[Badeye]

"The Union army did have some very bad commanders, but the South was a large area, and the "science" of warfare still hadn't caught up with the new inventions of the era, like railroads and the telegraph. It would probably have taken more than a year to figure out how to win a modern war, even had all the commanders been as talented as Grant or Jackson. "

Sorry, I don't hold Jackson in that high of regard. I know, I know...HERESY!.....LOL!

Jackson should have been destroyed in detail during the Valley Campaign. His command survived due in large part to the ineptitude of the Union Generals, such as the laughable Fremont, for just one example. Note the three primary Generals Jackson defeated were either forced out of the Union Army, or delegated to regions of little importance to the war effort of the time.

Many people like to play "what if"....I'm one of them. I firmly believe if Jackson had been at Gettysburg, he would have charged the heights at the end of the day, July 1st, 1963.

And he would have been crushed. (I know, HERESY!....LOL)

Just my opinion, after war gaming it several hundred times, reading everything I can get my hands on concerning the subject.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Lee had as little success outside Virginia as Hooker, Burnside and Pope had within it.

The western Union army basically advanced unchecked from Paducah, KY to Atlanta, Savannah, and north into the Carolinas, with only the single check at Chickamauga.

Nashville was held by the insrgents for less than a year. The seceded states, so-called, had Union troops within their "borders" every day of the rebellion.

Walt

[carton253]

Until this post... I was liking you. :)

I would put Stonewall Jackson up against any General in the Union... He would have won, hands down!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!