Was Stonewall Jackson a Genius General?

I actually don't know much about the man.

Here's what wiki has to say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Jackson

Military historians consider Jackson to be one of the most gifted tactical commanders in U.S. history.[5] His Valley Campaign and his envelopment of the Union Army's right wing at Chancellorsville are studied worldwide, even today, as examples of innovative and bold leadership. He excelled as well in other battles: the First Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas), where he received his famous nickname "Stonewall"; the Second Battle of Bull Run (Second Manassas); and the battles of Antietam and Fredericksburg. Jackson was not universally successful as a commander, however, as displayed by his late arrival and confused efforts during the Seven Days Battles around Richmond, in 1862.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I actually don't know much about the man.

Thomas Jackson was renown for winning battles where he was terribly outnumbered and over matched in equipment, artillery and support vehicles.

Yes, nobody wins all the time. At that time, intelligence was really vital, that is knowing where the enemy was and his strength. Jackson was probably a pretty good guesser, and was assuredly bold.

Many apologists of the CSA would claim that Jackson's demise settled the Civil War.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Some fair 'anti-Jackson' points from D64, who is clearly not a fan of the CSA, but holds back (possibly through lack of 'ammunition' ) from tarnishing the reputation of Stonewall Jackson ridiculously.

However, analysis of this last paragraph is interesting. Thomas Jackson's victories were achieved in the first half of the war. Yes ~ he had the considerable handicap of being dead for the 2nd half (or so)

It certainly does remain totally *unknown* if Jackson would have performed as well in the 2nd half against *better* Union opponents. The evidence would suggest he would have done ok!

As for the originator of this thread whose first sentence is *don't know much about this man*, but on another thread makes the ridiculous claim that Jackson's tactics *date back to 1066*??

You know (or think you do) a little then? I would suggest very much the latter.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

These are very fair points, Duchess.

Hood was also an excellent Field Commander who, as you say, does not seem to enjoy the same historical respect as Jackson.

Obviously us neo CSA supporters will continue to argue that Stonewall's presence at Gettysburg may have 'turned the tide'.

But your points are well made, and certainly respectful of Jackson's reputation.

Thank you for that

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I actually don't know much about the man.

Here's what wiki has to say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Jackson

Military historians consider Jackson to be one of the most gifted tactical commanders in U.S. history.[5] His Valley Campaign and his envelopment of the Union Army's right wing at Chancellorsville are studied worldwide, ev ...[text shortened]... is late arrival and confused efforts during the Seven Days Battles around Richmond, in 1862.

While there is some controversy, it seems like his nickname was not meant to be a compliment. General Bee was advancing toward the Union lines when he noticed Jackson and his Virginians forming a defensive front. That is when he supposedly said "Look at Jackson standing like a stonewall!" Fortunately for Jackson, General Bee was killed minutes afterward and the story rather embellished to make it sound like Bee was praising Jackson's steadfast defense (which I find unlikely given that Bee's troops were in front of Jackson's).

In any event, 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. Fortunately for the CSA, McClellan never committed his substantial reserves or Antietam might have been the end of the Army of Northern Virginia rather than just the serious defeat it was.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your point seems to be that STONEWALL Jackson's reputation is *built* (play on words there!) upon his considerable success against inferior Northern generals earlier in the war Of Northern Oppression

I don't think that we are in any disagreement about that at all. My projected view is that Thomas Jackson would have continued to lead his troops with intelligence at Gettysburg and beyond.

Of course, we will never know.

Having lost at Gettysburg, ANY CSA general was always going to struggle with 'victory' as 1864 played into 1865. A critic of Stonewall would say that , reputation wise , he did well to 'leave us' in 1863!

As I say, fair points. But the possible difference this brilliant military commander COULD have made must never be under estimated.

Again, thank you, as a clear 'non-fan' of the CSA , for a balanced critique of Thomas Jackson

Originally posted by no1marauder
While there is some controversy, it seems like his nickname was not meant to be a compliment. General Bee was advancing toward the Union lines when he noticed Jackson and his Virginians forming a defensive front. That is when he supposedly said "Look at Jackson standing like a stonewall!" Fortunately for Jackson, General Bee was killed minutes afterward ...[text shortened]... t have been the end of the Army of Northern Virginia rather than just the serious defeat it was.

The comment about General Bee and 'Stonewall'...evidence? There is none. Your comment 'fortunately for Jackson.....' is disrespectful.. Please withdraw.

And, at Sharpsburg (or, as the North will have it, Antietam) , the perceived wisdom that I have read is that Jackson performed with competance in a battle blighted by the total incompetance of the Northern CIC, McLellan

Originally posted by st dominics preview
The comment about General Bee and 'Stonewall'...evidence? There is none. Your comment 'fortunately for Jackson.....' is disrespectful.. Please withdraw.

And, at Sharpsburg (or, as the North will have it, Antietam) , the perceived wisdom that I have read is that Jackson performed with competance in a battle blighted by the total incompetance of the Northern CIC, McLellan

Stop being an idiot; the controversy is mentioned in the Wiki article already referenced and is common knowledge among Civil War buffs.

McClellan generalship as mentioned prevented an overwhelming victory at Antietam but it was still a reverse for the CSA. Jackson's forces lost ground and took severe losses as any objective source concerning the battle will confirm.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Stop being an idiot; the controversy is mentioned in the Wiki article already referenced and is common knowledge among Civil War buffs.

McClellan generalship as mentioned prevented an overwhelming victory at Antietam but it was still a reverse for the CSA. Jackson's forces lost ground and took severe losses as any objective source concerning the battle will confirm.

Mentioned in which 'Wiki article'? There are several being used on this thread.

Looking back at the very first post by 1000 Young, HE quotes a Wiki article that actually says Jackson performed well at Antietam! That damned Wiki, eh!

I took the trouble to read accounts of Sharpsburg by 4 different *Civil war buffs* ,viz G.C.Ward, W.C Davis, B Alexander and J.M. McPherson.

The battle was fought by the South against a vastly numerically superior North, including Jackson's part.

All seem pretty much consistent in their analysis ~ having triumphed at Harper's Ferry , Jackson was first to be attacked, in the North, and held firm with terrible loss of life on both sides. Eventually the Confederate line was breached, but John Bell Hood's Texans were sent in by Jackson and pushed the Union forces back.

A very bloody draw at worst.

Originally posted by st dominics preview
Mentioned in which 'Wiki article'? There are several being used on this thread.

Looking back at the very first post by 1000 Young, HE quotes a Wiki article that actually says Jackson performed well at Antietam! That damned Wiki, eh!

I took the trouble to read accounts of Sharpsburg by 4 different *Civil war buffs* ,viz G.C.Ward, W.C Davis ...[text shortened]... exans were sent in by Jackson and pushed the Union forces back.

A very bloody draw at worst.

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 officers wrote reports of the battle. 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!"[35]

Footnote 35: See, for instance, Goldfield, David, et al., The American Journey: A History of the United States, Prentice Hall, 1999, ISBN 0-13-088243-7. There are additional controversies about what Bee said and whether he said anything at all. See Freeman, Lee's Lieutenants, vol. 1, pp. 733–34.

Wiki opinions are one thing; Wiki facts giving a reliable source are quite another.

Antietam was such a draw that Lee abandoned his invasion of Maryland and limped back to Virginia having lost about a third of his army. Bloody it certainly was, but if you study the battle in depth you would see that my original characterization was correct; the US troops pushed back the Army of Northern Virginia on every sector of the battlefield and even though attacking on all fronts (though unfortunately in an uncoordinated fashion) inflicted approximately equal losses on the CSA army (which was much smaller and thus could not bear them as well as the US forces). It's true that the arrival of AP Hill's Texans prevented a complete rout, but to characterize the battle as a "draw" is unwarranted. A fair assessment is that Lee commanded brilliantly against a mismanaged US Army by using his interior lines to move reinforcements back and forth to critical areas but he still lost the battle in any objective assessment.

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*