(09-14-2014 09:43 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 03:56 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-06-2014 10:58 AM)JSF Wrote:  Sherman burns more of the South, probably. It wasn't really a winnable war, especially at that point. They were critically low on manpower, supplies, and morale. Would've taken much more than Stonewall.

It's not well-known, but morale in the North wasn't exactly gung-ho, either. A clear, crushing defeat for Union forces in summer 1863 could have brought the whole thing to an end.

Sherman's use of arson on a large scale (as a matter of deliberate, intentional policy) didn't begin until September '64. If Stonewall had been alive and going at full power from May '63 onwards, I can scarcely believe that Sherman would've gotten to start that sooner.

Sherman was not promoted nor did he have any success until there was no one to fight.

Losing Jackson was huge! Until the Pa campaign, The ANV and Lee were undefeated.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

George Meade and his leadership skills had just as much to do with the ANV and Lee losing as did Stonewall's death. Meade is a victim of not worrying about PR and being a professional solider that gave Lincoln/USA what they needed at the time (a victory at Gettysburg and no losses at Bristoe Station and Mine Run) and worked the with resources Lincoln/USA gave him (pulling troops for NYC riots and Army of Cumberland, not undertaking battle in mid fall of 63 when he was ready but Lincoln wanted him to wait, and etc).

Ironically, before and after Mine Run, Meade wanted to move to Fedricksburg as the supply base to allow a late 63/early 64 battle/campaign. Lincoln was completely opposed to this, but Grant accepted Meade's battle plan to go around the right flank (eastern side) of ANV/Lee in spring of 64 and Lincoln had to accede to Grant's request.