"The Five Flaws of the Brilliant Civil War General ..." Topic

…"Stonewall" Jackson.

"General Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson is widely regarded as one of the greatest tactical commanders in American military history. While his solid determination to hold ground at the First Battle of Bull Run earned him his nickname, it was the Valley Campaign and his encirclement of a Union army that earned him global renown as a tactical genius.

Despite his brilliance, Jackson was a deeply flawed commander, whose faults may have prevented him from achieving his full potential. In noting these flaws, however, his many successes become even more striking…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I am glad someone finally told the truth about stonewall. He was a fine general, but his faults prevented him from being truly great. Jackson also fought against some of the worst Union Generals like Fremont and Banks.

+1 Steve1865

It is odd that on one hand he is listed as a 'stiff and unswerving' in his obedience to orders, but under 'the secretive commander' he is recognized for his ability to read between the lines of RE Lee's orders.

The guy was a disaster, he had one good campaign against the "C" Team, and one good attack at Chancellorsville, because he had better maps and the "homefield advantage". Against that he pretty much slept through the first part of the Seven Days and simply couldn't get along with subordinates, at one point he had almost all of his brigade commanders (including his Brother in law!) under arrest.

How many of us have only 5 flaws?

he had his Ups and Downs

But when he was good, he was great, when he wasn't good, it didn't matter

Wpilon rather misrepresents the situation – three fine defensive battles (FBR, SBR, Antietam), one excellent attacking battle (Chancellorsville), and two successful battles/campaigns against poor enemies (Valley, Fredericksburg). One bad campaign (Seven Days). A generally excellent subordinate to Lee (Virginia Campaign, Maryland Campaign, Chancellorsville) and capable where required of bold independent command (Valley, Virginia Campaign, Maryland Campaign). One or two bouts of lethargy and an undoubted fractiousness don't stop all that being true (and if you want real fractiousness, read Davis' Generals, which does a fantastic job of showing just how nasty the AoT's command staff were).

OCE – great book recommendation. Every time I hear that canard that "the South had all the good generals" I direct folks to Braxton Bragg and his merry band.

I am neither a fan nor a detractor of Jackson. He performed excellently some times, competently others and made a few messes along the way. Most of us only manage the last two.

And he had the good sense to get killed while he could still be a legend.

Well said my good friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I think a lot of people come down way too hard on him, ignoring his strengths. Being under an excellent commander (Lee) it allowed him to use his initiative while also having his back. How many commanders in the Civil War had the confidence and daring that he had and also be able to handle himself in independent operations? Can you imagine how Chancellorsville would have turned out if Jackson commanded the Union VI Corps instead of Sedgwick? Jackson was a lot better than most of the AOP's corps commanders. I will add that he also had some pretty good divisional commanders.