Re: What kind of person was Stonewall Jackson?

"Michael" <michaelwynn2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g432rs$q10$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I have a question. Recently I saw the movie Gods and Generals, and I
noticed
> the almost saint like immage they painted of Stonewall Jackson. The
movie
> gave us the impression that the south would have won, had Jackson not
been
> shot by his own troops. Is this a correct image of the general? Was he
> really that brilliant.


He was certainly brilliant. I often feel that Lee, by himself, was a good
general rather than a great one, but that Lee and Jackson _together_ were
great. I would, of course, be cautious about expressing that opinion if
travelling below the Mason-Dixon line.

That said, I understand he could be a harsh disciplinarian, and wasn't as
beloved by his men in life as he would posthumously become. I've seen a
story that his death wasn't entirely accidental, but down to some of his
men
who were related to a soldier he had executed for "desertion" after the
boy
had gone AWOL to visit his sick mother or something. However, it may be
just
an UL.



>
> Also, I find the emphasis on the sincerity of the southern fighters to
be
> quite disgusting in view of the fact that they defended a racist state
built
> on slavery. Somtimes you get the feeling that the war was without reason
> because of the high casuality number. That may be so, but the south
clearly
> represented a great evil. Then of course, Jim crow and sharecropping
> replaced slavery and nothing changed. Enter the KKK etc.
>


I tend to feel that G&G has at times a distinct Confederate bias - far
more
noticeable than in _Gettysburg_, which did a somewhat better job of being
even-handed.




> Anyway, I was hoping that you military people had some opinion about
this.
>


--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Q) In the Roman Civil Wars, why did all the bachelors fight for Sulla?

A) Because they weren't the Marian kind.