GDG- Dave- a Second Response

[Dave Glorioso]

Yes as someone said I just summarized the article.
Are there primary sources documenting that Jackson wished to be more like Sherman than Lee?
Ie desired to burn factories, railroads and mills.

Lee was very aggressive with overuse of the frontal attack.
Even Pete preferred that they stay on tactical defensive as he pointed out at Gettysburg.

Dave




Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 23, 2012, at 9:54 PM, CWMHTours at aol.com wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> 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
> 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>