Confederates Win! If Stonewall doesn't die.

[ShieldOFaith]

I firmly believe that the Confederate States Of America win the war of northern aggression if Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson does not die May 10, 1863.

What say you?

 

[GrinningDwarf]

If Jackson isn't shot by his own troops at Chancellorsville, the Rebs have a chance of winning at Gettysburg...but that does not necessarily change the war's outcome. The only way for the war's outcome to be different would be for northern voters to be so sickened of the war that they vote Lincoln out of office, and then for his successor to sue for peace.

I think Jackson would have taken Culp's Hill at Gettysburg (I had an ancestor who wore blue on Culp's Hill that day...33rd Mass.), and the Union couldn't have held Cemetary Ridge without Culp's Hill. The Union wouldn't have won at Gettysburg in that case. However, as long as the Union leaders can prevent a route, it doesn't necessarily spell doom for the Union.

I think the capture of Vicksburg and the opening of the Mississippi River might have been enough good news for Lincoln to win re-election in spite of a loss at Gettyburg as long as the loss wasn't catastrophic. And there was enough time between Gettysburg and the elections for the Army of the Potomac to have another shot at Lee and the Army of Virginia.

Also, the fall of Vicksburg was the begining of the stranglehold on the south.

Jackson gave the Rebs a definite tactical advantage on a battlefield, but could not have had a bearing on the Grand Strategy of the war. The Rebs were still had Romantic notions of warfare, while the Yanks were begining to develop the concept of modern, total war. (I'm reading a bio of General Sherman right now! )

 

[Zigarrote]

Anything's possible, but hard to say. I think that for the South, "winning" would've meant continuing to kill Yanks till the North was demoralized and no longer considered the effort worth the price, letting the South go its own way. Basically what Dwarf was alluding to, which I think was achievable.

Personally, I think that still could've been accomplished by Lee if he had scattered his forces and adopted guerilla tactics instead of surrendering, but we'll never know.

 

[ShieldOFaith]

If Jackson isn't shot by his own troops at Chancellorsville, the Rebs have a chance of winning at Gettysburg...but that does not necessarily change the war's outcome. The only way for the war's outcome to be different would be for northern voters to be so sickened of the war that they vote Lincoln out of office, and then for his successor to sue for peace.

I think Jackson would have taken Culp's Hill at Gettysburg (I had an ancestor who wore blue on Culp's Hill that day...33rd Mass.), and the Union couldn't have held Cemetary Ridge without Culp's Hill. The Union wouldn't have won at Gettysburg in that case. However, as long as the Union leaders can prevent a route, it doesn't necessarily spell doom for the Union.

I think the capture of Vicksburg and the opening of the Mississippi River might have been enough good news for Lincoln to win re-election in spite of a loss at Gettyburg as long as the loss wasn't catastrophic. And there was enough time between Gettysburg and the elections for the Army of the Potomac to have another shot at Lee and the Army of Virginia.

Also, the fall of Vicksburg was the begining of the stranglehold on the south.

Jackson gave the Rebs a definite tactical advantage on a battlefield, but could not have had a bearing on the Grand Strategy of the war. The Rebs were still had Romantic notions of warfare, while the Yanks were begining to develop the concept of modern, total war. (I'm reading a bio of General Sherman right now! )

GrinningDwarf, I like your argument. I also believe that Vicksburg was extremely key to the entire war.

However, I think that if Stonewall lives, that the Confederates would finally get a clue and just take D.C. and that would be that. The Yankees become confused and angry with an unpopular war and a peace treaty is signed.

Within 10 to 20 years slavery is abolished in the south and we have two countries that co-exist in peace.

 

[ShieldOFaith]

Anything's possible, but hard to say. I think that for the South, "winning" would've meant continuing to kill Yanks till the North was demoralized and no longer considered the effort worth the price, letting the South go its own way. Basically what Dwarf was alluding to, which I think was achievable.

Personally, I think that still could've been accomplished by Lee if he had scattered his forces and adopted guerilla tactics instead of surrendering, but we'll never know.

Zigarrote, your argument is sound. However, remember that you are looking at things over 100 years in the past. They were not big fans of guerilla warfare as the whole of their tactics back then.

 

[ShieldOFaith]

P.s. I noticed that we have no carpetbaggers yet. hehe.

 

[Bakin]

What good would it have done the South to win the war? Especially if it had been badly damaged and on poor terms with the larger, more powerful north?

I'd say that the North would have been better off without the South.

 

[Zigarrote]

Zigarrote, your argument is sound. However, remember that you are looking at things over 100 years in the past. They were not big fans of guerilla warfare as the whole of their tactics back then.

Thanks, SOF. I agree. Unfortunately, though it took incredible nerve and there was some use of new and unconventional tactics like snipers etc., they were still locked into the mindset of two armies confronting each other face-to-face, inflicting and sustaining massive and horrific casualties.

Bakin
What good would it have done the South to win the war? Especially if it had been badly damaged and on poor terms with the larger, more powerful north?

That's a whole book in itself, but as the South was a distinctly different people from the North, culturally speaking, I don't think you can discount the importance of self-determination. But, I guess that's really only something that people living halfway across the world should have. Particularly if their land just happens to be sitting on a lot of oil and Israel doesn't like them

I'd say that the North would have been better off without the South.

In what sense? Spiritually, economically? Quite the opposite, I think. In fact, that's largely why they refused to let the South go.

 

[ShieldOFaith]

I see we have one carpetbagger!

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

Even if they won at Gettysburg, the South would have taken tremendous losses, and then they would have had to assault the defenses of Washington D.C.

The Army of Northern Virginia, after a surprising victory at Gettysburg marches on Washington D.C. while the battered federals marshal behind their defenses. After a bloody stalemate, the Army of NOVA is forced to retreat because of the federal armies that are inflicting massive damage on the South.

 

[jayem]

From what I've read, the Confederate's best chance was 7 months earlier at Sharpsburg. Even with the Union finding Lee's plans for dividing his forces, the Confederates still achieved a partial goal in capturing Harper's Ferry. But McClellan was able to block any further progress and inflict enough casualties that the Confederates were forced to withdraw. Though hardly a victory for the Union, it ended Lee's plans to invade the North, and it dissuaded the French and British from recognizing and supporting the South. If the CSA had a strong chance to force negotiations for its independence, it likley lost it when Lee was stymied at Antietam.

But speculating about counterfactual history is fun. Suppose those misplaced Confederate orders weren't found by Union soldiers...?

 

[Bakin]

In what sense? Spiritually, economically? Quite the opposite, I think. In fact, that's largely why they refused to let the South go.

Economically. The only thing the South ever produced was cotton. I don't think Fruit of the Loom is one of the backbone companies of the United States.

The Mississippi River is about the only thing of serious value that the North would have needed. The war was more of an attempt to keep the Union together and keep even more states from just leaving when they were displeased by the Federal government than anything else. The North had the railroads, good farmland, industry, money, and government. The South had red clay soil and cotton. Oh, and tobacco. Texas had oil, but during the mid 19th century that didn't mean too much.

I see we have one carpetbagger!

Wow, are you a professional historian?

 

[ShieldOFaith]

Economically. The only thing the South ever produced was cotton. I don't think Fruit of the Loom is one of the backbone companies of the United States.

The Mississippi River is about the only thing of serious value that the North would have needed. The war was more of an attempt to keep the Union together and keep even more states from just leaving when they were displeased by the Federal government than anything else. The North had the railroads, good farmland, industry, money, and government. The South had red clay soil and cotton. Oh, and tobacco. Texas had oil, but during the mid 19th century that didn't mean too much.



Wow, are you a professional historian?

A carpetbagger huh? hehe

No, I just love history. And I think that with Stonewall alive, he would have finally pressured Lee to just up and take D.C. and be done with it.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

Well, Mr. Carpetbagger, we got something in this territory called a Missouri boat ride.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Well, Mr. Carpetbagger, we got something in this territory called a Missouri boat ride.

Famous last words..."We got us the Josey Wales!"

and another favorite...

Josey Wales: When I get to likin' someone, they ain't around long.

Lone Watie: I notice when you get to dislikin' someone, they ain't around long neither.

(Sorry 'bout that. )

 

[ShieldOFaith]

Well, Mr. Carpetbagger, we got something in this territory called a Missouri boat ride.

Spit..."How that lixur on stains?" I love that line.

That is one of my fav movies of all time.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

I reckon so.

 

[redneck]

Had the south still had Jackson, I think they likely would have won at Gettysburg and would have won the war. yes they would have sustained considerable causalties but just their mear prescence in the North would strike a lot of fear amongst other Northers. The fear would have caused Lincoln to replace George Meade with another general, likely US Grant. Removing Grant from the Mississippi at this point would likely result in the union losing at Chattanooga.

The Conferate victory could also spark anewed interested to mediate an end to the war in England, France and Russia. these three countries needed southern cotton and before Antietum, England at least was trying to mediate an end. If for say England decided to ally itself with the south, than the Union has real problems.


Now I wouldn't say for 100% the south would win, I'm just throwing out what I believe to be one of the most likely scenarios. it's still possible even with Jackson the Confederacy loses at Gettysburg. Jackson may not be able to take Culps Hill. though I would believe Jackson would be more vocal about Picketts charge than Longstreet was.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Jackson may not be able to take Culps Hill. though I would believe Jackson would be more vocal about Picketts charge than Longstreet was.

I don't think Jackson would have paused in front of Culp's Hill like his replacement did. He would have rolled right over it, making Pickett's Charge unnecessary. (And, in the process, possibly would have killed one of my ancestors defending Culp's Hill...and making my existance impossible!!)

 

[eaglex]

If Jacksondid survive his wounds the South unfortunately would still lose the war. I hate saying this becasue I am a loyal Confederate. LONG LIVE THE CONFEDRACY!