Gain's Mill - all day against a smaller Federal force, trapped for the most part against a river. Couldn't win on his own.

Brawner Farm, at Groveton(2nd Manassas) - Could drive off two brigades with a vastly superior force.

2nd Manassas - Was being driven at Groveton when Longstreet comes to the rescue.

1st Kernstown - Got flanked and driven from the field.

All anyone remembers is how he drove three "idiot-then fired" Federal generals from the valley and a flank attack thet got him killed at Chancellorsville.


How many times die he ignore Lee's orders durint the 7 Days?

How many times was he late to where Lee wanted him to be?


Jackson was the Confederacy's "Poster Boy" while they were getting their butts kicked all over the western theater, nothing more. He played a role in one battle where the Confederacy won tatically, but lost far more casualties then they could ever afford. Chancellorsville cost the Confederate army the Gettysburg Campaign. (so one could say in hindsight)

I would argue that Jackson at the second battle of Manassas, Antietam and Fredericksburg contributed immesurably to the southern success. The Eastern theater of the war of course suited the Confederates as they had decided from an early point in the war to conduct a defensive campaign. This was of course made obvious by the slaughter at Gettysburg when Lee decided to go on the offensive. Jackson was no immortal but he was a true soldier in holding to high moral character and honorable service.

Jackson, Forrest and Lee have been elevated to near god-like status by the "Lost Cause" mavens, and I really don't think they live up to the scrutiny.  They seem to have been more lucky than good, Lee especially flying in the face of military wisdom time and again and getting away with it, mostly due to the apparent total ineptitude of the Union officer corps in the first 2.5 years of the war (in the East, of course).  Once they were confronted by officers of reasonable quality, they ceased to be so "invincible".  While the manufacturing might of the North did indeed play a part in the Southern downfall, It has been overemphasized, I believe.  In fact, what defeated the South was the fact that the Union finally developed an officer corps that was worth its salt!

You have to admit, they were capable adversaries just because of sheer numbers alone. 300,000 Federal troops were dispensed of not just by luck alone! I mean I am no Confederate sympathizer but these were men trained at the same military institutions as Grant and Sherman and let us not mention Burnside. The point is, this war was fought by many courageous men of honor and valor on both sides of the Mason-Dixon. I salute both sides for their honor and courage and I can only hope to be as courageous in my own life.

Chantilly -- stopped from cutting off the retreat of the AOP to Washington by a force a fraction the size of his own.

Jed Hotchkiss just doesn't get enough credit  

Chantilly-another fine example of Jackson't inability to win against a smaller force.

"Manassas" - Jackson was in the right place at the right time. Historical research in 2008 is bringing into question the meaning or "Stone Wall."

"Antietam" - Jackson failed position his artillary properly and they were promptly driven from "Nichodimas Hill," clearly an inferior position. Don't forget how badly his troops on the Hagerstown Pike were flanked. He used up his troops so badly the were innefective by noon. Inaction by a poor Federal commander, who held the entire  Fifth Corps in reserve kept him and the rest of the Confederate army from being crushed.

"and Fredericksburg" - Jackson's lines were the only lines broken at the battle and by a smaller Federal force. Again, inept Federal command kept the gap from being exploited.

If you can remove emotion from the "equation," it's a lot easier to look at the historical record and intrept it as it actually was. Yes, Jacksons presence in "the Valley" made the folks in Washington worry. But, the historical record shows, Jackson had as many or more falures then he had success'(sp). Jackson's largest success by far was in the Southern and because they were so intertwined, the Northern press.

President, Common Ground Debate Team

The Valley Campaign is Jackson's shining achievment, but once again, much of his success can be attributed to inept Union generalship, by 3 Union detachments not properly coordinating their attacks or communicating their intentions.  Jackson did drive his men hard and cover amazing amounts of ground in his marches, but tactically, his opponents were mostly puppies not worthy of their rank.  My point is, while Jackson et.al. were fairly good officers, they've been elevated to a status far above what they deserve.  

Grumpy,

Yup. Imagine if you will for a moment the situation had Bernard Bee said, "There stands that old fool Jackson with is head up his a--," instead of referencing a stone wall.

We shall never truly know what that half of the brothers Bee really meant at that moment.  Jackson's nickname may have been different, too.  

Got to love that Charles  
just me,
Dirk Behana

Quote :

Charles Heath wrote : Grumpy, Yup. Imagine if you will for a moment the situation had Bernard Bee said, "There stands that old fool Jackson with is head up his a--," instead of referencing a stone wall. We shall never truly know what that half of the brothers Bee really meant at that moment.  Jackson's nickname may have been different, too.

Dave you make a good point we should always turn to the sources when talking about history. With that being said, you have also said that these are interpretations, which is actually what good historians do! We simply go to the sources both primary and secondary and then we make our own arguments based on these sources. That is exactly why history majors often go to law school we base our arguments on precedent. However, the argument that the only reason Jackson was so effective in the East was because the Union leadership was weak simply does not stand up to what history tells us. It would be like saying that the only reason that the Union was so effective in the West was because the Confederate leadership was ineffective. We must turn to the sources from both sides, look for the bias and then find the truth in between the lines. That's what good historiand do and by the way, we will never be able to make a reasonable argument on this forum without doing major historical research on the topic of Jackson's leadership abilities.Perhaps I have given you a good idea on a book! Let me know when you finish it as
I would enjoy reading it!!!

Actually, there is a good book that touches on the subject:  "Maps and Mapmakers of the Civil War," which is one reason I mentioned Hotchkiss.  It is an inestimable advantage to a commander to be on the side that actually has maps of the area.

Federal forces in the Valley (where Jackson made his reputation) had several disadvantages that hindered the generals in command there.  Apart from not knowing quite where they were or where they were going at any given time, until Sheridan they were divided administratively and had mixed objectives.  Commands were based in West Virginia, western Maryland, and northern Virginia and goals ranged from protecting the B&O to trying to conquer the region.  

As others have pointed out, the Valley has a southern bias to begin with -- geographically it leads southern armies into the northern heartland and northern armies to southwest Virginia.  

Despite its "bread basket" reputation, the Valley also presented a logistical challenge, particularly in transportation.  The gap between the railheads at Strasburg and Harper's Ferry reduced both of Lee's "invasions" to raids, saddled Sigel with wagons, starved Hunter, and led even Sheridan to fall back after crushing Early at Cedar Creek.

There's a great treatment of the Valley Campaign of 1864, with discussions of the earlier fighting in Sir James Edmonds' & W. Birkbeck Woods' "The Civil War in the United States," first published in 1905.  As a work by foreigners it has the advantage of being a little more objective about all concerned.

It doesn't take away from Jackson's basic abilities to suggest that he wasn't entirely the genius that popular literature has made him out to be.