Valley campaign comparison

[illinoisrebel]

Gentlemen, for conversation and education purposes, which do you feel was more successful: Jackson's valley campaign of 62 or Early's valley campaign of late 64? Did Early do more with less? Early faced a more experienced Fed army with a stronger General? What are your thoughts?

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Valley campaign comparison

I'd say that the most successful Shenandoah Valley campaign of the Civil War was Sheridan's, starting in early August 1864 and running through early February 1865.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Valley campaign comparison

I'd say it was a toss up between Grant's Mississippi Valley Campaign of '63, and his short, but sweet, Appomattox Valley Campaign of '65. His '64 Overland Campaign aka "Fun Things To See and Do between the Rappahannock and the James" wasn't too shabby either.

Nothing Positive Banks had troubles with valleys and campaigns, or so it appeared.

Yes, this is The Sinks.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Valley campaign comparison

Lord Cardigan's Valley Campaign of 1854 had mixed results tactically, but was the literary sensation of the season.

Ten years later, I'd say Sigel has never received his just dues for making Early three or four days later than did the future author of Ben Hur.

[majdoc]

Re: Valley campaign comparison

I would lean towards Jacksons Valley campaign for this reason.
He kept his army intact and was used in the upcoming campaigns where Early's army was basicly eleminated at I believe Ceder Creek.

[illinoisrebel]

Re: Valley campaign comparison

Jim, very good point.. To "what if it", had Jackson faced Sheridan, what would have happened? Would Jackson have completed Early's assingments/goals of the campaign??

[cprljohnivey]

Re: Valley campaign comparison

Early clearly dropped the ball at Monocacy. He should have push the Yanks aside and marched on DC. If Jackson were there.... well you know!

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Valley campaign comparison

As long as Sheridan enjoyed his usual Montgomery/Rommel numerical advantage, there's no reason to think he would not have done just as well against Jackson as against Early.

And Early never had a chance against DC, not with half the civil service armed with Springfields and Gillotts.

[DougCooper]

Re: Valley campaign comparison

Jim, very good point.. To "what if it", had Jackson faced Sheridan, what would have happened? Would Jackson have completed Early's assingments/goals of the campaign??

Who cares? Jackson was dead. And if Jackson were alive and Early was not there, they would be Lee's goals and Jackson's ways and means. It is tough enough to evaluate the decisions of the living without adding in what ifs from dead generals. What if Kearny were alive to take over the AoP instead of Meade? What if Reynolds had lived? What if Joe Johnston had not been hit by that piece of shell? What if Hood had been killed rather than just wounded? The actions of the one side are to an extent dependent on and in reaction to the other, so if we play what if games, you can't assume one side will act the same as the record when the other side is under new management. Make sense?

Let's ask the question this way, if education and knowledge is the goal:

Early lost the 1864 campaign. What could Early have done differently, if anything?

Personally, I tend to examine historical campaigns in the light of Courses of Action, Centers of Gravity, etc.

At the end of the day, Jackson's Valley Campaign whipped a few poor generals, scared Washington and created an over-inflated reputation that was quietly punctured during the 7 days Campaign, though history does not seem to notice that much because of Chancellorsville. It neither put the Confederacy any closer to victory nor the Union any closer to defeat.

Early's Campaign correctly focused on a Center of Gravity (Washington) as the best way to help Lee out of his mess and to effect Northern popular opinion, another center of gravity. Had Early actually entered DC, the effect on both the Lincoln government and Northern popular opinion during an election year might have been dramatic. It was Lee's best move, and Early did pretty well considering the odds he faced. Everything after July was inevitable however. The Union retained the initiative and small victories for the South here and there made no difference.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Valley campaign comparison

As long as Sheridan enjoyed his usual Montgomery/Rommel numerical advantage,

I don't know that I'd agree with the above. While Sheridan typically had a signficant numerical advantage over Early in the '64 Valley campaign, it wasn't like Sheridan always had such numbers. That I can see, from 1862 to beyond the Civil War, his battlefield "style" and aggressiveness was consistent regardless of whether he had a 3,000-man division or a 40,000-man army, or 9,000 cavalry.

And, for the record, I'm not much of a Phil Sheridan fan. I don't think he was particularly bright and he can't be accused of a lot possessing "coup d'oeil" (inherent knowledge of terrain, which I also construe to include "knowledgeo of how to maneuver men over it to gain advantage"). His ponderous advance southward in early August '64, and his headlong frontal charges in many battles (Missionary Ridge '63, Five Forks '65, etc.), and other events clearly show his limitations. What he lacked in brains and finesse he more than made up for in aggressiveness and sheer battlefield personality.

That said, the results he achieved in the Valley, particularly between mid-August and the end of October 1864, are difficult to argue with. He beat Early's army decisively three times and eliminated the lower two-thirds of the Valley's ability to support armies in the future.

And I don't think that numbers of troops often made a really big difference to Phil Sheridan. There's some instances, such as his withdrawal back down the Valley in mid-August '64 simply because it was rumored that Longstreet with two divisions might be near his rear, but those are rare exceptions to Sheridan's typical approach to war.

[illinoisrebel]

Re: Valley campaign comparison

Mr. Cooper, I agree with you 110%....Your reply as well as Kevin's are the kinds of thoughts and comments I was trying to provoke. It is intersting how Jackson's poor performance and odd behavior during the 7 days is often shoved under the carpet.