"WAS STONEWALL as GREAT as everyone says" Topic

Jackson was a good General, but was he as great as everyone says. Jackson as a rule only fought second or third rate Generals. He did well at Bull Run, but he was only a brigade commander. His valley battles, he marched well, but WHO was his opponents, Fremont and Banks. At second Bull RUN he fought Pope. Is Pope the great General. NO. Burnside out marched Jackson after Antietam and it was Jackson's sector that Meade was able to crack.
In 1863 Jackson made a tough flank March, TOO Bad he started Late and attacked late. He fought Howard in 1863 NO great general. Then as if he was still a brigade commander. Jackson went too far forward and was wounded by his own troops.

His contemporaries thought so and he's still studied today.

As an independent commander he was hard to beat in the war. He was usually outnumbered but managed to baffle his opponents and always fought well. In tough situations his line occasionally bent, but he was always able to rally his troops, bring up reinforcements and set things straight. His valley campaign was brilliant against the opponents and disorganized department they operated in. His march around the Union army to Manassas and the subsequent battle was impressive considering the small force he commanded. I do not thing many other generals could have done what he did at that point in the war. He was not perfect by any measure, but there are only a few generals that matched his exploits during the war.

Jackson was IMO one of the very finest military leaders ever to have led American fighting men in battle or on campaign.

He saved the day at First Manassas.

His Valley Campaign was a military masterpiece.

Though heavily outnumbered, he held off the entire Union Army alone until Lee arrived with Longstreet to deliver the crushing flank attack that won the battle.

In the Antietam campaign, Jackson hadbeen detached by Lee to seize the important Union depot at Harper's Ferry, a task which he achieved so efficiently that he was still able to move his troops to Antietam in time to play a full and essential role in the battle.

At Chancellorsville, Jackson's envelopment of the Union right flank totally crushed Howard's 11th Corp and effectively decided the battle in favor of the Confederacy. His death was an unfortunate consequence of his habit of leading from the front – the mark of a good general, IMO.

Jackson had no control over the quality of the generals opposing him. Neither did Napoleon.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

stonewall was shot in the hand at his first major engagement of the war: Bull Run. Sherman suffered a similar wound at Shiloh. Always thought that with death all around at all times,these minor wounds convinced them that they were invulnerable and so less cautious than other generals. Which led to their success.

Interesting that he is seen as a master during the valley campaign. However as a wargamer, he would be seen as not playing a fair game. Because of the nature of the terrain, particularly of the placement Massanutten Mountain he had an extreme advantage. He knew the position of his adversaries at all times, while they could only guess at his location. His signal men on top could neither be removed or stopped from viewing any troop movements below. In addition, because of the passes thru the mountain about half way along it's length, Jackson could easily switch between the 2 valleys which also meant the Union forces were always completely divided, no matter what.

It humors me that when discussing how great Jackson may or may not have been, they conveniently omit his conduct during the Penninsula campaign.

There is an old military saying the goes "To have a Hannibal, u must first have a Varro( Roman commander at Cannae"

A lot of Jackson's success was due to the poor commanders that faced him. I do think that he would have not been a good Confederate C in C He seriously lacked people skills and had difficulties in handling subordinates

"Jackson as a rule only fought second or third rate Generals."

Part of the reason those guys are remembered as "second or third rate" is that Jackson whipped so convincingly, even when outnumbered.

This is like the lame attempt to belittle Alexander the Great a few days ago. His contemporaries knew he was an excellent commander. He won repeated victories against bad odds.

I'm a staunch Unionist, but there is no denying that Stonewall Jackson was a great general.

"Interesting that he is seen as a master during the valley campaign. However as a wargamer, he would be seen as not playing a fair game. Because of the nature of the terrain, particularly of the placement Massanutten Mountain he had an extreme advantage. He knew the position of his adversaries at all times, while they could only guess at his location. His signal men on top could neither be removed or stopped from viewing any troop movements below. In addition, because of the passes thru the mountain about half way along it's length, Jackson could easily switch between the 2 valleys which also meant the Union forces were always completely divided, no matter what."

There's a word for this: Strategy. Its just further proof he was a great general.

Being staunch Union, I try hard to belittle him.
Alas, I cannot!

I guess that if you look deep enough you'll always find a blemish, a critical mistake or a character flaw that might help you sleep better at night, confident in your knowledge that a certain person isn't the outstanding figure the rest of the world mistakes them for …

I'd say Jackson had a solid grasp of military matters, he did a lot of things right and made mistakes as well. But it seems most other people who dealt in military matters at the same time considered him more than competent.

One of the more interesting bits about Jackson was his tandem with Lee, he and Jackson seem to have been on the same wavelength. If Lee needed troops somewhere, Jackson was often halfway there already.

I come down on the side of his being a great general. I do find his lethargy during the Seven Days campaign puzzling, but so do a lot of historians I've read. Most attribute it to extreme fatigue and don't use it as evidence that his generalship was faulty overall.

He was certainly a good general. And it's interesting that he was capable of learning from his mistakes. At First Kernstown (his first independent battle) he was thoroughly whipped, primarily due to his own errors, but he never made those same mistakes again.

Yes, he was.

"It humors me that when discussing how great Jackson may or may not have been, they conveniently omit his conduct during the Penninsula campaign."

he was good, but his role in the Penninsula left a lot to be desired.

Jackson may have the benefit of having died before he was promoted to his level of incompetence. Today, Hood is seen by many as a terrible general who destroyed his own army in Georgia and Tennessee to very little effect. Had Hood's career ended at Gettysburg, he might be considered in a much better light. Would Jackson's presence turned the tide at Gettysburg? Would he have looked as good in 1864, when both armies were entrenching more and more? Would a Jackson independent command in 1864-65 have done that well against a Union army, especially cavalry, that had finally learned its business (plus being well-supplied and confident)? A great many Confederate generals looked good in June 1863, and I think one reason we think so highly of Jackson is that he left the stage at just the right time.

As a reformed Jackson fan I believe he was overrated. He was a hard commander to work for. His successes were overstated, and were sometimes the results of others. He was a hypocrite when it came to politics in the army. Jackson died at his and the ANV's zenith, and the myths about him were established before his performance was subjected to critical analysis.

That said I do believe he deserves his place as one of the Confederacy's top commanders. However I don't buy into the idea that if Jackson lived the Confederates would have won the Gettysburg campaign, or that he would have had more success than Bragg or Hood commanding the Army of Tennessee.

If Jackson had lived he might have been able to convince Lee to go for the extreme flank attack that Longstreet argued for. Most likely he also would have gotten the army/corps moving faster on the second day. Hard to say for sure, when Jackson was on his game (most of the time) he was excellent but when he was off for some reason he was REALLY off.

Interesting discussion

I think we was pretty unwell as well as very tired during the Penninsula campaign – and based on his track record I would rate him a great general

He did have his faults – very secretive and it must have been tough to be one of his officers as most of them would just follow their orders and hope the right thing came off. As well, and I think that mwindsorfw is right, while he was a superlative corps commander would he have done as well at army command? Hard to say

I do think he would have been a little more imaginative at Gettysburg than in real life – as well, I think he was probably was better able to influence Lee than Longstreet – who did have the right idea, but was unable to convince Lee of it

As a reformed Jackson fan I believe he was overrated. He was a hard commander to work for. His successes were overstated, and were sometimes the results of others. He was a hypocrite when it came to politics in the army. Jackson died at his and the ANV's zenith, and the myths about him were established before his performance was subjected to critical analysis.

That said I do believe he deserves his place as one of the Confederacy's top commanders. However I don't buy into the idea that if Jackson lived the Confederates would have won the Gettysburg campaign, or that he would have had more success than Bragg or Hood commanding the Army of Tennessee.

My thoughts exactly.

Over-rated and by the "Lost Cause" proponents raised to the status of St. Thomas of Virginia. Only fair since they also created St. Robert of Virginia too.

Still since I'm married to a descendant of General Shields I can take satisfaction in First Kernstown.

If Jackson had lived he might have been able to convince Lee to go for the extreme flank attack that Longstreet argued for.

No, he would have sided with Lee. He disliked Longstreet heartily.

He also would have been tasked with the attack in the first place and Longstreet left to hold the line elsewhere. Having been given that task he most likely would have carried it off better.

Uh, he was a good commander but he had a number of trumping advantages that it seems that everyone conveniently forgets. If you worked these advantages into a wargame and the setup to a wargame, well one side of the table would be smirking and the other side would be screaming bloody murdered.

#1 The battles that he fought were either completely on southern soil or just outside of the Mason-Dixon line and still familiar to southerners. He knew the terrain. He knew the roads and could find hundreds of fiends to give him shortcuts, routes and where the Union forces were. The Union were moving into a blank map where they had no or little idea of where things were and the locals lied to them about what they knew. Does anybody think that the flank march at Chanclererville could have been done by a Union army in that location? Does anybody think that hiding during the early phases of the 2nd Manassas would have worked for the Union? There would have been dozens of trusty and familiar informants flocking to the Rebel headquarters.

#2 Jackson DID do great in the Valley. He had "first team" troops going against average/green Union opponents. He taught at VMI which is in the friggin Valley, so he probably spent a lot of his spare time and teaching kriegspieling campaigns in the valley. Again, most people were for the south and Union commanders were blind. The valley started away from Richmond (so it didn't provide a Union assault path) but lead to some valuable Union assets. The Union could stuff it with cannon fodder but it was not a place to win or lose the war. Did the south win the war by controlling the valley? A secondary theater.

#3 A lot of southerns were horsemen and did riding almost as a vocation. The south cavalry literally ran rings around the norther troops, while the Union commanders were blind. It took 2-3 years to get equality- but Jackson never commanded without greatly superior intelligence.

#4 Yes, it is fair to see what happened when Jackson had to command outside of the valley and near to Lexington. He really screwed up during the Peninsula campaign. Wonder why.

I'm a Unionist, through and through, but I'd say that Jackson was by far the best corps commander the Confederates had, on any front -- and perhaps even better in command of a small independent force, such as in the Valley in '62. How he would have fared in a larger command is hard to say. Had he succeeded to command of the ANV, he would probably have done well. Put him in charge of the AoT and he'd run into lots of jealous officers who thought they deserved the job and would resent bringing in a Virginian. Given his nature, he probably would have fired Polk within his first week in command (overall, a good idea) and threatened to resign when Jeff Davis tried to overrule him.

I suspect that had he lived to the end of the war, he would have had another brilliant success or two, but that his bad habit of not telling his subordinates what his plan was would have resulted in disaster.
Then we would be debating here if Jackson was really responsible for the disaster at (Insert fictional battle here). Or was it Longstreet's fault? Or heaven forbid, Lee's?

Just thought of this, and I'm sure everyone will wish I have not…

"Stonewall wasn't so great! I've never seen his face on a bumblegum card"

(not a direct quote obviously, since I left out Schroeder's response in the middle, sadly I think I have to point that out)

In my opinion Jackson wasn't just a great general but was the finest military mind America has ever produced. Had he been of aristocratic stock he would have been given command of the ANV and quite possibly won the war for the confederacy. The fact that Davis never considered him, the hero of First Manassas and mastermind of the Valley campaign, tells volumes about Davis's shortcomings as president.

That's a big what if to swallow but that's the game we play isn't it. I don't believe his peculiarities or his so called lack of people skills would have made an iota of difference. As commander he would have issued concise orders and expected they be carried out or there would have been hell to pay. He would have fashioned a culture of willing obedience in his officers supported by confidence in victory.

Not an expert but I have heard that Jackson didn't explain the 'big picture' to his subordinates, which could be a serious problem. I have also heard that he was aloof during the battles (much like Sherman?) and let his officers fight without his oversight.

History gives him the laurels though because he won.

The answer to the question is yes!

Longstreet was the best Corps Commander in the ANV.
Jackson was very variable as he could show superb strategy in the Shenandoah campaign but poor performance during the Peninsula Campaign. Lee considered Longstreet above Jackson, think he probably was correct?

I agree about Longstreet. Some lapses, but overall solid. It is interesting to think how Jackson would have done vs Grant or Sherman later in the war. Jackson was the right man at the right time in the early part of the war. How would he have rated up later……….hard to say.

as one of my teachers said

when he was Great- He was Great…but when he was bad, it didn't matter…like the 7 days.

well unless you count being bad the night of May 2,1863

"Jackson was IMO one of the very finest military leaders ever to have led American fighting men in battle or on campaign."

A giant among pygmies?

Damning with faint praise?

Jackson has long been a puzzle to me.

If the Seven Days had come before the Valley I would have said fine, the man was learning the trade just like all the Generals in the Civil war had too.

However it didn't. So wether it was a reaction to being under Lee for the first time, or some awkwardness after a successful independent command, who knows but for me Lee would have been justified in levelling insubordination charges. Of course that was not his way but the fact remains Jackson was awful on more than one occasion during that campagin.

That said the "overated' tag can be added to pretty much all Civil War generals. It's always worth remembering few had ever commanded more than a battalion pre war, never mind an army in battle, "on the job training" barely covers it.

Circumstances allowed some of them to do great things in the context of their part in the War – Sherman is a fine example but others were dealt hands that didn't allow such glory and some just struggled.

Jackson's Peninsula behavior might have simply been a consequence of physical and nervous exhaustion. He had just gone through the lengthy and intense Valley campaign and had then immediately been plunged into another.

Speculation, to be sure … but not an altogether unreasonable thesis.

B

If you look at most of Jackson's victories, you will notice a common enabling theme. He won because he had complete intelligence of the Union positions and troops, he had complete knowledge of the terrain and countryside, he had complete assurance of the Union being in the dark as to his location and movements, he did not have to worry about supplies and a logistical tail, AND he had a hardened, veteran force that could march so quickly that it could show up where it was unexpected. He never showed any ability to command multiple corps or divisions. Take any one of these away, and he would have looked like a complete fool. In the seven days battle,(where most of these were missing), he was a blunderer. Also notice that he never had to handle a conscript army. The chances are that he was shot to death by his own troops who were enraged that he had executed their friends and neighbors.

Lee considered Longstreet above Jackson, think he probably was correct?

Lee supposedly said that Jackson was the best executive officer he'd ever seen, whereas he said that Longstreet was very good once he got ready "but he's so slow!"

He won because he had complete intelligence of the Union positions and troops, he had complete knowledge of the terrain and countryside, he had complete assurance of the Union being in the dark as to his location and movements …

Those things certainly played a large part, and are true of Lee also -- and were lacking for Bragg (because Wheeler and Forrest were more interested in raiding than in being the eyes and ears of Bragg's army). But one has to give the commander some credit for demanding of his cavalry what he needs and for making sure he gets it.

The chances are that he was shot to death by his own troops who were enraged that he had executed their friends and neighbors.

I seriously doubt that. Soldiers will forgive a general just about anything, if he will only win them victories!

I`m with Patrick R on this one, One of the best general Lee had.In command you need someone you can get on with and trust. I don`t think after Jackson died Lee had that. Seems more I read about the civil war, that the infighting on both sides, for a seat in Washington or Richmond, did sometimes more damage especially on the Confederate side, than the bullets did.
What sort of General are YOU? Stand at the front or stab in the back?

Yes Jackson is as great as everyone says. As to his opponents. You don't get to pick you opponents. You fight who's in front on you. There wasn't any commander in the Eastern theater that was better than Jackson. That's kind of the point.

Jackson was a great commander. His peers, generals on both sides who faced the same conditions as he did, felt he was extraordinary. Certainly their opinion should count for a great deal.
The argument that Jackson had superior intelligence holds some water, but one must still have the courage and foresight to act with advantage when one possesses that intelligence. McClellan during the Antietam Campaign, and to a lesser extent, Meade during the retreat from Gettysburg had those advantages and did not put it to proper use. Give credit where it is due.
In regards to Jackson's troops being the "A team" against "B" troops in the Valley, that is just so much hindsight. At the time they were all pretty much untested.That Jackson's Corps was later considered that good had at least something to do with the success they enjoyed under him.
Particularly odd is the comment that Jackson never showed any ability to command multiple divisions or Corps. Well obviously he died before he could command multiple corps (so that makes it somewhat difficult to judge his ability in that regard), but his astute handling of multiple divisions was seen during the Second Manassas Campaign, the Antietam campaign, and of course, Chancellorsville.
His dispositions at the southern end of the line at Fredericksburg were not optimum, but he was able to drive Meade back after a fairly limited breakthrough. Only during the Seven Days does Jackson consistently fail to perform up to expectations. His is an exemplary record of success that was fully appreciated by his contemporaries.

Yes

Lecture by historian Robert Krick concerning Stonewall Jackson's rise to fame. Well worth a listen, though be warned that youtube does not put the segments in proper order.

YouTube link

The only exception I take with Krick's opinions is that he thinks Jackson would have been unable to command an army. I think he would have done wonders had he been given the chance.

Ummmmnnnnn……..,No!

As with many things with the ANV the myths promulgated after the war by the Virginia Clique (usually referred to as the Lost Cause) have surrounded both Lee and Jackson with such majesty that it remains hard to objectively evaluate either one. I rate Jackson as one of the great ACW commanders, but stop there as others were as good or better. Two points not made in any of the above: I admire Jackson for actually carrying out Lee's intent in the Valley Campaign of so disrupting Union efforts and raising such a ruckus so as to turn eyes away from reinforcing McClellan and diverting Union troops to chase Jackson. And Jackson came back when ordered. The other point is I don't understand why so many folk think Longstreet made a great anvil to Jackson's hammer (see Dynaman8789's first post). There's only one large battle where the Confederates were on the attack that both Jackson and Longstreet were the corps commanders. That was Second Bull Run. And in that battle Jackson's units were the anvil and Longstreet's troops the hammer. Both were on the defense at Antietam and Fredericksburg and Longstreet was not at Chancellorsville. I suspect this belief derives from the Virginian Clique's post-war mythos, especially as Jackson died as a great hero (martyr to the Cause) while Longstreet turned traitor by becoming Republican (and questioning Lee's perfection).

However good Jackson was he was not God. Considering the strategic situation the CSA would need a miracle at the operational or tactical level to make up for the terrible strategic choices (as per Luttwak "Strategy" on the difficulty of using operational and theater successes to make up for strategic mistakes). Now Jackson did believe he was an instrument of God. I am not sure that justifies people believing he was indeed some kind of miracle maker.

I do not know how he would do as a Army commander. As others have pointed, we cannot know because we have 0 data on that. He obviously had a good operational mind, so I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. However we also know that when he was suffering from stress and fatique he was an under-performer. An Army command would entail a lot more stress and fatique . So that counts against him. In the end its not important. Give him the best benefit of the doubt, the question remains could he produce a miracle. I don't think so. Not against the likes of Grant or Sherman by 1864.

The ability to delegate missions and authority is a quality of a good commander. The ability to explain a mission and the overall view to subordinate commanders, concisely and clearly, so they can carry it out and can even respond to changes in the situation- these are key to a good commander. There is not a lot of evidence that Jackson had those qualities and good evidence that he would have failed with a higher or more complicated level of command. (There are numerous examples of Napoleonic commanders who were fine with a Division of closely supervised corp, but floundered at higher levels. It is called the Peter Principle). A number of posts seem to want to make excuses for Jackson's failures in the 7 days battles- he was tired and worn out. Guess what? Somebody who didn't know how to delegate and had to micro manage everything themselves, WILL get worn out and crash a burn.

I am not a big fan of Stonewall and he did, I believe, drop the ball in the Peninsula but, based on what I have read of his overall performance, it is my opinion that he was as "great as everyone says."
Thanks, John Miller

Nobody on either side did very well in the 7 Days (except maybe Jeb Stuart).