GDG- Dave- a Second Response

CWMHTours at aol.com CWMHTours at aol.com
Mon Jan 23 20:54:14 CST 2012


In more thought, at the risk of annoying  everyone.
 
By 2nd Man  Lee had the perfect instrument of  war.
 
Just absolutely perfect.
 
Longstreet, the master of solid assault and massive  defense.
 
Jackson, the master of fast Napoleonic warfare.
 
Had that miraculous triumvirate survived Chancallorseville, it  may not 
have been the battle of Gettysburg or anything else that we would  recognize in 
battle to this day.
 
Easily if Jackson had lived there just might never be any  battle of 
Gettysburg at all.  It would still be a quiet little boring farm  town like 
Adamstown or Littlestown. 
 
 Inconsequential. 
 
Jackson is the "X" factor of the war the East.  Had he  survived Chncvl 
anything could have happened- including Northern defeat on the  battlefield.
 
A  Loyal Neo-Anti Unionist,
Peter  

 
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

It ends:  
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 
resupply.
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 
Jackson's wound.
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 
primary  sources.

Thoughts?
Dave


Sent from my  iPhone
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives




More information about the Gettysburg mailing list