Jackson a Hero & Early is a Goat...?

[5fish]

We all know about Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign and it is consider one of his great military achievements. We ignore Early's Shenandoah Valley campaign and it seems to be as successful as Jackson on many levels.

Jackson's campaign was three months in length. Early's campaign was over three months in length while he was carrying the day. His stay was longer but the last months there his was being pushed into oblivion.

Jackson cleared the valley and defeated several different union generals. Early cleared the valley and defeated several union generals but he made moves towards Washington D.C. and his forces capture towns and even burned a town in the union backyard. Jackson did not do any of that.

Jackson tried up several thousand union forces with a small force but so did Early. Jackson campaign is consider a great military achievement by history while Earlry's campaign is ignored by histroy. Even thou, at the peak of his valley campaign Early had achieve everything Jackson had at the peak his campaign. The only differnce is Grant was in charge the union army....

Grant was forced to send his bulldog Sheridan to turn around the union disaster in the Shenandoah valley. He did in a few months. He had Early on the run and the valley securely under union control. Early did give Sheridan a fight and nearly defeated him at Cedar Creek.

Early gets no accolates of his successes but silents. He is quietly ushered out of the confedrate army once Sheridan finished him off at Waynesboro...

Jackson a hero and Early is a goat...WHY??

Would Jackson be hero if Grant had been in charge of the union army during his valley campiagn?

Why does history embrace one but not the other for they both achieve the same thing?

 

[Kirk's Raider's]

We all know about Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign and it is consider one of his great military achievements. We ignore Early's Shenandoah Valley campaign and it seems to be as successful as Jackson on many levels.

Jackson's campaign was three months in length. Early's campaign was over three months in length while he was carrying the day. His stay was longer but the last months there his was being pushed into oblivion.

Jackson cleared the valley and defeated several different union generals. Early cleared the valley and defeated several union generals but he made moves towards Washington D.C. and his forces capture towns and even burned a town in the union backyard. Jackson did not do any of that.

Jackson tried up several thousand union forces with a small force but so did Early. Jackson campaign is consider a great military achievement by history while Earlry's campaign is ignored by histroy. Even thou, at the peak of his valley campaign Early had achieve everything Jackson had at the peak his campaign. The only differnce is Grant was in charge the union army....

Grant was forced to send his bulldog Sheridan to turn around the union disaster in the Shenandoah valley. He did in a few months. He had Early on the run and the valley securely under union control. Early did give Sheridan a fight and nearly defeated him at Cedar Creek.

Early gets no accolates of his successes but silents. He is quietly ushered out of the confedrate army once Sheridan finished him off at Waynesboro...

Jackson a hero and Early is a goat...WHY??

Would Jackson be hero if Grant had been in charge of the union army during his valley campiagn?

Why does history embrace one but not the other for they both achieve the same thing?

Well Early was one of the first SOBs to establish the Lost Cause myth which very much lives on to this day.
Point well taken that Early did a good job with the army he had . The word hero is a subjective word at best.
Kirk's Raider's

 

[Joshism]

Stonewall is the great martyr for the Confederacy. Early was the guy who lost the Shenandoah.

Jackson's valley campaign has undergone excellent serious reappraisal in modern times, especially Peter Cozzens' Shenandoah 1862. How long before that disseminates to the general public is another matter.

A big difference between Jackson 1862 and Early 1864 is Jackson faced a scattered Union command structure whereas Early faced a single unified command, one eventually substantially reinforced.

I very much want someone to write a book or series addressing the 1864 Shenandoah campaigns as a continuous, related series of events. Too often Sigel, Hunter, Early's move on Washington, and Sheridan are addressed in isolation (with Crook largely glossed over). Because it doesn't have at least one constant main character it isn't seen the way Jackson's Valley, Grant's Vicksburg, Sherman's Atlanta, or the Overland Campaign do.

 

[Kirk's Raider's]

Stonewall is the great martyr for the Confederacy. Early was the guy who lost the Shenandoah.

Jackson's valley campaign has undergone excellent serious reappraisal in modern times, especially Peter Cozzens' Shenandoah 1862. How long before that disseminates to the general public is another matter.

A big difference between Jackson 1862 and Early 1864 is Jackson faced a scattered Union command structure whereas Early faced a single unified command, one eventually substantially reinforced.

I very much want someone to write a book or series addressing the 1864 Shenandoah campaigns as a continuous, related series of events. Too often Sigel, Hunter, Early's move on Washington, and Sheridan are addressed in isolation (with Crook largely glossed over). Because it doesn't have at least one constant main character it isn't seen the way Jackson's Valley, Grant's Vicksburg, Sherman's Atlanta, or the Overland Campaign do.

I agree that Early did the best he could with the resources available to him . Winning a war is based on many complex factors. Yes generals matter but military leadership alone does not win wars.
Kirk's Raider's

 

[jgoodguy]

We all know about Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign and it is consider one of his great military achievements. We ignore Early's Shenandoah Valley campaign and it seems to be as successful as Jackson on many levels.

Jackson's campaign was three months in length. Early's campaign was over three months in length while he was carrying the day. His stay was longer but the last months there his was being pushed into oblivion.

Jackson cleared the valley and defeated several different union generals. Early cleared the valley and defeated several union generals but he made moves towards Washington D.C. and his forces capture towns and even burned a town in the union backyard. Jackson did not do any of that.

Jackson tried up several thousand union forces with a small force but so did Early. Jackson campaign is consider a great military achievement by history while Earlry's campaign is ignored by histroy. Even thou, at the peak of his valley campaign Early had achieve everything Jackson had at the peak his campaign. The only differnce is Grant was in charge the union army....

Grant was forced to send his bulldog Sheridan to turn around the union disaster in the Shenandoah valley. He did in a few months. He had Early on the run and the valley securely under union control. Early did give Sheridan a fight and nearly defeated him at Cedar Creek.

Early gets no accolates of his successes but silents. He is quietly ushered out of the confedrate army once Sheridan finished him off at Waynesboro...

Jackson a hero and Early is a goat...WHY??

Would Jackson be hero if Grant had been in charge of the union army during his valley campiagn?

Why does history embrace one but not the other for they both achieve the same thing?

Jackson died a hero.

 

[5fish]

Jackson died a hero.

Yes he did... But his Shenandoah campaign study by West Point and other militaries. I ask, why is not Early's campaign studied like Jackson's campaign...

 

[Kirk's Raider's]

Yes he did... But his Shenandoah campaign study by West Point and other militaries. I ask, why is not Early's campaign studied like Jackson's campaign...

We would have to ask the head of military history at West Point.
Kirk's Raider's