How do you think the war would've been different with Stonewall Jackson?

He was a great military leader, and if it wasn't for accidental friendly fire, he would've lived to see the end most likely. How do you think the Civil War's outcome would be different?

We would've probably got to DC and start pushing to Canadian union border and England would've helped us then

Yeah I bet we would've sent 'em Yankees packing....

We would've been more successful at keepin the Yanks out of Georgia

I think the South may have won at Gettysburg if General Jackson had been there. He certainly would not have made General Ewell's mistake about not taking the high ground the first day. As to the overall outcome of the war, it is hard to say. The north still had vastly superior numbers of soldiers, factories, and they continued their naval blockade. Maybe the northern civilians would have said enough is enough and that would have ended the war. Or maybe the European powers would have come to the aid of the South. One huge benefit of the South winning the war would have been the absence of the horrible years of reconstruction. I think reconstruction was akin to the ethnic cleansing of the Indians. That may make a good thread.

roydenoral wrote:I think the South may have won at Gettysburg if General Jackson had been there.  He certainly would not have made General Ewell's mistake about not taking the high ground the first day.  As to the overall outcome of the war, it is hard to say.  The north still had vastly superior numbers of soldiers, factories, and they continued their naval blockade.  Maybe the northern civilians would have said enough is enough and that would have ended the war.  Or maybe the European powers would have come to the aid of the South.  One huge benefit of the South winning the war would have been the absence of the horrible years of reconstruction.  I think reconstruction was akin to the ethnic cleansing of the Indians.  That may make a good thread.

Well, the European countries didn't come to Southerner's Aid due to "Honest Abe" telling the countries with no slaves that we were fighting for slavery. That's part of where the slavery argument came from.

But I agree 100% with your thoughts on reconstruction. Probably more destructive than it was "reconstructive".

Good point about the slavery issue and the Europeans. Although, from what I have read, in America, slavery was only an issue with northern abolitionists, not northern civilians. Have you read any of Thomas DiLorenzo's books about Abe? He really tells the truth (his facts are well referenced and usually come from 'ol Abe's own speeches). They were a mind opener for me. I think of reconstruction as the "rape, pillage, and plunder" of the south. Seems like the northerners were intent to push the south into poverty and keep it there. Have not read a great deal about this yet.

I haven't had the opportunity to read about them, but I'll look out for them. It sounds really interesting, though,