English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Or would they have fought somewhere else instead?

2006-08-16 02:25:38 · 14 answers · asked by Happy Kitty 2 in Arts & Humanities History

14 answers

The may have met at gettysburg but, Jackson would have initiated a flanking maneuvar like he did at other battles and quite possibly Lee would have won.

2006-08-16 02:29:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think the answer is no. As another poster has thoughtful pointed out, the battle was essentially lost on the first day when the Union seized the high ground. The second day’s attempts to take the flanks failed. However, the real disaster occurred on the third day, when Lee ordered the assault (Pickett’s Charge) on the Union center. Had Lee withdrawn after the second day, realizing the situation was untenable, the bulk of the Confederate army would have lived to fight again, on ground of its own choosing.

I answer “no” because of the nature of the men involved. Lee was counseled by General Longstreet at Gettysburg not to assault the Union center. Longstreet, an expert in defensive warfare, believed the Confederates best chances lie in seizing defendable ground and forcing the Union to make the assault. Remember, Gettysburg was part of Lee’s invasion of the North (it was in Pennsylvania), which was part of Lee’s strategy to force a Union cease fire. If Lee was willing to overrule his conservative General Longstreet, one cannot think that the more aggressive General – Jackson – had he lived, might not have encouraged the very assault on the third day that spelled doom for the Confederate cause.

So, the mistake was threefold – the failure to gain the high ground on day one, the failure to turn the flanks the second day, and the failure to withdraw the third. Would Jackson, the aggressive fiery Jackson, have counseled withdrawal? Would he have been more successful than Longstreet in doing so? I think the answer is no – the failure at Gettysburg was Lee’s alone.

2006-08-16 03:32:15 · answer #2 · answered by Mergz 2 · 0 0

Had Jackson been at Gettysburg it is doubtful that the outcome would have been different. The confederate assuat on a well defended high ground was not real smart by Lee, I think he probably was overly confident in his abilities and underestimated the strength of the Union forces. So no it would not have made a difference and the fight probably would still have been there as Lee had decided to carry the fight into the north in hopes of easing the stress of the lands of Virginia.

2006-08-16 03:35:38 · answer #3 · answered by jegreencreek 4 · 0 0

No, Longstreet suggested the very manoeuvre Gen. Jackson would have, a flanking manoeuvre that would have gotten the CSA forces behind the positions of the Federal troops. Where the Confederates would have prepared defensive positions which the Federals would have had to attack as Lee's forces would have been between the Federals and Washington, an untenable situation. Lee rejected this plan and ordered Longstreet to send in Pickett's Brigade. I believe that Lee wanted to show the Federal government, his detractor's in Richmond and the world that he could defeat the federals in a stand up battle without his famous tricks.
If Jackson had survived he would have put forward his plan, been rejected, received his orders and went out and obeyed them.He may have spent a few moments more than usual praying. Unlike Pickett he would have been in the fore of the attack and he would have reached the Union lines.

2006-08-16 06:12:50 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 0 0

The theory is that Jackson would have continued the fight, taking the hills south of town on the first day. Historically, Ewell did not press the attack allowing the Union to fortify the high ground. The subsequent two days of battle were largely the result of how the battle ended on the first day. Had Jackson lived, and had he taken the high ground on the first day, then it is likely the Confederates would have won the battle, and hence most likely the war. Considering how meaningless was Jackson's death, and the enormous consequences, it is little wonder that people have speculated on this subject for the last 140 years.

2006-08-16 03:19:28 · answer #5 · answered by TechnoRat60 5 · 0 0

Quite possibly yes. Jackson was a formidable soldier and may have made the difference for the South at Gettysburg. It seems obvious however, that victory at Gettysburg would have given the South a huge victory, but perhaps only lengthened the war, not changed the final outcome.

2006-08-16 14:21:19 · answer #6 · answered by perdidobums 5 · 0 0

That's a no brainer. TJ would've taken Culps Hill and Cemetery Hill on the first day of the battle. The high ground would've been in confederate hands before the whole union army came onto the field. Whether Meade would've attacked or withdraw to a ground of his choosing further south is a question.

The Union XI Corps was in full confused-retreat and would've been an ideal time to push forward Smith's fresh Brigade of Early's Division, which Ewell had relegated to guarding the extreme left flank. TJ would've had to do it before 4:30 pm, however, since that was the time of Gen. Hancock's arrival on the Union side. He reorganised the defense on Culps and Cemetery Hills. By 11:30 pm, it would've been REALLY too late, since the arrival of Meade himself along with XXII, III and II Corps on the field.

Lee's famous command to Ewell to take the high ground "if at all practicable" is always pointed to as the pivitol event on the first day, when a guy like TJ would've seized the initiative. Instead, Ewell was content with driving Howard's XI Corp from the town of Gettysburg.

2006-08-16 06:10:58 · answer #7 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

Possibly because on the first day the Confederates pulled back at the end of the day. Had Stonewall been alive they might have pressed on. The Confederates never got the upper hand back. In terms of fighting elsewhere Gettysburg should have never happened. Lee should have listened to Longstreet who said they should try to outflank the Union army and block them from Washington D.C.

2006-08-16 02:34:57 · answer #8 · answered by billymike1969 2 · 0 0

It's really impossible to say one way or the other. Jackson's death was a severe blow to Lee and the Confederate army. If he hadn't been accidentally killed, chances are the military situation leading up to Gettysburg would have been radically different, as in maybe Gettysburg wouldn't have even happened.

2006-08-16 02:31:28 · answer #9 · answered by Spel Chekker 4 · 0 0

If Chamberlain had been shot at Gettysburg, the Confederacy may have taken the day.

Too many vairables to consider.

Let's go to the first one.

What if Robert E Lee went to the Union side from the get-go?

2006-08-16 02:30:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers