What if Stonewall Jackson Survived? | Counterfactual History

[@JohnnyRebKy]

Of all the civil war speculation and " what iffs", only one is a sure thing. Jackson would have taken that hill!

[@stevestringer7351]

You are probably right. Jackson was not one to give up until the mission was complete or his last man had fallen in the last charge.

[@thomasmullaney4306]

One of my favorite scenes in the movie "Gettysburg" is Ewell complaining to Lee about A.P. Hill's hesitation..."God in His Wisdom knows we should have taken that hill... They're working up there now, and tomorrow...many a good boy will die trying to take that hill." Great dramatic stuff!

[@pauleyplay]

What hill do you speak of ? 1863 Rebel army & lee himself were in sad shape. Deadly but poorly equipped.

[@thomasmullaney4306]

@@pauleyplay Culp's Hill (The Devil's Den). If Lee had gotten even one battery up there, they would have been able to fire upon the Union left and make Little Round Top untenable for Chamberlain.

[@Shagrat65]

@@thomasmullaney4306 That was General Trimble mate - he was complaining about Ewell's hesitation. I love that scene though. Morgan Shepherd was tremendous in that role. Ewell does have a scene with Lee - very poignant - glad to see that scene restored on the blu-ray release a few years ago.

[@JohnnyRebKy]

Lee : take that hill if practicable Jackson: yes sir, take the hill at all cost. Lee: very well.

[@aaronfleming9426]

taking hills at all costs is pretty much why Lee wasn't able to win the war.

[@MM-qi5mk]

@@aaronfleming9426 the south never has a chance to win the war. The west was a complete beat down besides Chickamauga

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@MM-qi5mk of course it had a chance. It just didn't have leaders with the strategic vision to do so. Jefferson Davis is the first to blame, since he was the commander in chief, but Lee didn't help him much, and Lee was by far the most respected military man in the nation.

[@IrishCarney]

@@aaronfleming9426 What do you think, overall, the South should have done, presuming secession and Fort Sumter? Not a gotcha, just curious. Davis has been criticized for a policy of contesting every bit of ground. Do you think that it would have worked better to have a more elastic policy of drawing in the Union and then cutting off its supply lines or giving battle only on favorable ground etc?

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@IrishCarney I think you said it as well as I could in about 10% of the words I'd use, ha ha! I think what Van Dorn did to Grant at Holly Springs was exactly the thing the South should have been doing. Or look at how George Washington avoided pitched battle with the British after his disaster on Long Island...until conditions were highly favorable for him. Etc.

[@Tecumseh16]

Meade would of retreated to Pike Creek Circular where he wanted to engage Lee originally and another major battle would of ensued.

[@billlawrence1899]

One problem with that. Lee was under no obligation to follow Meade anywhere, especially to ground of Meade's choosing. Meade HAD to follow Lee. Lee could have stayed put, or moved and threatened northern cities, and Meade would absolutely have to follow him. Not being a military man, no training, but I have wondered was it possible for Lee to execute a "strategic redeployment", and simply back his army into the hills west of Gettysburg, set up a strong defensive perimeter, and wait for Meade to attack him there. Meade would have to, because hysteria in the north and political pressure from DC would force him to.

[@eldorados_lost_searcher]

@@billlawrence1899 I don't think a move to the west of Gettysburg would have done much, as it would have been too easy for Meade to draw on more resources and starve Lee out. If Lee had moved to the south, however, and placed himself between Meade and Washington, that would have lit a fire under too many seats to be ignored.

[@michaelyarnell1559]

@@billlawrence1899 With respect that's just not right. General George Meade had no obligation to follow General Robert Lee. Meade's job was to put the Army of the Potomac in between Washington DC and Lee. Other than that Lincoln had given him a free hand in how he wanted to conduct battle. Lee was the one with the obligation. Lee's objective was to destroy the Army of the Potomac. He couldn't to that by camping on some hills waiting for Meade. Lee also had the far worse supply problem. He could only sustain an invasion for so long. After that he would be forced to retreat. Lee knew he had to strike now or never.

[@billlawrence1899]

@@michaelyarnell1559 Once again, speaking as a non military man, I can only speculate. I took Lee's supply situation into consideration in my idea. From a position back in the hills west of Gettysburg he could keep open his supply lines back to Leesburg and Harpers Ferry. He could also forage in the country behind those hills. On the other hand, if he moved south he is stretching his supply lines, can't forage, and could get caught strung out on the road. I believe the pressure from Washington to throw Lee and his army out of Pennsylvania would have been near hysterical. And the copperhead movement would have grown ever stronger.

[@michaelyarnell1559]

@@billlawrence1899 General Meade was already under pressure to push Lee out. But ol Snapping Turtle Meade would not bend. He was going to fight a defense campaign and make Lee attack him. Meade would not repeat the mistakes of others by attacking Lee. Meade figured Lee, as the invader, could not leave without attacking him. General Lee was under pressure too. He knew a letter was ready to lay before Lincoln offering peace once Lee had destroyed the Army of the Potomac. Confederate leaders also hoped a great victory by Lee in northern territory would bring foreign recognition and aid. So Lee couldn't wait, he had to attack.

[@volslover1504]

I think had The Confederacy won on union soil it might have opened foreign recognition. I have no doubt had Jackson lived then Gertysburg would have been a small battle. He would have taken Culps Hill. Jackson didn't wait for direction in the heat of battle. Overall who knows. What-ifs win this one.

[@johnboxler8989]

I don’t believe that to be the case. The real defeat was at Vicksburg. Lee would have lost many soldiers somewhere else in Pennsylvania if Meade didn’t make stand at Gettysburg he would done it elsewhere

[@swirvinbirds1971]

I don't believe it would have made any difference in foreign recognition. What prevented that was the entire reason the Confederacy even formed and that was Slavery. If it wasn't for that they would have gotten foreign recognition.

[@IrishCarney]

@@swirvinbirds1971 Slavery definitely impeded recognition but I don't think it was necessarily an absolute barrier, since, for instance, the UK and France allied with slavery-practicing (and slave TRADING) Turkey in the 1850s against Russia. The other factor was battlefield outcomes, and a generally successful summer campaign on Northern territory in 1863 would have greatly helped.

[@jamiegagnon6390]

@@swirvinbirds1971 There was no way Britain or France would ever be able to sell recognition of the South to their own populations. I am sure there were strategic thinkers who thought such a move was good realpolitik, but it would never have flown in either government as wholes.

[@swirvinbirds1971]

@@jamiegagnon6390 agree.

[@patrickfairchild2330]

Jackson was an able commander - He died a Confederate - at the height of his brief military career - he was killed but not defeated.

[@indianasunsets5738]

Well put.

[@patrickfairchild2330]

@Walter Dumbrowski NO - you are FIGHTING for your cause - death just happens.

[@mrunning10]

Intercourse "Stonewall" Jackson (did you know the name was given to him by his own men as a derogatory??) and all the other "honorable" men of the confederacy protecting and fighting for the intercoursing slave holders. Intercourse them all, do not respect them. They are men of no respect.

[@beachcomber1able]

I hear he was a religious maniac, always chundering on about Cheesus.

[@Joeded]

@@beachcomber1able Your Reddit gold, xir🏅

[@burgerchris1]

Can you do one if albert sydney johnston had lived. That’s the real question, if the south had atleast held the west.

[@kingofmphs]

The Army of Tennessee never recovered.

[@Brandon_737]

That would be great.

[@DouglasEdward84]

His performance had actually been rather lackluster up until Shiloh considering his reputation, but other generals started off poorly in the war and hid their stride later on.

[@markminter3960]

If I'd been Sydney Johnston I would have gathered all my forces @ Nashville, let all go above Bowling Green, brought Kirby Smith's Army West, Zollicoffer to Murfreesboro Tennessee, left a skeleton crew @

[@HistoryGoneWilder]

That is an awesome question and one I dont think enough people ask. Thank you so much for watching and supporting the channel. Please consider subscribing to the channel if you have not done so already and check out my other videos.

[@UncleSasquatchOutdoors]

A question that will never be answered but I do believe your assumptions are correct. Great video.

[@HistoryGoneWilder]

Thank you so much.

[@mrunning10]

Intercourse "Stonewall" Jackson (did you know the name was given to him by his own men as a derogatory??) and all the other "honorable" men of the confederacy protecting and fighting for the intercoursing slave holders. Intercourse them all, do not respect them. They are men of no respect.

[@thereturnofdarthcaedus]

@@HistoryGoneWilder i once met a few crazy people on facebook who claimed jackson didnt die at chancellorsville but instead second bull run yes i met a person who told me jackson died at second bull run not chancellosville i told them chancellorsville then they told me no second bull run im not making this up they messaged me on facebook calling me crazy telling me jackson never died at chancellorsville

[@thereturnofdarthcaedus]

@@HistoryGoneWilder theirs another youtube channel i watch just like yours bit this guy calls stonewall jackson a one trick poney what do you think how jackson would peform during grants overland campaign if he didnt die and didnt die at all

[@thereturnofdarthcaedus]

@@HistoryGoneWilder jackson to me is not and never be a one tric poney he would psh his men to their limits prefer jackson over a p hill and richard ewell

[@diggingdoge7930]

my belief is that Jackson would not have marched directly to Washinton. instead Lee would march with part of army to siege as Jackson moved north to capture Baltimore or NYC which where having bad riots during late 1862 - 63. Jackson best ability was to march and counter march any enemy units to area they had not expected him to be, that is why i believe he would have cut off Washington from the north instead of attacking head on. but this is all hypothetical fanciful ideas

[@alexdejesus62]

Jackson marching on New York would have put a stop to the draft riots and galvanized a million NY men to fight the Confederates. It would have been a bad move in my opinion. Jackson would not have survived that

[@diggingdoge7930]

@@alexdejesus62 yah i was thinking after about it and i came to the conclusion moving to NY would be way out of his supply lines. more likely if the CSA was able to blockade D.C and threaten multiple PA, DE NJ cities by positioning a corp further up the north would have capitulated. but seeing as that did not happen its just a thought.

[@aaronfleming9426]

it is quite fanciful. It requires the assumption that the Union army would do nothing while Jackson zoomed around. But even McClellan moved too fast for Lee/Jackson in the Maryland campaign, so it seems far-fetched to think that Meade would have been less aggressive.

[@sorgbicks5076]

Washington was one of the most fortified cities on the planet in 1863. If Lee had driven the Army of the Potomac off the field in Gettysburg, I don't think he could have succeeded in conquering the Capital. His only recourse after suffering horrendous loses, even in a victory would have been to return to Virginia, and the war would have continued to its eventual conclusion, with or without Jackson.

[@mujzero15]

Lee’s ultimate goal I believe was to achieve victory on Northern soil. This may have accelerated peace talks and may have caused Britain and/or France to formerly recognize the CSA. Neither of these objectives I believe would have been realized. Lincoln had already suffered many losses...there would be no peace. Britain and France would not formerly recognize a country with slavery.

[@keydet72]

Let's remember that it would have taken months for Jackson to recover from his wound and I seriously doubt that Lee would have postponed his invasion of the north.

[@IrishCarney]

Yeah, the counter-factual needs to just be, what if those sentries had recognized Jackson or missed - in other words what if he had never been shot?

[@pauleyplay]

You are correct Lee had no other course of action.

[@thomaswatson1739]

He likely would have waited for Jackson’s recovery if that would have been an option

[@purplefood1]

@@thomaswatson1739 It likely was not an option

[@zach7193]

Man, that is something. The topic itself is somewhat of a possibility.

[@WysteriaGuitar]

If Stonewall survived he would have been cancelled...oh wait, different century...

[@hemmingwayfan]

Personally I want to know how badly losing an arm would have messed with his OCD

[@thoughtfulpug1333]

I never considered that aspect. I was thinking more along the lines of Ewell and Hood where everyone says the loss of their limbs created a sense of caution, and at some points maybe PTSD, which led to several mistakes they later committed, wondering if the same happened with Jackson. But that eccentricity of his certainly would make things interesting. Maybe it snaps his personal delusions about his own body, maybe it makes him worse. I don't know, I haven't read on the experiences of Jackson following his wounding, if any of the physicians or aides made note of his behavior during that period.

[@joem7641]

Honest question. Was it his 'raising to equalize his circulation' arm that he lost?

[@outdoorlife5396]

He got pneumonia (wet lung) it was common in those days after surgery. That said, that is why you have the machine with balls in them after surgery. Incentive Spirometer

[@stevestringer7351]

@@thoughtfulpug1333 from what I have read, he had started feeling better, had seen some of his staff and did a little light work. He had supposedly been fairly cheerful and upbeat until the pneumonia set in.... then he went downhill pretty fast.

[@stevestringer7351]

@@outdoorlife5396 correct. Also, pneumonia was a result of the other they used to out patients out for surgery. It was very harmful and difficult to regulate.... the patient might wake up during surgery or never wake up again....

[@Janetsfear]

Given the North's declining support for the war by election time who knows what a delay might have done. Could Jackson have been enough of a difference maker to have made running out the clock possible?

[@marknewton6984]

Stonewall would have made a BIG difference!

[@justmemin7005]

Idk Vicksburg was already in motion, and the west was yielding decent results. If Jackson lived, he’d have to win another Chancellorsville w

[@Farlomous]

just from an organizational standpoint at Gettysburg Jackson would have retained A.P Hill, Rodes (D.H. Hill), Early, and Trimble/Ewell as his 4 divisions Longstreet would have had Hood, McClaws, Anderson and Pickett. knowing how hard Jackson rode his Corps, it is conceivable that pushing his Divisions to chase after the remains of the I and XI Corps he would have opened up a sizable gap between his Corps and Longstreet. Not far away were 2 fresh corps the III and XII. if the I and XI can reform enough to make a fighting retreat they would probably have led Jackson in to the second line south of Gettysburg where he would have take a beating. take those 4 corps and make another strategic retreat south to the 3rd line at Pipe Creek where the II, V and VI are stationed and you now have a significant advantage in the hands of the Union. Longstreet's Corp by the time it catches up will be wore out and the Union will have gained reinforcements from the Harper's Ferry region (which should have been given to Hooker in the first place) and more troops from Washington and a significant advantages lies with the Union especially being that they have some equally aggressive Generals. I would say the effective strength would be 3-1 in favor of the Union and the mistakes Hooker made at Chancellorsville wouldn't be repeated. Hell look at Chancellorsville to begin with, if Couch relieves a clearly wounded Hooker as was suggested to him by subordinates and he makes his stand around the fords, Lee would have been destroyed once Sedgewick arrived to pressure his right flank and they weren't going to break the Union lines there. Jackson gets a lot of much deserved credit, but his recklessness was never put to the test against a competent Union General which even Hooker was despite his brain fart at Chancellorsville. IMHO Jackson surviving and being present in the 2nd Northern campaign probably would have done more harm than good. The Confederate Army was always better fighting from a defensive position than on the attack.

[@aaronfleming9426]

You my friend have written a post with a great deal of good sense and insight. Hooker didn't just have a brain fart at Chancellorsville, he probably had a severe concussion. I for one wouldn't have wanted to be in Couch's position of making the decision to relieve the commander of an army in the middle of a battle...I have a hard enough time deciding where to take my wife out to eat on date night.

[@richardwalling845]

Jackson's Valley Campaign & Chancellorsville were remarkable; The Peninsular Campaign and Fredericksburg were very poor performances. A man who had just lost his arm may not even have been in condition for the PA campaign. If he was on his top form, he may have played a major role. Now, if they had AK47s.....

[@timhand3380]

AWB

[@marquisdelafayette1929]

Jackson was a magnificent tactician. Grant was a master tactician, an amazing operational level soldier, and strategist. I

[@timhand3380]

Grant made a lot of tactical blunders, it's hard to call him brilliant on a tactical level. He was a brilliant strategist in that he never wavered despite numerous tactical losses and there are just so many to name but he knew that soldiers fight and his forces could always reinforce to continue despite setbacks.

[@timhand3380]

Minor and major mistakes of Grant tactically; 1) Belmont where he almost turned a skirmish victory into a rout 2) 1st vicksburg march broken off 3) both vicksburg assaults 4) attempting to change the course of the Mississippi, 5) unprepared for surprise at Shiloh, admitted 6) cold harbor, 7) approved the battle of crater petersburg Grant was great, he overcame all these self imposed setbacks, but brilliant tactician, no.

[@johnl1091]

Grant had the mind for strategy, not tactics. Sherman was the true tactician.

[@willbolly9679]

@@timhand3380 I love how you criticize Grant at Shiloh. Tell me who won that battle? I can answer it the Union did. The battle of the crater wasn’t grants fault. One of his generals went down the crater when they were supposed to go around it. I would say lee was a tactician. But just because of Antietam, and Gettysburg doesn’t make him an idiot. Both Vicksburg assaults led to its surrender him putting them under pressure led to Vicksburg’s fall.

[@joecapesius2887]

Good analysis, thank you for sharing it. One of the reason Jackson was so good on the field is he took risks by being at the front and beyond. This is what ultimately what killed him. Grant took similar risks early on such as at Shiloh but knew he didn’t have to take such risks as the war went on. If not at Chancellorsville, Jackson may well have passed at another battle in a similar way.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Great comment. Many folks are saying Jackson would have taken the hill at the end of day one at Gettysburg, but who's to say he wouldn't have been killed there as you suggest?

[@mrunning10]

Intercourse "Stonewall" Jackson (did you know the name was given to him by his own men as a derogatory??) and all the other "honorable" men of the confederacy protecting and fighting for the intercoursing slave holders. Intercourse them all, do not respect them. They are men of no respect.

[@martynpope8218]

This is a fabulous channel, done with an open mind but with obvious knowledge. The idea that, if he'd lived Stonewall could have WON the war for the South is doubtful. However, having said that this man should not be underestimated or defamed. He was a legend in his own lifetime & the psychological effects he had on whatever Union force came against him has been born out. Maybe as they rode into MD & PA, the two great Commanders, Lee & Jackson would certainly be a psychological presence for not only George Meade but the troops in blue under them.

[@cognomenunknown2144]

I dug up a mangled clipped corner confederate buckle a few months ago near Antietam. The name Wilson can clearly be seen scratched on the back side. I now know the name of a confederate soldier of the Maryland campaign of 1862.

[@stacyvonn8036]

I want to give a MASSIVE SHOUT OUT and Commemorate with Adoration for the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 27th, and 33rd Virginia Infantry Regiments and the Rockbridge Artillery Battery... Will always be Immortally Remembered for there Dauntless Intrepid and Valorous Deeds in the Field... Proving there Preparedness to Engage and Endure Suffering Harm and Injury while Brandishing Courage under Conditions where Belligerences were Waging War with Extreme Violence....😊❤️💯🙏

[@shanemize3775]

Winning a major victory on Yankee soil would have won the Confederacy foreign recognition and broken the dang Union blockade. GREAT video! Please keep the outstanding videos coming and God bless you, my friend!

[@mrunning10]

Intercourse "Stonewall" Jackson (did you know the name was given to him by his own men as a derogatory??) and all the other "honorable" men of the confederacy protecting and fighting for the intercoursing slave holders. Intercourse them all, do not respect them. They are men of no respect.

[@timhand3380]

Draft riots were a major civilian issue at this same time in NYC. Desertion was high over the Late Summer and fall of 1863 in A of P. I imagine if Jackson lived, Gettysburg would have been a major victory for Lee and only 1 day (meade retreats to Pipe creek) Jackson was such a tactician that it makes a lot of historical sense that Lee's army would continue its Pennsylvania occupation and Harrisburg, PA fall as was Lee's plan. The Souths supply lines secure for ammunition and Jebs 100 captured wagons gathering more than Lee's army could eat. I then imagine Jackson cutting the old bad man loose (Early) to tear up Pittsburg and the East West rail links, forcing Grant to withdraw from Vicksburg to defend Ohio................what if this what if that

[@donaldharris3037]

Even though we lost Vicksburg and Gettysburg we had a chance to win the war but by then it couldn't of been won on the battlefield it would of had to be won on the political front if we could of kept Sherman out of Atlanta till after the November elections war weariness would of lost Lincoln the election and we could of gained our independence

[@MM-qi5mk]

“ gained our independence “ yeah and kept 4 million fellow Americans enslaved and their further generations. I’m glad they lost and you should be too

[@aaronfleming9426]

Winning on the battlefield was never really a viable possibility. The political victory was indeed a real possibility as late as summer '64. But even if "you" had won independence, "your" country would have been a cesspool. "Your" economy was in free-fall, your currency worthless, your gold reserves spent, your black men were running off to join the Union army by the tens of thousands, you were barely unified, and you would have been an international pariah due to your backwards views on slavery. Your politics would have been wracked by class division and constant fear of slave rebellion, and there's a great likelihood that Texas would have gotten sick of it and declared their own independence again. You would have missed out on all the benefits of the trans-continental railroad, the Nevada silver rush, northern manufacturing and capital, California's ports on the Pacific, America's top-notch university system...and so much more. "Your" country, if it didn't come crawling back to the Union one impoverished state at a time, would be about as developed and wealthy and free as Mexico, so you can thank your lucky stars "you" lost the war and the North was kind enough to lend you capital and tax dollars to rebuild.

[@donaldharris3037]

@@aaronfleming9426 I am not wishing for a confederate victory I know America is better hole than separate but I say we because I am a Southern my family fought for the South even though I wouldn't change the result of the war I also will not turn my back and judge my ancestors on what did or didn't do it was a different time period they shouldn't be judge my 21st century way of thinking

[@mikesuggs1642]

Lincoln and his radicals were years ahead of the Southern Politicians lead by Jefferson Davis. Lee, Jackson, Patrick Cleburne all called for the arming and freeing of the Slaves. Davis ignored their pleas siding with the Rich Plantation owners while the poor boys were away fighting the War. Lincoln meanwhile realized this weakness and exploited it. This is what Ultimately doomed the South.

[@raymondkight2235]

@@aaronfleming9426 while what you say is undoubtedly true, the state of the US now is a direct result of the northern victory. Our founders never intended for Washington to have the power it has today. Our nation has been sold out to the globalists and with it any real liberty we have enjoyed since the end of that war.

[@WoefulPie]

Agreed, Jackson's aggressiveness would probably have forced the issue to be decided elsewhere. Also on the point about the western front. Scott's "Anaconda Plan" was widely ridiculed at the time as being Fabian in nature, but ultimately proved to be most successful. Thanks for another great one!

[@edwardclement102]

So a Southern planned the Confederacy defeat.

[@WoefulPie]

@@edwardclement102 I'm sure being a Virginian gave Scott an inside perspective, and probably influenced his recommendation of Lee to Lincoln.

[@magnis380]

Time was against the confederacy. The union had faster communication systems up north and more miles of railroads. Moving federal troops would not be an issue. I also believe, Meade wouldn't have committed to Gettysburg. The two corps at Gettysburg day 1, might have been sacrificed for the union's greater good. Meade would have fought lee and Jackson elsewhere. Being newly promoted as army commander, he would have to establish himself first. But I'm just using my imagination. Love talking history and alternative history too!

[@misarse]

Shelby Foote said the South never had a chance, and the North fought that war with 1 hand tied behind its back.

[@tomtimcik4264]

I disagree. If Jackson had marched forth at night into New York City and Philadelphia as he wanted to, he could have held the cities hostage and forced Lincoln to the negotiations table.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@tomtimcik4264 you do realize it's more than a night's walk from Virginia to Philadelphia, right? And that the Union had a rather large and determined army that had a great interest in protecting northern cities? That said, the Confederate path to victory lay in Lincoln losing the faith of the public, leading to a Democrat victory in 1864. That called for a patient, defensive struggle, and Jackson and Lee were anything but patient.

[@johnl1091]

@@aaronfleming9426 Hosting the Confederate capital in Richmond, VA rather than Montgomery, AL did the Confederate army no favors either.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@johnl1091 you are absolutely correct. Although I wonder, do you have something specific in mind about Montgomery that made it a better choice than, say, Atlanta, or do you just mean any reasonably large and important city deep in the physical heart of the Confederacy?

[@aaronfleming9426]

Here's the big question that looms for me: Which Jackson would have shown up at Gettysburg? As our host notes right away, Jackson's reputation has taken on mythical proportions. But Jackson wasn't a particularly consistent general - brilliant once the battle had joined, but reckless in the extreme in many other cases. Jackson's little-noted Romney campaign is the first example of his tendency to drive his men to exhaustion for little or no gain. His Valley campaign deserves its laurels, but by the time those troops reached the 7 Days both they and Jackson himself were too depleted to follow Lee's orders effectively...at critical moments, Jackson simply fell asleep. At 2nd Bull Run his maneuvering in the rear of the AotP was stunning, but again his troops and Jackson himself were exhausted. At Brawner's Farm he was literally caught napping, and his army stood and traded rifle fire with the Iron Brigade for two hours instead of maneuvering a bit and wiping a Union division off the map. So...would Jackson's corps have arrived at Gettysburg physically exhausted? Would Jackson have ordered a charge up Culp's Hill at dusk on Day 1...or would he have laid down to take a nap? Besides exhaustion, I think Jackson's hyper-aggressive attitude fed Lee's reckless streak in an unhealthy way. At Antietam, Lee and Longstreet agreed that it would be best to slip back across the Potomac and avoid battle...an excellent idea, since 30% of the army had straggled, 25% of the remnant were at Harpers Ferry, and McClellan was following much faster than anticipated. But Jackson talked Lee into standing and fighting, and what could have been a wildly successful raid turned into a disastrous bloodbath that cost Lee 25% casualties...for no possible gain other than honor satisfied - hardly a worthy military goal. Chancellorsville has long been called Lee's greatest triumph, but I disagree. He and Jackson rolled the dice and won a temporary tactical decision - and barely so. Hooker withdrew against the protest of most of his corps commanders. The AotP was not beaten, it's commander was rattled. Lee suffered almost 20% casualties for a "victory" that could just as easily have been a crushing defeat. Jackson's great surprise really shouldn't have been... XI Corps command O.O. Howard had orders to defend his right flank, he simply didn't do it. What if he had prepared a couple of batteries and a brigade or two to defend his right flank? Jackson would have been in boiling hot water, with Lee's army split in two. And why were Lee and Jackson in such a hurry to get into a pitched battle without Longstreet and his corps? I guess Lee had no compunctions about going into battle with only one boot on. So...which Jackson would have shown up at Gettysburg? The swift and cunning Jackson, or the exhausted and reckless Jackson? Who knows? What we do know with near-certainty is that if Lee and Jackson had taken the heights of Gettysburg on Day 1, Meade would have regrouped at Pipe Creek and, whatever happened after that, Gettysburg would be a relatively minor footnote in the war.

[@20july1944]

That's a variant of what I think about most of these "what ifs?" the outcome would rarely be big enough to fundamentally change the trajectory of the entire circumstances around it.

[@HenT8991]

I love Jackson, but I do agree with your points. Of note to me, the Antietam campaign was a disaster, the Federals nearly got the rebels at south mountain, Antietam itself was a significant loss of life and almost a rout for the confederates. At Chancellorsville it was Jackson's intentions to flank the federals even more splitting Lee's already divided army even more so. And who knows how Jackson's relationships with his subordinates would play into a what-if Gettysburg with his general unwillingness to inform his subordinates of his intentions

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@HenT8991 I completely forgot his tendency to keep secrets from his division commanders. Great comment.

[@edwardclement102]

Bottom line Grant also was not perfect, do the research, but bottom line Lee when he had Longstreet and Jackson won most of the time, like Grant when he had men like Sherman etc.

[@talkingdonkey1817]

Excellent and thought provoking comment! Cheers!

[@louisgratton9290]

If Jackson had survived , might he have talked Lee into not going north , split his armies ,a big chunk to go relive Vicksburg , because Jackson was not crazy about going to Antitem???

[@JvP519]

I believe that what you said in your first point is more than likely, that the south would’ve pushed passed Gettysburg and that battle would have happened somewhere else. But if that were to happen and the south kept pushing the north back or even taken Washington or had some big victories my question would be how would that have effected the election of 64?

[@retriever19golden55]

Lincoln probably would have lost. The public would have gone ballistic if Washington had been taken.

[@stacyvonn8036]

Not to mention that the union had 2.2 million men serving while the Confederacy had 800,000 and that's total throughout the war for both sides the Union outnumbered over two to one numerical odds...For the Confederacy it was just a matter of time that sheer numbers would have overtooken them....

[@talkingdonkey1817]

Either way, The 20th Maine world still have held Little Round Top at Gettysburg. Cheers!

[@dennispartain1559]

🤣

[@mjfleming319]

Probably not. Meade had an excellent line already laid out about 14 miles south of Gettysburg at Pipe Creek. Of all the counter factual in this scenario, the most certain is that he would have regrouped there if the first day at Gettysburg had gone more poorly and left Lee in control of the high ground.

[@catherinekelly532]

Read Jubal's Raid; as he was right outside of DC and would have hanged MadAbe. Scared the Hell out of the dictator as it was!

[@nealonperkins1604]

I think it might have been a lot different instead of Longstreet going to Chickamauga Jackson would have went there and I think that he would have been able to handle Grant and destroyed the army of the Cumberland in peace Mel

[@mrunning10]

Intercourse "Stonewall" Jackson (did you know the name was given to him by his own men as a derogatory??) and all the other "honorable" men of the confederacy protecting and fighting for the intercoursing slave holders. Intercourse them all, do not respect them. They are men of no respect.

[@paulscushschofield1288]

the rebs would have taken little round top and cemetery ridge on day 1 and lee wouldve probably have destroyed meade.marched on washington etc

[@aaronfleming9426]

Meade had an excellent fall-back position at Pipe Creek already laid out when word came that the fighting had begun at Gettysburg. When Hancock let Meade know that they held a strong position despite being driven back several miles, Meade decided to bring the rest of the army forward. If the rebels HAD taken Culp's Hill on the first day, the overwhelming likelihood is that Meade would have withdrawn the spent corps and waited for Lee at Pipe Creek. Would Lee have attacked there? That's anyone's guess, but Meade would have been firmly between Lee and Washington and a quick march on Washington would have been impossible.

[@davidbreazeale7257]

by the time of Gettysburg plus the victory at Vicksburg, the outcome of the war was all but decided. Only the date and location of the final surrender had not been set.

[@IrishCarney]

Not quite. Even after that July 4 1863 double defeat, the South had one last hope: Northern wear-weariness coming from the failure to capture Atlanta leads to Lincoln's defeat by McLellan in the 1864 election. McLellan then negotiates a peace that, regardless of any other concessions he gets, provides the bottom-line key outcome of recognizing Confederate independence.

[@dongilleo9743]

In terms of a negotiated peace, how willing would the North be to withdraw from the considerable amount of Southern territory it controlled by 1864 or even 1863? I know there was war weariness in the North, but at that point, having paid such a high price in lives for the successes so far, would the North be inclined to walk away from all the sacrifices it had made and just pull back out of captured Southern territory, like it was no big deal? Regardless of who might have been elected to replace Lincoln, would there have been the political will and support to do that? Would the strong abolitionist movement in the North be willing to give up trying to end slavery?

[@IrishCarney]

@@dongilleo9743 But it's always the case that an occupying power that gives up has sacrificed a lot and still holds a lot of territory. Yet there are many such examples of giving up anyway. The British recognizing the USA in 1783, Ireland in 1921, and many other holdings at other times. France in Algeria and Vietnam. The Soviets in 1989 in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. On and on.

[@ardshielcomplex8917]

Indeed, the South was starving, shortages of everything everywhere, the Confederacy was being bled white with every Battle. IMHO the absolute marvel was how the South fought on. The huge sacrifices of both Soldiers and Civilians is beyond belief, the PC rabble today slander them, but the facts reveal the Southerners supporting their Confederacy were no less a great generation than their predecessors in the Revolutionary war.

[@theshadow6165]

I hope they can do a video if Davis made Forrest the main commander of the western theater

[@1roanstephen]

Again a great presentation leaving us plenty of food for thought. You got my attention when you showed a picture of the heavy artillery batteries guarding Washington, DC. My Great Great Grandfather, a US Navy Captain was placed in command of that artillery even though he was a scientist/astronomer. After the war he headed the US Naval observatory where he discovered the moons of Mars.

[@mrunning10]

Intercourse "Stonewall" Jackson (did you know the name was given to him by his own men as a derogatory??) and all the other "honorable" men of the confederacy protecting and fighting for the intercoursing slave holders. Intercourse them all, do not respect them. They are men of no respect.

[@donaldharris3037]

Jackson would never been at Gettysburg even if he survived being shot never could of recovered that fast the better scenario would be what would happen in the book Stonewall goes west

[@edwardclement102]

What if Jackson was at the Wilderness or North Anna?

[@donaldharris3037]

@@edwardclement102 I believe if Jackson had survived being shot he would been the choice to replace Bragg in the west

[@IrishCarney]

Yes, the key counter factual is not surviving being shot, but not being shot at all.

[@edwardclement102]

@@donaldharris3037 I believe Lee would want Jackson with him like he wanted Longstreet, and I think it would have been better if Hood stayed with Lee.

[@donaldharris3037]

@@edwardclement102 I agree Lee would of wanted him to stay but Jackson might have wanted an independent command by then and the only other choices for command in the west was generals that Davis hated

[@jackdunlap3838]

If jackson had placed his troops on cups hill things would have changed.

[@bps5891]

Lee himself said that he would’ve won if Jackson was there. I’ll take his opinion over any other

[@joseyzadoria7815]

Jackson was second in command, so when Jackson succumbed to his Pneumonia it was a big blow to Lee and the confederates.

[@MM-qi5mk]

@@joseyzadoria7815 “ he has lost his right arm and I have lost my left “ Lee

[@stevestringer7351]

@@joseyzadoria7815 actually and respectfully, I believe Longstreet was senior to Jackson if I am not mistaken. But, Jackson had operated as a seperated command more often. Longstreet was almost always with Lee, Lee actually rode with Longstreet's command more often than not.

[@stevestringer7351]

I have not read where Gen'l Lee said it.... I know that many others said that very thing. I tend to agree with the Wilder Historian here. The battle of Gettysburg, as we know it today, would certainly have been rewritten and contain different facts. But, the CS Army could not destroy the AOP, especially so far from home base, with little to no supply line, No reinforcements and with so many casualties that could not be replaced due to the lack of available manpower in the south. I wonder what would have happened if Lee went to Vicksburg and fought Grant. Even with or without Jackson, that may have made a greater difference in the overall outcome of the war if Lee could have put Grant out of the picture there rather than allowing him to get overall command of all union forces..... General Grant was the biggest factor in the defeat of the CS forces more so than Jackson would have been in ultimate victory of southern forces. (All just my humble opinion. )

[@denisdegamon8224]

@@MM-qi5mk actally you have the quote backwards. He Jackson lost his left arm....Lee said I have lost my Right.

[@seeker-br8lf]

The huge losses of the Confederates would not have happened at Gettysburg so it is POSSIBLE the South might have gotten a peace treaty, which was what they were trying for. They were not out to take the North.

[@cindycampbell4606]

I'm still wondering how general Hancock reacted to the loss of his good friend lewis Armisted. Have you found that out yet?

[@johnfite5358]

Wasn’t the election of 1864 a close thing and if not for some timely Union victories Lincoln might have lost and McClellan sued for peace?

[@markminter3960]

Part 2 I accidentally hit the send. I would abandon, all Forts above that line but Fort Donelson with a skeleton enough for delaying, Don Carlos Buell, is famous for his slowness,much like G B McClellan,it would avoided Mill Spring's,which only proved that Gap was hard on any Army, and the one fought in the area in January 62 between Marshall and Garfield, only second Federal victory that could not,be expedited.So it wasn't needed of a large force at that time.

[@tihomir996]

Hello Have History Will Travel. I've watched your numeros videos and pretty much agree with all your assumsions, plus like your animation very much. About Jackon - you said it all - it would all depend on which Jackosn would turn up at Gettysburg - Valley Jackon? Seven days Jacskon? Antietam Jacson? We don't know. I agree with you that Gettysburg might have been a tactial victory but don't see how would ANV take Washington. But, there is one more element to the story. POLITICS. Maybe, just maybe, McClellan, as Lincolns counterpart in presidential campaign, would win the elections because Lincoln did not save state of Pennsylvania from invasion and lost a mayor battle on Union soil. And we know that he would sign a peace with the Confederacy if he had won. Just in that case I could see a grey victory but that doesn't mean that there would not be another war in let's say a decade after. So Jacson might contributed for Souths victory but with the help of politics. I don't belive that France or Great Britan would recognize South for independet state because of slavery. The only way I see it is that Union gives up - and again that might have happened if Lincoln lost the 1864 elections. Those are my thought. Anyway, love your work and keep it up!

[@COLTBECK13]

I would NOT HAZZARD TO GUESSS !!!

[@jrodriguez3787]

Well done. I enjoyed this

[@BuckeyeFan-ty4vr]

Yes I agree with you on this. Jackson might have changed the outcome of Gettysburg but not the war.

[@niteriderband4713]

We would have won Gettsburg but the South couldnt sustained the march to Washington.

[@ronjames7953]

I have often wondered what would of happened if Lee had originally been in Western Theater and he and Grant battled through Tennessee and Mississippi.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Now THAT is a fascinating counter-factual thought! As it happened, in the east, Lee enjoyed command of the Confederacy's largest and best-supplied army. He was relatively close to his supply depots and to his credit able to make good use of the many rivers that blocked the Union's path to Richmond. Confederate generals in the west had less men, less supplies, and the rivers often served the Union armies rather than blocking them. On the other hand, Lee was certainly more capable than Johnson, Bragg, and especially Pemberton. So....who knows? Great question though!

[@gregdiiamond3899]

Here’s another why if I’ve wondered. What if the south hadn’t tried to field an army west of the MR and used the troops between the ANV and/or the AoT would that have any effect but prolong the war? I think Wilder is right. Sooner or later Jackson would’ve run into a buzz saw named Grant.

[@virginiatanker5044]

I agree. I think Jackson may have changed some battle outcomes and locations but ultimately the ending would have been the same.

[@AbyssWRLD999]

I disagree. We would of won Gettysburg and forced Lincoln's surrender

[@virginiatanker5044]

@@AbyssWRLD999 I think Gettysburg would have been another Antietam. A draw that Lee would have had to withdraw from. Too many other important elements of Lee’s plan went wrong that Jackson alone would not have made up for.

[@larrydorazio7130]

Taking the high ground at Gettysburg may have won the battle but at what cost? The Confederates were not in a great position to make up losses, especially being on the offensive.

[@lookonthebrightsideoflife5200]

At best it would've only prolonged the war for maybe another year and with that, Lincoln survives at least another year.

[@IrishCarney]

No, at BEST the South might have secured its independence. I'm not saying that outcome was likely, but it would have remained possible as a best-case scenario. A successful 1863 campaign season on Northern territory, like Jackson's 1862 Valley campaign, would have kept recognition by France and Britain possible, and also made the fall of Atlanta less likely and therefore more likely that a pro-peace Democrat would win in 1864.

[@mikemillette4936]

One of the favorite discussions in my CWRT!! About 10 years ago we finally came to the consensus that Gettysburg never happens. Jackson is, at best in an ambulance, Lee is having heart trouble and bouts of dysentery so, we thought the advance would have been slower. Jackson wouldn't let Ewell or Hill venture far on their own - that wasn't in his nature. With Ewell never even approaching Chambersburg, there is no need for Hooker to move so fast. We thought 2nd Antietam was a more likely occurrence with Jackson's survival or perhaps Monocacy a year sooner. Overall war outcome is still about the same. As you note, the bigger loss was Vicksburg.

[@HistoryGoneWilder]

Thank you so much for watching and supporting the channel. Please consider subscribing to the channel if you have not done so already and check out my other videos.

[@ninjafroggie1]

I agree with you, by the summer of '63 the union noose was already tightening too much and the confederacy's supply a manpower situation was already becoming problematic. The whole reason Lee launched his 2nd invasion of the north instead of sending troops to relieve Vicksburg like Davis wanted while the AotP was reeling from Chancelorsville was because at that point in the war Lee had already realized that the south lacked the manpower, resources, and economic muscle to win the war. His invasion was basically a last gasp attempt to break northern morale, but even if had won at Gettysburg, Vicksburg would have still fallen on the 4th and the ultimate fate of his army sealed from the loss of beef, pork, salt, molasses, leather, and other resources from the western side of the Mississippi.

[@ambrosephill9]

If Jackson had not been wounded at Chancellorsville. It could have all been different. I can imagine that Jackson would have followed Lee’s orders not to bring on an engagement until the army was concentrated. In fact I can see him withdrawing back into the mountain gap. Fighting a rearguard action to allow the rest of the army to race up the back side of the mountains to Harrisburg. Then follow behind the army while Longstreet crosses the Susquehanna river. Then himself cross the Susquehanna river and burn the bridges. By that time Longstreet and Lee could have sent Harrisburg up in flame. Then start heading for Philadelphia burning a fifty mile wide swath across Pennsylvania as they go burning all bridges to keep Meade’s army south of the Susquehanna river. Oh it could have all been different!!!!!

[@kirkmorrison6131]

I think Lee and Jackson would have forced a treaty. To win out right U.S. Grant would have had to have died in 1863 though.

[@allensacharov5424]

I remember reading somewhere that John Mosby had come within one hour of capturing the train Grant was on as he headed towards Washington. I cannot, however, verify this

[@kirkmorrison6131]

@@allensacharov5424 He did I read it in a memoir by one of his men.

[@konradklapp3987]

Everything really depends on what happened in the Western Theater... the East gets all the HubBub... but the War was won or lost in the west....

[@HistoryGoneWilder]

I couldn't agree more. Thank you so much for watching and supporting the channel. Please consider subscribing if you have not done so already.

[@konradklapp3987]

@@HistoryGoneWilder ,oh I have my friend... much respect for what you do... I stay in Mayfield KY, so I understand the importance of this area and why it was so critical to both sides of the struggle... I also stayed in Adairsville GA for quite some time. They have the "The Great Locomotive Chase" festival every year August 31st... fun fact...

[@stonewalljackson5692]

I was always General Lee's greatest man.

[@kennethterry8196]

Yes You were General Jackson!!! I believe that if you had not died after Chancellorsville The Confederate Army would have had a better than average chance to not only win at Gettysburg but The War itself. I Do not believe the Horrendous Pickett’s Charge would have taken place. MAY GOD BLESS YOU GENERAL JACKSON!!! YOUR MEMORY WILL ALWAYS LIVE ON FOREVER!!! I can tell by the pictures I have seen and have of you and General Lee that he indeed valued you very close to him.

[@stonewalljackson5692]

@@kennethterry8196 General Lee was my brother, but I sometimes felt he got a little ahead of himself. He should've remained defensive, that's why we were so successful at Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville.

[@ronjames7953]

What if Albert S Johnson had survived at the Battle of Shiloh

[@aaronfleming9426]

I'm not convinced Johnson was particularly able, so his mere survival seems fairly trivial. But if he had survived AND successfully driven Grant into the Tennessee River...that would absolutely have been a war-changing battle.

[@TimHale-ww4nq]

Well done! My Ancestor was in Jackson’s Flying Artillery. He survived the entire war.

[@kimberleyannedemong5621]

I do agree with you. While some events may have changed had Jackson lived i beleve ultimately the end would have remained the same.

[@mrunning10]

Intercourse "Stonewall" Jackson (did you know the name was given to him by his own men as a derogatory??) and all the other "honorable" men of the confederacy protecting and fighting for the intercoursing slave holders. Intercourse them all, do not respect them. They are men of no respect.

[@fredsmith8498]

It must remembered that it rained fiercely on July 4, making pursuit of the yankees difficult.

[@jeffdarnell7942]

One thing I DO know..is IF T.J Jackson HAD survived...the Battle of Gettysburg would not had taken place, or not as it did. Had he been there, they WOULD have taken Culps Hill, without Lee telling Baldy, "If Practicable!!". He would had seen the importance of Culps Hill, for sure...and perhaps pushed them to no telling where...

[@MM-qi5mk]

I think the “ if practicable” order would of been executed different.

[@82mccord]

Yeah, I can see that hill as being very practical for Stonewall to have taken. There's no way he wouldn't have. I think then Meade would have just fallen back to the location he wanted to assemble at, and there would have been a giant battle there.

[@dongilleo9743]

Interesting video. I would add that Jackson's best military moments came early in the war, when the Union army and it's leadership were still sorting themselves out. By the time of Gettysburg, the Union army was much larger than the Confederate army, as well as being better supplied and equipped, and more professional and experienced than earlier. Short of some catastrophic disaster of a lost battle by the Union, followed by some sort of political and military collapse, the basic economic realities dictated that the South wasn't likely to win. You could see a parallel with Erwin Rommel from WW2. He was considered a master tactician and battlefield commander. In reality, his ability to win battles in North Africa relied heavily on the inherent strengths of the German Army. The German Army had pursued and established the ideas of mobile warfare and combined arms tactics in their organization and training. Early in the war, they were able to run circles around their enemies and overwhelm them, even when outnumbered. By 1943, the British were catching up, the American were to eventually surpass the Germans in mobile warfare, and the Allies had an insurmountable advantages in resources. At that point, the Rommel miracle victories ended.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Great parallel with Rommel.

[@mrunning10]

Intercourse "Stonewall" Jackson (did you know the name was given to him by his own men as a derogatory??) and all the other "honorable" men of the confederacy protecting and fighting for the intercoursing slave holders. Intercourse them all, do not respect them. They are men of no respect.

[@jasonpalacios1363]

I believe this narrator's assumptions because the CSA even with Stonewall Jackson was alive in the Battle of Antietam in 1862 couldn't take down the North,so if they couldn't win in the Battle of Antietam then how the CSA was going to win Gettysburg in 1863 and General Sherman's March to the Sea tactic in 1864?

[@manatarms7652]

Jackson would have lost a lot of men if he survived for just one day. He was aggressive pushing his men into a heavily defended union position.

[@rickythomas6424]

What if at the end of the first battle of bull run Johnson has let stonewall Jackson take 10 000 fresh troops and attack Washington? I figured that the union army in retreat that he would had captured the capitol

[@IrishCarney]

THAT is the key question. I was going to say that myself but you beat me to it. Especially because back then D.C. was not yet fortified.

[@rickythomas6424]

I believe if Jackson had got 10,000 fresh troops he would have taken Washington.

[@IrishCarney]

@@rickythomas6424 Of course. In real life his brigade had taken over 50% casualties so he was certainly bold. There were only a few hundred cavalry so they wouldn't have been able to take the city. But my scapegoat is Bonham, who ordered a halt to the pursuit. Infuriated Longstreet

[@rickythomas6424]

He had the idea that you if you have your enemy on the run you press on. It would have been the thing to do.

[@aaronfleming9426]

A nice idea, but the problem is that Jackson didn't have 10,000 fresh troops. The Confederate army was victorious, but it was nearly as disorganized by victory as the Union army was by defeat. Then there's the problem that it's actually extraordinarily difficult to move a large body of green soldiers into position for an effective assault - exactly the problem that led to McDowell's defeat at Bull Run in the first place. Then there's the slight problem of the Potomac River, and the fact that competent officers like George Sykes and William Sherman had not stampeded and were capable of putting up a defense, a defense that would have included Sykes' regular army battalion and far more artillery than Jackson would have been able to collect and move rapidly...all in all, there's a lot of reasons that cooler heads didn't let Jackson chase off after the Union army.

[@yankeepapa304]

IF Jackson had pulled off a major tactical victory against the Union at Gettysburg... Shelby Foote said that the North had plenty of more men. Politicos *might* have pulled the rug out from under Lincoln and forced a settlement...maybe... But militarily, it was simply a matter of numbers, time, and will... YP

[@Nick-zz6xl]

I concur.

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

Philadelphia or Baltimore would have been threatened. I've read that Philadelphia had only a convalescent hospital of some 400-600 recoverinjg Federal wounded present in the whole city. That's an easy win. Your right that Washinton was well fortifiwed would have taken a major effore to storm. Had Philadelphia fallen, Union moral would have taken a turn for the worse. To get to Philadelphia, Harrisburg, the state capital, could've and would've have been taken off the march. Then there's the pending New York City draft riots waiting in the wings. Defeat at Gettysburg would have thrown gasoline on that fire. Continuing the war would have required troops from the midwest/west. Cutting the Piitsburgh RR and burning that huge bridge on the Susquehanna would have slowed down those western reinforcements. The B&O could have gotten some attention also from Imboden and a few other Cavalry Brigades. After all Stuart had many more Brigades with him than the few fought on 3rd day of Gettysburg. Where would little Mac be, that extremely popular unemployed Major General, with the Army of the Potomac at least. Would he come into play again? Would Lincoln have recalled him yet again? He was afterall Philadelphia's most renowned native son at the time. A loss of any flavor may well have ended the North's willingness to follow Abe Lincoln's leadership any longer. If that happened the Union may have sued for peace. Then there's foreign recognition. With a victory and any occupation of Philaldelphia or Baltimore other factor's come into play. (FYI, what you say makes perfect sense to me too.) If Jackson does take the high ground at Gettysburg I think Meade orders a retreat to his already planned defensive positions at Pipe Creek and calls for reinforcements. Another things to remember are the Union troops on the east coast occupying various ports that would likely have been recalled to Washington too. At the very least it would been a political disaster for Lincoln.

[@manilajohn0182]

In the scenario which you describe (with Jackson and his II Corps placed where Ewell and A.P. Hill's corps were), it's very unlikely that Jackson would have changed Gettysburg. Unlike at Chancellorsville, Jackson would have been restricted in his decision- making by Lee's order not to bring on a general engagement. Since Jackson would have known nothing regarding Union strength on Cemetery Hill- and because he was habitual in reconnaissance prior to an attack- he would very likely have done exactly what Ewell did. He would have sent out scouting parties to obtain information on Union strength on Cemetery Hill. Cheers...

[@robertfisher7949]

I disagree had Jackson lived. Meade would have lost and the AOP demoralized. Lincoln was very Unpopular in 1863. More than likely lost the election of 1864. Davis would have sent Jackson instead of Longstreet to the west post Gettysburg. Following the theory of Jacksons tactics Grant would have never come east which would keep Sheridan and Sherman in the west changing the entire outcome of the war.

[@johnpotts8308]

I think this overlooks the political consequences. If Jackson survives and Lee goes on to win at Gettysburg, even if Washington doesn't fall, it could well have cost Lincoln re-election. While he would have remained President until (IIRC) March 1865, it would have a profound effect on the political will to press the war to its conclusion. And the 13th Amendment would never pass (at least not in the form it did).

[@volslover1504]

I believe had jackson lived and the south won Gettysburg or captured a Northern capital England might have recognized the South. You are correvt in my opinion about washington. No Southern army could have taken it. My opinion is Lee handicapped the South in some ways. He was Virginia all the way. Had The Army of Northern Virginia sent a large amount to Vicksburg things might have been different. Lee was not willing to do so. This is one valid argument that Longstreet had. Longstreet saw overall opportunity. Lee's mind was stuck on Virginia.

[@wmschooley1234]

You might as well speculate on what would have happened had the south accepted Lincoln’s offer of compensated emancipation following the model set by the British Empire in 1833, France in 1848, and Denmark, in 1849. History says Jackson’s death at Chancellorsville was accidental friendly fire, but could it really have been a civil war fragging?? Speculate on that for awhile On the other hand, Jackson might have been just as likely to have been killed by friendly fire from his own troops on his way to Gettysburg or shot in the dark on Culp’s hill.

[@jerryadair1000]

Dumb question. Because the that would beg the question "what if Reynolds hadn't been killed at prox 10:00 AM July 1st?" He was arguably the best general in the Union army whose name wasn't Grant. They were both killed so speculation is meritless

[@johnfleet235]

The real issue was not Jackson. It was Lee. He was fighting for old Virginia not the Confederacy. That influenced every decision he made. Contrast that with US Grant. He was fighting for the Union. His decisions were both strategic and tactical. Vicksburg is a good example. The Union gained control of the Mississippi, but his actions influenced events thousands of miles away. The Gettysburg campaign occurred partly as a result of the Vicksburg campaign. Jackson always seemed at his best fighting on his own or least using only troops under his command. This type of fighting became more difficult as the armies grew in sophistication and skill at fighting. Keep in mind by 1863 and 1864, the men fighting on both sides were tough and battle hardened.

[@RRM13]

Almost an impossibility, the Confederacy winning the war solely on the military side. It lacked manpower and material, period. Could have won politically had the North gotten tired, losing the will to fight. That was a real possibility, specifically in 1864.

[@williammaddock9179]

Having only glanced through the comments, I have not seen this addressed: What was God's purpose in calling Jackson home when, and how, He did? Having read much about General Jackson, I believe he was one of Christ's own, and that God did not want him involved in the loss that HAD TO BE. You see, Jackson did something I RARELY see him getting credit for-something that you would NEVER do with a race that you wanted to see remaining enslaved. He taught them in Sunday School classes. So what? Teaching Sunday School classes to illiterate slaves means that you are teaching them AT LEAST three things: how to read, how to write, and about genuine freedom. All three subvert the institution of slavery.

[@42Akai]

I have to agree, even with Jackson surviving his Chancekkorsville injuries, the South would still have lost. The South was very brave, and had much determination, but logistically they lost the War before it began. The North had Industry and men, the South had agriculture, but not enough men. Possibly, if a European power had allied with the Conferacy, the outcome may have been different; i.e. Washington's Colonials wouldn't have won without the French Navy. 1 man may make a diffference, but bravery aint food, boots, bullets and shells--which the South didn't have.

[@AlphaGator9]

I am wondering where i might learn more on speculative history based on If Jackson had survived. *** I am not referring to "The South would have won." - that boat sailed quickly after 1st Bull Run. Once Washington DC was filled with troops and fortified, the opportunity was forever lost. IMO *** I am referring to how Jackson might have handled various things, Gettysburg being only one, but especially the eventual loss to the overwhelming manpower and industry of the Union.

[@scottklocke891]

Even if Old Jack had lived, General Scott's Anaconda would have still starved the Confederacy of war waging capability.

[@crimsonstorm34]

I think the Confederates best hope was at Shiloh when they had the opportunity to finish Grant's force before reinforcements came. Even then the best case scenario would've been a political victory with England and France stepping in to make them and the Union come to a peace settlement.

[@mrunning10]

Intercourse "Stonewall" Jackson (did you know the name was given to him by his own men as a derogatory??) and all the other "honorable" men of the confederacy protecting and fighting for the intercoursing slave holders. Intercourse them all, do not respect them. They are men of no respect.

[@sgauden02]

To be honest, I think the Confederacy would probably have still lost the war in the long run. Britain, and France weren't going to back the South after the Emancipation Proclamation, and even if South won at Gettysburg (which wouldn't have been easy even with Jackson), there was no way they were going to capture Washington D.C., which was the most fortified city on the planet at the time. Moreover, Vicksburg would still fall, and cut the South in two. Perhaps the if CSA won enough big victories, Lincoln could lose the election of 1864, and negotiations to end the war peacefully might be possible, but it's no guarantee.

[@mujzero15]

The CSA could have never won, unless they had quickly realized that Napoleonic tactics were outdated and made a drastic shift that the union could not break for another 4-5 years...through the end of the 1860’s. Even in victory, the CSA lost too many men...a resource they could not replace. If every battle would have been approached like Fredericksburg and Cold Harbor, the devastating losses to the Union would have perhaps made the cost to great...and peace forced.

[@normzemke7824]

Agreed, more or less. By 1963 the South's only chance was for Lincoln to not get reelected. Jackson's survival may have driven up Union casualties, which could have hurt Lincoln's campaign. Then again, Jackson's tactics also killed off lots of Confederates, so Lee's manpower shortages would have been worse sooner. For all we know, the Overland campaign would have been a huge blood bath for both sides, leading to an early capture of Richmond.

[@karlnerger2449]

I think you’re asking the wrong questions:. Where Longstreet failed at a flank movement around Big Round Top, Jackson would have made it happen. Lee ordered an attack on the Round Tops at dawn (if memory serves) and Longstreet delayed until 2 or 3 pm. Would Jackson’s mere presence have made that big of an impact? Yes it would have.

[@richarddamiani4721]

I agree with others, this is a very good analysis. I think there is an alternative that needs to be considered, and that is the weariness of the war that was happening in the North. Had Lee and Jackson seemed to be unstoppable after another great victory sat Gettysburg - and that is assuming that Meade had joined a general confrontation - it is possible that the growing sentiment against pursuing the war may have solidified. I read a quote of Lee once. The story was that he was attending a lecture on some aspect of secession or the War. The writer whose name I've forgotten said that Lee waited for the speaker, and privately said, "If I had Jackson at Gettysburg, we would have won a great victory and secured the independence of our Nation." I have not been able to track that quote down again, it was years ago when I read it. I agree that a achieving a collective victory on all the battlefields would have been impossible given the disparity of men between the armies, but a political victory may have been achievable. Another possibility is that Jackson and Lee would had used Jackson's brilliant way of fighting in the Valley, or that Jackson would have been released to fight with his Corps in conjunction with Lee's tactics as seen at Chancellorsville. You are right too about the first year of the War. After First Manassas Jackson wanted to pursue the fleeing and Union army right to Washington. The War could have ended right there had the South been successful, which is very possible. But like you said in the video - so many assumptions. I think all of us who love the South and Constitutional America before the War live in forlorn hope of what could have been.

[@shawnotoole1421]

Jackson's success at Gettysburg could have won the battle, bringing Britain and France into the war on the side of Confederacy. This would have given the CSA a decisive edge.

[@MrAlex_Raven]

I think another element is what impact losing the Battle of Gettysburg (assuming there was no other follow battle between Lee's Army and the Army of the Potmac) would have on the upcoming election, would Grant's victories in the West make up for the threat possed by Union failure in the East? That might be too far off in the weeds to consider; though like what you said, I think it may have been more likely Meade attempts to reposition, as Longstreet hoped to do in our timeline to the Union; to interdict between Lee's supplies, and Washington DC rather than fighting at Gettysburg itself, meaning the next major battle may have been elsewhere and Gettysburg would fade into history as another northern town raided by the Confderate army.

[@justushall9634]

I am planning an alternate history, called Stonewall, where, at Chancellorsville, Robert E. Lee is killed and Stonewall Jackson survives. (I am thinking that Stonewall would survive without losing an arm; i.e. he would not be wounded, or would not be wounded too badly.) James Longstreet is promoted to full general, to replace Lee as hed of Army of Northern Virginia. Presumably the Confederacy would ultimately be defeated. This will be interesting: what would Stonewall be like, and what would he do, after the war, had he survived?

[@michaelfultz3982]

Like you said if Jackson was at Gettysburg and the confederates would have held the hi ground at the angle. Would the union even want to attack? Remembering Fredericksburg?..

[@oldtruthteller2512]

Jackson surviving and remaining in command may have prolonged the war and possibly may have effected the elections of 1864. Same goes for Stuart. Had Lincoln not been reelected that would have been the big change.

[@m2gjam139]

I agree with you if was a war of attrition. The South was simply running out of everything. Men, food, animals, weapons. Most important the army runs on its stomach if you don't feed the men they won't fight. Then hungry they would have degenerated into a mob. It happened to parts of the Army of Tennessee. I was born and raised in Brooklyn, NY. I served thirty years in the United States Army almost twenty in the Ranger Regiment.I retired in 2010. I spent a lot of time in the South. I plan to retire there. As crazy as it sounds we are about to have another Civil War. I wish the South would have won the Civil War then reconciled with the North. They never could have conquered the North but Lincoln might have sued for peace. As far as Jackson he might have got himself killed anyway. But he would have turned the table's at Gettysburg. Having taken the high ground or round tops and avoiding the frontal assault on the 3rd. Then going around the Union army as Hood suggested. I might have my sequence mixed up. It's been awhile since I've studied this. I could go on but that sums it up my humble opinion.

[@edwardclement102]

Yes, it could have in my humble opinion if Lee, Longstreet, Jackson won at Gettysburg like they did most of the time it could have gotten possibly Union negotiation for peace as the Union was down on morale after defeats in Virginia. Then let us say Jackson only recovered in time for the Wilderness then when Longstreet was attacking Jackson would also be attacking and Grant might have been beaten, also Lee missed Jackson at North Anna river with his trap, a Jackson attack might have beaten Grant back, and Grant was only human, only saved at Shiloh by Union reinforcement. The facts are Ewell like Hood was good serving under Jackson with his orders like Hood getting Lee's orders, but Ewell in charge of a corps was not Stonewall and Ewell was not 100 percent physically, same as Hood when he served in GA, With Stonewall Lee would have had a better chance, same in GA if Johnston left in command. So came the Lost Cause and the KKK guerrilla warfare and victory over the radicals.

[@sakkra83]

well, I don't think that survival of one admittedly brilliant General would have changed the outcome of the war. The strategical situation would not have changed in any significant way, Vicksburg would still have fallen, The Tennessee campaign of Bragg would still have failed, Sherman's march to the sea would still happened. On the operational scale it would have changed the invasion of Pennsylvania, Gettysburg would not have happened. I think it would be more likely, that the army of Northern Virginia would have developed significant logistical problems during the campaign even if they lived of the land. But the army of the Potomac would have fought on a different place, presumably later. Would Jackson change the outcomes of battle? Possible, even probable, but it would not cause that much of change.