If Stonewall Jackson had been alive for Gettysburg..

[Black Diamond]

Does the south win that battle and eventually the war?

[gabosaurus]

A different Stonewall Jackson can answer that:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Does the south win that battle and eventually the war?

If Stonewall was there with his men, executing orders and doing his usual job , the South would have won that battle. Just that simple. -Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

Does the south win that battle and eventually the war?

They say that Jackson would have tipped the battle. But win the war? No. Gettysburg would have done nothing to improve the industrial needs of the South. They stood no chance of winning the war, but it may have lasted a few more years.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They say that Jackson would have tipped the battle. But win the war? No. Gettysburg would have done nothing to improve the industrial needs of the South. They stood no chance of winning the war, but it may have lasted a few more years.

Not exactly "no chance" but true it was a very, very slim one at that point in time but remember Stonewall would have continued to do his usual brilliant victories so who knows if it would have been enough to win..
Remember the North was quite war weary itself and opposition to the war was growing there!
Sherman's shameful, unforgivable terrorism and march to the sea was evidence of an enemy desperate to win
at any costs! . Too many overlook that fact IMHO.. --Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

At Gettysburg, The "STONEWALL BRIGADE" was a shadow of it's former self.

It served as part of the CSA Second Army Corps. (commanded by LT. Gen. Richard S. Ewell)

It served as part of the Division of Maj. General Edward Johnson

It was composed of only a few hundred or so Men that were remnants of the following regiments:

2d Virginia, Col. J.Q.A. Nadenbousch.
4th Virginia, Maj. William Terry.
5th Virginia, Col. J. H. S. Funk.
27th Virginia, Lieut. Col. D. M. Shriver.
33d Virginia, Capt. J. B. Golladay.

Analysis.... With Jackson in charge of the Division instead of Johnson... chances are Culps Hill would have been lost and the Confederates gain the high ground. They would have been able to pour Artillery fire down on Union Troops and the battle outcome would have been different.

Ewell and Johnson were both excellent leaders.... Jackson was almost Mythical.. He could inspire where others could not.

Jackson was the missing piece at Gettysburg

[Voted4Reagan]

If Stonewall was there with his men, executing orders and doing his usual job , the South would have won that battle. Just that simple. -Tyr

The Stonewall Brigade was there... under the command of Brigadier General James A. Walker.

They skirmished with the 17th Indiana on Culps Hill and took Heavy losses and were almost captured.

of 6000 members of the Stonewall Brigade during the war... About 300 survived.

By Gettysburg they were not the same unit that spearheaded the Valley Campaign.

[gabosaurus]

How can one trust the effectiveness of a group of soldiers that shot their own leader?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How can one trust the effectiveness of a group of soldiers that shot their own leader?

One man-- one huge mistake.
Could have been the single shot that won the war for the Northern aggressors..
Put it this way-destiny mandated that we have a United States of America or else what other nation would be there to defeat the enemies in WW1 and WW2 and insure a far greater measure of peace in the world for over a century....
Just imagine if the other side(Axis powers) had won the big one- WW2. --Tyr

[tailfins]

The one thing that swayed me the most against slavery was Alexis de Toqueville.

http://www.tocqueville.c-span.nsatc.net/oh3.htm


Irrespective if slavery was the cause of the Civil War or not. Slavery made the South lose the war by making its leaders "a people without energy, mettle or the spirit of enterprise".

<center> Another very remarkable thing is Ohio is this: Ohio is perhaps the State of the Union in which it is easiest to see, in a striking way and close up, the effects of slavery and of liberty on the social state of a people. The State of Ohio is separated from Kentucky just by one river; on either side of it the soil is equally fertile, and the situation equally favorable, and yet everything is different. Here a population devoured by feverish activity, trying every means to make its fortune; the population seems poor to look at, for they work with their hands, but that work is the source of riches. There is a people which makes others work for it and shows little compassion, a people without energy, mettle or the spirit of enterprise. On one side of the stream, work is honored and leads to all else, on the other it is despised as the mark of servitude. Those who are forced to work to live cross over into Ohio where they can make money without disgrace. The population of Kentucky, which has been peopled for nearly a century, grows slowly. Ohio only joined the Confederation thirty years ago and has a million inhabitants. Within those thirty years Ohio has become the entrepot for the wealth that goes up and down the Mississippi; it has opened two canals and joined the Gulf of Mexico to the North Coast; meanwhile Kentucky, older and perhaps better placed, stood still. These differences cannot be attributed to any other cause but slavery. It degrades the black population and enervates the white. Its fatal effects are recognized, and yet it is preserved and will be preserved for a long time more. Slavery threatens the future of those who maintain it, and it ruins the State; but it has become part of the habits and prejudices of the colonist, and his immediate interest is at war with the interest of his own future and the even stronger interest of the country. So nothing shows more clearly than the comparison I have just made that human prosperity depends much more on the institutions and the will of man than on the external circumstances that surround him. Man is not made for slavery; that truth is perhaps even better proved by the master than by the slave. </center>

[Voted4Reagan]

How can one trust the effectiveness of a group of soldiers that shot their own leader?

Jackson was shot by other Confederate troops. I believe it was a South Carolina Regiment.


Come on Gabs... really? Ever heard of friendly fire?

[Voted4Reagan]

The one thing that swayed me the most against slavery was Alexis de Toqueville.

http://www.tocqueville.c-span.nsatc.net/oh3.htm


Irrespective if slavery was the cause of the Civil War or not. Slavery made the South lose the war by making its leaders "a people without energy, mettle or the spirit of enterprise".

No...

The south had NO INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY and NO REAL RESOURCES. They had NO NAVY and almost no way to Make or Import goods. They had no hard currency, so they couldn't pay for the goods that they got.

an idea (slavery) had no bearing on the outcome of the war. It was an economic/industrial failure.

you are totally incorrect... The south needed Guns, canon, bullets, ships. uniforms, food.

They had NONE of it.

they couldnt replace any losses... that is how you lose a war... not because an idea makes you "a people without energy, mettle or the spirit of enterprise".

[Gunny]

Does the south win that battle and eventually the war?

The Union would have lost. He'd have taken Little Round Top the first night and the Union would have lost the high ground.

Lee was a suggestive leader but he knew if he gave Jackson a suggestion it'd turn into hardcore dirt. When AP Hill took over Jackson's division, he determined "if practicable" meant go into camp for the night. Jackson would have attacked. Beuford wouldn't have had a chance.

[Perianne]

The Union would have lost. He'd have taken Little Round Top the first night and the Union would have lost the high ground.

Lee was a suggestive leader but he knew if he gave Jackson a suggestion it'd turn into hardcore dirt. When AP Hill took over Jackson's division, he determined "if practicable" meant go into camp for the night. Jackson would have attacked. Beuford wouldn't have had a chance.

What might have been.