If Jackson Had Survived?

[Johnrankins]

Typical Unionwank talk. He actually did resign once it got hopeless, during the Appotomax Campaign. Also, he was seiging a completely different city than Richmond. It was Petersburg.
Really, this thread has finally reached its lowest state; yankees that are horribly salty about the utter humiliation of their pathetically incompetent generals during the Civil War ranting about how Lee was really a terrible general because the CSA, which was much weaker in every regard imaginable, lost in the end. Unionwanks will usually also attempt referencing the 7 days battles as being a failure despite the fact that he, wildly outnumbered, drove the Army of the Potomac from their extremely well made defensive positions out of Virginia.

It doesn't matter WHERE he was under siege what mattered is that he was besieged. An army under siege is doomed unless it is relieved from outside or it can break out. The former is far more likely because if he is strong enough to break out he is more than likely strong enough to not come under siege in the first place. Trying to break out from a siege rarely works.

Lee himself., as quoted , was doomed the moment Grant made the James River by Lee's own admittance. Lee lost the West Virginia, Antitham, Gettysburg, Petersburg and Appomattox campaigns while Grant never lost a campaign and only very rarely lost battles. I advise you to go to a Lost Causer site because most people here don't genuflect at the alter of RE Lee.

 

[Gigapump]

It doesn't matter WHERE he was under siege what mattered is that he was besieged. An army under siege is doomed unless it is relieved from outside or it can break out. The former is far more likely because if he is strong enough to break out he is more than likely strong enough to not come under siege in the first place. Trying to break out from a siege rarely works.

Lee himself., as quoted , was doomed the moment Grant made the James River by Lee's own admittance. Lee lost the West Virginia, Antitham, Gettysburg, Petersburg and Appomattox campaigns while Grant never lost a campaign and only very rarely lost battles. I advise you to go to a Lost Causer site because most people here don't genuflect at the alter of RE Lee.

Grant lost a LOT OF battles. And the ones he won he almost always vastly outnumbered the enemy in. Like Shiloh, where he lost horribly but then got supplied with enough reinforcements to make him outnumber the enemy 3-1. Grant never faced long odds against an enemy, EVER. He never had to take chances. His army was big enough to basically march straight to Richmond had he not been facing somebody like Lee. Grant was a decent general. But he wouldn't have made it up to commanding a division was he in the Confederate army. Regardless of which army you think was better overall, or how warped your interpretation of the civil war is, it is INDISPUTABLE that Confederate generals were, all around, much more competent and proficient that Union generals.

 

[Johnrankins]

Grant lost a LOT OF battles. And the ones he won he almost always vastly outnumbered the enemy in. Like Shiloh, where he lost horribly but then got supplied with enough reinforcements to make him outnumber the enemy 3-1. Grant never faced long odds against an enemy, EVER. He never had to take chances. His army was big enough to basically march straight to Richmond had he not been facing somebody like Lee. Grant was a decent general. But he wouldn't have made it up to commanding a division was he in the Confederate army. Regardless of which army you think was better overall, or how warped your interpretation of the civil war is, it is INDISPUTABLE that Confederate generals were, all around, much more competent and proficient that Union generals.

Grant won Shiloh, I don't know which universe you are from but in this one Shiloh was a Union victory. He didn't outnumber the enemy 3:1 but 4:3 the second day. http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/shiloh.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/ The Vicksburg Campaign is considered brilliant enough that it is studied by military academies all over the world. Ft Henry and Donnelson was a campaign in which Grant was roughly equal in numbers as a whole. At Chattanooga he won a campaign where his opponent held the high ground. During the Overland Campaign (Another loss by Lee I forgot to mention, which means Lee lost at least five campaigns) and Petersburg Campaigns Lee was outnumbered less than 2:1 at the start while standing on some of the most defensibile ground in North America while Petersburg as second only to Washington DC as the most fortified city on the planet by the time Grant seiged it. Lee consistantly lost a higer percentage of men during his campaigns than Grant did fighting a war in which defense was probably strongest compared to offense in viturally any war outside of WWI.

As far as being CSA generals being better, Lee never won a battle against Meade who slowly but steadily started pushing him back outside of Cold Harbor he never won a battle against Grant and was steadily pushed back. In the west the CSA was being driven back practically starting day one and prettily steadily at that .

As far as the CSA Army as a whole it never won a campaign in Union territory and very few battles, Perryville is the only one that comes to mind while the Union Army conquered the entire CSA which is about as large as Europe not including Russia. Even Napoleon didn't take and hold such a large area. The French Empire under Napoleon is now divided by a number of countries while the entire CSA is now part of the USA over 150 years later.

 

[EMTSATX]

@Sametheon, dude can I ask you a serious question, no offense intended. Are you trolling? I mean commentary saying things you are just not accurate in figures and I think lacking in scholarship. I realize this site is supposed to be fun, but we try to keep some seriousness. You're new so welcome and enjoy. We're here to debate with in reason. Also, some of the people that have replied to you are the most knowledgeable and fairest to the Confederacy. Trust me you have not been experienced a Unionwank, it can and does get much worse. Again, no offense and enjoy.

 

[Gigapump]

Grant won Shiloh, I don't know which universe you are from but in this one Shiloh was a Union victory. He didn't outnumber the enemy 3:1 but 4:3 the second day. http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/shiloh.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/ The Vicksburg Campaign is considered brilliant enough that it is studied by military academies all over the world. Ft Henry and Donnelson was a campaign in which Grant was roughly equal in numbers as a whole. At Chattanooga he won a campaign where his opponent held the high ground. During the Overland Campaign (Another loss by Lee I forgot to mention, which means Lee lost at least five campaigns) and Petersburg Campaigns Lee was outnumbered less than 2:1 at the start while standing on some of the most defensibile ground in North America while Petersburg as second only to Washington DC as the most fortified city on the planet by the time Grant seiged it. Lee consistantly lost a higer percentage of men during his campaigns than Grant did fighting a war in which defense was probably strongest compared to offense in viturally any war outside of WWI.

As far as the CSA Army as a whole it never won a campaign in Union territory and very few battles, Perryville is the only one that comes to mind while the Union Army conquered the entire CSA which is about as large as Europe not including Russia.

I never said Shiloh wasn't a Union victory. Just that Grant lost horribly until his vast reinforcements came. Petersburg was so defended BECAUSE LEE CREATED ALL OF THE DEFENSES. Seriously. Do you think they materialized out of thin air? You also say that he outnumber Lee 'less than 2:1', as if it's some sort of big achievement that he won because it wasn't quite 2 to 1. I had forgotten about Vicksburg, which was certainly a great campaign. But you either forget about or purposely ignore the Second Manassas campaign, the Chancellorville campaign, the Sharpsburg Campaign(in which he captured the extremely well defended stronghold of Harper's Ferry with a small, outnumbered contingent of his force and drew an army over twice the size of his own before withdrawing at night and smashing McClellan at Shepherdstown), and the Wilderness(in which he was outnumbered 2:1, and still repulsed Grant's army from pushing forward to Richmond, nearly cutting odd the entire offensive). Those are only Lee's best. Vicksburg was undoubtedly the best Union campaign. Compare that to Jackson's Shenendoah campaign. There's no competition.

 

[Gigapump]

@Sametheon, dude can I ask you a serious question, no offense intended. Are you trolling? I mean commentary saying things you are just not accurate in figures and I think lacking in scholarship. I realize this site is supposed to be fun, but we try to keep some seriousness. You're new so welcome and enjoy. We're here to debate with in reason. Also, some of the people that have replied to you are the most knowledgeable and fairest to the Confederacy. Trust me you have not been experienced a Unionwank, it can and does get much worse. Again, no offense and enjoy.

Some of my numbers are certainly off(its more than high time to update my old ass library), but that doesn't completely nullify my points. In my opinion, or at least expirience, people can't get more Unionwank than thinking that Grant was better than Lee. He plainly wasn't. He had one well done campaign followed by a few straight years of zerg rushing his opponents, or moving slightly to the side and zero rushing his opponents from there.

 

[Indigo]

Vicksburg was undoubtedly the best Union campaign. Compare that to Jackson's Shenendoah campaign. There's no competition.

Only one of those split the enemy country in two - and it wasn't the Shenandoah campaign...

 

[Gigapump]

Only one of those split the enemy country in two - and it wasn't the Shenandoah campaign...

One saved the entire capital of a nation by diverting tens of thousands of troops away from the main fight with a tiny army- and it wasn't the Vicksburg campaign.

 

[Gigapump]

Look, the fact of the matter is that, the war dragged on for 3 1/2 years, despite the Confederacy being vastly smaller in GDP, GDP per capita, agricultural output, industrial output, technological capability, population, natural resources, and overall size. You're going to have to admit at some point that either the Union generals were almost all completely incompetent or that the Confederate generals were almost all some of the greatest military minds of all time, or some combination of two. There's no way around that.

 

[Arnold d.c]

I never said Shiloh wasn't a Union victory. Just that Grant lost horribly until his vast reinforcements came. Petersburg was so defended BECAUSE LEE CREATED ALL OF THE DEFENSES. Seriously. Do you think they materialized out of thin air? You also say that he outnumber Lee 'less than 2:1', as if it's some sort of big achievement that he won because it wasn't quite 2 to 1. I had forgotten about Vicksburg, which was certainly a great campaign. But you either forget about or purposely ignore the Second Manassas campaign, the Chancellorville campaign, the Sharpsburg Campaign(in which he captured the extremely well defended stronghold of Harper's Ferry with a small, outnumbered contingent of his force and drew an army over twice the size of his own before withdrawing at night and smashing McClellan at Shepherdstown), and the Wilderness(in which he was outnumbered 2:1, and still repulsed Grant's army from pushing forward to Richmond, nearly cutting odd the entire offensive). Those are only Lee's best. Vicksburg was undoubtedly the best Union campaign. Compare that to Jackson's Shenendoah campaign. There's no competition.

While I shall agree that Second Bull Run was very impressive, I shall point out that Lee's performance in the Maryland campaign was quite poor. When Lee divided his army, the force that seized Harper's Ferry was not outnumbered by the garrison, it outnumbered the garrison. About 30,000 rebels against 17,000 Union soldiers. Secondly, the seizure of Harper's Ferry was not very impressive, it was ground that would require an immense garrison to defend the three mountains. Frankly, I could have seized Harper's Ferry with 30,000 men.

Another failure of Lee was his decision to divide his army. Both Longstreet and Jackson opposed the idea of dividing the Army of Northern Virginia into five parts and using 3/5 of it to capture Harper's Ferry. Lee splitting his army into five pieces nearly enabled the destruction of each of those pieces in detail; in fact, Union VI Corps commander William Franklin seized Crampton's Gap, and was poised to crush at least one of Jackson's divisions and save Harper's Ferry, but he managed to convince himself he was outnumbered instead. Instead of splitting his army, he should have taken up position at South Mountain and from there smash McClellan.

Lastly, the battle of Antietam itself is a mistake. When McClellan cornered the rest of Lee's army at Sharpsburg, where, thanks to Lee failing to take use of McClellan's hesitation to withdraw, he risked having most of his army destroyed. With a inferior force, he fought on a battlefield where he had one relatively easily interrupted escape route if he lost.

Vicksburg and Shenendoah campaign? You're right, there is no competition. Grant's Vicksburg campaign was by far the superior campaign.

Strategically, the Vicksburg campaign bagged 30,000 men of the Confederacy and split the CSA in half. In comparison, Jackson drew off Union men that could have been sent to Richmond.

In terms of logistics, Grant cut himself off his supply lines and operated in hostile territory. Jackson in the meanwhile operated in friendly territory.

 

[Arnold d.c]

Look, the fact of the matter is that, the war dragged on for 3 1/2 years, despite the Confederacy being vastly smaller in GDP, GDP per capita, agricultural output, industrial output, technological capability, population, natural resources, and overall size. You're going to have to admit at some point that either the Union generals were almost all completely incompetent or that the Confederate generals were almost all some of the greatest military minds of all time, or some combination of two. There's no way around that.

You do realize that the Confederate States of America was the size of European Russia with good defensive terrain right? Virginia had little room to maneuver and the only way forward is to attack. With the good terrain of Northern Virginia and little room to maneuver, it is easy to see why Virginia held on for so long. In the Western Theatre, with its vast space to maneuver the Union had victory after victory.

All union generals were incompetent? Then explain the surrender of Fort Henry AND Donelson, Vicksburg, and the fall of Atlanta and Savannah and the Shenendoah Valley to the Union along with the destruction of Hood's army at Nashville (the only true destruction of an army during the American Civil War).

All Confederate generals were brilliant? Then explain to me the presence of men like Leonidas Polk, Van Dorn, Sterling Price, Braxton Bragg, Benjamin Huger and William Pendelton (artillery chief of the Army of Northern Virginia).

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Look, the fact of the matter is that, the war dragged on for 3 1/2 years, despite the Confederacy being vastly smaller in GDP, GDP per capita, agricultural output, industrial output, technological capability, population, natural resources, and overall size. You're going to have to admit at some point that either the Union generals were almost all completely incompetent or that the Confederate generals were almost all some of the greatest military minds of all time, or some combination of two. There's no way around that.

Granted you can argue that the Confederate Generals were the cream of the crop, but that does not change the fact that the Union generals all grew into their rolls as superior generals. Hell, going by most of their rhetoric and how they applied it, and eventually won because of it shows who is the winner and superior.

That said though you can't deny that Lee did have a considerable level of genius, yet that said he was way too mindful of the Napoleonic way of was and wanted to achieve a Cannae/Austerlitz. Chancellorsville is the only time that came close for him. The only two generals that achieved such a victory at either destroying or capturing an army are Sherman and Grant.

ANd Jackson, well, one problem here is that the SHenanadoah campaign, the SHenanadoah was also a pro-confederate region. Sherman and Grant cut themselves off from their supply lines and destroyed enemy territory. Jackson never really did that.

In the end though, the War was won in the west.

....

maybe in the end it comes down to the whole War strategy vs battle tactics concept.

 

[Johnrankins]

I never said Shiloh wasn't a Union victory. Just that Grant lost horribly until his vast reinforcements came. Petersburg was so defended BECAUSE LEE CREATED ALL OF THE DEFENSES.

I never said Lee was incapable of doing the blindingly obvious. Being proud of someone building trenches and fortifications around your city in that era was similar to being proud of an infant learning to walk. Unless there is something seriously wrong with the kid this is something he is going to learn. Pemberton fortified Vicksburg, does that make him a military genius?

As far as being outnumbered and outgunned it wasn't exactly a secret that the number of Northerners outnumbered the number of Southerners and that the North was vastly more industrialized than the South before the war. If you don't want to fight a war where you are significantly outnumbered it is a good idea not to get into such a war in the first place.

 

[Johnrankins]

Some of my numbers are certainly off(its more than high time to update my old ass library), but that doesn't completely nullify my points. In my opinion, or at least expirience, people can't get more Unionwank than thinking that Grant was better than Lee. He plainly wasn't. He had one well done campaign followed by a few straight years of zerg rushing his opponents, or moving slightly to the side and zero rushing his opponents from there.

You are going to have to do a lot better than that. You are comparing someone who lost at least 5 campaigns vs someone who lost none. You are talking about the person who lost the war vs the one who won it. Someone who mostly had pyric victories (even Chancellorville was pyric), stalemates and losses vs someone who had a considerable number of strategically significant victories on enemy soil. Someone who never won a campaign outside of Virginia vs someone who won campaigns from Kentucky to Mississippi all the way east to Richmond . Someone who fought his best opponent while entrenched in a war where trenches were probably at their strongest outside WWI vs that same enemy who was actually attacking the trenches. The first is Lee, the second is Grant.

 

[CalBear]

Are you joking? Lee beat Grant multiple times, drew him multiple times, and lost against him less than he won.

Last time I checked, the purpose of engaging the OPFOR is to gain ground, push the OPFOR back deeper and deeper into their own territory, end or severely curtail the OPFOR's ability to engage in offensive operations, cut off or destroy the OPFOR's line of supply and retreat.

After the Wilderness Lee had to retreat 24 miles to prevent Grant from getting behind him. That resulted in Spotsylvania Court House. Lee then was chased 46 MILES south to Cold Harbor. Lee gained a lopsided defensive victory there, but was UNABLE to maintain the position, withdrew so 20+ miles to the South and settled into final defensive positions.

That is what strategy is all about.

I always find the argument that Lee was regularly defeating Grant to be humorous, almost to the point of laughter. The theory seems to be that the ATTACKER lost more men than the defender, that is sort of how things work. It is like saying the Reich was the victor in every fight from mid 1943 onward because the Red Army took more losses than the Heer.

The way you can tell which General won, in every campaign (not battle, every General has reversals, CAMPAIGN) is who is standing on the ground that was contested and who isn't.

The South was crushed, Lee was defeated once a couple Union Commanders who had just an ounce of self-confidence arrived on the scene in Meade and Grant. Sheridan burned the Shenandoah Valley to ashes (killing Stuart in the process). Sherman yanked the rest of the Confederacy's armies through a knothole, sideways, while Grant was sitting outside Petersburg and pounding Lee's "far better led" army into a bloody mash.

 

[Wedgekree]

Also on the point of Jackson, which Jackson shows up to battle? Remember he also had his share of failings as a commander - remember Seven Days where his men barely engage throughout the entire battle?

 

[Gigapump]

Also on the point of Jackson, which Jackson shows up to battle? Remember he also had his share of failings as a commander - remember Seven Days where his men barely engage throughout the entire battle?

He was extremely ill, as well as not used to performing under direct higher ups. He got the hang of it, and Second Manassas shows that.

 

[Gigapump]

Last time I checked, the purpose of engaging the OPFOR is to gain ground, push the OPFOR back deeper and deeper into their own territory, end or severely curtail the OPFOR's ability to engage in offensive operations, cut off or destroy the OPFOR's line of supply and retreat.

After the Wilderness Lee had to retreat 24 miles to prevent Grant from getting behind him. That resulted in Spotsylvania Court House. Lee then was chased 46 MILES south to Cold Harbor. Lee gained a lopsided defensive victory there, but was UNABLE to maintain the position, withdrew so 20+ miles to the South and settled into final defensive positions.

That is what strategy is all about.

I always find the argument that Lee was regularly defeating Grant to be humorous, almost to the point of laughter. The theory seems to be that the ATTACKER lost more men than the defender, that is sort of how things work. It is like saying the Reich was the victor in every fight from mid 1943 onward because the Red Army took more losses than the Heer.

The way you can tell which General won, in every campaign (not battle, every General has reversals, CAMPAIGN) is who is standing on the ground that was contested and who isn't.

The South was crushed, Lee was defeated once a couple Union Commanders who had just an ounce of self-confidence arrived on the scene in Meade and Grant. Sheridan burned the Shenandoah Valley to ashes (killing Stuart in the process). Sherman yanked the rest of the Confederacy's armies through a knothole, sideways, while Grant was sitting outside Petersburg and pounding Lee's "far better led" army into a bloody mash.

You're basically just admitting that the Union generals were pretty bad. The only way to prove Lee wasn't an amazing general is to say that the Union generals were the opposite, and that he was just okay. Also, I can't say I've ever heard the acronym OPFOR.

 

[Gigapump]

I never said Lee was incapable of doing the blindingly obvious. Being proud of someone building trenches and fortifications around your city in that era was similar to being proud of an infant learning to walk. Unless there is something seriously wrong with the kid this is something he is going to learn. Pemberton fortified Vicksburg, does that make him a military genius?

As far as being outnumbered and outgunned it wasn't exactly a secret that the number of Northerners outnumbered the number of Southerners and that the North was vastly more industrialized than the South before the war. If you don't want to fight a war where you are significantly outnumbered it is a good idea not to get into such a war in the first place.

They didn't want to, but the Union army was refusing to leave a fort that belonged to the CSA.

 

[Gigapump]

You are going to have to do a lot better than that. You are comparing someone who lost at least 5 campaigns vs someone who lost none. You are talking about the person who lost the war vs the one who won it. Someone who mostly had pyric victories (even Chancellorville was pyric), stalemates and losses vs someone who had a considerable number of strategically significant victories on enemy soil. Someone who never won a campaign outside of Virginia vs someone who won campaigns from Kentucky to Mississippi all the way east to Richmond . Someone who fought his best opponent while entrenched in a war where trenches were probably at their strongest outside WWI vs that same enemy who was actually attacking the trenches. The first is Lee, the second is Grant.

Grant fought in more places. Of course he won victories against weaker opponents throughout the west. Nearly all of the eastern war was in Virginia. Only 2 campaigns even left it.