If you were Gen. Lee

[wilber6150]

Re: If you were Gen. Lee

It seems to me Jackson, who definitiely showed signs of brilliance, as in in valley campaign, did also show some signs of being inconsistant, in such a way that I wonder if Jackson did survive which one would we have seen at Gettysburg.The one who pushed his troops to the limit and did genius like maneuvers with his troops, or the one the rested against a tree and slept while the enemy slipped away..

[Rob Weaver]

Re: If you were Gen. Lee

Jackson seems to have underappreciated how men become exhausted, including himself, both during the Valley campaign and certainly during the Seven Days. I think his command was really pretty much fought out even before removing to Richmond. His sluggishness there simply says "worn out" to me. But this is early in the war, when the South's best hope is still to winfast victories and secure European recognition. Jackson's men were pretty used up at Antietam, too. Would Jack ever have learned to pace himself and his men better? I think his death occured right at the time where applying that lesson would have become important. To the original question of the thread, though, I still maintain that Lee making no changes in command when he takes Johnston's army before Richmond was probably the only prudent, if not necessarily brilliant option.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: If you were Gen. Lee

The more I see of the problems people face supervising a half dozen others in an office environment, the more I'm impressed by any general who survives a month in his job, or succeeds in moving a brigade from one side of town to the other without losing half of them somewhere along the way.

That said, I'm especially impressed by somebody like Isaac Stevens, who stopped Jackson at Chantilly -- talk about making a tough decision on the fly.

[Gary of CA]

Re: If you were Gen. Lee

Neither (competent) guides nor maps were provided. Little wonder why an exhausted Jackson never got into position in time. Jackson is hardly to blame for his poor performance during the Seven Days.

[Becky Morgan]

Re: If you were Gen. Lee

There are so many factors at work in Lee's decision that we'll never know.
Had he removed Jackson, would it have bneen political suicide? With whom would the Confederate government have sided? It's easy to think "Lee, of course" but at that time and in that place, it's hard to tell.

With whom would he have replaced Jackson? Once again--brilliant move, or disaster? Remember that some of the possibilities look good because they were never tested in that situation.

The issue of Gettysburg always gets my curiosity. I can't begin to imagine what would and wouldn't have happened:
Would Jackson have pulled another foot-cavalry march? If so, what would have been the result? The Federal political situation was so delicate at the time that a show of force any nearer Washington might have tipped the balance of the war. What if Harrisburg HAD been captured, or even raided?
Would Stuart have been out circling the Union army with Jackson around? Would he have provided useful information instead?
What would Jackson have said to the notion of Pickett's Charge?

I have seen attempts to use a computer simulation to divine a general's probable actions, but with Jackson it would be difficult in the extreme. As has already been said, we could have had either of two Jacksons, the hard charger or the inactive, and he might have been a mellowed version of himself--or not.

We hung by a very thin thread more than once in those days.

[hiplainsyank]

Re: If you were Gen. Lee

What was the cause of this up-and-down pattern. It's one thing to be off one's game, but with Jackson he seemed to have such high highs and such low lows in his performance as a general, that it makes me wonder...

Would Jackson have been diagnosed a bipolar individual today, or was he simply a Type A personality who just had no clue of his, and others, physical and mental limitations?

I don't recall any up-and-down stuff prior to his time as a general, from what I recall from previous reading---but it's been awhile, too. However, I honestly doubt he was bipolar, although it seems he had other issues. Perhaps he simply could only focus on one thing at a time (that is, accomplishing his goal) that he was totally unaware of his own physical/mental health state, and that of his troops.

[Dale Beasley]

Re: If you were Gen. Lee

What was the cause of this up-and-down pattern. It's one thing to be off one's game, but with Jackson he seemed to have such high highs and such low lows in his performance as a general, that it makes me wonder...

Would Jackson have been diagnosed a bipolar individual today, or was he simply a Type A personality who just had no clue of his, and others, physical and mental limitations?

I don't recall any up-and-down stuff prior to his time as a general, from what I recall from previous reading---but it's been awhile, too. However, I honestly doubt he was bipolar, although it seems he had other issues. Perhaps he simply could only focus on one thing at a time (that is, accomplishing his goal) that he was totally unaware of his own physical/mental health state, and that of his troops.

Joanna,
I think you may have something here, I thought the same when, several years ago I first started reading about General Jackson.

I think he did not have a clue to his physical and mental limitations. As a Medical Officer I have watched Commanders for many years. The young LTs just watch, the CPTs keep going till they drop, the MAJs have learned to pace themselves, and not till they have reached the rank of LTC or COL, does a "true leader" know himself. Many of the Commanders of the Civil War did not have the time to learn themselves prior to the war. Jackson, yes was a West Point (r), but he had what?...been teaching prior to the war?

I think it was a Type "A" not knowing his physical and mental limitations.

Now, I know there are some "Stump-Jump-Joes" (or whatever they call themselves) who have made fun of this thread, but you know they have other boards. This type of subject is being taught in Army Command Type Schools.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: If you were Gen. Lee

War is also a learning process.

At the Seven Days Lee had this grand design in his head based on maps that looked like a real war winner.

The problem was is that it had to be implemented by flesh and blood men. How experieinced were the officers all up and down the command structure? Even if Jackson had been brilliant at Seven days (and he wasn't) those underneath him might not have been able to pull it off.

What Lee learned at the Seven Days was 'on-the-map' and 'on-the-ground' were two different things. He also seemed to learn that Jackson functioned better as an independent unit, hence his willingness to trust him with the flank attack at Chancelorsville.

But then war is also chance.

What would have happened if Jackson had attacked someone who had enought sense to not leave the flank hanging in the air? Or the AoP had been commanded by some like Grant or Meade who wasn't prone to panicing. The AoP was in a pretty good position the day after sitting between both wings of Lee's Army.

Would I have replaced Jackson at Seven Days? It depends on whether or not I thought his performance was sub-par and IF I had someone whom I thought could do better.

Remember in Lee's first field command (West VA) he was out manuvered and out fought by troops under Little Mac (whose subordinates were better than Lee's). But that was the only time Lee lost to Mac.

You can only beat those who take the field opposite you. Despite the short comings of Lee's subordinates' performances he did drive Mac all the way back down to his base of operations, despite Mac having all the advantages on paper. While it might not have been the success Lee was looking for it was still a success and Jackson was part of it. It would have been a little hard to replace ANY of the corp commanders right after 'saving Richmond'.

[wilber6150]

Re: If you were Gen. Lee

. Despite the short comings of Lee's subordinates' performances he did drive Mac all the way back down to his base of operations, despite Mac having all the advantages on paper. While it might not have been the success Lee was looking for it was still a success and Jackson was part of it. It would have been a little hard to replace ANY of the corp commanders right after 'saving Richmond'.

Very true, but I tend to think that Mac defeated himself, his generals, especially Kerney, were all for staying and fighting and most of the fighting did go in the Unions favor, but still Little Mac was convinced he had to retreat to save the army.Heck, if he would have stayed at Malvern hill, Lee might have been pressured politically to keep attacking him to drive him off and thus waste away his army...Mac seems to me was a great defensive general, as he often foresaw what Lee was attempting and was ready, but offensively he just couldn't go for the win..