Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Confederate supporters should note that today is the birthday of Stonewall Jackson. Even many years after his death, Christians still rise up and call him blessed.
Stonewall Jackson's Birthday
- Thread starter Reformed Covenanter
- Start date
- Status
Confederate supporters should note that today is the birthday of Stonewall Jackson. Even many years after his death, Christians still rise up and call him blessed.
Blueridge Believer
Puritan Board Professor
I wimped out and missed the parade in Lexington this year because of the inclimate weather.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Where I'm living this isn't even mentioned.
I'm a Virginian by birth though. In my humble opinion Stonewall Jackson was a great leader.
I'm a Virginian by birth though. In my humble opinion Stonewall Jackson was a great leader.
Southern Presbyterian
Puritan Board Doctor
A very godly man indeed!
James,
Maybe we can attend the parade next year together and even make a family event of it.
James,
Maybe we can attend the parade next year together and even make a family event of it.
Blueridge Believer
Puritan Board Professor
A very godly man indeed!
James,
Maybe we can attend the parade next year together and even make a family event of it.
Absolutely! It's quite an affair. It starts at Jackson's grave and ends with a service at the Lee chapel.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Sonoftheday
Puritan Board Sophomore
I still find it strange that so many Reformed believers consider the leaders of the Confederacy as Godly individuals. I am not denying that they were, but I was raised being taught that the Confederate folks were a bunch of racist demons and Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president ever. I am completely ignorant of history, having slept through jr. high, highschool, and even college History classes, and am now curious as to some good books that cover the history of the Civil War. (by good books I mean not only accurate, but short, while still being informative, so I dont fall asleep like I done so many times in class)
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Out here in gay paradise, "Stonewall" is only used to reference the 1969 incident in New York City between the police and the gay/transgender folks. It is still hailed as the landmark event in GLBT civil rights history (kindof a gay Rosa Parks thing). I doubt that high school students have heard the name Stonewall in ANY other context in California.
Bryan, you might see the movie "Gods and Generals" (or read the book). It deals with his Godly integrity in some detail. If you are into real reading, I would encourage you to read Dabney (yes the theologian) or one of these other books . . .
Addey, Markfield, Stonewall Jackson: Life and Military Career (New York, 1863)
Chambers, Lenoir, Stonewall Jackson (Two Volumes, New York, 1959)
Cooke, J. E., Stonewall Jackson: A Military Biography (New York, 1876)
Dabney, R. L., Life of General T. J. (Stonewall) Jackson (New York, 1866)
Jackson, M. A. M., Memoirs (Louisville, 1895)
McGuire and Christian, Confederate Cause and Conduct in the War between the States (Richmond, 1907)
White, H. A., Stonewall Jackson (Philadelphia, 1909)
Wilkins, J. Steven, All Things for Good: The Steadfast Fidelity of Stonewall Jackson, Cumberland House Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1-58182-225-1.
Williamson, M. L., Life of General Thomas F. [sic] Jackson (Richmond, 1901)
Bryan, you might see the movie "Gods and Generals" (or read the book). It deals with his Godly integrity in some detail. If you are into real reading, I would encourage you to read Dabney (yes the theologian) or one of these other books . . .
Addey, Markfield, Stonewall Jackson: Life and Military Career (New York, 1863)
Chambers, Lenoir, Stonewall Jackson (Two Volumes, New York, 1959)
Cooke, J. E., Stonewall Jackson: A Military Biography (New York, 1876)
Dabney, R. L., Life of General T. J. (Stonewall) Jackson (New York, 1866)
Jackson, M. A. M., Memoirs (Louisville, 1895)
McGuire and Christian, Confederate Cause and Conduct in the War between the States (Richmond, 1907)
White, H. A., Stonewall Jackson (Philadelphia, 1909)
Wilkins, J. Steven, All Things for Good: The Steadfast Fidelity of Stonewall Jackson, Cumberland House Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1-58182-225-1.
Williamson, M. L., Life of General Thomas F. [sic] Jackson (Richmond, 1901)
I like Stonewall. He's not quite the military genius that many make him out to be but he was certainly a great man.
No Longer A Libertine
Puritan Board Senior
How so? Erwin Rommel credited his desert tactics and ultimately the blitzkrieg on Jackson's daring raids and tactics.
George Patton, Norman Schwartzkopf and David Petreaus have all sited his influence in their own strategy.
I didn't say that Jackson wasn't daring. I just think his military genius is a bit over-stated.
People are allowed their opinions about military history just like anything else.
There is something that many people don't appreciate about the writing of military history surrounding the Civil War and that is that the losing side cared much more about it and also ended up writing much of the military history. There was more than a little bias to the recording of this military history. It's one of the reasons that Sherman is painted like a monster and not given credit for his military genius but Jackson is revered as if he never made any mistakes.
Northern Generals have been generally painted as weak and only won because of their superior numbers and industrial base. The truth of Gettysburg, for instance, is that Lee was out-Generalled by Meade and Pickett's charge should be named Lee's charge.
As I stated, I believe Jackson was a great man and a great leader. His men truly loved him. I also think that part of the reason he died was that he pushed way beyond his culminating point at Chancellorsville.
People are allowed their opinions about military history just like anything else.
There is something that many people don't appreciate about the writing of military history surrounding the Civil War and that is that the losing side cared much more about it and also ended up writing much of the military history. There was more than a little bias to the recording of this military history. It's one of the reasons that Sherman is painted like a monster and not given credit for his military genius but Jackson is revered as if he never made any mistakes.
Northern Generals have been generally painted as weak and only won because of their superior numbers and industrial base. The truth of Gettysburg, for instance, is that Lee was out-Generalled by Meade and Pickett's charge should be named Lee's charge.
As I stated, I believe Jackson was a great man and a great leader. His men truly loved him. I also think that part of the reason he died was that he pushed way beyond his culminating point at Chancellorsville.
Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
It's not about whether one is a Confederate or Union supporter when it comes to a man like Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. His is a faith that should be emulated by all believers.
I agree that he was a man of faith. I kept my comments about his military genius initially brief.
Even as he was a man of faith in Christ and not men, it is a reminder that even our heroes had their faults. I'm merely making a notation because he is an idol in the minds of many Southerners and I'm convinced he would hate this.
Incidentally, Guderian conceived of the Blitzkrieg and he did not credit Jackson for its conception.
Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
I was more responding to the OP where Daniel said Confederate supporters should take note of his birthday.
I'm actually a Yankee transplant in the South. Although, born in Ohio and raised in New York, I have actually lived down South longer than I have up North at this point in my life. I agree that Stonewall would not want to be an idol in the minds of Southerners. I also think you make some really good points about the Union commanders, who all too often get overlooked for their military genius.
Blueridge Believer
Puritan Board Professor
Pick up the book "when in the course of human events" by Charles Adams. It's short and to the point and you can't put it down.
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Speaking as a southerner, I agree, I've quite a few of "the south'll rise again!!" types in my family and the heroes of the south seem more important to them than Christ. I'm convinced that Stonewall himself would find that absolutely repugnant. I think he was a great man personally but still, he was just a man like us all and prone to all of the same weaknesses.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Lincoln was an avowed white-supremacist who despised the Black men, as did most Union troops. Union Gen Sherman even said, "N*ggers and cotton started this war and I wish them both in hell." Not exactly freeing the slaves mindset.
Anything by Tom DiLorenzo exposes Lincoln's scorn of black people. Go to LewRockwell.com and look for DiLorenzo's articles.
Zenas
Snow Miser
Fun fact: John Brown was a Calvinist.
The southern generals were in large godly men, whereas Sherman may have been the devil incarnate from what I have heard. I know, at the very least, both Lee and Jackson were strong Christians. Some of what I have heard quoted from Jackson would almost lead me to believe he was a Calvinist, but I don't know.
As has been pointed out above, Lincoln was no friend of the slaves; he hated them. He saw them as beneath the white man and he wanted them shipped back to Africa A.S.A.P. The war was over money. Cold, hard cash and the Union's "right" to take it from the Southern states. If I am not mistaken, the Yankees were taxing the south 40% of their income. The South had become rich off of cotton, and the North wanted in. Plain and simple. The slaves were a pretext and were used, yet again, by other men to further their own agendas.
Yours truly, a descendant of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
The southern generals were in large godly men, whereas Sherman may have been the devil incarnate from what I have heard. I know, at the very least, both Lee and Jackson were strong Christians. Some of what I have heard quoted from Jackson would almost lead me to believe he was a Calvinist, but I don't know.
As has been pointed out above, Lincoln was no friend of the slaves; he hated them. He saw them as beneath the white man and he wanted them shipped back to Africa A.S.A.P. The war was over money. Cold, hard cash and the Union's "right" to take it from the Southern states. If I am not mistaken, the Yankees were taxing the south 40% of their income. The South had become rich off of cotton, and the North wanted in. Plain and simple. The slaves were a pretext and were used, yet again, by other men to further their own agendas.
Yours truly, a descendant of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
No Longer A Libertine
Puritan Board Senior
There is no vagueness to his convictions, he believed in a sovereign God and that grace came through Christ alone.Fun fact: John Brown was a Calvinist.
The southern generals were in large godly men, whereas Sherman may have been the devil incarnate from what I have heard. I know, at the very least, both Lee and Jackson were strong Christians. Some of what I have heard quoted from Jackson would almost lead me to believe he was a Calvinist, but I don't know.
As has been pointed out above, Lincoln was no friend of the slaves; he hated them. He saw them as beneath the white man and he wanted them shipped back to Africa A.S.A.P. The war was over money. Cold, hard cash and the Union's "right" to take it from the Southern states. If I am not mistaken, the Yankees were taxing the south 40% of their income. The South had become rich off of cotton, and the North wanted in. Plain and simple. The slaves were a pretext and were used, yet again, by other men to further their own agendas.
Yours truly, a descendant of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
No question that Jackson was a staunch Southern Presbyterian. Dabney even worked for him for a time.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Indeed, he was his biographer too. Now that would have been an interesting army to be a part of with a solid Christian general and a top rate theologian as his chief of staff.
Rich, thanks for the military history insights. As someone outside of the south, I have NEVER been exposed to the fondness for southern heroism. Our schools generally run them down as a much of misguided racists on the wrong side of history. Still, your wider comments about the capability of the northern generals was of much interest.
Yeah, one thing you start to learn about military history and theory more is that it's kind of like history in general. Most people know that Lincoln wasn't perfect if you study history while there are the generic "man on the street" things you learn if you kind of grow up in America. It's kind of like that too with military theory and history and even many military folk have a pretty pedestrian understanding of things.
One thing you have to remember about how important our Civil War was that, while we were fighting, Europe was in relative peace for a pretty long time. By the time the war was over we had a massive Army and Europe was really taking notice of us. There really weren't any Revolutions in Military Affairs (RMA) out of the Civil War like there were in times past but there were some important lessons about campaigns and large scale armies over large distances that the European powers wouldn't have to face for a while.
In fact there was a cottage industry that sprouted up where European powers would pay former Union and Confederate generals to come over to train their armies or observe their maneuvers.
When WWI broke out, not many developments in military tactics had occurred and the lethality of the weapons made for some really huge losses. I think what many people realized is that there needed to be a way around the trench warfare as the tank had not really been developed until toward the end of the war. The only battles in recent military history that could point to large mobile units were the calvary tactics of the American Civil War so they were studied quite a bit.
Remember, though, that Jackson wasn't in the calvary but he did have an outstanding calvary commander and used his calvary very effectively. I think where he was really interesting (and still is) as a military commander was how daring he was. It's a prized ability among military commanders. He had a well disciplined outfit and he pushed them hard and did some incredibly bold things.
There's sort of a general maxim in military tactics that large risks will yield large rewards but can also lead to large disasters. Jackson escaped a few disasters by the skin of his teeth. When people always commend him as a military commander it is this boldness and daring that they commend and I will never take that away from him. He is the kind of guy you'd want to go into an uncertain situation because the fog and friction of war is not for the feeble of mind.
Nevertheless, there are those that think he was probably at his best at the Division level of command and not a great Corps commander. His subordinate commanders sort of bristled under his leadership because Jackson sometimes really had only one switch and that was push. Sometimes, the reality in battle is that you can't always be on the offense and if you press your advantage too far you leave yourself incredibly vulnerable. It's called the culminating point and more than a few have noted that they don't think that Jackson had one.
To those who take great risks with good soldiers you get great rewards like Jackson did. Thus, as a leader his boldness and daring has been imitated by many. It is worthy of imitation but it's not what I would necessarily characterize as military genius. Jackson was one of those really good generals that knew what worked and did it well. As LtGen Mattis said to his Marines of the 1stMarDiv before OIF I, he wanted the division to excel at the basics. Why? Because the people who do the basics the best in battle win. Jackson is a great example in history of that maxim.
One thing you have to remember about how important our Civil War was that, while we were fighting, Europe was in relative peace for a pretty long time. By the time the war was over we had a massive Army and Europe was really taking notice of us. There really weren't any Revolutions in Military Affairs (RMA) out of the Civil War like there were in times past but there were some important lessons about campaigns and large scale armies over large distances that the European powers wouldn't have to face for a while.
In fact there was a cottage industry that sprouted up where European powers would pay former Union and Confederate generals to come over to train their armies or observe their maneuvers.
When WWI broke out, not many developments in military tactics had occurred and the lethality of the weapons made for some really huge losses. I think what many people realized is that there needed to be a way around the trench warfare as the tank had not really been developed until toward the end of the war. The only battles in recent military history that could point to large mobile units were the calvary tactics of the American Civil War so they were studied quite a bit.
Remember, though, that Jackson wasn't in the calvary but he did have an outstanding calvary commander and used his calvary very effectively. I think where he was really interesting (and still is) as a military commander was how daring he was. It's a prized ability among military commanders. He had a well disciplined outfit and he pushed them hard and did some incredibly bold things.
There's sort of a general maxim in military tactics that large risks will yield large rewards but can also lead to large disasters. Jackson escaped a few disasters by the skin of his teeth. When people always commend him as a military commander it is this boldness and daring that they commend and I will never take that away from him. He is the kind of guy you'd want to go into an uncertain situation because the fog and friction of war is not for the feeble of mind.
Nevertheless, there are those that think he was probably at his best at the Division level of command and not a great Corps commander. His subordinate commanders sort of bristled under his leadership because Jackson sometimes really had only one switch and that was push. Sometimes, the reality in battle is that you can't always be on the offense and if you press your advantage too far you leave yourself incredibly vulnerable. It's called the culminating point and more than a few have noted that they don't think that Jackson had one.
To those who take great risks with good soldiers you get great rewards like Jackson did. Thus, as a leader his boldness and daring has been imitated by many. It is worthy of imitation but it's not what I would necessarily characterize as military genius. Jackson was one of those really good generals that knew what worked and did it well. As LtGen Mattis said to his Marines of the 1stMarDiv before OIF I, he wanted the division to excel at the basics. Why? Because the people who do the basics the best in battle win. Jackson is a great example in history of that maxim.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Some fun clips:
Excellent speech
YouTube - Gods & Generals Compilation 2
The First Brigade Speech (btw, Gods and Generals copied and pasted Dabney's biography of Jackson regarding this speech)
YouTube - Gods and Generals - The First Brigade
Stonewall is seen in this video
YouTube - Song of the Rebel Irish
Excellent speech
YouTube - Gods & Generals Compilation 2
The First Brigade Speech (btw, Gods and Generals copied and pasted Dabney's biography of Jackson regarding this speech)
YouTube - Gods and Generals - The First Brigade
Stonewall is seen in this video
YouTube - Song of the Rebel Irish
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The Song of the Rebel Irish was painful to listen to.
jaybird0827
PuritanBoard Honor Roll
From a perspective of living in Northern Ireland, that is understandable.
As one seeing it in the context of the War of Northern Aggression, I can appreciate it.
Ivan
Pastor
Well, it was raining bullets.....
Sorry.....
During that war my great-great grandfather was a farmer in Arkansas. The record shows that he was in the Confederate Army and fought at the Battle of Pea Ridge.
His name was Thomas Keeling and he was Irish.
- Status