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.