If Stonewall Jackson Survived The Civil War....

[Japhy]

Given how he was willing to violate the laws of Virginia to educate slaves, this shows a certain degree of flexibility on the race issue.

Teaching Sunday School was not some mighty stance of equality like you're making it out to be. Much like Robert E. Lee he excused the existence of slavery saying that it would be fixed when Judgement Day came and he helping them find Christ for that time, not to give them any benefits in the present. The "education" he provided was no different then that provided by modern day madrasa schools, just the bible.

 

[Elfwine]

Teaching Sunday School was not some mighty stance of equality like you're making it out to be. Much like Robert E. Lee he excused the existence of slavery saying that it would be fixed when Judgement Day came and he helping them find Christ for that time, not to give them any benefits in the present. The "education" he provided was no different then that provided by modern day madrasa schools, just the bible.

Speaking for myself as an agnostic here - Jackson doing that is hardly comparable to the actions of a Gordon, Hampton, or Forrest, however limited it may be to our secular eyes.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Poor whites had political influence and their votes of course were boosted by the 3/5th rule, they used legal violence to maintain control of jobs so as to keep freedmen away from them without repercussion, some of the earliest instances of pork and patronage were directed at them to shore them up as a separate, more benificial group then slaves. They were you know, also not slaves. Cite a source from an abolitionist all you want, you're still using it to defend a myth developed by Neo-Confederates for decades to excuse them of any responsibility for the system that existed before the war, and by extension the system they lived in after reconstruction.

I cited several sources, not just Stowe, and they're not apologetic either. And just because the elite threw bones the poor whites' way and the poor whites were racist and violent themselves doesn't mean they were better off under the slave system than they would have been under a free-soil system.

Take a strongly protectionist government. Employees of protected industries visibly benefit, but the economy as a whole suffers and they'd be better off under a freer trade system.

And the idea that the slave system was something that benefited only a few people who manipulated poorer men into fighting and dying for them is hardly neo-Confederate.

If anything, it's getting into Marxist territory with talk of class interests and the like. And neo-Confederates tend to not be fans of Communism.

 

[Japhy]

Speaking for myself as an agnostic here - Jackson doing that is hardly comparable to the actions of a Gordon, Hampton, or Forrest, however limited it may be to our secular eyes.

No, and him teaching it was not something I was putting in the column to support my argument. I was only noting that Merry was misconstruing the Sunday School teaching to be something far nobler.

 

[MerryPrankster]

The "education" he provided was no different then that provided by modern day madrasa schools, just the bible.

If you can read the Bible, you can read anything else.

And the fact you put "education" in quotes is rather telling.

 

[MerryPrankster]

No, and him teaching it was not something I was putting in the column to support my argument. I was only noting that Merry was misconstruing the Sunday School teaching to be something far nobler.

You're trying to keep it from being used as proof Jackson could have gone the Longstreet route as far as black people are concerned, which is supporting your argument.

 

[Japhy]

I cited several sources, not just Stowe, and they're not apologetic either.

You seem to misunderstand Old Sport. You're the apologist.

And just because the elite threw bones the poor whites' way and the poor whites were racist and violent themselves doesn't mean they were better off under the slave system than they would have been under a free-soil system.

The fact that they had bones (It was a bit more than that, especially outside of Appalachia) thrown to them is beneficial to them.

 

[Elfwine]

No, and him teaching it was not something I was putting in the column to support my argument. I was only noting that Merry was misconstruing the Sunday School teaching to be something far nobler.

My point is, him doing it is counter to your argument that Jackson was just like they were.

It doesn't mean Jackson was some kind of anti-racist egalitarian, but it's certainly not the work of someone who would approve of the KKK, either.

 

[Japhy]

If you can read the Bible, you can read anything else.

And the fact you put "education" in quotes is rather telling.

Reading the bible too them and actually being able to read is a vast difference. Thus the quotes. If you want to construe that to mean something else you're welcome too it.

 

[Japhy]

My point is, him doing it is counter to your argument that Jackson was just like they were.

It doesn't mean Jackson was some kind of anti-racist egalitarian, but it's certainly not the work of someone who would approve of the KKK, either.

No, the religous fanaticism that the proper order of things is Whites ontop of blacks though puts him in a position to oppose the biracial society sought by reconstruction.

And again not all redeemers had to dirty their hands with actually tieing themselves to the White Hoods and Red Shirts. Like Wade Hampton he can reap the benifits in a suit.

 

[Alternate History Geek]

In a term paper I wrote for college many years ago, I addressed this exact question. Here's how the POD went:

On that fateful May night in the Wilderness, we have the exact same conditions, that IOTL led to Stonewall's death: a bunch of crazy Tar Heels mistake Stonewall and his staff for Yankee cavalry and fire upon him. However, instead of Stonewall getting hit, his horse bites the dust, shielding him from the hail of bullets. Stonewall survives with only a few bruises and a broken leg. He recovers quickly enough to fight in the Battle of Gettysburg, where a mass Confederate assault on the Round Tops and Culp's Hill shatters the Army of the Potomac on July 2.

After Gettysburg, Robert E. Lee gets sent West, and Stonewall Jackson becomes commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee and E. Kirby Smith recapture the Mississippi River, while Stonewall lays siege to Washington, DC. By the end of 1863, the war is over and the Confederacy is victorious.

However, the fruits of victory soon turn into ashes in the CSA's mouth. On April 14, 1865, Jefferson Davis attends a play at one of the better theaters in Washington (now renamed Jacksonopolis for some reason known only to me ). He is shot in the back in the head by an unstable actor named Booth, and dies the next day.

Davis' successor, Alexander Stephens, is helpless to combat the weaknesses inherent in the Confederacy. Strong support for states' rights, the devastation of the war, political infighting, and the lack of will to stay together lead to balkanization. The Confederacy falls apart in the late 1860s and early 1870s.

Virginia becomes a monarchy under the Lees (Robert's the first king). Stonewall Jackson becomes its first prime minister, serving ably in this position until his untimely death under the wheels of a horse-drawn trolley in 1882.

(If you like what you saw, I can share the rest of the term paper with you, along with a few concepts and ideas I've thought up over the years.)

Can I see it please please pretty please?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Reading the bible too them and actually being able to read is a vast difference. Thus the quotes. If you want to construe that to mean something else you're welcome too it.

Reading the Bible to slaves was not illegal. Teaching them to read was.

 

[MerryPrankster]

You seem to misunderstand Old Sport. You're the apologist.

So saying the slave system was destructive to poor whites makes me an apologist for slavery?

Says you.

 

[Japhy]

Reading the Bible to slaves was not illegal. Teaching them to read was.

Well then Jackson wasn't doing anything illegal with his Sunday school classes.

 

[Japhy]

So saying the slave system was destructive to poor whites makes me an apologist for slavery?

Says you.

Using that as an excuse for the whole system certainly is.

And anyway, again, Jackson wasn't a poor white.

 

[Elfwine]

No, the religous fanaticism that the proper order of things is Whites ontop of blacks though puts him in a position to oppose the biracial society sought by reconstruction.

And again not all redeemers had to dirty their hands with actually tieing themselves to the White Hoods and Red Shirts. Like Wade Hampton he can reap the benifits in a suit.

What fanaticism? Seriously. You're taking things and exaggerating them so badly that I don't even know what you're talking about.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Well then Jackson wasn't doing anything illegal with his Sunday school classes.

Here's one of his letters describing the books used in the class:

http://www.vmi.edu/archives.aspx?id=9269

Here's a reference to him sending $50 to buy books for said school:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Hj...ay school letter battle fifty dollars&f=false

At first you said teaching slaves to read the Bible was nothing and now you're saying he never taught them to read at all.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Using that as an excuse for the whole system certainly is.

When did I ever use it to excuse the system?

The truth of the matter is, I'm not an apologist and you're either continuously misunderstanding what I'm saying or you're simply being dishonest.

For your sake, I hope it's the former.

 

[Japhy]

At first you said teaching slaves to read the Bible was nothing and now you're saying he never taught them to read at all.

Because you're insisting that he's actually teaching them to read, and your two sources don't show that. Memorization of passages doesn't lend itself to greater knowledge of written language. You know, like how Madrasa students can "read" the Quaran and nothing else?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Because you're insisting that he's actually teaching them to read, and your two sources don't show that. Memorization of passages doesn't lend itself to greater knowledge of written language. You know, like how Madrasa students can "read" the Quaran and nothing else?

If that's all he was doing, why the need for books other than the Bible?

And nothing you've said AT ALL proves your claim he wasn't actually teaching them to read.