If Stonewall Jackson had not been killed in the civil war, and the south wo...

If Stonewall Jackson had not been killed in the civil war, and the south would win. Wouldn't Abraham Lincoln not have been assassinated by John Booth?

Sponsored Links
Asif Nadeem avatar
3 years ago #2
Asif Nadeem
Fresh Member
Blogs: 1
Forum: 14
Votes: 2

So many IFS😊
My answer to this question would be "MAY BE"😊

jade avatar
3 years ago #3
jade
Ace
Blogs: 0
Forum: 706
Votes: 2

I'm not sure. If the South would have won Booth wouldn't have had a cause to kill Lincoln, but it seems conspirators like him are never pleased with the way things are so he could have tried to kill him anyway, for other reasons.

Sponsored Links
Ron S. avatar
3 years ago #4
Ron S.
Ace
Blogs: 9
Forum: 892
Votes: 8

Interesting that you believe that “if” Stonewall Jackson would have stayed in the war the South would have won because of that. You know Jackson’s death was one of many variables that you have to take into consideration on why the South lost war or why the North won the war.

As for Booth, he may have continued on with his plans just out of his pure hate for Lincoln. He could still have pinned all the destruction and death in the South on Lincoln.

But I am not much of an "IF" person because for every “if” you answer you add more “ifs” until everything is iffy.

jade avatar
3 years ago #5
jade
Ace
Blogs: 0
Forum: 706
Votes: 2

I agree. I like the 'if' game but I keep in mind that any slight factor that is changed and the outcome is completely different.

Ulidian avatar
3 years ago #6
Ulidian
Fresh Member
Blogs: 0
Forum: 6
Votes: 0

After the war during a ride in the country on his trusty steed Traveller, Lee remarked to a friend, “If I had had Stonewall Jackson at Gettysburg we should have won a great victory.” As it was Gettysburg eventually would prove to be the Confederacies Waterloo.

http://kuborange.wordpress.com/it-is-a-shameful-sight-when-brothers-of-one-family-do-chide-ch-17/

Mike D. avatar
3 years ago #7
Mike D.
Champion
Blogs: 24
Forum: 1,506
Votes: 11

The great myth of Gettysburg is that It would have been the end game for The Army of The Potomac & that the North would have lost the war. Not so. There was a plan to fall back to a line on Pipe Creek, Maryland just a few miles south of Gettysburg. Lee needed to annihilate his foe or face him again. He never came close to his objective after the victories of July 1st.

Sponsored Links
fstroupe avatar
3 years ago #8
fstroupe
Champion
Blogs: 27
Forum: 1,514
Votes: 22

Whether or not Booth would have killed Lincoln anyway depends much on why he killed him.

My personal feelings are that Booth could have very well been working for Northern entities. If so, it probably would have happened anyway.

As far as Gettysburg being the "make it or break it battle", I also do not think so. Lee's plans were to get well into Pennsylvania before Hooker realized he was gone, which didn't happen. His route was much longer than the direct route that the Northern Army was able to take, so that failure caused him to be at a great disadvantage.

Even then, if Lee had kept the army intact all the way to Harrisburg, the thought of a battle taking place well into the North, rather than so near to the traditional Virginia state line, the people of the North may have turned against Lincoln.

I really do not see a scenario where Lee could have totally annihilated the Army of The Potomac, which would have meant somehow placing his army between Meade and Washington DC. That would have actually been possible had Lee sent the entire army through Gettysburg in the first place, but that was not his plan.

Lee's biggest mistake probably was his failure to order Heth to disengage and continue on with his plans. Ewell had successfully made it to Harrisburg on June 29, and Early to Wrightsville on the 28th.

"IF" Jackson had lived, and "IF" Lee's plans for the invasion into Pennsylvania were the same, the only real change I see is that Jackson would not have given up Cemetery Ridge on the night of July 1. Any thought as to what Meade would have done then is pure conjecture. The easiest thing would be to just starve Lee out, then launch a flank attack on the retreating Confederate Army. Though I do not think that Lincoln would have given Meade the time to do that.

Whatever might happen, Meade would have excellent supply lines, as Lee had none. His intent was to "live off of the land". That is impossible to do with a 75,000 man army sitting in one place.

blueshawk1 avatar
3 years ago #9
blueshawk1
Champion
Blogs: 9
Forum: 1,450
Votes: 6

I love the "what ifs", and Jackson living is definitely a good topic to "what if" with, I think he's come up a couple times in this section.

In regards to Gettysburg, I agree with fstroupe that Jackson would not have given up the ridge. The thought that usually comes to my mind though in regard to "what if" Jackson was there at Gettysburg, although things would have definitely been different if Jackson were there - "how" is something else to conjecture, but I think in terms of the conditions being exactly the same, and I think Lee would have done with Jackson what he didn't do with Longstreet - listen.

As for Booth not killing Lincoln if the south did win, there's no telling. If Booth had lived and people got to talk to him and someone got his story, that would tell us something. Even his co-conspirators, all we hear about is how they met and what they planned to do, if they hadn't been put to death, perhaps they could have shed some light on Booth's reason, but since they, and Booth, were killed pretty quickly, we can only guess at his motive, it's easy to assume what we usual do about the "why".

 avatar
2 months ago #10
Dougiet
Guest

If Jackson had lived there would have been a good chance the south would have won. The south didn’t have to win decicive battles to win. All they had to do was hold there own until the next election. Generals of that time in Anna Jackson’s book said that Jackson would have taken little roundtop. But even if he didn’t I see Jackson going back to the valley and harassing Sherman. Slowing him down long enough too keep the food supply open long enough.

Taylor avatar
2 months ago #11
Taylor
Master
Blogs: 66
Forum: 2,646
Votes: 22

Dougiet:

I think that Gettysburg would have turned out differently if Jackson had survived, but this would have only delayed the inevitable. The impressive thing about the South during the WBTS is that they did not lose right away, despite being undermanned, and under resourced. But after a four year brutal war, the South did not have the man power to replace their losses, nor the resources, food, money, technology, or transportation, in order to sustain their cause.

 avatar
2 months ago #12
Dougiet
Guest

Taylor
Yes the north had the men and Lincoln just had to find someone to use them. Well the south was very good at slight of hand of war. They would do things like spread there army out while more than half would leave on a flank move. Jackson was the master of such things. His purpose in the valley wasn’t to win an battles. It was to detain armies from going east because he had the threat of going to Washington. When McDowell was headed to reinforce McClellan , Jackson beat I think Banks then sent some of his army towards Washington just a little to scare them. Lincoln did what Jackson wanted. He stirred McDowell away from McClellan and into the valley. I know Sherman and Grant were not McClellan and McDowell but if Sherman doesn’t make that March to the Sea tearing up railroads and foraging as they went along. Then the south wouldn’t have been near as bad off with food. Sherman did this just in time. The election would have been lost to McClellan without it. McClellan would have withdrew if the troops. I think Jackson could have stalled Sherman or distracted him from the March Long enough. Keeping in mind that Jackson only failed once at what he tried to do in the whole war. That was a flank movement early on that he didn’t make in time. A lot of the technology as far as weapons go both sides had before long because they would get captured.

Sponsored Links
blueshawk1 avatar
2 months ago #13
blueshawk1
Champion
Blogs: 9
Forum: 1,450
Votes: 6

Dougiet wrote:

Well the south was very good at slight of hand of war. They would do things like spread there army out while more than half would leave on a flank move. Jackson was the master of such things.

Yes they were. I liked Forrest's little trick of marching his troops in sight of the enemy, having them circle around to march past them again, so it looked like a massive force when in actuality they were just watching the same troops march past them over and over again.
LOL, I loved it when I first read about that, and he got at least a couple surrenders based on that false impression he gave the enemy using that trick.
They probably should have brought Forrest east when Jackson was killed.

But in the end, I agree with Taylor, anything they did would have been delaying the inevitable, the north had more of everything.
The only real chance they might have had would have been if
a). they could have gotten the support they hoped for from England and France or
b). they could have done something to so turn northern public opinion against pursuing the war any further that Lincoln would have had no choice but to quit it.
There's probably the one way Jackson living could have changed the outcome of things, a win at Gettysburg might have done it. Or in lieu of that, he might have thought to fall back, dig in and take up defensive positions north of D.C., they wouldn't have had to invade D.C., just cut it off and keep it cut off, that might have also been a way to convince the north and their tyrant president.

 avatar
2 months ago #14
Dougiet
Guest

Lmao!!! I must read up on him. That is hilarious!!!

Taylor avatar
2 months ago #15
Taylor
Master
Blogs: 66
Forum: 2,646
Votes: 22

Dougiet:

I must have missed something as I'm not sure what you find so hilarious....President Lincoln?

blueshawk1 avatar
2 months ago #16
blueshawk1
Champion
Blogs: 9
Forum: 1,450
Votes: 6

Taylor, I believe Dougiet is referring to the stunt Forrest used to fool the enemy that I wrote about.

Dougiet, yes, if you have not read up on Forrest, it's well worth it, he was an amazing military man and leader, and it was all natural, he had no formal military training like many of the other leaders in the war.
After the war, Gen. Lee, when asked who the best General was on either side replied: "A gentleman I have never met ... Gen. N.B. Forrest!"

Taylor avatar
2 months ago #17
Taylor
Master
Blogs: 66
Forum: 2,646
Votes: 22

My apologies Dougiet...I missed part of the post you were referring to.

Sponsored Links
By entering this site you declare you read and agreed to its Terms, Rules & Privacy and you understand that your use of the site's content is made at your own risk and responsibility. Copyright © 2006 - 2018 American Civil War Forum