If Johnston and Jackson had lived

[renrich]

Albert Sidney Johnston was considered by some as the finest soldier North or South at the beginning of the War Between the States. He was killed at the Battle of Pittsburg Landing(some call it Shiloh) in April, 1862, leading his troops. He was shot in the back of the knee, probably by friendly fire, and subsequently bled to death before the severity of the wound was discovered. Thomas(Stonewall) Jackson, after being instrumental in a number of CSA victories was hit by friendly fire after the first day at Chancellorsville, in April 1863, had his arm amputated and subsequently died, probably of pneumonia. How ironic that both of these, possibly indispensable to the CSA, men died from wounds received almost exactly one year apart and probably from friendly fire. No comparable soldiers on the Union side were lost to that side. What possibly could have happened if those two soldiers had lived to fight out the war?

[syscom3]

No comparable soldiers on the Union side were lost to that side. ...

I think the Union lost gen McPherson outside of Atlanta in 1864. He was considered a rising star by officers and men alike.

In the end, the Union would still have won.

Grant had a knack in defeating the confederates in the west. And once he was in in the east being his usual aggressive self, Lee was going to on the defensive without respite.

[BombTaxi]

I don't think either general's survival would have affected the outcome of the war, talented as they were. The CSA was being starved by a blockade and losing the industrial war due to it's underdeveloped industries and small manpower base. The effective splitting of the CSA in two by the sucessful US riverine campaigns also meant that the CSA had to fight more or less with what they had on each side of the Missisppi, while the US could move troops easily between fronts on an advanced rail network. The defeat of the CSA, IMHO, was more industrial and logistical than it was military...

See, I've been doing my reading

[GrauGeist]

I think that had Jackson not been killed during the Chansellorville campaign, things would have been much different at Gettysberg.

With Jackson's ability to control and command his loyal troops, the chaos that happened at the onset of Gettysberg would not have happened. Lee did not want to engage the Federals until his full army had reached the lines, that would have also allowed Stuart's cavalry to get on scene and prevent the flanking and envelopment of the Confederate's light artillery during the first day's chaotic engagements, The light artillery which would have been brutal on the Federal flanks if they had been able to deploy. A concerted assault would have most likely routed the Federals, who were on the verge of doing so anyway.

Lee literally lost his right-hand man with Jackson's death.

[syscom3]

I think that had Jackson not been killed during the Chansellorville campaign, things would have been much different at Gettysberg.

With Jackson's ability to control and command his loyal troops, the chaos that happened at the onset of Gettysberg would not have happened. Lee did not want to engage the Federals until his full army had reached the lines, that would have also allowed Stuart's cavalry to get on scene and prevent the flanking and envelopment of the Confederate's light artillery during the first day's chaotic engagements, The light artillery which would have been brutal on the Federal flanks if they had been able to deploy. A concerted assault would have most likely routed the Federals, who were on the verge of doing so anyway.

Lee literally lost his right-hand man with Jackson's death.

Good point, but the Feds had control of the high ground and were desperate enough to hold it at all costs. The battle would have ended in a draw of sorts, with 'rebs having to retreat due to logistics issues.

And still, General Grant would defeat the southern troops in the west just as soundly and perfectly as what unfolded historically wise.

[GrauGeist]

Good point, but the Feds had control of the high ground and were desperate enough to hold it at all costs. The battle would have ended in a draw of sorts, with 'rebs having to retreat due to logistics issues.

And still, General Grant would defeat the southern troops in the west just as soundly and perfectly as what unfolded historically wise.

That is a possability, but also consider, at the onset of the battle, the Confederates engaged peicemeal against Lee's wishes. As Lee's two armies pressed the attack, it drove the Federals back through town, where Lee didn't want them to go.

His intention was to envelope and drive them to the valley where they'd have to stand and fight in the open. But this didn't happen, like I mentioned, because of the loss of control of his lead elements. Jackson would have had the presence of mind and the control over his men to have kept that from happening.

In the event that Lee was successful in the battle, the door was wide open to Washington. It's true that Grant offered the Union it's first victories in 1862, in Tennessee, but he was far from a force to be reckoned with, especially after the costly victory at Shiloh (6-7 April 1862) that created a massive public dissent regarding the war, and almost cost him is job.

So in looking at the public's attitude regarding Shiloh, and a Union loss at Gettysberg (especially if it was anything like Shiloh), I'd be willing to bet that even if Lee didn't march on Washington, there could have existed a willingness for Lincoln to come to terms with Davis.

[syscom3]

Well, IMO, Gettysburg is a perfect example of luck and the timing of it. We could argue to the end on whether Lee had better options to use as compared to Meade. IN the end, win or loose, the Union still had a large force to reckon with and Lee had logistics issues the moment he crossed over into Maryland.

As for Grant, Shiloh was a blood bath. But in the intervening year, New Orleans had been won and coming May, the only southern force on the Mississippi was holed up in Vicksburg. I would suffice to say, that the South didnt have the industrial or logistics power to fight in both theaters at the same time. And no matter how good a general you are, if your opponent is as good as you, then logistics and firepower will win.

[GrauGeist]

I have to agree with your points, there is no way the south could have won after the loss at Gettysberg. That was the tipping point of the war.

From that point, the only saving grace the south had, was to either drag the war on until the Union lost it's "belly" for the fight, or bring a powerful ally onboard.

Even with the South's "wonder weapons", it would be a long, bloody holding action with only one outcome...

[renrich]

A quote from "West Point Atlas of American Wars" This is regarding the Federal Army just prior to the Battle of Pittsburg Landing. "Sherman did not expect an attack from the south and Grant was even less suspecting." Another quote about Grant. " But he did not reach the field of battle until 8:30 AM, having left his breakfast table at Savannah about 6:30 AM upon hearing gunfire. Now he labored with all his energy to restore balance to a situation which his earlier carelessness and overconfidence had permitted to develop." Grant had been surprised by Johnston.

[Njaco]

If Jackson was still alive by Gettysburg, would Lee have changed his plans maybe with Jackson's urging? Would Jackson have allowed Lee to attack the strong Northern middle on that last day or continue with flanking movements?

[syscom3]

A quote from "West Point Atlas of American Wars" This is regarding the Federal Army just prior to the Battle of Pittsburg Landing. "Sherman did not expect an attack from the south and Grant was even less suspecting." Another quote about Grant. " But he did not reach the field of battle until 8:30 AM, having left his breakfast table at Savannah about 6:30 AM upon hearing gunfire. Now he labored with all his energy to restore balance to a situation which his earlier carelessness and overconfidence had permitted to develop." Grant had been surprised by Johnston.

And Grant rallied his generals and eventually won. Mainly due to the confederate troops stopping to loot the federal camps.

[BombTaxi]

And Grant rallied his generals and eventually won. Mainly due to the confederate troops stopping to loot the federal camps.

That doesn't mean that Grant was the better general. It just means that Confederate commanders at the platoon, company and battallion levels could not control thier men...

[syscom3]

That doesn't mean that Grant was the better general. It just means that Confederate commanders at the platoon, company and battallion levels could not control thier men...

Luck is everything when things fall apart.

The Union won Shiloh fair and square, in large oart due to Grant pulling his generals together and organizing defenses.

BTW, no one should fault the rebel troops who stopped to plunder .... they were hungry and looking for food.

[BombTaxi]

Luck might be everything, but a lucky commander is not the same thing as a good commander. And you said yourself that Grant mainly won because the Confederates went out of control - not the fault of the hungry men, but certainly the fault of weak and ineffective junior officers.

You then go on to say that Grant won in large part due to his organisation of his troops. Which do you think was more important? If it was Rebel disorganisation, then you have done nothing to prove that Grant was superior to Lee as a general...

[syscom3]

Luck might be everything, but a lucky commander is not the same thing as a good commander. And you said yourself that Grant mainly won because the Confederates went out of control - not the fault of the hungry men, but certainly the fault of weak and ineffective junior officers.

You then go on to say that Grant won in large part due to his organisation of his troops. Which do you think was more important? If it was Rebel disorganisation, then you have done nothing to prove that Grant was superior to Lee as a general...

Luck is often defined as being prepared for opportunity. And lucky generals seem to win time after time.

Grant was not at the scene when the battle began and arrived just in time to rally his command. This is indicative of a great commander. And as events of the next 3 years proved, this was not a fluke. He had a knack at knowing how to win.

As for the rebels, well they were hungry and did what any hungry soldier would do.The troops on both sides of the war at this time were all volunteers, and no ammount of forecefull leadership by the regulars could control them from time to time.