GDG- Dave- a Second Response

[John Lawrence]

Unfortunately, this dream scenario ignores the fact that the war in the west was inexorably moving east.
Numbers, assets and geography were going to play a heavy staccato on the south , is the confederate will slowly drained.
Regards, 
Jacj

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