Lee and Longstreet die at Chanclorville: Jackson wages ruthless war in the North

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About America's Presidents* *But Were Afraid To Ask | ISBN: 0978587219 | ISBN 13: 9780978587215.

I found a reference to it on a less-than-reputable site (Cracked.com, to be precise), but apparently there are numerous other sources out there highlighting Grant's issues with being naked around others (if perhaps less blatant about that phrasing). According to the same tome, he was also afraid at the sight of blood, and wouldn't bathe around his men. Bear in mind, he was married with (IIRC) two children, and still joked that he hadn't been seen naked since birth (same source, and likely in jest, but still).

EDIT: Mind you, I don't bring this up to slander the man, but to highlight the fact that behavior we might find eccentric doesn't a bloodthirsty killer make. I've never seen ANYTHING even hinting that Jackson was a merciless butcher (no more than most of his contemporaries anyway), and frankly take issue with that characterization.

Here are sites mentioning Jackson considering raising the "Black Flag" including Southerners who are sympathetic to that view. http://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-timid-south.82735/
http://www.americancivilwarforum.com/general-tj-120024.html
http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2012/11/stonewall-jackson-and-black-flag.html
http://www.arcticpatriot.com/2012/01/jackson-moral-high-ground-and-black.html

There are many more. General Jackson DID favor the idea of not taking prisoners and that fact made him more of a merciless butcher than his contemporaries and it would have backfired BIG TIME.
 
Jackson's actions speak louder than his letters.

Front Royal:

Federal losses:
32 men killed, 122 wounded and more than 750 captured.

Harper's Ferry also saw the overwhelming majority of the garrison surrendered and taken as prisoners (Paroled, even! Paroled!)

I'm sure we could track his other battles, but those are the two that come to mind where he had a chance to deal with large numbers (relative to the Union forces facing him) of prisoners - and acted like 95%+ of commanders of his day.

If Jackson as commander of the Valley District wasn't willing to order prisoners slain, I hardly think Jackson in charge of the ANV is going to do so.
 
Last edited:
Jackson's actions speak louder than his letters.

Fort Royal:

Federal losses:
32 men killed, 122 wounded and more than 750 captured.

Harper's Ferry also saw the overwhelming majority of the garrison surrendered and taken as prisoners (Paroled, even! Paroled!)

I'm sure we could track his other battles, but those are the two that come to mind where he had a chance to deal with large numbers (relative to the Union forces facing him) of prisoners - and acted like 95%+ of commanders of his day.

If Jackson as commander of the Valley District wasn't willing to order prisoners slain, I hardly think Jackson in charge of the ANV is going to do so.

Perhaps, but from what I understand he was under orders from Lee not to and I can't see Jackson disobeying orders.
 
The tread assumes he does which is not impossible.

With due respect, "not impossible" does not mean "likely enough to merit serious consideration".

I think we all agree on what would happen if he was somehow possessed with the idea to do it, however.
 
With due respect, "not impossible" does not mean "likely enough to merit serious consideration".

I think we all agree on what would happen if he was somehow possessed with the idea to do it, however.

I don't think it is that improbable. I would say it would have at least a 1:10 chance. In fact I think it is probable. He was a religious zealot after all.
 
I don't think it is that improbable. I would say it would have at least a 1:10 chance. In fact I think it is probable. He was a religious zealot after all.


Regarding those "sources" you listed earlier, how is a compilation of FORUM POSTS a solid basis for such a revisionist stance (yeah, I went THERE) in any kind of respectable setting? It's one thing to estimate and speculate on a forum like this, but are there any HARD SOURCES indicating that Jackson would be willing to lift the (so-called) "black flag" with any more facility than generals like Stuart, Early, Hill, etc.? Once again, you must bear the burden of PROOF. Who was it, Carl Sagan I believe that said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

And being a "religious zealot" makes one automatically a murderer.....how??? Even if it were true, that doesn't inherently mean that somebody would commit war crimes. I think part of the issue here is making assumptions of character when actions, deeds and decisions, don't bear the OP out very well. The fact is, what hard EVIDENCE is there of both intent and willingness to slaughter civilians and captured troops other than a handful of personal memoirs and recollections of questionable integrity and lack of context?
 
I don't think it is that improbable. I would say it would have at least a 1:10 chance. In fact I think it is probable. He was a religious zealot after all.

That sounds like bigotry to me. By many standards, *I'm* a religious zealot, but somehow I've managed to suppress my instinct to indiscriminately slaughter people.
 
Regarding those "sources" you listed earlier, how is a compilation of FORUM POSTS a solid basis for such a revisionist stance (yeah, I went THERE) in any kind of respectable setting? It's one thing to estimate and speculate on a forum like this, but are there any HARD SOURCES indicating that Jackson would be willing to lift the (so-called) "black flag" with any more facility than generals like Stuart, Early, Hill, etc.? Once again, you must bear the burden of PROOF. Who was it, Carl Sagan I believe that said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

And being a "religious zealot" makes one automatically a murderer.....how??? Even if it were true, that doesn't inherently mean that somebody would commit war crimes. I think part of the issue here is making assumptions of character when actions, deeds and decisions, don't bear the OP out very well. The fact is, what hard EVIDENCE is there of both intent and willingness to slaughter civilians and captured troops other than a handful of personal memoirs and recollections of questionable integrity and lack of context?

Not that extraordinary. When I googled it there were over 70,000 hits http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn=8&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=general%20jackson%20%22black%20Flag&pq=general%20jackson%20black%20flag&cp=28&gs_id=x&xhr=t&q=general%20jackson%20%22black%20Flag%22&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=general+jackson+%22black+Flag%22&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=f966bb6d3f992b43&biw=1920&bih=Off the top of my head the book "Gods and Generals" mentioned it and that book bent over backwards for Southerners.
 

Proving that Jackson wrote venomous letters and/or said venomous things and proving Jackson really would do that are two different things, John.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://books.google.com/books?id=PT...nepage&q=general jackson "black Flag"&f=false

While speaking of your list of hits.

[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
If as per the OP, Lee is killed at Chancellorsville and Longstreet dies around the same time thus making Jackson commander of the ANV then we have to ask ourselves..."Is it possible that Jackson might press for and obtain permission to wage a far more brutal campaign against the North?"

Given what we know of the man, I would say..."Yes, this is very possible."

While the contents of personal letters can not truly convict a man, they do indeed give us insight as to their ideas, beliefs and opinions (more so than the opinions of biased historians writing books over a century after the events). Jackson understood the disadvantages that worked against the Confederacy. To counter these he seemed to believe that by waging a very harsh and destructive war against the North he could bring about victory. In OTL he was reigned in by men who could not bring themselves to be so cruel against those that had just recently been their fellow country men. Without Lee or Longstreet what would he have done?

He may not have issued a command to execute every Northern prisoner, but it is probable that he would not have hesitated to execute prisoners when they were seen as a liability. From just a few incidents it could very likely have gotten out of hand.

As for his being a zealot...he was. And this made him more likely to partake in brutal unrestrained warfare. Why? Because while Lee seemed to believe that God decided the fate of the war and he was just a small part of God's greater plan; Jackson believed he was a righteous warrior directly involved in carrying out the will of God. To Jackson his thoughts and actions were directly guided by God. So any move towards a harsh an vicious war was the will of God. That is what made him a zealot and very dangerous as overall commander.

And no being a religious zealot does not make one an instant murderer, but being a battlefield commander who is also a religious zealot does make one very dangerous. People who wage war while believing they are a divine conduit of God are not the easy going compromising sort.

Benjamin
 
Besides, even in the so called "Black Flag" passage of the memoirs indicated, Jackson acknowledges that such a course of action would do more harm than good, and indeed even the passage itself doesn't so much show a new degree of bloodthirst and propensity to murder as brainstorming on ways to gain the upper hand on a clearly daunting foe at a time when the South was teetering on the edge of victory or defeat in their eyes (source: Life and Letters, page 310).

I just really don't see where you're trying to go with this, given the paucity of academically credible evidence of Jackson going through with this strategy (in intention or deed), when every other source I've read (even recent ones) paint the man as AT worst a wartime realist. It'd be one thing if you just hit the "I BELIEVE" button for suspension of disbelief, in order to create an AH story or timeline, but this seems to be little more than claims based on shaky foundations and personal conviction. If we were to judge Gen. Jackson on his personal memoirs, why not call Gen. Eisenhower a genocidal brute because he labeled German POWS as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" to deny them Red Cross access and Geneva Convention protection? Hell, that kind of leap in logic would render Sherman an outright war criminal based on his actions, if we're going down that route.
 
That sounds like bigotry to me. By many standards, *I'm* a religious zealot, but somehow I've managed to suppress my instinct to indiscriminately slaughter people.


Somehow I doubt you go around saying we need to get back to "Old Testament Style Warfare" where you do things like smash infant skulls against walls IIRC. I am not saying Jackson would go THAT far but he was a blood thirsty religous zealot.
 
If as per the OP, Lee is killed at Chancellorsville and Longstreet dies around the same time thus making Jackson commander of the ANV then we have to ask ourselves..."Is it possible that Jackson might press for and obtain permission to wage a far more brutal campaign against the North?"

Given what we know of the man, I would say..."Yes, this is very possible."

Given what we know of the man? Prove it.

While the contents of personal letters can not truly convict a man, they do indeed give us insight as to their ideas, beliefs and opinions (more so than the opinions of biased historians writing books over a century after the events). Jackson understood the disadvantages that worked against the Confederacy. To counter these he seemed to believe that by waging a very harsh and destructive war against the North he could bring about victory. In OTL he was reigned in by men who could not bring themselves to be so cruel against those that had just recently been their fellow country men. Without Lee or Longstreet what would he have done?
What did he do as an independent commander? I think that might be a better source than comments he may or may not have said (I'm not concerned with the veracity of that, the question is what he would do).

He may not have issued a command to execute every Northern prisoner, but it is probable that he would not have hesitated to execute prisoners when they were seen as a liability. From just a few incidents it could very likely have gotten out of hand.
Why is it probable? What is the basis for that?

His response to the Harper's Ferry prisoners was to parole them. That's about as far from "execute them as a liability" as you can get.

As for his being a zealot...he was. And this made him more likely to partake in brutal unrestrained warfare. Why? Because while Lee seemed to believe that God decided the fate of the war and he was just a small part of God's greater plan; Jackson believed he was a righteous warrior directly involved in carrying out the will of God. To Jackson his thoughts and actions were directly guided by God. So any move towards a harsh an vicious war was the will of God. That is what made him a zealot and very dangerous as overall commander.

And no being a religious zealot does not make one an instant murderer, but being a battlefield commander who is also a religious zealot does make one very dangerous. People who wage war while believing they are a divine conduit of God are not the easy going compromising sort.

Benjamin
People who believe that Jackson being a zealot translates into Jackson being an irrational maniac have a lot of 'splaining to do, and I say this as an agnostic Yankee.
 
And no being a religious zealot does not make one an instant murderer, but being a battlefield commander who is also a religious zealot does make one very dangerous. People who wage war while believing they are a divine conduit of God are not the easy going compromising sort.

Benjamin

Exactly, I doubt mrmandias thinks himself a divine conduit of God.
 
Exactly, I doubt mrmandias thinks himself a divine conduit of God.

And you think Jackson did because he felt he was acting in God's name and doing God's will?

Sheesh, I didn't realize taking one's religion seriously was the first step to being a psychotic.
 
Given what we know of the man? Prove it.

Seriously? Prove it? What's the point of having a discussion forum devoted to discussing alternate (i.e. not real, speculative, counter, made up) history if people with differing opinions resort to this demand?

Of course there is no way I can prove it. Hell, I can't even say with a straight face that its the most probable course of events given the OP's assertions. But I strongly believe that it is at least possible given what we know of Thomas Jackson. Am I biased do to my strong dislike of the man and his place as an icon of Lost Cause thought? Sure, but I'm also well read and studied on the subject and have not come to my conclusions out of the blue.

Would Jackson have waged a vicious and brutal campaign against the North which might have included the burning of Northern towns and the murder of Union prisoners? How the heck could I know the real answer to that? On the other hand how can you know he wouldn't? This is alternate history here. Given all the screwy and vile things that have occurred in actual history one more addition to that long list is not much of a stretch.

Finally, as his own notes have illustrated, Jackson had already rationalized a reason to wage "black flag" war. His fanaticism didn't make him irrational, but it did give him a dangerous unyielding conviction of his own righteousness.

Benjamin
 
And you think Jackson did because he felt he was acting in God's name and doing God's will?

Sheesh, I didn't realize taking one's religion seriously was the first step to being a psychotic.

I didn't say taking one's religion seriously was the first step to being a psychotic. There are religous people who are and weren't psychotic, in fact the vast majority are not. Jackson always impressed me as one who was. At the very least he was very eccentric. Psychotic religous zealots are extremely dangerous.
 
Seriously? Prove it? What's the point of having a discussion forum devoted to discussing alternate (i.e. not real, speculative, counter, made up) history if people with differing opinions resort to this demand?

Yes, prove it. Prove that it is "very possible' based on what we know of him taking prisoners at Front Royal, paroling prisoners at Harper's Ferry, and in general acting in accordance to the rules of war throughout his career.

Of course there is no way I can prove it. Hell, I can't even say with a straight face that its the most probable course of events given the OP's assertions. But I strongly believe that it is at least possible given what we know of Thomas Jackson. Am I biased do to my strong dislike of the man and his place as an icon of Lost Cause thought? Sure, but I'm also well read and studied on the subject and have not come to my conclusions out of the blue.

Which is why you have failed to provide one scrap of evidence to justify the argument that Jackson would do it. All that study has lead to nothing distinguishable from accusations from the blue.

No examples of him issuing orders to treat prisoners badly. No examples of him slow to accept surrenders. No examples of Lee taking more care to ensure Jackson followed the rules of war than any of his other commanders.

I'm sure we could have an entertaining contest of who could find the most egregious act of dickery to his subordinates on his part

For what it's worth, I consider Garnett's case to win by a long shot.

But we're not talking about whether or not he was a self-righteous dick, or whether the Lost Cause has glorified him as both a person and a general beyond his desserts. We're talking about something that his actions flatly do not support being treated as credible based on mere words.

Would Jackson have waged a vicious and brutal campaign against the North which might have included the burning of Northern towns and the murder of Union prisoners? How the heck could I know the real answer to that? On the other hand how can you know he wouldn't? This is alternate history here. Given all the screwy and vile things that have occurred in actual history one more addition to that long list is not much of a stretch.

Here's the thing. You said it was "very possible" that he would do such a thing. On what basis? What is the foundation for these accusations?

And "given all the screwy and vile things have happened in actual history" is a piss-poor basis to say that any given man would "very possibly" be someone who would do those things in alternate history when he did no such thing when given the opportunity in actual history.

Finally, as his own notes have illustrated, Jackson had already rationalized a reason to wage "black flag" war. His fanaticism didn't make him irrational, but it did give him a dangerous unyielding conviction of his own righteousness.

Benjamin

Finally, you have done nothing whatsoever to indicate that such would make it likely or credible that he would do so.

I didn't say taking one's religion seriously was the first step to being a psychotic. There are religous people who are and weren't psychotic, in fact the vast majority are not. Jackson always impressed me as one who was. At the very least he was very eccentric. Psychotic religous zealots are extremely dangerous.

There is an enormous gap between "very eccentric' and "psychotic" that can be filled with all sorts of men.
 
Top