View Full Version : I'm not a fan of g'nral Jackson
Mason Jar
09 Jul 06, 18:58
Alex when discussing which new campaign you wanted to see next you said, “I'm not a fan of g'nral Jackson so don't care much about campaign of '62. Guess that supporters of Rebellion will have their hands full here as well.” I’m curious what your thinking is on this subject.
I’m pretty new to CW study, but everything I have come across was unanimous in it opion of the Blue Light Elder. With you such an ardent supported of the Confederate cause you must have some difference of opinion about strategy or tactics.
Of course I would be very interested in anyone else’s opinion as well
KG_RangerBooBoo
09 Jul 06, 23:49
Well I've always thought that Jackson was overrated. He could sure make men march but tactically I don't think he was any great shakes. He narrowly escaped getting destroyed in the Valley but what had to be some of the worst of Union commanders, can't remember the battle. When Lee gave him some of his best opportunities during the Peninsular campaign he came off badly. He did some fancy marching before Second Bull Run but any idiot could have picked that railroad cut to make a defensive line. Nice maneuver at Chancellorsville but really all that involved was staying out of sight and he had the guide to do that for him. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he had met the best the Union had to offer in Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, etc.
Alex Krolikowsk
10 Jul 06, 09:12
Good to see you on the MB Bill, we don't see many post from you recently;)
Well, I think Jackson was little overrated indeed. He was a good soldier but had also few bad traits. Sometimes Jackson’s secrecy was simply ridiculous. When Army of the Valley marched to join Lee around Richmond, Jackson keep all in secret and even his division commanders didn’t know where exectly they are heading. Oki, Lee asked that all was keep in secret but generals like Winder or Ewell should have been informed about the plans. During the march, Jackson left his men for a meeting with Lee and, if I remember well, the only person he left informed about the plans was his priest. What would happen if general was injured or something bad happed to him during the travel??
And how hard he worked hard (against all evidence) to destroy career of Dick Garnett, who in fact was a dead man from the very time he reported to Jackson, because general considered him as a political appointment.
I think Jackson’s preformance in the field was mixed. He generally directed his Corps well during marches, but when fighting came he wasn’t so good. I woud rate his performance in following campaigns as follows:
* Valley – solid
* Seven Days – very poor, probably only aura of the hero of Manassas and Valley saved him from being cashiered
* Northern Virginia Campaign – this campaign probably show a real face of Jackson - he marched his Corps well when unleashed by Lee, but his dispositions on the battlefields weren’t impressive. He was nearly driven from the field at Cedar Mountain by numerically inferior foe; at Brawner’s Farm, day before 2nd Manassas, he allowed his men to battle in stand up fight against lone Fed division and over thousand men were needlessly lost; at 2nd Manassas his men fought very well but I think he didn’t have much impact on it.
* Antietam – quite solid
* Fredericksburg – at most an average performance – famous hole in AP Hill line for which Jackson must take some blame. He simply couldn’t work properly with the commander of his largest division. I don’t know if he knew that something is wrong on Hill’s front (as Lee knew, Jackson probably too), but guess that even if he heard something, he simply wasn’t in mood to discuss the matter with Hill as there was a bad blood between them (in fact they were in the process of filling a court-martial charges against each other).
* Chancellorsville – solid performance – Jackson simply did what Lee wanted, but as Mark mentioned, such tricks probably would not work against more competent Union commanders. I always belived that at Chancellorsville Lee had more luck than a common sense.
Say what you want, but I for one would never like to serve under Jackson!
Rich Walker
10 Jul 06, 22:28
I don't want to get into a tactics battle, but one thing I would bet on, had Jackson lived, Lee would have won Gettysburg. His sheer determination would have carried day one. After that, who knows.
Rich
KG_RangerBooBoo
11 Jul 06, 07:57
Guess that depended on whether we would have seen the Jackson of the Seven Days campaign or the Jackson of the Chancellorsville battle.
Alex Krolikowsk
11 Jul 06, 09:41
(...) had Jackson lived (...) His sheer determination would have carried day one.
Agree:) but who knows how campaign would unfolded with Jackson at the head of the II Corps and if there would be a fight at Gettysburg at all.
Mason Jar
16 Jul 06, 00:27
Well I have been greatly informed. All I remember (and now I wonder if i remeber incorectly) is somthing about lee saying he had lost his right arm when he hear that Jackson had died.
p.s. Alex, I've been too busy playing the game to post. Having a great time getting schooled by everyone. I'm about ready for an advaced course from you if you have the space in your game sheadule.
Gary McClellan
16 Jul 06, 00:43
The main thing about Jackson is that his death set off a chain reaction. The Army of Northern Virginia is the ultimate proof of the Peter Principal. The new corps commanders were not as good, nor were the divisional commanders who replaced the guys who went up the line, and so forth.
Alex Krolikowsk
16 Jul 06, 07:39
p.s. Alex, I've been too busy playing the game to post. Having a great time getting schooled by everyone. I'm about ready for an advaced course from you if you have the space in your game sheadule.
Sure, fire up a courier to my HQ. Maybe a Seven Pines?:cheeky:
Alex Krolikowsk
16 Jul 06, 07:53
The new corps commanders were not as good, nor were the divisional commanders who replaced the guys who went up the line, and so forth.
Well, I can agree with first part of this statement. As to div/bde commanders - at first there were few exceptions like Oneal, Iverson or Brockenbrough, but they all were quickly cashiered. I think that divisions of ANV which started spring campaign of 1864 were very solid war machines, as well led as in times when Old Jack was alive.
I think the focus here is too narrow much as I love Jackson. The problem was not just the loss of Jackson, but the overall attrition in the officer corps and the army in general. But the good or bad was not know at the time. Ewell and A.P. Hill ( and Hood for that matter) were outstanding Commanders of Divisions-how was Lee to know they would be less than satisfactory as Corps Commanders? And why weren't they good Corps Commanders-because they weren't Jackson and the south lost at GB. If they had won at GB, we'd be singing a different tune(in more ways than one)
A point which is seldom mentioned, look what the AOP did with the blockheads they had. How many McDowells, McClellans, Burnsides did the ANV have in its ranks. Or a Crouch, or a Banks, or a Freemantle, od a Sickles.
How long had Meade been in command at Gettysburg? Lee reorganized the army but did nothing to modify his method of command(direction) of the army. If he knew Ewell and A.P. Hill were not Jackson, then he had to be more careful with this orders to his Corps Commanders and he wasn't. The fault is Lee's and no one else's.
Alex Krolikowsk
17 Jul 06, 05:54
Personally I like AP Hill and belive that he would be a very good corps commander if not his illness. Since Gettysburg he had really serious problems (including kidneys) and could perform properly in the field. Later Lee was fully aware of it and I wonder why he allowed Hill to stay with the army to the very end.
Well I've always thought that Jackson was overrated. He could sure make men march but tactically I don't think he was any great shakes. He narrowly escaped getting destroyed in the Valley but what had to be some of the worst of Union commanders, can't remember the battle. When Lee gave him some of his best opportunities during the Peninsular campaign he came off badly. He did some fancy marching before Second Bull Run but any idiot could have picked that railroad cut to make a defensive line. Nice maneuver at Chancellorsville but really all that involved was staying out of sight and he had the guide to do that for him. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he had met the best the Union had to offer in Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, etc.
If Jackson is overrated then so is Grant. :)
Blasphemy.
If Jackson is overrated then so is Grant. :)
Blasphemy.
How so? Grant has probably more nay sayers than any other CW General that consistently WON and he was one of the few Gernerals on either side that fully understood 'modern warfare'?
How so? Grant has probably more nay sayers than any other CW General that consistently WON and he was one of the few Gernerals on either side that fully understood 'modern warfare'?
For some of the reasons posted here that Jackson was overrated, Grant did many of the same things.
Gary McClellan
21 Jul 06, 17:15
Well, the thing is, no generals in the ACW were actually all that good. There were some who were inspired at one aspect or another, but there were no "complete" packages.
Grant was so focused on what he'd do to the enemy, he underestimated what could be done to him.
Lee was a brilliant counterpuncher, but was more limited when he carried the long term burden of initiative.
Very few ACW generals had a good grasp of Logistics, not only in terms of supply, but also in terms of making sure orders got to where they were going, troops got off the line in good time, such and so.
Honestly, I'd rate no ACW general above a middlin B in the "all time" scale. If Scott were still in his Mexican form, he could have humbled any of them.
(I consider Scott to be the best in US history, and even he'd only be a B+ at best.)
Shelby Foote said the Civil War produced two military genuis' W.T. Sherman and N.B. Forrest.
FWIW.
For all the praise Grant receives (much of it deserved) it is often forgot that in two days fighting in the Wilderness he lost more men than Hooker lost at Chancellorsville.
At Cold Harbor he threw away lives on impossible attacks.
He got away with things that a lot of his "predecessors" (I know Grant wasn't commanding the AOP during the Overland Campaign, it was still Meade, but Grant kept Meade on a very short leesh) were sacked for.
But he had a legend building and was really Lincolns last hope in the Eastern theater. The only way he loses his job at that point in the war is if Lincoln loses the election, which, thanks to Bill Sherman taking Atlanta, didn't happen.
Gary McClellan
21 Jul 06, 22:35
At best, Sherman and Forrest have to be considered unproven. Forrest especially. I will freely admit that he was brilliant at what he did. He was the right man to run raids, recon and defend against other raids. No doubt about it.
However, how would he have fared as the general responsible for the whole army? That is a far more difficult thing to call. He did appear to have commendable strategic insight, but as Erwin Rommel is a reminder, you also have to have a head for logistics. Did Forrest have such? There's no telling, so at best, all we can do is speak of his abilities in what he did.
Sherman is better tested, and with him, I guess not so much "unproven", but he did appear to be (relatively) lacking in battlefield handling. He got his logistics to work, and he had great strategic insight, but his handling of troops on the battlefield was sound, but not inspired. I would rate him a B, and gladly consider him the best we fielded in the war.
However, he was not an A. He would not have stood up to Moltke, Marlborough, Napoleon, Wellington or the like. The United States has never produced an "A" list general (Admirals is another story).
lezgo killemall
21 Jul 06, 23:02
great debate/discussion guys. really enjoying it.
KG_RangerBooBoo
21 Jul 06, 23:07
Grant may have lost more men at the Wilderness then Hooker at Chancellorsville but he kept his nerve which was all the more important. I've always thought that if Grant had been at Antietam or Chancellorsville the war would have been over then. I do believe that Grant is all to often classed a simple butcher willing to throw superior numbers at Lee until he carried the day but he actually did more in maneuvering then most of his counterparts considered. Of course he made his mistakes and he freely admitted that Cold Harbor was the biggest one but he also understood what it took to win the war and had the nerve and fortitude to see it through. As far as comparing any American Civil War generals with European generals of an earlier period that is like comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. I think the circumstances were different enough in the periods and the enviroments as to make comparison difficult if not impossible.
I don't think anyone could have won Chancellorsville for the Union.
Gary McClellan
21 Jul 06, 23:30
Chancellorsville? Nearly anyone could have won that battle. Aside from the strategic mistake that was made early on when Hooker didn't leave the Wilderness, the simple key was that Hooker should have made sure that Howard followed orders and saw to his defenses on the open flank.
Chancellorsville is a good example of the difference between Grant and those before him though. The Wilderness was as serious a loss for Grant as Chancellorsville was for Hooker. However, Hooker slunk back across the river. Grant proceeded to manuever to advantage and force Lee back.
Lee convinced the others that he'd won. Grant just kept plugging.
Mark, while there were differences between the Napoleonic era and the ACW, the basic lessons of strategy and (especially) logistics remain fairly constant.
By the way, I show our Sedan turn on your side Heinz :)
KG_RangerBooBoo
22 Jul 06, 09:06
I think if you put Grant or Sherman in Hooker's shoes then Jackson never gets to make that flanking march as neither one of them would have stopped when getting such advantageous position. The only thing that made Jackson's attack possible was that Hooker lost his nerve and pulled up just when he had acheived the position he was striving for.
Gary, I think you may give the ACW generals short shrift then but that is probably a discussion for a different thread so as to not get this one too far off topic. Also, I was showing that you should have the file. Just forwarded the last one that I had.
......However, he was not an A. He would not have stood up to Moltke, Marlborough, Napoleon, Wellington or the like. The United States has never produced an "A" list general (Admirals is another story).
Out of curiosity, where would you rank Patton? I could not see him *not* ranked in the A list, being mad as a hatter not withstanding.
To me George Thomas would be a high ranker too. Not just for sheer stubborness and toughness and good tactical and strategic insight, but more importantly for modernizing staff and communications. Sharp guy. But untested to some degree...only 2-0 as a chief in command. He had to be a comfort to his superiors while serving as a subordinant I'd think.
I agree in general that we are usually "out generaled" by our European counterparts however. I don't know why either...we have access to the same books on history, we know and understand their military traditions, we have great stuff to work with in organic and inorganic resources, and yet...we very often fall short in comparison(though by no means are we without great accomplishments!)
Gary McClellan
22 Jul 06, 09:57
He's also a B (Patton that is). Why? He wasn't nearly as good when the situation called for a set-piece battle, such as his assaults on the West Wall. He reallywas the inverse of Monty. Monty was good at set-pieces and poor when the battle became mobile. Patton was poor in set-pieces but excellent as soon as it became mobile.
Alex Krolikowsk
23 Jul 06, 19:05
Shelby Foote said the Civil War produced two military genuis' W.T. Sherman and NB Forrest
In case of Sherman, it's a joke:laugh:
KG_RangerBooBoo
23 Jul 06, 22:24
In case of Sherman, it's a joke:laugh:
Why do you think so?
Alex Krolikowsk
24 Jul 06, 04:00
Why do you think so?
A good soldier Sherman was but I really don't see any signs of "military genius" in him. I leave his early-war activity in KY, Shiloh and Chattanooga and say something about his vaunted campaign for Atlanta. If he wasn't so stubborn in promoting his beloved AoT, there would be a good probability that campaign of 1864 would end in early, complete rebel defeat in northern Georgia. I mean Snake Creek Gap manouver - George Thomas strongly opted for sending his strong AoC thro this gap. Sherman chose weak AoT and it ended as we know.
As to his (in)famous March to the Sea - when JB Hood started to operate against federal supply lines to Atlanta, Sherman don't have other opions than to chase Hood (as he did at first) or to leave rebels to others and go with his army somewhere.
The only one thing he was really good in was destroying private propierty, but he was not the first person who understood that warfare against citizens may shake enemy's will (and means) to fight.
Mason Jar
30 Jul 06, 02:46
It seems to me the best generals would find a way to meet objectives without a fight at all. Have any managed to do that? Or is that less about war and more about politics?
KG_RangerBooBoo
30 Jul 06, 10:06
Roesecrans managed to maneuver Bragg out of most of Tennessee before Bragg finally turned on him at Chickamauga. However the main objective of any good general had to be to destroy the enemy's army, whether through direct battle or by denying that army the necessities it needed to fight. Grant never really destroyed the ANV in a battle but with his constant pressure on Lee's supplies and with Sherman destroying the industries and food stores of Georgia and the Carolinas they lost the capability of fighting. Thomas, at Nashville, and Grant at Vicksburg were probably the only generals to really achieve the destruction of armies during the war in battle.
It seems to me the best generals would find a way to meet objectives without a fight at all....
Sun Tzu (or the writers who we collectively refer to as Sun Tzu centuries later) would agree with your statement.
Grant accepted the surrender of three Confederate armies during the war. He had to be doing something right.
MGRamseur
10 Aug 06, 14:12
Stonewall suffered from many of the same weaknesses as other generals in the Civil War. He was as fond of frontal assualts as any in the first years of the war. If I had to point out one characteristic that defined his greatness it was his "killer instinct". Very much like Grant, Stonewall knew when an enemy was down and the need to press the situation to its conclusion regardless of losses. Just like Grant, Stonewall gained fame from facing incredibly mediocre generals ( I hope there are not any Pemberton fans listening:).
Perhaps all southerners like to pine about ye 'ol "What if Stonewall had been at Gettysburg" scenario. The battle would have been different no doubt, but with the fall of Vicksburg and Grant coming East to take command would it have mattered?
Roesecrans managed to maneuver Bragg out of most of Tennessee before Bragg finally turned on him at Chickamauga. However the main objective of any good general had to be to destroy the enemy's army, whether through direct battle or by denying that army the necessities it needed to fight. Grant never really destroyed the ANV in a battle but with his constant pressure on Lee's supplies and with Sherman destroying the industries and food stores of Georgia and the Carolinas they lost the capability of fighting. Thomas, at Nashville, and Grant at Vicksburg were probably the only generals to really achieve the destruction of armies during the war in battle.
I think you have contradicted yourself here. He did destroy the ANV-they surrendered at Appomattox after a campaign of attrition and maneuver-one that started at the Wilderness. And this brings up a interesting point-did Grant have his share of bad decisions-yes, did he have his defeats-yes. Did he ever lose a campaign-NO. And every one of them allowed the Union cause to advance. And that is the difference between Grant and all the others and that is the true estimate of a good General. Name me a campaign that Lee won-not battle-campaign? He won many battles but none decisive and lost every campaign-starting in West Virginia and ending at Appomattox. ;)
But MG Ramseur is right-Jackson would have put all the blue-bellies to the sword if he could have.
Alex Krolikowsk
11 Aug 06, 10:17
Name me a campaign that Lee won-not battle-campaign?
Seven Days:)
Seven Days:)
No it was a drawn campaign( you want a what if scenario-replace Mcclellan with Grant). I admit Richmond was saved but The Union Army survived. Lee never, never was able to bring about his goal of bringing about the 'decisive battle' and he was never able to follow thru after his many tactical victories. He still lived in the Napoleonic Era and did not understand and was not comfortable with the concept of total war as practiced by Grant and Sherman and others. I think the greatest difference between Lee and Grant and Grant and the previous Union commanders is expressed in the simple phrase 'I will fight it out on this line if it takes all summer' (close approx of his quote).
The only definition you allow for a campaign decision is the complete annihilation of an army? Historically, that's strict. Most use a simpler definition, like thwarting an ememy's plans, driving him back decisively, holding possession of the fields involved, etc . . . To each his own.
Alex Krolikowsk
11 Aug 06, 14:10
I admit Richmond was saved but The Union Army survived.
To me it's a big accomplishment. And I was strenghtened in this opinion after playing Campaign Peninsula. Union army was a formidable foe and Lee managed to throw it out from the very gates of Richmond. Right, he was not able to destroy AoP but I'm not sure if it was possible at all.
So Seven Days campaign was a southern victory, but not a decisive-ending the war.
you want a what if scenario-replace Mcclellan with Grant.
I can ask the same - who knows if Grant would capture Vicksburg if Lee was in command instead Pemberton...
He still lived in the Napoleonic Era and did not understand and was not comfortable with the concept of total war as practiced by Grant and Sherman and others.
As war was fought mostly in Virginia, Lee couldn't practice total war even if he want. During Penna campaign he couldn't wage a total war against civilians as one of the aims was to win foreign recognition for CSA. Afterall ANV was not starving there.
I consider both Grant and Lee as the best commanders of the ACW. Any quibbles which one was better are silly as they operated in different circumstances and had different means to wage their wars.
To me it's a big accomplishment. And I was strenghtened in this opinion after playing Campaign Peninsula. Union army was a formidable foe and Lee managed to throw it out from the very gates of Richmond. Right, he was not able to destroy AoP but I'm not sure if it was possible at all.
So Seven Days campaign was a southern victory, but not a decisive-ending the war.
It was a tactical victory-it only postponed it did not change anything
I can ask the same - who knows if Grant would capture Vicksburg if Lee was in command instead Pemberton...
I do not know why you think it would be any different;) Lee admitted he could not figure out Grant
As war was fought mostly in Virginia, Lee couldn't practice total war even if he want. During Penna campaign he couldn't wage a total war against civilians as one of the aims was to win foreign recognition for CSA. Afterall ANV was not starving there.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by total war. Lee believed in the decisive battle-Grant believed in the destruction of the enemy. His main goal was always the defeat and total destruction of the opposing army. Lee seemed satisfied with defeating the AOP(and forcing it to retreat), Grant wanted to annihilate the ANV by what ever means necessary and however long it took.
I consider both Grant and Lee as the best commanders of the ACW. Any quibbles which one was better are silly as they operated in different circumstances and had different means to wage their wars.
Another thing that people overlook was Grant's role as Commander-in- Chief. Grant may have been tied to the AOP but he is one of the few Civil War Generals(Sherman probably also) that saw that the quickest way to engage and defeat the Confederacy was to have ALL the Union armies engage the Confederacy on all fronts. When the AOP moved south the plan was for ALL Union armies to do the same in coordination-for all armies to fight as one. And it was this coordination of effort that brought about the confederacy's defeat. And Lee was never in this position as Grant never had an albatross around his neck that Lee did(Jeff Davis) . When Grant took command Lincoln asked him only one thing. Now that you are Commander-in-Chief-Command of the Army-command it and end the war.
FastPhil: I dissagree with two of your points . . .
First of all, I can recall no source wherein Lee claimed not to understand Grant.
Second, you say "Lee seemed satisfied with defeating the AOP(and forcing it to retreat)." I disagree. There are numerous sources where Lee expressed anything but satisfaction that the Union army was allowed to escape. The Dare Mark battles come to mind in that regard.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.