What was the greatest chance for a Confederate victory?

BLOB

Comment!

*Facepalm
Yes, its a comment. But it is a blob also.

A blob (alternately known as a binary large object, basic large object, BLOB, or BLOb) is a collection of binary data stored as a single entity in a database management system. Blobs are typically images, audio or other multimedia objects, though sometimes binary executable code is stored as a blob. Database support for blobs is not universal.

Go on.

edit: also about the valley campaign...
The campaign is one of the most overrated in our nations military history.
He never fought against a force three times the size of his own and he only won battles in which he had significant superiority in numbers – it was the force of numbers and not any superior generalship they carried the day for him each time.
1. He was outnumbered at Kernstown, which he lost.
2. He got smacked around at McDowell but is considered to have won because the opponent withdrew, since Jackson had more men.
3. Front Royal was hardly much of battle but he did win it because he had something like 3:1 in his favor.
4. He won Winchester with something like 2.5:1 in his favor.
5. He won Port Royal with something like 2:1 in his favor.
6. He wasn’t in command at Cross Keyes, Ewell was.

OK lets wait until tomorrow because I need rest and I don't want to sit here typing all day another long story.

Sure.

edit: I am actually saying sure. Im not using it in the sarcastic way.

I never thought you would mean sarcastic in the first place.

I just put that bit in there because people always get confused on whether stuff is sarcasm or not on these forums.

I am referring to a blob simply as a block of text

I agree that it was a crazy battle, but in my opinion if anyone had an advantage, it was the Union. After any one of the battles that the Union won (such as Malvern Hill) they could have and should have counterattacked. But, we are talking about Mac, and he isn't exactly known for his aggresiveness.

Well, I will way in with my thoughts now, so prepare for either a blob/comment.

Lee: He was a great commander and was the best that the US has ever produced. He understood that McClellan was a nervous timid dipshit, so he attacked, and attacked, and attacked, and Richmond was no longer threatened, and McClellan was in fact right where he started the Peninsula Campaign. It may have been costly, but if they stayed and defended, then they were sure to lose. For most of the rest of the war, he was on the defensive, and all the credit goes to him for that.

Jackson: Another great commander, but who served under Lee. Although I will agree with Sly that he was somewhat overrated, he still was a brilliant commander and should be recognized second only to Lee. Mainly active in 1862 with his own separate command for the Valley campaign and taking of Harpers Ferry for the first invasion of the North. But after that, mostly worked with Lee's main army.

Invasion of the North in 1862: Silly. Just silly. If in 1862, with a union army of over 100,000 bearing down on Richmond, abandoning Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy, containing the most factories in all of the South, and the government, and railroads, and all that shit, was lost, the war would be over. If the Confederates went to invade the North, not only would they have a 100,000 man army to their southern flank, but a garrison of over 10,000 at Washington, so there was no way to take that without time and effort, and considering the fact DC is a pretty useless city. His supply lines would also be cut, and thus would have to live off the land, which isn't the most efficient way for an army of 50,000+ troops. Let us say they went to Philly or NYC. Then they would most definitely be cut off from reinforcements and supplies, and both Philly and NYC were fortified. And if Lee/Jackson kept a sustained invasion of the North, they would be cut off from the South and destroyed, thus ending the war considering Richmond was taken.

So in conclusion, Lee>Jackson, but Jackson is still better than all Union army commanders except Sherman and Grant and probably equal to Winfield (not Winfield Hancock, but Winfield Scott Hancock). An invasion of the North in 1862 during McClellan's Peninsula campaign is absurd, and in my opinion, the two biggest times the South could have won was if the Brits joined, or if Lincoln lost the reelection.

This whole arguement does not matter a bit because unless the Confederates first action after suceeding was to free the slaves they couldn't have won the war. Lee was not some old crusty general his inivations in trench warfare shaped various wars for fifty years in the future Jackson died when that happened Lee said somthing around this it is like I have lost an arm. The history would not have changed a lot if he had not been killed though. Stuart died later on in the campaign Longstreet survived with wounds Jackson probobaly would have died at Gettysburg or the Wilderness or atleast sustained serious injuries.

Lee didn't invent trench warfare. That was Longstreet's innovation.

Longstreet had arguably the best defensive mind on the confederate side.

Indeed he was. I sometimes wonder who was the better defensive general, him or Thomas. I would probably go with Longstreet, though I think George Thomas is the most underrated general in the war.

Longstreet did not want to invade the North correct? I believe he was only swayed to go along with it because Lee convinced him it would be a defensive invasion in which they would fight defensive battles while still invading. When Lee attacked at Gettysburg, Longstreet believed (rightfully so) that Lee was throwing away his strategy and everything they had accomplished for one battle that was unwinnable. Despite his pleas, Lee pressed the attack which arguably cost the Confederates the war.

Here's a good question: Do you guys think Longstreet was just as good if not better than Lee? I think Longstreet is extremely underrated and is one of the more forgotten generals of the civil war.

Longstreet was not as good as Lee. However, he was still better than like 80% of Union generals. I really like Longstreet. I think he provided an excellent counterbalance to Jackson. I think that the confederacy may have even survived if they had been able to conduct one good campaign in the north, with Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet all working heavily together. Plus Stuart, the best confederate cavalry leader too. If they had managed to capture DC and then had a good month of easy campaigning along the Delaware, maybe bringing Maryland into the Confederacy. I think then, the Confederacy could have won.

I agree with most of what you said, except for Stuart being the best cavalry commander. He was great, but Forrest was better.

Well, its debatable. To be honest I had forgotten about Nathan Bedford Forrest. I agree, he was better than Stuart.