Could he have really made a difference if he had survived his wound?
>>1226819
Inside job 2bh
>>1226829
Same thing did happen with Albert Sidney Johnston. It all does feel suspicious.
I think his biggest impact would have been in the Gettysburg Campaign. Unlike General Ewell, he would most certainly have pushed to take Cemetery Hill which would have changed the layout and dynamics of the battle. Again, I think Gettysburg as it happened is more important in what it prevented more so than what it could have done for the Confederacy, because a smashing victory and the destruction of the Army of the Potomac seems rather unlikely, and such a total victory was required for the proposed peace talks Confederate Pres. Davis was to push on Lincoln to begin. Now, a victory for the South would have most certainly ignited a push to sue for peace among the populous of the North, but post-Emancipation Proclamation foreign intervention on behalf of the C.S.A. was largely out of the question, and Lincoln was hell-bent never to even legitimize or recognize the Confederacy, much less hold peace talks. If the Union Army remained a fairly strong/kept-together fighting force it would have withdrawn towards Washington in defense. Jackson's strategic influence might have shaped that ensuing campaign, but exactly how so can't be clearly known.
>>1226857
Did you ever read Gingrich and Forstchen's Gettysburg Trilogy? Jackson is still dead, but Lee manages to flank The Army of the Potomac and wins a great victory. Anyways, I think that a defeat at Gettysburg would definitely provoke more riots among cities like New York. Maybe the British would try to urge the Confederacy to abolish slavery on the promise of intervention?
>>1226883
I haven't, actually, but I should sometime.
I think foreign intervention could've still been a possibility for the South but only if they were to end slavery, which you wonder if the Southern government would be willing to do that. Do they stick true to what is undeniably a pro-slavery-centric secession cause and hope to win on their own with success at Gettysburg? Or do they, like Lincoln did with shifting the war focus from Union preservation to moral focus/emancipation, shift and evolve their cause into something else, adopting a new key focus and ultimately willing to drop slavery in order to achieve a foreign-prompted victory? It's an interesting question because unlike the Union's shift which added a moral and ideological dimension while preserving their central focus of preservation, such a Confederate shift would require them to abandon what was at the core of their cause to begin with to achieve independence.
>>1226917
I honestly think Lee and Jackson should have taken a more political stance towards the war rather than simply doing their duty. Both appear to seem indifferent towards slavery, but both of them did know the obvious advantages the North held over the South. I believe that if after Gettysburg, win or lose, if Lee said that the South could only survive with the manumission of its slaves, the people would call for it. How could the South honestly survive if they won the war and maintained slavery? Wasn't England growing more and more against the institution of slavery? France was dealing with its own political nonsense as well. I just don't see how anyone could think slavery could last.
