Stonewall Jackson was, of course one of the greats to fight in the Civil War. A self made man, and an interesting man.
Thoughts?

One of the finest men this country has ever produced. A true hero. God bless him.

A complex, and interesting fellow to say the least. I've always admired him.

Mister Woody, what do those dusty old books say about Stonewall?

He died in Thornberg (VA) after being severally wounded. There is a Stonewall Jackson Shrine at the house where he died.

https://www.nps.gov/frsp/learn/historyculture/js.htm

A man of amazing talent who never lost a battle. Had we not had the Civil War he would only be remembered as the eccentric teacher at VMI known by his students as Tom Fool.

He lost at Malvern Hill and at Antietam with heavy casualties. Longstreet was a better general.

What Mr. Hitchcox said!!!

Apparently he had a pretty serious learning disorder. Possibly dyslexia. He worked hard to overcome this. He memorized verbatim his lectures while instructing at VMI. It is said cadets would purposely ask him to repeat portions of his lectures and apparently it was like replay on a tape recorder.

AP Hill saved his butt at Sharpsburg.

He was a great general. He was a hard charger and was never afraid to risk his life, or his command. He loved to attack and he was a great lieutenant for General Lee.

Longstreet was better? In 1975 I was going to college in Milledgeville Georgia. This is an old time southern town and was capitol of Georgia during the war.
In the apartment next to mine was an old granny about 65 years old. A Southern Belle.
I got talking to her, and noticed a portrait of General Longstreet above her mantel.
I told her, "So you have a portrait of General Longstreet?"

She was impressed that I recognized the General. She said, "Yes, he was my great grandfather."
I said "He was a great general."

She said, "I think he was a little late going into the battle at Gettysburg, I think he cost General Lee the battle."

I

Stonewall's legacy was not as a teacher, and he must have stood out in the Mexican war.

Who among us have not have their "butt saved", at one time, or another?

A.P. Hill has my vote for the best division leader in the Army of Northern Virginia.

If aggressive action was needed, there was none better. Further, he was probably the bravest or most foolhardy American soldier EVER. At Chapultepec he manned a cannon single handily in the middle of a road just yards from the entire Mexican army that situated behind walls. By himself he fired the cannon over and over for something like thirty minutes or longer. His men were all in ditches beside the road taking casualties because thefire was so hot. Finally, one sergeant was stirred by his example and joined him.

People who saw it were absolutely amazed by his bravery and the fact that he wasn't killed.

One night after a very high fever I woke up pretty drained. But broke the fever. Wife asked me "who is A P Hill?"
I told her who he was and then asked her why she was asking me.

Her response. "Well you had a pretty rough night. Tossing turning. And once you yelled out "Have AP Hill Bring up his Corps!!!" I was just curious who A P Hill was?"

True story.

JoeBob? Didn't something occur in this incident with the gun or something that one of the observers said only brought a miffed look into the face of Jackson. And he went on manning the gun.

Actually Lee lost the battle by not listening to Longstreet. It was folly to charge up a long hill with no cover against entrenched enemies. Longstreet suggested pulling out of Gettysburg, marching toward Washington DC, positioning on a hill there, and letting the Union attack up hill against the Confederates. There was nothing of any value in Gettysburg except a northern army on the nearby hills. Instead, Lee ordered the famous "Pickett's" charge.

Contributing factors: Lee's artillery barrage mostly missed because they had the range wrong, a flanking cavalry attack was thwarted by the Union, and Lee's G2 was hurting because his cavalry had roamed far away and was incommunicado.

Also the South could have taken the hills the previous night if Lee had ordered General Ewell to do so. Instead his order suggested Ewell attack that night if he was able. Ewell decided, in the absence of an attack order, to rest and attack the next day, by which time the North had reinforced the hills.

For ol Blue Light.

His two gun section got caught in a narrow causeway underneath the castle walls. All twelve of his horses were killed immediately and one cannon was disabled. He manned the one gun and walked around upright trying to get his men out of the ditch as the road was raked with shot and shell. At one point he was telling his men to get up as that there was no danger and a cannon ball zipped between his legs. His commander came up to order him to withdraw and had his horse immediately shot out from under him. Jackson refused the order and continued, with the one gun to duel more or less the entire Mexican army as that his little unit was in the advance of the entire American army.

His record suggests that he was an excellent General Officer whose philosophies and skills seem to have been more in sync with Lee than any of Lee's other senior subordinates, except maybe Stuart. Neither of the Generals who replaced him, Ewell and Hill, were ever as aggressive/decisive. You have to wonder how much longer the American Civil War might have been if Jackson had survived his wounds and led 2nd Corps at Gettysburg and beyond.

How long before you liberals rip that shrine out?

Thanks JoeBob! It's been years (30?) since I read that! I knew something happened and couldn't remember.

The South has produced a disproportionate number of our country's great men starting with Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Henry. What a country it could have been had we never joined ourselves with the Northeast Yankees and instead went our own way after the revolution. The old Northwest Territory belonged to Virginia so had that happened the South and the most of the Midwest would be a separate country and a better country it would be, at least for those of us who value liberty. At the time they suspected, but didn't fully realize, what a bunch of rotten, arrogant meddling azzholes the Yankees truly are. Had they know how truly loathsome Yankees are they would never have entered into a government with them.

Where the hell did he get them lemons?

Ah, Sweet Mystery of Life".

I agree. Longstreet wanted no part of that charge.

At Beaver Dam Creek and Malvern Hill....one must remember that Jackson had just made a long march from the Valley with four divisions and he and his men were worn completely out from marching and attempting to restore a bridge to cross the Chickahominy River....under Union fire. To reach his objective the route was very circuitous and after much hard rain all the streams/rivers were swollen and there was much trouble in moving his artillery due to road conditions. After a second attempt at repairing the bridge, at this point, for the first time in his battle career he basically gave up after his men wouldn't work at bridge restoration under Union fire from a hidden battery. He was so depleted in mind and body he laid down under a tree and went to sleep! Totally stupefied! He was a full five hours behind General Lee's time schedule at this point! He was late arriving at Malvern Hill for having to tread through White Oak Swamp which was flooded. I think if we were able to ask him about his late arrival at Malvern Hill that he would say...."Glad of it!' Lee lost 5000 men there after several attempts to storm the hill which was basically an impregnable position held by the Union! As for his 'Generalship Ability'????.....he had BIG BALLS!!

Yes.

Agreed! Lee had 80,000 men at Gettysburg but only used less than 2/3 of his forces in an attempt to take Cemetery Hill! In all of his battles to that date his strategy had been on flanking movements instead of a direct charge and why he deviated here is a mystery? Longstreet wanted to circumvent the Round Tops and hit the Union supply train which were slightly east of Big Round Top and this would have been a flanking movement but Lee's idea persisted! General Lee's idea of 'rolling up' the Union line was to be done by his advancing lines with the southern end gradually curving to the northeast. Sad thing is....most were shot down in this attempt! The Union had sharpshooters and a battery of artillery atop Big Round Top which took a toll on the Confederate forces. Lee didn't have the best intell either as his main source of information concerning Union strength was to come from General JEB Stuart who was making a ride around the Union Army. He didn't arrive in time and Lee was basically operating blind! Personally I think General Lee under-estimated his enemy....and over-estimated the ability of his forces!

Damn. You guys were there, that's awesome!!

The buck stops with Lee at Gettysburg. PERIOD, yes Longstreet might have been slow on the draw to attack on the right but it was Lee's plan and it was FUBAR from the start. Looked great on paper, and properly and TIMELY executed things might have been different, but the second the attack failed on his right, he should have never ordered Pickett to move.

Well just like in the song, I think I have 3 grandsons "with a picture of Stonewall Jackson over their bed"

Jorge, your pretty spot on.

The whole Gettysburg affair was decided on day one.

And I'll add, Lee was a sick man there!

Straighten me out if I'm incorrect, was Lee better at fighting from a defensive position, as opposed to offensive?

Straighten me out if I'm incorrect, was Lee better at fighting from a defensive position, as opposed to offensive?

And who was the Union Cavalry leader that stopped Jeb Stuart's attack from the rear? It very well could be the real "Best" general of the Civil War, G.A. Custer.

Jackson died for his country, Custer killed for his.

"And who was the Union Cavalry leader that stopped Jeb Stuart's attack from the rear? It very well could be the real "Best" general of the Civil War, G.A. Custer."

Because Custer never had a run in with that devil Forrest.

Gettysburg was Lee's first big battle without Jackson. He was still adjusting. The first day would have been completely different with Jackson. The heights would have been taken and from there the battle would have likely played out much the same, except the sides would have been reversed.

I think that Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda speculation like this is a waste of time and energy.

At the time of the American Revolution, the northeast was the center of education, manufacturing, and commerce, so the four southern states needed the nine northern states to be viable.

Even if Stuart would not have turned tail and run thanks to Custer, he would have ridden into an entire Union Corps that was in reserve behind the lines. Like I said, great plan on paper, but that battle was lost on day ONE>

Where was Forrest at Yellow Tavern, Bull Run, Antietam and Appomattox ?

Off somewhere else kicking yankee ass...

So my ten year old daughter who has never shown a particular interest in history went to a Texas leadership camp thing this summer. Ask ally for a week they got to different cool museums and other cool places all over. So, one of the places they went was the Texas Civil War museum.

My child comes home with their great big crap eating grin like she can't wait to show me something. From behind her back, she pulls out this little metal tin with a big confederate battle flag on the top. Inside is a big assed knife with the handle bearing a portrait of Stonewall Jackson. She wouldn't let me have it long. She said it was hers. I guess I'm doing something right.

When I was an infantryman the mantra was "Shoot, Move, and Communicate". Lee had the first 2, but lacked the 3rd because of the length of his exterior lines. The lag in communication time kept Lee from coordinating his attacks. If Lee had known that Stuart's attack at East Cavalry Field had failed, he might not have sent Pickett's Division to the slaughter. I'd bet that any of the Union soldiers on Cemetery Hill who had survived the slaughter at Fredericksburg were happy to the ones who were on top of a hill and behind a stone wall, instead of being below and in front of it on July 3, 1863.

In the long run what finally counted was that Gen. Meade was getting his resupplies by the trainload. And Gen. Lee was living off the land.
That is the story of all the final battles.

Professionals focus on logistics, while amateurs focus on tactics.

Amen!

I don't believe the South was ever going to be able to win final victory in the field.

If they had won big at Gettysburg or any other place, I think the North would have just geared up for total war.

Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees.

That's funny right there. Still hoping the South wins war 150 years later, still won't change the outcome.

Glad you think so, but like your comments TOTALLY irrelevant. The South's cause was lost after the first round was fired in Charleston, but your comment of "where was he"? is not only irrelevant, but stupid. Akin to saying "where was Rommel when Stalingrad fell"? Forrest's campaigns were mainly in another AOR, which was my point (and factual, NBF never lost one). Sorry I over tasked you..

Stonewall Jackson was Christian gentleman first, and great general secondly. He was the main reason the South was able to hold it's own in the early years of the war, because he was their best leader. As far as Gettysburg goes, we can speculate all we want, but Lee owned the outcome. I think it could gone either way. Had Jackson not been killed, it is very probable that Gettysburg would have turned out differently.

Now, in my opinion, the South's best leader was Nathan Bedford Forrest. The "politics" of the Confederacy kept in the Western theatre of the war, fighting against an enemy who was always better equipped and who outnumbered him.......yet he still kicked their asses on a regular basis. Had Davis transferred Forrest to Virginia, and given him a real command position, there is no telling what would have happened. I have always been a huge fan of Jackson, Stuart, Mosby, Hood, and other Confederate leaders, but I think Forrest was the best of all.

Just a throw out. Not trying to refight anything. Wonder how things cavalry would have gone in the east of Turner Ashby had lived.

Yeah who????

In reality, I'm sure just about the same results in long run.

Again. I emphasize I'm not trying to refight anything. Simple learning discussion.

Ashby and Jackson clashed a lot. Jackson came to admire his fighting qualities but he was no fan of his unit's lack of discipline nor Asby's personal qualities.

LOL! I can certainly appreciate that. There was also tension between Jackson and Hill (AP) i believe as well was there? Concerning Hill's personal quailities?

Jackson actually had him arrested for deriliction of duty. I think Hill refused to continue one of Jackson's insane marches or something like that and Jackson had him art aged. Hill kept demanding a court martial and Lee kept demurring and ignoring the request.

Jackson was constantly into it with his subordinates and Lee kept putting off or dismissing the charges lodged by Jackson. Hill and Armistead were probably the best known of Jackson's men to endure his wrath. Some think Armistead welcomed Pickett's Charge to end his life gallantly instead of being courtmartialed.

I have never read about trouble between Armistead and Jackson. Garnett and Jackson had serious issues after Jackson charged him with cowardice. To recover his honor, he rode to his death at Gettysburg as one of Pickett's brigade commanders.

Nope. The south had inferior weapons. They fought with clubs.

O.K. In your mind, relevant only has to do with your thought process. Whether Forrest was at those battles or somewhere else, you do have to realize the relevance of Custer's fighting abilities. If Custer had made his reputation by striking supply trains and evacuated battlefields, his relevance may have been inconsequential, but that isn't where he was. This dialogue isn't complete without recognition of great ladership on both sides during the war and forgotten is the fact all of them were Americans and most of them were classmates at West Point.

Custer can't be denied his place in History in regards to the Civil War. Phil Sheridan recognized him as one of the most influential generals during the war and to this day, all people want to remember is that he died on a battlefield in Montana and they ridicule him for another war they know nothing about.

I don't think the issue is the Yankees...its the fact that the south imported slaves by the boat load...and we all know how thats playing out. Thanks for that...

The south started a war they could not win...and lost hard. These things happen...ask the Germans

You omitted the fact that most slave ships were owned by Yankees and that the Yankees even insured the plantation owners against losses from runaway slaves. There was no good guy side there. Not to mention that slavery existed in all 13 colonies at one time. Not excusing the Southerners, slavery was a nasty institution.

A little known fact about stonewall Jackson is he taught a black Sunday school class.

My response was more tongue in cheek than anything...you are correct in your facts however. Lets be honest though...the amount of blacks in the US today is directly because of the Southern demand for slaves...end of story.

Most Southerns were not bigots contrary to popular belief. The Civil War was not fought for the right to own slaves IMHO. It was fought for the same reason the revolution was....taxation without representation. Only a liberal would claim it was about slavery...and that comes down to agenda.

Its been said that Lincoln offered to leave slavery in place if the south would lay down her arms...what does that say

"Let us cross over the river, and rest in the shade of the trees"

Which "southern" demand??? You do realize there was already well established usage of black slaves in the south long before the English speaking colonist came along. So you might as well be fair and spread the blame equally.

Édit. Might add that at least in the French colonies the free Blacks and creoles were equal opportunity types. Many owned black
Slaves too!!!

Who imported black African slaves into what is now the United States prior to British colonization? The Spanish in Florida? And if they were imported prior to British colonization, in what quantities? This seems like specious reasoning to me.

The Spanish and French imported lots of blacks. Sugar cane!!! The Spanish tried using the natives here and they just seemed to die. So they brought in the Blacks.

As we seem to be on the subject of war, wars in general. They are all fought over some resource, or another. Taxes, minerals, spice, yes spice. To me, slaves only entered the picture as a cash investment. That was, well after the American Civil War was under way.

I'd forgotten about the French in Louisiana.

Another thing that many do not remember is the importation of slaves from Africa to the USA was outlawed in 1807.

That's not saying smuggling did not occur. Especially thru Spanish colonies like Florida and Texas. Jean Lafitte was a slave smuggler out of Galveston

As well as Mississippi, Alabama, and Southern Arkansas. French brought in LOTS of blacks. One of the reasons rice was brought in and became a big crop by the French. It was used to feed the slaves. Also cotton was originally grown in the French colonies to clothe the slaves. There were royal decrees in both France and Spain against the use of cotton fabric in the 17th and 18th century!! Strong linen guild lobby. The use of cotton fabric in the their colonies was kinda ignored.

But the Spanish were pretty strict in their Royal regulations for example caste system in their colonies. You could be fined or jailed for dressing out of your class!

Bob/Woody, you are a gem of information.

You need to dig a little deeper into history!

Here's a clue:

Molasses and Rum!

Colonial history of the south/southwest was my real interest. Especially the southern French colonies. I think I posted here one time that to me post 1812 history here is a bit boring for me.

Dig as I may...it wasn't folks in the north making use of blacks as farm equipment.

How did this post spiral into this slavery debate...LOL my fault

As far as generals go...Jackson was a good one for sure...his early passing and subsequent Confederate collapse has led to his legend status imho more than (or at least as much as) his actions while in command. He was good imho...but both the Confederacy and the Union had better. From all accounts, ole Stonewall was a different kind of cat.

It shows...you are a wealth of knowledge for sure. Im a big history buff myself but to be honest my interest primarily starts with the end of WWI. Its not that I don't appreciate the prior generations its just always been fun to study the world my Grandparents were born into and spoke about frequently in my youth.

How did this post spiral into this slavery debate...LOL my fault

They always seem to! LOL! Would love to read and contribute an ACW thread where even the mention of "slavery was abolished!" To coin a phrase. LOL.

Much rather discuss the men, battles, material, logistics. And by all means, not re-fight it. Use it as a learning tool!

I have a well worn copy of LaHarpe's Historical Journal of the Establishment of the French in Louisiana sitting on my coffee table as I type this, as well as a tote full of journal articles about the early french explorations in the interior highlands in my closet. Some very interesting American (and world) history that most people know very little about.

It's great when you have such a connection! It gives your interest a humanity!

Personally, I can do without the military aspect of some things. I like the exploration and adventure angle of those folks going into an unknown land for he first time. There's lots to study and read! I also have a thing for all types of vintage hunting and such. From flintlocks to Krags and beyond! LOL

Ahh! François deLaHarpe! Now there's an adventure. I quoted two of his stories not too long ago here on the campfire!! Establishes and runs a trading post in Spanish Texas and the Dons did nothing about it!!! LOL! One of the stories was his dining on unicorn at the Nasoni caddo village where he set up that post! (Actually it was like a small cabin. Mebbe 8x8 poste du terre construction).

Have you ever read du Pages journals??

I remember now the other deLaHarpe story I told. Of the Canadien In their party that shot a "whistling deer" near The Rapides on the Red River. That's what the early canadiens called an Elk. Would have been somewhere around Alexandria La. !

I like that, whistling deer.

Yes I have. DuTisne's also.

Damn!!!

Bossu's journal???

I think I have some excerpts in some of the articles I mentioned, but not the entire journal.

Okay, enough talk about who was responsible for the slaves being here. Ever who it was, I'd like to kick his ass and tell him to send them back. They may have been needed then, but they're a burden now. So, let's get back on track and discuss the original post.

I have been reading a book by Jefferson Davis......A Short History Of The Confederate States Of America. While there is probably nothing new revealed, it has opened my eyes on a few things, mainly from a political perspective of how the North, Lincoln, and the Republicans acted, and how ruthless they were. But, Davis gives accounts of the major battles, and even though I knew the South never had the manpower that the North did, I'd never really realized just how disparaging those numbers were. It was common for the South to be outnumbered 2-1, and even three or four to one in a lot of battles. Yet, they won many of them, or fought the Yankees to a standstill in others. That says a lot for the Confederate army and it's leaders.

Davis commented that the death of Jackson hurt the South, because he and Lee were such a good team. Stonewall got results, and had an uncanny ability to make his attacks in the right place, at the right time. I believe that had he lived, it is very possible that the outcome of some of the battles fought after his death, would have had a different outcome. I'm not saying the South would have won the war, because the North had such a huge advantage in everything, and time was on their side.

We all agree (I think) Jackson had balls of brass, but foolhardy at times. To quote Lord Raglan whilst witnessing the famous Charge Of The Light Brigade on the Balaklava Heights, "it's magnificent, but it's not war".

The CSA's situation in the American Civil War was similar, from an industrial base perspective, to the Japanese in WW2. Both were militarily superior early on, the CSA's military leadership, and the Japanese hardware and training. Neither had the industrial base to fight an extended war of attrition, a situation that got worse when they were isolated by naval blockade and unable to import/export at will.

As a whole, the Union Armies didn't have General Officers equal to the Confederate Armies until Grant succeeded Halleck as General In Chief and Sherman succeeded Grant as the commander in the west. With more aggressive leadership, the Union Armies might have leveraged their superior numbers to destroy Lee's Army of Northern Virginia if McClellan had been more decisive during the Peninsula Campaign, if he had aggressively pursed Lee following Antietam, or if Mead had aggressively pursued Lee following Gettysburg, when Lee was pinned against the north bank of the flooded Potomac. Grant co-located his HQ with Mead and while Mead continued to command the Army Of The Potomac, Grant was calling the shots. Win or lose, Grant used his superior numbers to grind Lee's forces during the last year of the war, from Wilderness in 05/64 to Appomattox in 04/65. Grant wasn't as good a tactician as Lee, but he effectively leveraged his strengths and exploited Lee's weakness in both numbers and material.

The South could have won that war.
Look at how we won the Revolution. England was the economic superpower of the world. The English navy ruled the waves.
England won many of the big battles.
But, the stubborn colonists refused to quit and just wore England down, they got sick of fighting and gave up.

The South could have done it and nearly did, in the fall of '64 Lincoln was convinced that he would lose the election and his successor would make peace.
Just a couple more victories and the South could have pulled it off.

A quote from Harry Truman, "A schoolboy's hindsight is always better than a general's foresight".

Having said that, it is interesting to debate the history.

Yes. "IF" is a wonderful word, all sorts of favorable outcomes can be assigned using "IF". I wonder what would have happened IF Lee had 20 Sherman tanks at Gettysburg, with appropriate fuel, ammo and trained crews, of course, and overlooking the irony of the name...

The Confederacy could have won more battles, but they never had the critical mass of soldiers and war materials to succeed in a war of attrition without outside help to supplement their frail infrastructure. We tend to forget that the American Revolution was mostly defensive in nature until France came in on the side of the Americans, after the American victory at Saratoga in 1777. The British had other fires to deal with in Europe, India, and the Caribbean when they finally chose to cut their loses and let the American colonies go.

We can play "what if" games all day long and nothing we do today can rewrite what actually happened over 150 years ago.

The rebels won more.

Shelby Foote----An American Historian----wrote a 3 volume history of the Civil War. He said the South never had a chance of winning the war. He said the North fought with one arm tied behinds it's back. Too many men, too much industry, South never had a chance.

There were many union units that never saw action and 1000's of firearms and equip that was never issued. Literally tons of it. Enter Francis Bannermann after the war! The original surplus dealer.

The best the South could have done was to forestall the North until Lincoln was defeated at the polls, and a new president decided to let the South go. The Rebs were better fighters than their Yankee counterparts, they were fighting on their homeland for the most part, the Southern leadership was better, their Calvary was superior.......but they simply did not have the manpower or the supplies that the North had. That made the difference.

This is what I understand to have happened.

The Brits were involved in essentially what was a World War, and had more important irons in the fire than the colonies that were to become the U.S..

Your knowledge of history is woefully lacking. The Brits were involved in a thirty year struggle in Europe and indeed across the world and THE main reason for Washington's victory at Yorktown was the French Fleet's blockade of Lord Cornwallis' relief force coming from the north. On the Civil War, all conjecture for sure, but even if Lee had been victorious at Gettysburg, it would have been a Pyrrhic victory.

Brits were still trying to pay for the earlier "world war" they were involved in as well, the Seven Years War.

I'd disagree with your assertion that the rank and file Confederate soldiers were better than their Union counterparts. The Union soldiers were poorly led early on and to some degree later on due to political considerations, like Benjamin Butler, but from private through Lieutenant Colonel I think that they were pretty evenly matched. The Confederate Calvary was better, probably because the the road network in the rural south was less robust than in the north so more people rode saddle horses in the normal course of things while in the north horses were driven more often than they were ridden.

The Confederate Calvary were better horsemen, but the Union Calvary had more guns that shot faster.

Early on the Southerners had superior horses and many of them had served for years in the mounted militia.
Later on, they suffered terribly from lack of weaponry, supplies and horseflesh.

The Union Cavalry became formidable the last 2 years of the war.