Stonewall Jackson in the limelight

[B7B Southern]

Here are a list of books about Stonewall Jackson.

http://stonewall.hut.ru/books_jackson.htm

[TomDeFranco]

Originally Posted by B7B Southern

Here are a list of books about Stonewall Jackson.

http://stonewall.hut.ru/books_jackson.htm

This list is from a Russian website espousing the Southern separation from the U.S.

[Early1964]

It appears that the anti Jackson coalition of this thread label him a poor tactician because of the piecemeal way he would frequently fed divisions and even brigades into a on-going battle. A excellent example of this is Cedar Mountain where it was indeed the "coming up" of the Division under A.P Hill that turned a stalemate into a victory for Jackson. Many of the officers who had problems with General Jackson, including A.P Hill had so because they had problems following the letter of his orders. Garnett at Kernstown had run out of ammunition, Jackson, a proponent of the bayonet, questioned why he did not use that weapon instead of retreat. Rather a petty argument. Garnett did the right thing and, in the end Jackson's brazen attack on Winchester accomplished the recall of first Shields and then McDowell's Army and relieved pressure of another 1862 front on Richmond. Jackson's retreat up the valley was masterful with careful use of the Massanutten Mountains to split his pursuers. Jackson distained telling subordinates anything about his operation plans. This infuriated General Loring during the Romney campaign and he violated military protocal to get himself, politically, permission to remove his forces removed from that position. Jackson's resignation led to the reassignment of Loring to obscurity in the War (Jackson could play the political game too!). The dispute with A.P Hill may have derived from a generally poor opinion many CSA Generals had about Powell Hill's morals but charges were drawn up by Jackson because Hill did not follow orders of march in the Maryland campaign. Lee thrust them aside as friviolous and Hill and Jackson were a good team for as long as Jackson lived even if they didn't like each other much. This much I grant the detractors of Lt.General Thomas J.Jackson (he disliked the "Stonewall" name"). He knew little about modern stratagy and tactics. He had served gallently but as a minor officer of a couple of artillery pieces during the Mexican War. He had learned little from the inept Major (later Union Gen.) French during the Seminole Wars. He retired from the U.S Army rather early to accept a position as a professor at V.M.I and carried the (Bvt.) rank of Major until the War broke out and he was named Col. and later Brig. General, Maj. General and lastly Lt. General and 2nd Corp Commander of the ANV. Neither West Point, nor service under Gen Scott or Major French taught him much about statagy and less about tactics but he DID realize early in the War that ONLY a early and deep invasion of the North held the hope of Southern Independence while the much more experienced Jefferson Davis insisted on a defensive War the South just couldn't maintain. No less a military genius then Robert E. Lee would frequently give Jackson independent missions while usually keeping Longstreet firmly by his (Lee's) side. Jackson committed no errors at Second Bull Run. He repeled every attack by Pope, even when his troops were reduced to throwing stones when ammunition ran out. Longstreet didn't "save" Jackson, he merely produced the flank attack on Pope that crushed Pope and drove him back to the protection of "Fortress Washington, D.C". Jackson had established a ready plan of retreat if Longstreet had not made the battle. Was Jackson a perfect statagist and tactician? No, McCellan was. How many battles did "Young Napolean" win? Did he not get along with many CSA Generals?-yes, he was also great friends with J.E.B Stuart, D.H.Hill, and even such difficult characters as Gen. Dick Trimble, "Allegeny" Johnston, Joe Johnston and General Ashby. Too much is made of his shortcomings by many here on this Forum. The General was greatly feared by Northern troops and their Generals and held in high essteem by General Lee, enough said.

[TacCovert4]

I personally love Jackson, and many here have had disagreements with me on his capabilities. However, in his most brilliant action, the Valley Campaign, Jackson's faults show themselves. His tactics were not brilliant at all, and in many cases nearly caused his genius-level strategic fight to come apart. He was notorious for feeding in units piecemeal, even when his whole army was bivoaced and not in march column. He also became too wedded to his tactical plans, which IMHO resulted in excessive casualties in some engagements because he would continue to press to take a particular piece of territory, even after discovering that it was heavily defended. Jackson was Operationally brilliant, and Strategically sound, but his tactics sometimes left something to be desired.

[TomDeFranco]

Originally Posted by Early1964

No less a military genius then Robert E. Lee would frequently give Jackson independent missions while usually keeping Longstreet firmly by his (Lee's) side.

As an alleged detractor of Jackson (I thought he had good qualities as well as bad), my statements seem to be misconstrued. I've mentioned several times that he was a good operations chief, but not a good tactician. Jackson's history shows that in spades. Lee, realizing this, did as you mention above.

Originally Posted by Early1964

Jackson committed no errors at Second Bull Run. He repeled every attack by Pope, even when his troops were reduced to throwing stones when ammunition ran out. Longstreet didn't "save" Jackson, he merely produced the flank attack on Pope that crushed Pope and drove him back to the protection of "Fortress Washington, D.C". Jackson had established a ready plan of retreat if Longstreet had not made the battle. Was Jackson a perfect statagist and tactician? No, McCellan was.How many battles did "Young Napolean" win?

The error that Jackson committed was at Brawner's Farm, when he showed his hand to the Federals prematurely, which caused him to fall back to the RR cut. As I recall the Feds did pierce Jackson's line briefly. Also, the fact that they ran out of ammo is a sign that he prematurely sprung the trap.

Also, McClellan was not a perfect strategist or tactician (unless you believe his commentary).

Originally Posted by Early1964

Did he not get along with many CSA Generals?-yes, he was also great friends with J.E.B Stuart, D.H.Hill, and even such difficult characters as Gen. Dick Trimble, "Allegeny" Johnston, Joe Johnston and General Ashby.

D.H. Hill was Jackson's brother-in-law. That might explain their relationship. Trimble worshipped the guy. J.E.B. Stuart also liked Jackson, as did Dick Ewell. I'm not sure how much Edward Johnson or Joe Johnston liked him, although, as I recall Turner Ashby had problems with Stonewall.

Originally Posted by Early1964

Too much is made of his shortcomings by many here on this Forum. The General was greatly feared by Northern troops and their Generals and held in high essteem by General Lee, enough said.

I think that any commentary of his shortcomings here are more than offset by his still active PR department which remains alive and well today and who fail to see those shortcomings. Enough said.

[TomDeFranco]

Originally Posted by TacCovert4

I personally love Jackson, and many here have had disagreements with me on his capabilities. However, in his most brilliant action, the Valley Campaign, Jackson's faults show themselves. His tactics were not brilliant at all, and in many cases nearly caused his genius-level strategic fight to come apart. He was notorious for feeding in units piecemeal, even when his whole army was bivoaced and not in march column. He also became too wedded to his tactical plans, which IMHO resulted in excessive casualties in some engagements because he would continue to press to take a particular piece of territory, even after discovering that it was heavily defended. Jackson was Operationally brilliant, and Strategically sound, but his tactics sometimes left something to be desired.

My points exactly.

[TacCovert4]

Bingo, Jackson was at his best fighting a low-casualty operational level fight through manuever. Every single time he got entangled with a battle that he was not in total control over, his tactics quite honestly sucked. Exceptions being Fredricksburg, which was not much more than dig in and hold in place behind an obvious stone wall, and Chancellorsville, where though he commanded but a wing, he was essentially functioning as Army commander because Lee was following Jackson's lead in the battle planning.