Re: What kind of person was Stonewall Jackson?

On Jun 27, 12:00 pm, "Michael" <michaelwy...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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

Let's remember that he was _accidently_ shot by pickets who'd been
spooked by the near-approach of Union cavalry. it is very common to
use this "shot by his own troops" to denigrate Jackson. There are
plenty of good reasons to denigrate Jackson. No need to make things
up. I remember one snide young man saying that General Bee was
_annoyed_ with Jackson when he said "There stands Jackson like a stone
wall." He could present no evidence for this. It just fit his world-
view better.


 Is this a correct image of the general? Was he
> really that brilliant.

He was a brilliant subordinate who could take his semi-independant
force and carry out his commander's intentions without having to be
baby-sat by a higher headquarters. There is little doubt that he could
have commanded a fully independant army in the field also. He was a
fine tactician with some understanding of strategy. If he knew much
about logistics, it has not been revealed to us. But the standards in
that field were not high at the time.

But he was a loon.

He was a much harsher disciplinarian than was typical in that army of
amateurs. He was not always fair in his harshness.  He was willing to
arrange to engage in a duel with the Army of the Potomic just over the
horizon and Lee had to watch him like a hawk when certain other
officers were around. His attitude toward the officer who inherited
his "Stonewall Brigade" was inexcusable. Probably some of these things
would have caught up with him anyway, even with all his talent.

Of course, he was far from the biggest _loon_ in that army. Would have
been hard with A.P. Hill and John Bell Hood around.

> 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.

You use an odd choice of words. Do you think they shoud be ****trayed
as _insincere_ They were on the wrong side, from a moral point of view
but I don't think many of them _knew_ it. I think Lee knew it but
Virginia was his nation and Virginia seceded.


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.

And, of course, none of that happened in the north. I rember the joy
with which the white people of South Boston greeted their Black
brothers when integration was ordered. They were so eager for it that
one wonders why it had to be ordered. And the Indiana Klan and the
Klan in Little Egypt (Illinois) was only funnin with those guys they
lynched.

--
Will in New Haven