This day in the Civil War.

[Slimbizza]

Icons of war like Stonewall Jackson, is mostly glorified beyond reality. His death is just one of the 1000 that died that day. Thier names are forgotten and most of them burried as unknown.
The Confederacy did not stand a chance in the long run, they might have won a battel or 2, but the hole idea and consept of the South, was not fit to survive in the modern World.

General Jackson was an extremely important commander to the confederates. His ability to motivate his men, and steep knowledge of military tactics of the day was something that was invaluable to the confederates.

Lastly, the confederates won more than just one battle or two, and the idea that the confederacy lost because the weren't fit to survive in the modern world is just dumb. We owe a lot of the states rights we have in the United States today thanks to the confederacy. It was the president of the United States that waged the war against his own countrymen, and I can't think of anything more nobel than standing up to overreach of the federal government. Thusly in America today we still have highly independent individual States with their own governments, constitution and laws... that is truly a blessing and is directly attributable to the sacrifices made by the confederacy.

Unfortunately the confederacy was always going to lose due to economic factors.

[A. P. Hill]

I can picture Jackson flanking around the round tops to crush the enemy at Gettysburg.

First, Jackson would have been on the wrong side of the field for this. IF he were still alive, he would have been in the place where Ewell was, North and East of the town because previous to the engagement, his orders were to get to Harrisburg PA, (the capital of Pennsylvania,) but which order was rescinded once the III Corps, (A.P. Hill's Corps) made contact and engaged at Gettysburg. At best, Jackson would have picked up on the importance of Culp's Hill and taken it on the first day, thus pretty much making the rest of the Union position untenable.

The road network didn't support a move like that.. unlike at Chancellorsville.

I suggest you look at a map of Gettysburg,

Gettysburg-Official-Touring-Map_2013.jpg

No less than 10 different roads radiating out from the center of that town with interconnecting roads between all of them.
But then back in the era ... all movement was on foot and anywhere a man can set foot an army can march. So, no roads needed really.

[michaelsmithern]

I've always wondered if Jackson survived if the Confederacy would have remained Independent from the North, at least for a while. Seeing as the South fought to stay as their own country and the North to Unify it, it would have been a really interesting development in American History.

[dmurray6]

First, Jackson would have been on the wrong side of the field for this. IF he were still alive, he would have been in the place where Ewell was, North and East of the town because previous to the engagement, his orders were to get to Harrisburg PA, (the capital of Pennsylvania,) but which order was rescinded once the III Corps, (A.P. Hill's Corps) made contact and engaged at Gettysburg. At best, Jackson would have picked up on the importance of Culp's Hill and taken it on the first day, thus pretty much making the rest of the Union position untenable.


I suggest you look at a map of Gettysburg,

Gettysburg-Official-Touring-Map_2013.jpg

No less than 10 different roads radiating out from the center of that town with interconnecting roads between all of them.
But then back in the era ... all movement was on foot and anywhere a man can set foot an army can march. So, no roads needed really.

And as we discussed today A.P., almost directly behind the ridges that hold Little and Big Round Top, runs the Taneytown road. While the round tops themselves are sandwich between the Emmittsburg Rd and Taneytown Rd. Getting around Gettysburg certainly wasn't the issue, but getting through Gettysburg was a different story. Now, Hood did call for movement to go around the round tops in which Longstreet declined, which would have inevitably had Hood using the Taneytown Rd., to do so.

[thomas aagaard]

I suggest you look at a map of Gettysburg,

Gettysburg-Official-Touring-Map_2013.jpg

No less than 10 different roads radiating out from the center of that town with interconnecting roads between all of them.
But then back in the era ... all movement was on foot and anywhere a man can set foot an army can march. So, no roads needed really.

1. modern map with no details. Give me a map with proper marking for the quality of the roads and tracks... as they existed in 1863.

2. Some of the roads go directly into the union lines. And all of them within range of union artillery.
So all are completely useless for a flanking move on the operational level.

3. Wrong, artillery need roads or open fields. Plenty of places a man can walk where artillery can't go.
Woods, steams and broken ground is a problem. And the Gettysburg area had plenty of this.

4. Would you like to ammunition supplies? how about food? All of it is in wagons that need roads... (even more than artillery)


You need a road going around the union position to the south, out of range of artillery, hidden from view, that is of a sufficient quality that it allow for supply wagons to use it...
And it simply did not exist...

And US cavalry was covering the fare left flank of the union army. So even if this was done, the union could just counter it with the 6th corp, using interior lines.

[thomas aagaard]

General Jackson was an extremely important commander to the confederates. His ability to motivate his men, and steep knowledge of military tactics of the day was something that was invaluable to the confederates.

Lastly, the confederates won more than just one battle or two, and the idea that the confederacy lost because the weren't fit to survive in the modern world is just dumb. We owe a lot of the states rights we have in the United States today thanks to the confederacy. It was the president of the United States that waged the war against his own countrymen, and I can't think of anything more nobel than standing up to overreach of the federal government..

Jackson was at best an average tactician. What he was good at was independent action on the operational level. (or grand tactical as it was sometimes called back then)
And on a good day he did this very very well.


South Carolina started a war against the Federal government when they fired on a US fort on US soil.
(the location of fort Sumter was transferred by the SC state house to the federal government back in the 1830ties. The Island was artificially constructed by the federal government. Under both SC and US law the fort was US soil)
That attack is what forced the US president to raise the militia to defend the country.


The biggest overreach done by the federal government, (after buying Louisiana) was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. That was the slave owning south overriding states rights to impose their political agenda on the free states.

The south liked the federal government just fine... when they used it to promote their agenda.

[A. P. Hill]

1. modern map with no details. Give me a map with proper marking for the quality of the roads and tracks... as they existed in 1863. ...

Your argument of "if it isn't period it isn't good enough" regarding any documentation on any topic is starting to stink.
It's a very poor basis for a discussion and usually a throw back for someone who doesn't have all the answers. But just to humor you ...

Here's a period map, says so in the lower right hand corner.

Gettysburg-Battlefield-map-July-2-1863.jpg

Note that the road and/or path system looks very much the same as the park map I presented early that was apparently repugnant to your intellect. There are still 10 roads radiating out from and encircling the area. Believe it or not, the area hasn't changed much in the way of roads and where they were since the battle.

2. Some of the roads go directly into the union lines. And all of them within range of union artillery.
So all are completely useless for a flanking move on the operational level. ...

Well of course some of the roads go through the union lines, they go through the confederate lines as well. I don't get your point. And yes, some roads are close and within range of artillery. BUT if the movement is made whereby the enemy is ignorant of the move it doesn't matter if the artillery is 100 yards away, if they don't know you're there, they're not going to shell you. Simple tactics that you've overblown.

3. Wrong, artillery need roads or open fields. Plenty of places a man can walk where artillery can't go.
Woods, steams and broken ground is a problem. And the Gettysburg area had plenty of this. ...

Wrong on your part, Your comment about "Plenty of places a man can walk where artillery can't go.", c'mon you're smarter than that. IF you honestly think that horse drawn artillery couldn't go in many of the same locations that a man can set foot then I don't want you as my artillery chief. If you closely examine many maps of the day, you will find that artillery is positioned in places where there are no roads to access the position ... how did that happen?

Have you been to Gettysburg at all? Have you read any period accounts? There were no roads and a hell of a lot of rocks all over the round tops, and yet somehow the union forces were able to get artillery to the top of those hills ...

It's called field artillery for a reason.

4. Would you like to ammunition supplies? how about food? All of it is in wagons that need roads... (even more than artillery) ...

Most likely ammunition only, and yes, while it would be advantageous to route your wagons via roads, there are just many times that an army couldn't do that. Again, it's horse or mule drawn wagons designed to run on terrain that is not equipped with a road. Ammunition supply wagons followed infantry wherever they went including across field. Food wouldn't be needed immediately and many times wasn't available at the behest of the troops. Food supply was also separate from ammunitions and therefore usually routed differently. Not pertinent in this argument.

You need a road going around the union position to the south, out of range of artillery, hidden from view, that is of a sufficient quality that it allow for supply wagons to use it...
And it simply did not exist...

Wrong in so many different aspects. As I've stated before you "Field" an army that usually means it operates where there are not any roads. Field artillery is called that for a specific reason, it operates afield. So NO, you don't need roads. You just need a scout to find an easy and covered means of getting around the enemy flank. BUT let's for fun suppose that roads are needed. You're aware of the conditions of roads back in the late 19th century America right? 90 percent of the road system in America at that time was nothing but a dirt track. So the road systems are and were no different than pulling your artillery or ammunition or food supply over terrain. Your argument for need of roads to do anything is a fallacy.

And US cavalry was covering the fare left flank of the union army. So even if this was done, the union could just counter it with the 6th corp, using interior lines.

Actually the cavalry was where it was because it was more involved in looking for Stuart and his cavalry, not that it was positioned there on purpose. Buford's cavalry was the only cavalry that was engaged on day one, and against heavy infantry was pushed back.

But again, this is all hyperbole, because Jackson wouldn't have been on the confederate right where the round tops were, he would have been on the left at Culp's Hill. The round tops were Longstreet's problem and he was against storming the heights as it was and only put in a half assed effort to take them. But then he was also in favor of skirting the union left and coming in behind the union lines.

[will1993]

General Jackson was an extremely important commander to the confederates. His ability to motivate his men, and steep knowledge of military tactics of the day was something that was invaluable to the confederates.

Lastly, the confederates won more than just one battle or two, and the idea that the confederacy lost because the weren't fit to survive in the modern world is just dumb. We owe a lot of the states rights we have in the United States today thanks to the confederacy. It was the president of the United States that waged the war against his own countrymen, and I can't think of anything more nobel than standing up to overreach of the federal government. Thusly in America today we still have highly independent individual States with their own governments, constitution and laws... that is truly a blessing and is directly attributable to the sacrifices made by the confederacy.

Unfortunately the confederacy was always going to lose due to economic factors.

lol no. Federal rights always have and will supersede states ones where the two come into conflict.

and rights are updated as people progress in humanity, like civil rights and LGBT rights and women's rights and animals' rights things that weren't around 150 years ago. This has jack all to do with the Confederacy. All the CSA did was start a war and get stomped.

[Lackay]

truly a blessing and is directly attributable to the sacrifices made by the confederacy

i would say its more to do with the founding fathers than the confederacy
states rights are nice but should be limited since cohesion is important. i guess thats why im a federalist :P

[Slimbizza]

i would say its more to do with the founding fathers than the confederacy
states rights are nice but should be limited since cohesion is important. i guess thats why im a federalist :P

I guess that's where I disagree with you sir. The federal government has very very limited scope. Its job is is defense from outside aggression, international diplomacy and trade. Like modern federal government overreaches like healthcare, the federal government grossly infringed upon the state's rights of the confederate states. So yes, in contemporary America, the confederacy is historically a champion of states rights. I mean after all, I wouldn't want the state I live in to have states rights resembling that with modern day commiefornia.