, and lost the entire corp.  The casualties were just too high, and there was the bulk of the Union Army still not on the field.

The Union, at the start, screened hugely successfully, and were not in a strong defensive position.  The Confederates had more troops in the field.  Just to get to the foot Cemetery Hill was a bloodbath.

Jackson might have pushed for an attack elsewhere.
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2010, 09:20:11 PM »

a) The Valley Campaign of spring 1862 was one of the most brilliant in our nations military history. Tying up three separate federal "armys" and posing a psycological threat to Washington DC while McClellan was laying siege to Richmond kept those forces from joining McClellan on the Penninsula. Six battles and either winning or drawing in each one against forces three times his own... hardly overrated generalship.

The campaign is one of the most overrated in our nations military history. 
He never fought against a force three times the size of his own and he only won battles in which he had significant superiority in numbers – it was the force of numbers and not any superior generalship they carried the day for him each time.
1.   He was outnumbered at Kernstown, which he lost. 
2.   He got smacked around at McDowell but is considered to have won because the opponent withdrew, since Jackson had more men. 
3.   Front Royal was hardly much of battle but he did win it because he had something like 3:1 in his favor. 
4.   He won Winchester with something like 2.5:1 in his favor. 
5.   He won Port Royal with something like 2:1 in his favor. 
6.   He wasn’t in command at Cross Keyes, Ewell was.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

At Groveton, Jackson had a significant advantage in numbers but attacked piecemeal.  He didn’t not display great generalship that day.

The next day Pope never brought his numbers to bear against Jackson.  It was Pope’s poor generalship and the arrival of Longstreet, rather than anything special done by Jackson, that determined the outcome.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jackson didnt convince Lee to do it; Lee ordered Jackson to do it. 


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
It comes from someone who knows more than the superficial myths most people know.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2010, 09:55:38 PM »
« Edited: June 02, 2010, 09:58:28 PM by cpeeks »

Jackson's flank attack against Hooker at Chancelorsville was his idea, and not Lee's. Jackson is one of the greatest commanders ever. The German general staff, studied him and Lee, and his doctrince is still taught as West Point today. In fact our military doctrine is based on those two, speed and mobility. So the person who said Jackson was overrated obviously knows nothing about military tactics.
And Culps hill was and cemetary hill, were barely defended a regiment could have taken that position it would not have been a bloodbath.
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2010, 09:35:36 AM »

...  The strategic and tactical steps necessary to outmaneuver the armies opposing him and set up those tactical superiorities were genius in themselves;

If only it were so, but he didn’t really outmaneuver his opponents.   


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Depends on what you define as the theater and what date you are talking about.   
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2010, 06:43:51 PM »

How can you say Jackson didnt out mauever he marched his corp 12 miles for the attack on hookers flank at chancelorsville, thats manuervering.
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2010, 09:35:26 PM »

How can you say Jackson didnt out mauever he marched his corp 12 miles for the attack on hookers flank at chancelorsville, thats manuervering.

I was talking about the valley campaign.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2010, 10:01:12 PM »

Jesus Christ, lol why dont you check out the maps dude, the valley campaign was nothing but manuevering. Jackson's 17,000 men, which were called a foot cavalry, marched 646 miles in 48 days and defeated 3 seperate armies totaling 52,000 men and prevented them frpm re-enforcing the offensive against Richmond.  LOL Um yea I would call that manuevering.
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2010, 10:43:04 PM »

Jesus Christ, lol why dont you check out the maps dude, the valley campaign was nothing but manuevering. Jackson's 17,000 men, which were called a foot cavalry, marched 646 miles in 48 days and defeated 3 seperate armies totaling 52,000 men and prevented them frpm re-enforcing the offensive against Richmond.  LOL Um yea I would call that manuevering.


Jesus Christ, lol, why dont you pay attention to what is being written dude.

Jokerman: "The strategic and tactical steps necessary to outmaneuver the armies opposing him and set up those tactical superiorities were genius in themselves"

Me: "he didn’t really outmaneuver his opponents"

I didnt say there was no maneuver.  What I am saying is that maneuver was not how he achieved numeric superiority in battle.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 03, 2010, 10:56:42 PM »

UM I have read what you wrote, and if you knew what happened at Strasburg, Front Royal, and New Market Gap, then you wouldnt write that. He out manuevered three armies the entire campaign to achieve numeric superority.
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 03, 2010, 11:20:06 PM »

UM I have read what you wrote, and if you knew what happened at Strasburg, Front Royal, and New Market Gap, then you wouldnt write that. He out manuevered three armies the entire campaign to achieve numeric superority.

I know what happened and I stand by what I wrote.  His numeric superiority in the battles at McDowell, Front Royal, and Winchester was not the result of his manuevering; rather it was the result of decisions made in Washington and Richmond.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 03, 2010, 11:23:47 PM »

Um no.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2010, 06:27:57 PM »

There was a literaly tug of war between Lincoln and McClellan over McDowells "Army (later third corps Army of Virginia and then first corps Army of the Potomac). Also there was no coordination between the three Armys and each operated independently save order from McClellan (as General in Chief), Staunton or Lincoln.  Banks (who troups later become the 2nd corps Amry of Virginian and finally 12th Corps Army of the Potamac) and Fremont (first corps AOV, later 11th Corps AOP). Didn't get along with each other. Fremont was prim donna of the highest order and not well like, McDowell lost first Bull Run and so on.

However, WillK, sometimes the key to military victory is responding to what the enemy does and even if as result of position caused by Washington or whatever, Stonewall was able to take advantage of that by marching his troups to the right places at the right time to crush all three. Though he hardly crushed McDowell. He did rout Banks' troops and when he was trying in vain to rally his retreating troops Banks yell, "Do you not love your country?" A soldier responded back saying, "Yes sir, an I am trying to get back to it as soon as I can".

The reason I traced the history of the three "armies" was because Fremont's troops later faced Jackson at second bull run, and were unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of Jackson's audacious flank attack at Chancellorsville. And finally faced them again at Gettysburg at Barlow's Knoll (renamed for General Barlow who foolishly placed his 1st divison with his right flank open to attack by Jubal Early (Ewell's old division from the valley) where they were again overun and pushed back to Cemetary Hill where General Oliver Howard wisely had placed an entire division in reserve, that of Adolph von Steinwehr who commanded the second division.

The brunt of the attack on the first day of Gettysburg was born by the First Corps which had to face almost all of Heth's, Pender's, and Rhodes Divison alone. And of course they were McDowell's old command from the Valley campaign.

Certainly when you have legends like the one that surronds Jackson you have exaggerations of their exploits but that doesn't mean everything they did was just an exaggeration.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2010, 03:45:14 AM »

If Ewell had not been so catious, and could read between the lines  of "take that hill if practical" we would be free today. <Sigh> If only Stonewall had of lived.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2010, 06:15:13 PM »

If Ewell had not been so catious, and could read between the lines  of "take that hill if practical" we would be free today. <Sigh> If only Stonewall had of lived.

Rhodes and Early were in no condition to press the attack.


And how would you be free? The CSA was more authoritarian then the Union was. They had no supreme court and were openly violating their own constitution. They passed not only tariffs on imports (forbidden in the CSA constitution), both also on exports (forbidden in US and CSA Constitution). Jefferson Davis, in response to the Emancipation Proclamation, made all free blacks, Slaves. Lincoln pardoned thousands of deserters, and other criminals in the military, Davis Pardoned nobody. The myth that Lincoln was a cruel vicious dictator while Davis was a noble law abiding man is a farse perpetuated by the same Neo-Confederate revisionism that claims the south was a noble, god fearing, law abiding country, compared to the lawless, ungodly, oppressors from Massachusetts. lol, last time I checked the south prided itself on its rough and tumble frontier heritage, while Georgia was settled by criminals. Massachusetts was settled by puritans. You need to get away from the pro-Confederate propaganda.

You can blame Ewell or Longstreet or Stuart or even Lee for losing Gettysburg. But as George Pickett said when asked who caused Lee to loose Gettysburg he said, "I think the Yanks had something to do with it".

They should never have invaded PA, it was a mistake to begin with. He should have seent Longstreet west to releive Vicksburg.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2010, 06:32:12 PM »


And Culps hill was and cemetary hill, were barely defended a regiment could have taken that position it would not have been a bloodbath.

They had 40 cannon on the hill, Buford was sitting on the flank, and reinforcements were coming up.  Jackson might have been good enough not to try it.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2010, 06:34:19 PM »

At 10:00 AM on September 17th, 1862, had McClellan ordered Porter to advance his V corps through downtown Antietam and Franklin to attack through the Sunken road with his VI(Which had been seized by the first divison II Corps) while the IX Corps advanced on DR Jones Division, McClellan would have split the CSA Army in two, and Lee would have been destroyed. Lee had nothing to oppose Franklin but a brigade or two without any amunition, and absolutely nothing to stop Porters (12,000 men) from going through Antietam and charging right into Lee's HQ.

Also, Darius Nash Couchs' First Divison of the defunct IV corps (assigned to the VI corps) was assigned to watch the CSA movements from Harpers Ferry, had he marched parallel to AP Hill's division, he would have arived just at the right time to reinforce General Rodmans' third division IX corps as it was being attacked on its left flank by AP Hill. Couch could also have informed Rodman and Burnside that Hill was approching by sending a messenger ahead of his collumns.

All of it goes back to McClellan's incompetence. Everybody followed there orders as he gave them the only Division to go astray was French's third Division II which stumbled into the Sunken Road because it turned the wrong away assuming that Hooker's I Corps had formed on the left of General Greene's Division of the XII Corps which was not the case. Hooker was wounded, Meade was back at Poffenberger farm with the repulsed I Corps and General Sumner (II Corps commander) charged ahead with Sedgwick's Division and left French and Richardson without clear orders of where to go.  McClellan was told the I Corps had collapsed when it was actaully sitting at the farm to the north, badly mauled but organized. This led McClellan to think he had more facing him then he actually did.


http://www.civilwarhome.com/coxantietamarticle.htm
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2010, 06:48:25 PM »


And Culps hill was and cemetary hill, were barely defended a regiment could have taken that position it would not have been a bloodbath.

They had 40 cannon on the hill, Buford was sitting on the flank, and reinforcements were coming up.  Jackson might have been good enough not to try it.

Thats what Issac Trimble said (one regiment could have taken it)

lol, no.

Major General Oliver Howard (commanding the XI Corps) had wisely place Brig. General Adolph von Steinwehr's entire division in reserve on Cemetary Hill. The entirety of the I and XI corps artillery that were still organizable had rallied on Cemetary Hill. Cemetary Hill had become a fortress. The remnents of Brig. General James Wadsworth's first division I corps had retreated to Culps Hill. You want to tangle with Iron brigade which had just lost their leader Brig Gen. Solomon Meredith. Brig Gen. Lysander Cutler's brigade was there as well. Both had been hit hard by Heth's division that morning but neither would break especially holding the ground that they did on Culps. And within an hour Major General Henry Slocum's XII Corps was ariving on the field and he releived Gen. Wadsworth, putting an entire Federal Corps on Culps Hill.

Also remember that Ewell had only two divisions, Rhodes and Early's. Johnson's Division was still on the march didn't arive till after dark. Rhodes and Early had suffered a lot pushing back General Robinson's, Barlow's and Schurz's Divisions and they were disorganized. They also had to deal with all the prisoners they had captured. It was smart not to attack there at that time.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 11 queries.