Was Stonewall Jackson a Genius General?

Just curious. There is a "Stonewall Attack" in chess.

Does anyone know if is eponymous of Stonewall Jackson?

7ffOriginally posted by no1marauder
You claimed there was no evidence supporting the claim that Bee's statement was meant to be pejorative and absurdly insisted I withdraw it. From the link given in the OP:

There is some controversy over Bee's statement and intent, which could not be clarified because he was killed almost immediately after speaking and none of his subordinate officer ...[text shortened]... ments back and forth to critical areas but he still lost the battle in any objective assessment.

i am struggling with what you are saying about General Bee's labelling of 'Stonewall'. It isn't disputed that he used the name 'Stonewall', simply the context in which he used it.

Jackson's courage in battle, and fierce engagement of the enemy is surely consistently without dispute. Even at First Mannassas (where his nickname originated), his brigade suffered more casualties than any other in the CSA.

There is no proof that Bee used the term in a derogatory way. That is what I am asking for proof of. I don't think that any has thusfar been offered.

As for Sharpsburg, my 'draw' was a reference to Jackson's performance in holding his flank of the CSA forces. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I see that you give casualties as mostly 'equal', a quick trip to Wiki shows that CSA dead were roughly a quarter down compared to Union (roughly 2000 vs 1500). similar figures on wounded (ok, it is 1/5 in wounded, but still clearly CSA less). Yours would be the Union supporter stance.

As you say, the CSA could less absorb such loss than the Union, even tho' the Union lost more. And so it is the same with every battle, win or lose.

It is why I am amazed that it took 4 years for the North to exact a victory in the conflict!

and Lee 'limped back' after facing the inept McClellan out for at least a day after the battle, daring him to press home his 'advantage'. I love that

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yeah... That book is almost as famous in Europe as The Prince, Lord of the rings and Harry bloody Potter....

Never heard of the book or the writer.

However, I am particularly pro the Southern US states breaking away from the normal folks in the US...
Better for the world.

And in that light: all hail Stonewall Jackson!

On a side note:
Is his name where stonewalling somebody comes from (blocking someone / something)?

Originally posted by st dominics preview
i am struggling with what you are saying about General Bee's labelling of 'Stonewall'. It isn't disputed that he used the name 'Stonewall', simply the context in which he used it.

Jackson's courage in battle, and fierce engagement of the enemy is surely consistently without dispute. Even at First Mannassas (where his nickname originated), hi ...[text shortened]... n out for at least a day after the battle, daring him to press home his 'advantage'. I love that

I don't have a lot of time but I am struggling with your struggles regarding Bee's comment about Jackson. First of all, Bee's comment is generally given as "Look at Jackson standing like a stonewall"; that is not labeling Jackson as "Stonewall" but comparing his (in)action at the time as similar to a stonewall. I'll repeat what was said in the Wiki article:

Major Burnett Rhett, chief of staff to General Joseph E. Johnston, claimed that Bee was angry at Jackson's failure to come immediately to the relief of Bee's and Bartow's brigades while they were under heavy pressure. Those who subscribe to this opinion believe that Bee's statement was meant to be pejorative: "Look at Jackson standing there like a stone wall!

Joseph Johnston was Commander of the CSA forces at First Bull Run and his chief of staff seems like a pretty good source of information regarding the thinking of General Bee. However well Jackson and his troops conducted themselves later on, Bee IF he made the comment (as noted there is some doubt whether he made any such comment at all) was surely not praising someone acting like a "stonewall" when he wanted them to move to his support. Bee's unit was engaged and Bee himself killed minutes later while Jackson's "stonewall" stood in place. Whether that was justified militarily by the situation or not, Bee himself doesn't appear to have been very happy about it.

The papers after the battle seem to have taken the statement, embellished it ("Rally behind the Virginians" was hardly likely to have been said by Bee since his troops were closer to the US line) and used it to create a rather catchy nickname for Thomas Jackson.

I don't know how to make the point any clearer; the pejorative nature of the statement seems to be consistent with the available evidence.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't have a lot of time but I am struggling with your struggles regarding Bee's comment about Jackson. First of all, Bee's comment is generally given as "Look at Jackson standing like a stonewall"; that is not labeling Jackson as "Stonewall" but comparing his (in)action at the time as similar to a stonewall. I'll repeat what was said in the Wiki artic ...[text shortened]... arer; the pejorative nature of the statement seems to be consistent with the available evidence.

Ah. Struggling with struggles.

It seems if one takes Major Rhett's opinion, then Bee's statement was an insult.Even the 'wiki' article is inconclusive. I would argue that the proof that it was perjorative is lacking.

Are you distancing yourself from your other point about Jackson,ie, his *poor performance* at Sharpsburg, the counter to which I would cite another 'wiki article' , the one not quoted by myself, but the first post on this thread. Maybe the writer isn't a *Civil War buff*?

And would you like to find time to address your slip up in Maths, where 2000 is found to be about the same as 1500?

Never did like the 'Stonewall' nickname anyways. Always felt Jackson's strength was his speed of movement. 'Stonewall' doesn't suggest speed to me.

Originally posted by st dominics preview
Ah. Struggling with struggles.

It seems if one takes Major Rhett's opinion, then Bee's statement was an insult. According to the 'wiki' article. Fair enough.

Are you distancing yourself from your other point about Stonewall, his *poor performance* at Sharpsburg, the answer to which I would cite another 'wiki article' , the one not quoted by ...[text shortened]... ways felt Jackson's strength was his speed of movement. 'Stonewall' doesn't suggest speed to me.

I will address the other points when I have time. You might want re-read my original comments since you seem intent on misquoting them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I will address the other points when I have time. You might want re-read my original comments since you seem intent on misquoting them.

The old 'misquoting' argument.

Not at all

Your first post on this thread raises 3 'criticisms of Jackson, 1) his nickname was meant as an insult , 2) he gained his reputation against poor Union opposition (ok, not really a criticism, but you raised it anyway) and 3) he performed poorly at Antietam/Sharpsburg

There hasn't really been a lot happening since then, argument wise.

I have called the first unproven (it still is), the 2nd I will allow, as I did to Duchess64. Hardly Jackson's fault. As a sports fan, we say 'you can only beat what is put in front of you'.

As for Sharpsburg, I have argued against your assertion that Jackson performed poorly. I have guided you to a 'wiki' article in which they actually say that he performed well (not an article quoted by me). I have referenced 4 *Civil war buffs* (your phrase) who make no reference in their books to a poor showing by Jackson at Sharpsburg.

It would probably be possible to find a quote by a pro-Union author that criticised Jackson at this battle, given that he DID lose ground (faced with a massively numerical superior foe), but received wisdom seems to be that his troops fought bravely and were well commanded. I feel that the label 'idiot' for arguing this was uncalled for, and an effort to bluster your point home.

You say the Union won the battle with *approx equal losses on both sides*. I would say, of course they *won* . they had massively superior numbers. An idiot could have given orders to force a Union win. (probably attack the centre, as Lee pulled in from the flanks, attack there, end of. )

Unfortunately your General was not capable of that.

Oh yes, and you got the numbers wrong, or used 'approximation' to conceal losses were considerably higher on Union side.

If you can pick which part of that is misquoting you, would be obliged. In your own time

Originally posted by st dominics preview
The old 'misquoting' argument.

Not at all

Your first post on this thread raises 3 'criticisms of Jackson, 1) his nickname was meant as an insult , 2) he gained his reputation against poor Union opposition (ok, not really a criticism, but you raised it anyway) and 3) he performed poorly at Antietam/Sharpsburg

There hasn't really been a l ...[text shortened]... ide.

If you can pick which part of that is misquoting you, would be obliged. In your own time

Actually you said there was "no evidence" regarding 1; now faced with the evidence you have moved the goalposts to "unproven" while failing to present ANY evidence that rebuts what I have given.

Regarding 2, you are misquoting; here's what I said:

Jackson was a fine commander when able to maneuver (he made a bunch of second rate US generals look bad in the Shenandoah valley for sure) but his performance otherwise wasn't anything special. His troops were mauled at Antietam and lost considerable ground even though they kept making rather foolish counterattacks against a superior force.

I did not say "poorly" and I maintain that my comments are basically correct. You concede that Jackson's troops lost ground and that is even with Lee reinforcing them from other fronts and weakening them so that his right flank was rolled up by Burnside (though that situation was saved from total disaster by the fortuitous timely arrival of the Texans). D.H. Hill's division under Jackson's command was flanked and virtually destroyed at the Sunken Road and John Bell Hood's division (which was detached from Longstreet's corps to save one of Jackson's divisions being punished in front of the Hagerstown Turnpike) was almost wiped out in foolish repeated counterattacks in the Cornfield - when asked "Where is your division?" Hood replied "Dead on the field". According to Stephen Sears, Jackson had less than 6500 effectives left after the morning fighting but was still pressing Lee to approve his launching a grand flanking attack which would have been suicidal.

I don't buy your weak Appeals to Authority; if you want to specifically defend the actions taken by Jackson at Antietam, go ahead. I said his performance was "nothing special" and I think the facts support that assessment.

I said losses were "approximately equal"; I gave no numbers contrary to yet another of your inaccurate claims. Given the difficulty in getting reliable numbers of Confederate killed, wounded and missing I think that is reasonably accurate. The most quoted numbers show perhaps 2,600 dead, wounded or captured from the CSA against about 2800 from the US. These figures are a bit more reliable than wounded totals for fairly obvious reasons. If you want to change "approximately equal" to "probably slightly higher losses for the US" feel free; it hardly changes the main point.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually you said there was "no evidence" regarding 1; now faced with the evidence you have moved the goalposts to "unproven" while failing to present ANY evidence that rebuts what I have given.

Regarding 2, you are misquoting; here's what I said:

Jackson was a fine commander when able to maneuver (he made a bunch of second rate US generals look ba ...[text shortened]... al" to "probably slightly higher losses for the US" feel free; it hardly changes the main point.

Sorry; I meant to say "dead, missing and captured" when I gave the 2600 v. 2800 figures.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry; I meant to say "dead, missing and captured" when I gave the 2600 v. 2800 figures.

share your lack of time today ~ could I just address point 3, the casualties?

I did not say that you quoted figures anywhere, I would say that you said 'inflicted approximately equal casualties' N vs S.

Thus, I would argue that you would need to show that they were 'approximately equal' if we start using actual figures, and I would argue they were not.

After a little research, I see where you get the 2800 v 2600 figure (in every case I will quote Union first).

The dead in battle were earlier quoted 2100 v 1546. The 'missing or captured' figures are 750 v 1020.

By adding the 2 sets of figures you actually get 2850 v 2566. A rather unique system of 'rounding' then transforms that to 2800 v 2600. This suggests a 'difference' of just 200, whereas subtracting the actual figures gives 284!

In the UK we use, when rounding to the nearest 100, to round 50 'up', which would give 2900 v 2600, a difference of 300, much nearer the 284

They are not equal, or approximately equal. If one uses the Union figure as a benchmark, they are 10% apart.

It also totally ignores the wounded, who later died from their injuries. Unsurprisingly I find that many more Union troops were injured, thus suggesting higher mortalities.

To search the 'wiki' page on Sharpsburg, The 'Casualties' paragraph towards the bottom of the entire article gives figures that add to 4200 Union dead v 3400 CSA. Again, they are hardly 'equal'.

But, as you do correctly say, the CSA could bear these smaller losses less readily than the Union.

apologies ~ of course, you may not have calculated, or seen the calculation to produce your 2 figures. As you simply said *most quoted figures* or something like that, I don't know.

Was just showing that figures can be manipulated.

As for #1 (Stonewall nickname), I felt that your initial statement on the matter seemed to make the 'Bee tale' a 100% factual one. You have since seemed to agree that this is not the case, although YOUR choice would be that it were (I think!). It hardly matters, if the tale paints Jackson as a leader reluctant to engage the enemy, I think that we are at least agreed that is not the case.

As I said before, I am not a great fan of the 'Stonewall' nickname, implying immovability, when Jackson's strength was his movement of troops. think the whole thing was a damned Yankee plot!

In #2, which I now take to mean your opinion of Jackson as a good leader early on in Shenandoah Valley, but nothing special after that, I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. Not sure all Civil War buffs would share that view.

I won't take ages with an 'Appeals to Authority' , as it is apparently weak, but a quick google of 'best generals in US Civil war' produced 2 lists on first page, one had Jackson at #4, the other at #1. Maybe not Civil War buffs either

Originally posted by shavixmir
I've never heard of the man, and I've heard the names of a lot of generals.
I presume to conclude that he wasn't that bloody great.

Maybe in a US setting or something, when nobody who can read or spell is participating, he may well have come off as genius.... On the international arena he's an unknown nobody.

Sorry.
*walks off mumbling about von Mannstein, Rommel,
Khan, Napoleon and Alexander*

I don't know that much about the US civil war, apart from what anyone with an average education in Europe would. If I were asked to name a commander from the civil war then it would be Thomas Jackson.

Based on what it said in the Wikipedia article I think one of his biggest virtues as a commander was that Lee could give him vague orders with the confidence that Jackson would understand what he wanted. That is a really helpful quality in a senior subordinate.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't know that much about the US civil war, apart from what anyone with an average education in Europe would. If I were asked to name a commander from the civil war then it would be Thomas Jackson.

Based on what it said in the Wikipedia article I think one of his biggest virtues as a commander was that Lee could give him vague orders with the conf ...[text shortened]... kson would understand what he wanted. That is a really helpful quality in a senior subordinate.

In reading accounts of Civil War battles, it becomes clear that corp, division and even brigade commanders were usually given wide latitude in their orders. Communication during the battles was difficult as it was conducted by runners from HQ which was often several miles away from the fighting (army commanders usually chose a piece of high ground that overlooked the entire battlefront). And there was a lot of smoke during the fighting obscuring the commander's view, so micromanaging the battle really wasn't an option.

Originally posted by st dominics preview
apologies ~ of course, you may not have calculated, or seen the calculation to produce your 2 figures. As you simply said *most quoted figures* or something like that, I don't know.

Was just showing that figures can be manipulated.

As for #1 (Stonewall nickname), I felt that your initial statement on the matter seemed to make the 'Bee tale' ...[text shortened]... 2 lists on first page, one had Jackson at #4, the other at #1. Maybe not Civil War buffs either

I'm not trying to "manipulate" the figures. The biggest problem is that while the figures from the US side are fairly precise and accurate, the Army of Northern Virginia, while an excellent fighting army, was a terrible administrative one and what figures we have for their losses are guesstimates. It is conceded that at Antietam the great majority of the missing were KIA (few prisoners were taken and Sears reports that locals were finding bodies in haystacks and cellars for weeks afterward), so that the CSA reported a substantial higher of their killed as "missing" than the US did is rather indicative of this and makes me suspicious of the much lower wounded figure. "Wounded" is a rather subjective category that is somewhat reliant on the accuracy of recordkeeping and the quality of medical care in the Army where you are "wounded" and the Army of Northern Virginia was substandard in both. Thus I have my doubts about claims that US total losses were much higher than CSA ones, though I am willing to concede that they were probably slightly higher. I still think "approximately equal" is a defensible position, however and further argument about it is nitpicking.

I think the evidence supports the position that Bee's comment was pejorative. You've presented nothing to the contrary. I and no one else can look back on an event that occurred 150+ years ago and claim a version of said events is "100% factual" and I have not attempted to do so here. What I have done is the analyze the information available (conceding that there are points where the information is disputed) and come to a conclusion based on that information. That is all anyone can reasonably do, but I do not find it reasonable to ignore said information because one has a pre-existing favorable opinion of someone. I do not find Jackson's later actions particular relevant to what the intent behind Bee's statement was and in any event at the time these events occurred Jackson was about to engage in large scale combat for the first time. Some "reluctance to engage the enemy" esp. without express orders to support Bee or even simple battlefield confusion are perfectly reasonable explanations that do not imply cowardice on Jackson's part.

I said where Jackson had room to maneuver he performed well and gave the early campaign in the Shenandoah Valley as an example. That was not meant to be an exclusive example, obviously his flank attack at Chancellorsville was almost flawlessly conducted.