GDG- Inevitable defeat
CWMHTours at aol.com
CWMHTours at aol.com
Mon Jan 23 20:28:50 CST 2012
I think we disagree, sir.
Where is it written that Lee disagreed with Jackson about destroying
infrastructure in the North? I think Lee was just about as aggressive as
Jackson was in bringing the war to your opponent. for example, Antietam, Gtysbg,
I am not dispersing you personally. I just see Lee & Jackson as being a
By the time of 2nd Man Lee could see the Hammer and the Anvil.
The Hammer was Jackson.
The Anvil was the wonderful James Peter Longstreet, the Old Warhorse.
Also, just curious, I don't recall reference to Lee being concerned about
destroying the RR bridge over the Susq. R. being a big concern of his. And
in fact, if you think about it, the damn thing IS still made of big
granite blocks. Now just how are you going to knock the darn thing over without a
whole lot of valuable time and trouble?
Lee's 3 raids up north where just that. Raids. Move overwhelming forces
up north and attack piecemeal in overwhelming force.
The purpose of going north for Lee was to de-stabilizing the North.
Everything else was a subset.
A Loyal Neo-Anti Unionist,
In a message dated 1/23/2012 8:24:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
glory at zbzoom.net writes:
Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Just finished "how the south could have won the civil war", by Bevin
Alexander-Armchair General 3-2012
Saddled with leaders like Davis and Lee, who could not perceive reality,
the South's defeat was inevitable.
The crux of the article is Jackson understood that the means of war now
favored the defense as witnessed during the 7 days battles when only 1 of
Lee's 5 frontal attacks succeeded.
Rifled muskets and canister would bleed out the southern army at this rate.
Instead, Jackson encouraged offensive movement leading to a defensive
stance on ground of his choice.
He also favored aggressive northern invasion with additional plans to
destroy factories, railroads and mines.
Both Davis and Lee rejected his strategy. Davis was in favor of a more
passive policy hoping the north would tire or Britain/France would intervene.
Lee favored frontal attacks.
At second manassas, Jackson's proposals led to an opportunity to destroy
Pope's army. It may have worked if Lee would have attacked Popes left
earlier, failing to prevent retreat.
At Antietam, Jackson disagreed with Lee's goal of going to destroy the
bridge over the Susquehanna.
Instead he wanted to draw Mac to attack him north of Washington with added
goal of destroying factories etc
When battle took place at Antietam, Lee chose to fight despite little room
for maneuver. Jackson's ideals would have favored withdrawing to a more
favorable defensive position.
At Fredericksburg, Jackson proposed going south to North Anna River where
the cavalry would better be able to prevent the union army's retreat and
At Chancellorsville, Lee put Jackson's strategy in place. An end around to
cut off Hookers retreat over the Rappahannock at US Ford was foiled by
Lee invaded North again but continued his fixation on frontal attacks
during three costly days at Gettysburg.
The above are interesting points although over simplified and without
Sent from my iPhone
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
More information about the Gettysburg