Talk:Stonewall Jackson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Homeschooling, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of homeschooling-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Stonewall Jackson as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Childhood bio seems very pollyannish

Does anyone have sources for the childhood part of the bio? All that "self-taught by the flickering of knotwood" is all very well, and may well be true, but it would be good to have sources.


Is Thomas Stonewall Jackson really the right name for this article? It strikes me as an uneasy compromise - either Thomas J. Jackson or Stonewall Jackson would be better. Or even Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. —Paul A 02:03, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking that too. I'd name him Thomas J. Jackson, because it is his proper name... should I move it? ugen64 14:51, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Be bold in updating pages. Except that you can't in this case, because I have already.  :)
—Paul A 03:40, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

To me, it seems POV to suggest that Jackson is only a great Southerner, and not a great American. I think the end of the article should reflect the respect Jackson has in the North as well. What do you guys think? Triped 18:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't change ANYTHING. Everybody knows who Stonewall Jackson was. He was probably the greatest soldier America ever produced.

Uh, what the hell kind of comment is that? If everyone knows who he is, then we don't need this article.
touché. The man was far from perfect. However, I do think the article is under the correct listing as Stonewall Jackson. Vaoverland 13:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


The idea that Stonewall Jackson was self taught under the 'flickering fire' blah bla, is questionable, as no source is able to confirm it, becuase he is no longer living. Only old records would be able confirm these reports rendering what I have just typed, useless.

By the way, Kermit the frog is the greatest soldier that ever lived. And no one, I say, no one, can prove me wrong!!!!

But no one can prove Kermit was even a soldier in the first place, much less the "best". But we're not talking about Kermit the frog. I agree with Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. ---Anonymous Contributor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.26.112 (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distracting links

  1. Year pages are of low value. Links are used for full dates as part of user preferences; there is no similar issue with years on their own.
  2. The message on the first line is for the benefit of readers who type “Stonewall Jackson” on the address bar and want to learn about the singer. Surplus links can trick people into going to 1960s or country music instead of Stonewall Jackson (musician), which they actually want.

Susvolans ⇔ 15:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Year links should only be noted once, on their first occurrance. I agree with the point on the disambiguation link, only the other stonewall Jackson page should be linked. AllanHainey 16:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, first, I believe that it is general practive here that people tolerate links in articles, even if they don't consider them very valuable. (I would delete a lot of links that don't interest me if that were not the case.) At least that seems to be the case in the American Civil War pages, if not for the rest of the universe. I understand that dates can be reformatted as part of preferences, but don't understand your point regarding date links and prefs. I agree with your concern about poorly formatted disambiguation lines in the front of the article and don't claim credit for that line. However, concerns about that line should not govern the full article. As to multiple occurences of dates, I agree in general that links should not be duplicated, but in the case of dates, I treat them as a unit and always tag the year if the month/date that precedes it is tagged. Just looks more consistent. Hal Jespersen 17:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Manual_of_Style covers date links. Rather than debating policy in each article, a debate about policy might be better at talk page of Manual of Style. Bobblewik 19:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee speech

(put new comment at end of file)
Has anyone noticed the following sentence under Chancellorsville? "What happened next is given in Lee's own words, in an 1879 address to the Association of the Army of Northern Virginia:" The only problem with it is that Robert E. Lee died in 1870.

It was Fitzhugh Lee, as indicated a few sentences earlier in the paragraph. Hal Jespersen 21:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revered by slaves?

From the article:

He became Professor of Natural and Experimental Philosophy and Instructor of Artillery. Jackson's teachings are still used at VMI today because they are military essentials that are timeless, to wit: discipline, mobility, assessing the enemy's strength and intentions while attempting to conceal your own, and the efficacy of artillery combined with an infantry assault. However, despite the quality of his work, he was not popular as a teacher. The students mocked his apparently stern, religious nature and his eccentric traits. Little as he was known to the white inhabitants of Lexington, he was revered by the slaves, to whom he showed uniform kindness, and for whose moral instruction he worked unceasingly.

The whole "faithful and humble servant" routine is hard to swallow and more than a bit too hagiographic for my taste. It is also entirely unsourced. --Saforrest 18:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how haigiographic it is, it probably could be worded better. I can't source the uniform kindness bit but he did teach a Sunday School for slaves which is probably where the moral instruction bit comes in. AllanHainey 07:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the section. See if the additional detail and footnotes addresses this adequately. Hal Jespersen 15:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication

I removed the following, as it is for the most part restated in other sections. Clarityfiend 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Youth and education

Although his parents were of good lineage, and his father was an attorney, the boy who would grow up to be known as Stonewall Jackson had an early life filled with tragedy and adversity. He had lost his father and a sister to death, been rejected by a stepfather, and then orphaned when his mother also died, all by the time he was only seven years old. He apparently learned to work hard at an early age, helping his mother and later working for his uncle. There is evidence that he valued both reading and keeping promises.

[edit] Death at Chancellorsville

I've always heard that there was some question on whether or not the death was accidental or not, as there had been previous attempts on his life. Can anyone clear that up for me? Ratwar 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Find some reputable sources who claim that and we can discuss. This is not a mainstream theory, AFAIK. Hal Jespersen 14:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A quick google/yahoo shows multiple articles discussing whether Jackson was shot intentionally or accidentally, e.g. Was General “Stonewall” Jackson Fragged? by James E.T. Lange and Katherine De Witt, Jr. North and South vol 2 #4. For thirty years a veteran of the Army of Northern Virginia claimed that he deliberately caused Jackson's death. Did he really fire the fatal shot?

It is a statement of fact that Jackson was shot by his own troops. Whether it was accidental is not given. Allegations from a Confederate veteran claiming to have shot Jackson could be included in the article. I do not think that any so-called reputable sources will flatly assert that shooting Jackson was intentional, because they do not know. But it may be at least worth considering in the article. AaronCBurke 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is rather irresponsible to elevate a fringe theory to credibility by adding the weasel word "perhaps" without any explanation or citation. There are many conspiracy theories around, and sometimes Wikipedia needs to cover them as part of its WP:NPOV policy, but that is not to say that they need prominence within the introductory paragraph of an article. In this case, if anyone's POV believes there is doubt, that POV should be discussed way down in the article, after the wounding is described, not in the introduction. And we need some serious citations from secondary sources. I do not have access to that magazine article you refer to, but Krick refers to it in his book "The Smoothbore Volley That Doomed the Confederacy" and skewers the authors' premise, as did Stephen Sears in a later issue of the magazine. I would be in favor of dropping the entire subject, but if you can include citations from credible secondary sources, go ahead. Hal Jespersen 20:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. AaronCBurke 21:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism

This article seems to get more than its share of purile vandalism. What would attract vandals to a site like this? I just don't get it.Jerry picker 02:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

im guessing that it is because he was an opposing general in the civil war

Treason against the ligitamate government of the United States, especially when done in the name of terrible opression tends to be unpopular. Not encouraging vandalism, but he was a leader of the insurgents, as much of a traitor as John Brown, but a traitor fighting for opression instead of fighting for liberty.24.94.232.13 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Martin

He was fighting for Liberty, SOUTHERN Liberty. He was no more a traitor to the U.S. than Washington was to Britain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.106 (talk) 04:49, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems like vandal attacks on this article are history, so you can relax now. BTW, I agree with the previous comment, nice said. Jackson fought to free the South, that was his aim, and so he was and remains a military hero of the Southern States, a hero of the movement for Southern liberty and independence, that's why everyone should feel some respect for him. Asharidu 07:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh, I was wrong about the vandal attacks. We need to ban the user nicknamed '208.155.92.194' for vandalism, he's definitely of no help here.Asharidu 16:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheese??

Whats up with the line that says "His favorite food was Cheese" Even if this is true, I dont see how this belongs under westpoint.

A whiff of vandalism befouled the air, but went unsmelled until your discerning nostrils reported for duty. Thanks. Hal Jespersen 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section on "most famous"

The lead section says Jackson is "most famous for his audacious Valley Campaign of 1862..." I think most historians point to Chancellorsville as his most famous; in his bio on Jackson, James Robertson titles the chapter on Chancellorsville "The Greatest March," and Shelby Foote said that as a victory for the South "it was perhaps in terms of glory the greatest of them all." I suggest a sentence like this:

"He is most famous for his audacious Valley Campaign of 1862, and especially for leading the surprise attack in the Battle of Chancellorsville and as a corps commander in the Army of Northern Virginia under General Robert E. Lee."

I don't want to just horn myself into the lead section of a very nicely done article, so I'm suggesting this to the group of contributors here.... Rgfolsom 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't saying "Most famous for..." a matter of opinion? Some might know nothing about Chancellorsville but know everything about the Valley Campaign. Or the other way around.Wikimichael22 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Wikimichael22

I would say the Valley is more known today as it is still studied and taught in military classes, at least in the U.S. Or we could sum it up like "known for his exploits in the rebellion with the Second Corps..." and such. As far his as greatest march (from above), I would point to Romney, or maybe his movements prior to Second Manassas drawing out Pope. Kresock (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of nickname

In a college text I read for my major, it reports the origin of Jackson's nickname a little differently than what is displayed in the current version. I edited the First Bull Run article to match what I read, and cited the book. I've done the same for this article, but if anyone can show me a reference to the origin of the name "Stonewall" that counters what I have, I'd like to know if there IS a definite source of the name. Bob the Joker 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused over ancestry

1. The article says that Stonewall Jackson was the great-grandson of a John Jackson of Londonderry, but the way the article reads it suggest the John Jackson was his grandfather, not his great grandfather. Clarification please?

2. Scots-Irish descent: if it's his great grandfather that was from County Londonderry, then that accounts for one side of the family, what about the other side? was he 1/8 Scots Irish and 7/8 American?

cheers! --mgaved 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the article, John was his great-grandfather, Edward his grandfather, and Jonathan his father. What additional clarification you need? His most comprehensive biographer, Bud Robertson, says that John Jackson was of Scots-Irish descent and Elizabeth Cummins was born in either England or Ireland. It would be possible to trace the ancestry of the wives of Edward and Jonathan, but what would be the point?
As an interesting aside, the article's description of John and Elizabeth's immigration to America is significantly at odds with Robertson's account. He claims that both were indentured servants who achieved that status by convictions for crimes in England. I'll do some more research on that and update the article one of these days. Hal Jespersen 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
So who was this Shane Archambault in the first sentence of the section? A different ancestor?81.102.15.200 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking back, it seems to have been some vandalism on 11 April. I have changed it back to John Jackson.81.102.15.200 (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War Criminal: Massacre of Mexicans?

The “Popularity with Christian fundamentalists” section refers his massacre of Mexican civilians* but the main article does not mention that he fought in the Mexican-American War at all! Instead it jumps from West Point straight to his appointment at VMI. Totally omitting the five critical years during which he gained his only pre-civil war combat experience. During which he took part in what seems to be (under modern International Law) a war crime. Is this a “white wash”??

  • Quote: Jackson received orders to turn his guns on Mexico City residents attempting to flee the oncoming U.S. army. He did so without hesitation—mowing them down as they sought to surrender.

Jalipa 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No white wash that I can tell. This article is the subject of a lot of vandalism and sometimes substantive changes are overlooked in the blizzard of reversions that have to take place. The entire section on the Mexican War was deleted somehow. I have restored it. Hal Jespersen 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I came to this page to point out the weasel words in the "although some may view...in relation to Jesus Christ" part...but then I started wondering which historian had written that account, if it was contemporary, etc. I came to find out it was written by a journalist whose main expertise appears to be writing opinionated articles about religion. This made me wonder if that quote, or the entire section for that matter, belong in this article...the "fundamentalist" angle seems rather obscure to me. Any thoughts? 63.250.85.186 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. This is one of those common instances where someone reads a magazine article and immediately wants to edit Wikipedia to mention it. I would prefer to see it removed, but chose merely to edit it into a format that makes it clear it is the opinion of this one journalist. (Check out the edit history to see its original format.) If someone would like to delete the section, I would not object, but I do not wish to get into an edit war on the subject. Hal Jespersen 15:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's been three days with no disagreements. Unless anyone objects by this weekend, I'm just going to remove the section.63.250.85.186 12:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with your assessment. Sharlet's article isn't about Stonewall Jackson, and in my opinion nothing in that magazine article is "history" that merits mention in this encyclopedia article.
Rgfolsom 13:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm...DennyColt? Why did you revert my deletion of that section as vandalism? I thought we'd agreed it didn't really belong here. I'm going to go ahead and remove it again and hope you see this section.74.130.23.77 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious fervor

In re the above, the article appears to have done all it can to diminish any connection of Jackson to religion when just the exact opposite was true--religion drove him in all he did, devotion to Virginia, to his troops, to battle and war. There is, for example, twice as much space devoted to the lemons, and also to his sleep quirk. While those are his most well-known eccentricities, they hardly define the man. His most basic assumption as a general was that divine intervention would win battles if the situation merited it, beginning with Kernstown. It was not a transient, ethereal, or symbolic part of him--it was his basic nature. God-Jackson-and Virginia were all integrated to Jackson. Armies throughout history pay lip service to "God is on our side" but Jackson generaled according to his belief--yet app. we daren't mention it.--Buckboard 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think if you'll look at the reversion history, the deleted portion was less a highlighting of Jackson's beliefs, and more a highlighting of Jackson's importance to modern day fundamentalist Christians. It was a fairly lengthy section that didn't contribute very much.65.27.147.47 (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal hit this page 21 March 2007

I was looking up this page and found if vandalized today This page was last modified 16:44, 21 March 2007

12.155.157.110 17:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robertson quote

You can't attribute a quote before and after--it's redundant.

Wrong:

Joe Blow said:

"My name's Joe."

--Joe Blow

Right:

Joe Blow said:

"My name's Joe."

-or-

"My name's Joe."

--Joe Blow

Given that the Robertson quote is part of a narrative text, the first form is preferable.

The box around the quote makes it look like it's not part of the text, but that's not as strange as attributing the quote twice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nareek (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] West Point

The section on West Point is completely void of citations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stev0supreemo (talk • contribs) 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Current Doctrine - End State

The claim that the command relationship between Jackson and Lee would, using modern doctrine, would be described as 'end state' I believe to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘end state’. The term 'end state' is more often used to describe strategic aims for a campaign or war rather than what a commander is attempting to achieve in a single engagement or battle. 'End state’ sets the strategic objectives for a campaign it does not describe a command relationship. I would suggest a more accurate description of the command relationship between Lee and Jackson would be 'mission command'. A text book example of mission command is undoubtedly Jackson's flanking manoeuvre at Chancellorsville where Lee told him what effect he wanted from his corps but then left Jackson to plan and get on with it. Ewell's failure to take Cemetery Hill was just as much a failure by Lee to recognise that the notion of mission command did not sit easily with Ewell. I suspect Ewell would have performed much better if he had been given a direct order without any equivocations. A reasonably good definition of the term mission command is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Command. --Jrmg 22:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverence for Jackson

In addition to the source at the top of the page that verifies that Jackson is revered by many Americans there is also a holiday, Lee-Jackson day, that honors him. Does anybody know why Jackson is honored by so many Americans? Do we have any sources that might discuss which of his actions these Americans admire and how those actions were of benefit to themselves or others? Is there perhaps a source that might shed some light on the discussions that led to a decision to honor Jackson with a holiday? Is he seen as a kind of role model people should look up to?Zebulin (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Jackson is revered for reasons similar to George S. Patton: he was an audacious and gifted general with an ample compliment of character eccentricities that make him more interesting and seem more human and approachable. Unlike Patton, however, Jackson was shot down in his prime and so there are entire cottage industries that argue the various ways that Jackson could have won the war if he had survived. All of this positive speculation obviously adds to his reputation. For those in the military (US and elsewhere) he is admired primarily for his tactical brilliance. For some civilians in the South today, there is an affection for the great men of the Confederacy that derives from their sense of history and regional patriotism, which overlooks some of the [ahem] negative aspects of the era. Whether Jackson should be held up as a role model for anyone is not the subject of an encyclopedia article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lt General

I just broke up Jackson's ranks by army, Major for his service in the USA and Lt. General for the CSA. This was to correct a red link made by a previous edit for Lt. General (CSA), and I made it go to the explanation on the History of United States Generals page for the relevant section describing the Confederacy's use of the rank. Hopefully this will clear up any confusion. Let me know if there's a better solution out there.

Kresock (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rank History

Moved to Talk:Military career of Stonewall Jackson

[edit] creation of toys.

the toys are first manufactured by the utmost people that cleanse themselfs and know the biomechanics of engeering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.92.13 (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)