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?
What say you?
GrinningDwarf, I like your argument. I also believe that Vicksburg was extremely key to the entire war.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, 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.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.
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.
In what sense? Spiritually, economically? Quite the opposite, I think. In fact, that's largely why they refused to let the South go.
I see we have one carpetbagger!
A carpetbagger huh? heheEconomically. 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?
Well, Mr. Carpetbagger, we got something in this territory called a Missouri boat ride.
Spit..."How that lixur on stains?" I love that line.Well, Mr. Carpetbagger, we got something in this territory called a Missouri boat ride.
Jackson may not be able to take Culps Hill. though I would believe Jackson would be more vocal about Picketts charge than Longstreet was.