American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Slight twist to an old topic of debate WRT the ACW\
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=22838		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  DBMcWaters [ Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Slight twist to an old topic of debate WRT the ACW\
Ok, so I'm in a number of Civil War groups on Facebook, but most of them are simply filled with people who want to disparage the South on every post, rather than provide any informed/researched opinions or information on topics such as this one. So I thought I'd throw it out here (my apologies if it has been discussed in the past, I have been away from the forums for a number of years before I reactivated in the last year or two).

Many of the debates over "How would the South have fared at Gettysburg if Jackson had survived Chancellorsville" come from the standpoint of assuming that everything up through his being wounded that fateful evening happened, but then he survives having his arm amputated and is able to reassume command of his Corps in time to participate in the Gettysburg campaign.

So for a slight twist to that - suppose that the North Carolina pickets had not gotten spooked that evening in 1863 and had been able to identify Jackson's scouting party in time to avoid firing upon the riders...thereby resulting in Jackson NOT being wounded and losing his arm. In effect, assume that he had been in "relatively perfect health". Does this change anything regarding the Gettysburg campaign? The war in the east? Or does it simply play out in much the same way, just with Jackson in command of II Corps through the end of the war???

I am simply interested in honest discussion on the subject. I realize there are a number of hypothetical "what if" scenarios that could be played on similar to this - what if an errant shell had killed Grant in 1862 at Shiloh? What if Johnston hadn't been killed there? etc. But this seems to be the one that most people at least think (rightly or wrongly) would have impacted the war the most, so I'm just trying to satisfy my curiosity.
Author:  Quaama [ Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Slight twist to an old topic of debate WRT the ACW\
I suspect that if Jackson had been in command of his Corps at Gettysburg then it would have been more aggressive on Day 1. Unlike Ewell, Jackson would have been likely to press an attack on Cemetery Hill or Culp's Hill (even into the night). With the Confederates in command of either of those positions by the end of the first day it would have been a very different battle. There may not have been any battle because without command of those two positions the Union would probably have withdrawn as even on July 2 Meade was thinking of such a thing (https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records/043/0072).
Author:  warhorse123 [ Sun Feb 06, 2022 7:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Slight twist to an old topic of debate WRT the ACW\
I agree with General Swanson. I feel there would have been a more aggressive attack by Jackson on the first day. To what end that would have been...it's hard to say. The Battle Of Gettysburg Podcast covered this in one of their episodes, their most famous one, I believe.
Author:  mihalik [ Sun Feb 06, 2022 11:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Slight twist to an old topic of debate WRT the ACW\
You have to also consider that with Jackson in command he might have already taken Harrisburg and be unable to make it back in time to participate in the first day's battle.
Author:  Walt Dortch [ Mon Feb 07, 2022 9:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Slight twist to an old topic of debate WRT the ACW\
Or, as in the Seven Days battle, taken a nap.
Author:  Ashdoll Ren [ Tue Feb 08, 2022 11:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Slight twist to an old topic of debate WRT the ACW\
LOL. I thought whoever knew the history would think of the 'what-if'. What if Jackson did not die? What if Jackson joined the battle of Gettysburg?

BTW, I am also concerning another 'what-if'. Stuart was completely out of contact with Lee and unable to alert his commander to Yankee movements for several critical days before the Battle of Gettysburg. What if Stuart kept in contact with Lee?

> Would Lee choose a better battlefield?
> Would rebs can break Buford faster with Stuart's help?
> Would Lee and his generals do better in Gettysburg? They didn't do well in Gettysburg. Was it because they have limited information about the terrain and Union? Would Stuart give rebs more information? CSA players, who know the history and know more information than generals in history, seemingly have more possibilities to win on the first day of Gettysburg.

Does the 'what-if' have the same or more influence than 'Jackson alive'?

Looking forward to a good comment. :) :?:
Author:  Blake [ Tue Feb 08, 2022 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Slight twist to an old topic of debate WRT the ACW\
I enjoy a good "what if" discussion as well. But the reality is that each and every event creates a ripple effect which you often don't even account for when taking into account the thousands of variables in any replay of sequential events.

To begin with... if Jackson lives... is he still wounded? Are we assuming he survived the amputation? If so, is he healthy enough to take the field a month after losing an arm? If we are assuming he was never wounded, does the Battle of Chancellorsville still play out in identical fashion? Does Hooker still get concussed on Day Three of the battle? The answers to all of these directly affect the course of events which begin to lead towards Gettysburg 60 days later.

I don't think you can assume the series of events would play out identically and that Lee and Meade would end up at Gettysburg if Jackson had lived (wounded or healthy). Too many variables are in play. Assuming Jackson is never wounded, why would Lee reorganize his army into three corps? If Jackson is healthy does the ANV more aggressively follow-up the AotP after being reinforced by Longstreet with the rest of the First Corps? That might be a more likely outcome than the period of rest and refitting that historically occurred as Lee's army recovered from the shock of battle and loss of their spiritual "heart and soul" in Jackson.

Jackson was not one to rest after a victory and with two full divisions of reinforcements coming to Fredericksburg with Longstreet there was no reason to rest. You can assume Lee and Jackson would be looking to cross the Rapidan or Rappahannock and drive Hooker all the way back to DC the same as they had driven Pope after his defeat at Second Manassas.

Gotta love the "what ifs," no right or wrong answers. But all just fiction.
Author:  krmiller_usa [ Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Slight twist to an old topic of debate WRT the ACW\
I recall reading Lee had been considering reducing the size of the corps and adding a third to the ANV before Jackson's wounding, he thought the Corps were too big to be controlled by a single commander and the small staffs the confederacy had at the time. So now you have two what if's should Jackson survive, ANV remains two corps or goes to 3 and if Jackson is alive does Hill or Ewell get the third corps. I recall a BGG scenario covering the first option but don't recall seeing anything like the second.
Author:  mihalik [ Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Slight twist to an old topic of debate WRT the ACW\
krmiller_usa wrote:
I recall reading Lee had been considering reducing the size of the corps and adding a third to the ANV before Jackson's wounding, he thought the Corps were too big to be controlled by a single commander and the small staffs the confederacy had at the time. So now you have two what if's should Jackson survive, ANV remains two corps or goes to 3 and if Jackson is alive does Hill or Ewell get the third corps. I recall a BGG scenario covering the first option but don't recall seeing anything like the second.


My guess is Ewell would have gotten that third corps due to seniority. That was a big deal in the Confederate army.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/