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

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

The Almighty says I need to slay you. Blood! Blood! I will smash your infant skull on the rock of salvation!

In all kindness, may I note that you are not exactly dispelling my suspicions that you are indulging yourself in a little bigotry.
 
The Almighty says I need to slay you. Blood! Blood! I will smash your infant skull on the rock of salvation!

In all kindness, may I note that you are not exactly dispelling my suspicions that you are indulging yourself in a little bigotry.

For what it's worth, I'd like to second this.

IF Jackson was a bloodthirsty guy, him being a fanatic on top of that might make it worse. But that would require him being a bloodthirsty guy in the first place.
 
The Almighty says I need to slay you. Blood! Blood! I will smash your infant skull on the rock of salvation!

In all kindness, may I note that you are not exactly dispelling my suspicions that you are indulging yourself in a little bigotry.

In all kindness we are talking about someone leading an army in God's name and with God's will not Mother Teresa! The history of both crusades and jihads make me very leery of anyone who claims to be fighting in the name of God. They have left behind mountains of corpses.
 
In all kindness we are talking about someone leading an army in God's name and with God's will not Mother Teresa! The history of both crusades and jihads make me very leery of anyone who claims to be fighting in the name of God. They have left behind mountains of corpses.

War has a tendency to do that. Whether it's done in God's name or not doesn't seem to have much influence.
 
True, but religous wars tend to be more genocidal from what I have read.

Depends on the war.

Frankly, for most of history, the distinction between a war fought in the name of religion and one where it was claimed that being right and God being on your side were entangled is a little entangled.

Either way, we're still left waiting for some basis for the idea of "take no prisoners" Jackson.
 
Depends on the war.

Frankly, for most of history, the distinction between a war fought in the name of religion and one where it was claimed that being right and God being on your side were entangled is a little entangled.

Either way, we're still left waiting for some basis for the idea of "take no prisoners" Jackson.

The basis is his own words and the fact that the guy was at the least a highly eccentric religious fanatic. Yes, there is a difference between eccentric and crazy but sometimes that line is hard to find. Was Jackson crazy or merely eccentric? It is hard to tell at this point in time with both his admirers and his detractors both pushing their points of view. There is at least a decent percentage that he was out and out crazy and having someone who is insane in charge of an army is dangerous. I am not saying that this was certain to happen merely that it had a decent probability.
 
The basis is his own words and the fact that the guy was at the least a highly eccentric religious fanatic.

Words directly in conflict with his actions. If we're going to judge what would be likely for him in terms of policy towards Union troops as commander of the ANV, I think we should spend more time on his record as commander of the Valley District and less time on his religion.

Yes, there is a difference between eccentric and crazy but sometimes that line is hard to find.

This is not one of those times. There has been absolutely nothing offered as hard evidence to suggest that Jackson showed any signs being a psychopath or any other other form of dangerously imbalanced.
 
In all kindness we are talking about someone leading an army in God's name and with God's will not Mother Teresa! The history of both crusades and jihads make me very leery of anyone who claims to be fighting in the name of God. They have left behind mountains of corpses.

Clearly you haven't read about very many wars then. I probably couldn't name one war from the medieval period where people thought God wasn't on their side afterall, yet none of them were spectacularly different from wars from earlier periods either in terms of bloodshed and slaughter.

In fact in the Civil War there were even some Union generals who felt God was on their side, not to mention certain segments of the populace!! OH MY THE BODIES SHOULD BE PILING UP NOW FROM THE RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER :eek::rolleyes:


The basis is his own words and the fact that the guy was at the least a highly eccentric religious fanatic. Yes, there is a difference between eccentric and crazy but sometimes that line is hard to find. Was Jackson crazy or merely eccentric? It is hard to tell at this point in time with both his admirers and his detractors both pushing their points of view. There is at least a decent percentage that he was out and out crazy and having someone who is insane in charge of an army is dangerous. I am not saying that this was certain to happen merely that it had a decent probability.

Your really stretching here to find any evidence Jackson is insane. You've been able to prove he's eccentric and suffered from some mental disorders probably, but nowhere have we seen that Jackson is out and out insane. Frankly your grasping at straws to fit this theory, and based on all of Jackson's actions during the Civil War there is no evidence to support it. The man was a clever but eccentric commander who followed the rules of war and outside his correspondence cannot be seen to be practicing any sort of crazy religious fanaticism (which frankly borders on slander since it seems to have in no way effected his conduct) in support of his cause.
 
Clearly you haven't read about very many wars then. I probably couldn't name one war from the medieval period where people thought God wasn't on their side afterall, yet none of them were spectacularly different from wars from earlier periods either in terms of bloodshed and slaughter.

In fact in the Civil War there were even some Union generals who felt God was on their side, not to mention certain segments of the populace!! OH MY THE BODIES SHOULD BE PILING UP NOW FROM THE RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER :eek::rolleyes:




Your really stretching here to find any evidence Jackson is insane. You've been able to prove he's eccentric and suffered from some mental disorders probably, but nowhere have we seen that Jackson is out and out insane. Frankly your grasping at straws to fit this theory, and based on all of Jackson's actions during the Civil War there is no evidence to support it. The man was a clever but eccentric commander who followed the rules of war and outside his correspondence cannot be seen to be practicing any sort of crazy religious fanaticism (which frankly borders on slander since it seems to have in no way effected his conduct) in support of his cause.

You've pretty much pegged it all here. Jackson may have been extreme in a couple cases, but not to the point of mass slaughter.
 
You've pretty much pegged it all here. Jackson may have been extreme in a couple cases, but not to the point of mass slaughter.

I never said he did. However he was under orders from Lee (Whom I never claimed was a bloodthirsty fanatic) not to and he isn't the type to disobey orders. Lee is dead under this scenario and Lee's orders no longer apply. This is why I killed off Lee. I agree with Lee around this is a near-ASB scenario as Lee would never rescind the order and Jackson would never disobey Lee. Also I am not saying it WOULD happen but that it COULD, which is two different things. How likely this scenario is is debatable but it isn't near ASB.
 
I never said he did. However he was under orders from Lee (Whom I never claimed was a bloodthirsty fanatic) not to and he isn't the type to disobey orders. Lee is dead under this scenario and Lee's orders no longer apply. This is why I killed off Lee. I agree with Lee around this is a near-ASB scenario as Lee would never rescind the order and Jackson would never disobey Lee. Also I am not saying it WOULD happen but that it COULD, which is two different things. How likely this scenario is is debatable but it isn't near ASB.

John. What orders of Lee's was Jackson under at Front Royal or (First) Winchester?
 
I never said he did. However he was under orders from Lee (Whom I never claimed was a bloodthirsty fanatic) not to and he isn't the type to disobey orders. Lee is dead under this scenario and Lee's orders no longer apply. This is why I killed off Lee. I agree with Lee around this is a near-ASB scenario as Lee would never rescind the order and Jackson would never disobey Lee. Also I am not saying it WOULD happen but that it COULD, which is two different things.How likely this scenario is is debatable but it isn't near ASB.

Again grasping at straws. You ought to specify exactly what orders Jackson was under from Lee, and I'm fairly certain you won't find anywhere Lee saying "Please Jackson refrain yourself from mudering Union prisoners and butchering towns wholesale, it would cause a terrible mess." or anything to that effect. Jackson simply was not the type who was likely to go around burning things out of religious fervor, nor would he wantonly slaughter prisoners. There is simply no evidence to support your claim in this scenario. It doesn't even appear even remotely likely unless Jackson took a major blow to the head that somehow unhinged him completely.

To that end it falls into ASB category.
 
The only thing I can think of is that Jackson, left to his own devices, might have chosen to pursue say, destruction of railroads or something like Early's destruction of Stevens's ironworks up in Pennsylvania (in '63) - but respected Lee's orders against attacking property.

But that's hardly black flag stuff.
 
The only thing I can think of is that Jackson, left to his own devices, might have chosen to pursue say, destruction of railroads or something like Early's destruction of Stevens's ironworks up in Pennsylvania (in '63) - but respected Lee's orders against attacking property.

But that's hardly black flag stuff.

Burning some property if left to his own devices is something I could see. He might choose to smash areas he thought were important to the Union war effort and but that's about it. I could see him maybe burning a town as a diversion from Union forces, but it would probably have to have a military reason since he wouldn't want that repeated on the Confederacy.
 
Burning some property if left to his own devices is something I could see. He might choose to smash areas he thought were important to the Union war effort and but that's about it. I could see him maybe burning a town as a diversion from Union forces, but it would probably have to have a military reason since he wouldn't want that repeated on the Confederacy.

Yeah.

The main thing I can see is that I think Jackson would make a point of railroads like the poor B&O being ripped up, whereas Lee didn't.
 
Not to "me too", but body image issues != sociopathy. Grant couldn't even UNDRESS IN FRONT OF HIS WIFE, and bragged about it, and while I could call him many things, a "monster" is hardly one of them.

This appears to be apocryphal, like many of the accounts of Jackson's eccentricities.
 
Last edited:
Humanity is fortunate that Davis was a titanic egotistical asshole. Humanity is also fortunate that Davis wasn't stupid enough to allow a holy rolling, Bible thumping, psychopath like Jackson off the leash.
True, though only because Mr. Fanatic had virtually no seniority....

Davis seemsto've been pretty much a worshipper of seniority, unlike "whomever wins" Lincoln.

Sorry.
 
Top