Stonewall Newspapers accounts of Stonewall Jackson's two funerals - something is amiss

You got it. His wife. No mention whatsoever, which is really unusual.
Jackson was adopted by the entire Confederacy. His loss was their loss. I agree it's odd they didn't mention his family but they were all hurting as if it was their own personal loss. Simply an insensitive oversight. Everyone in the Confederacy was hurt and wanted to make it personal.
 
Jackson was adopted by the entire Confederacy. His loss was their loss. I agree it's odd they didn't mention his family but they were all hurting as if it was their own personal loss. Simply an insensitive oversight. Everyone in the Confederacy was hurt and wanted to make it personal.

"Everyone" and "entire" are huge words. Donuts to dollars there was a considerable number of people, mainly in the CSA army, who thought that he got what he deserved...
 
"Everyone" and "entire" are huge words. Donuts to dollars there was a considerable number of people, mainly in the CSA army, who thought that he got what he deserved...
Lol, that's why they paraded his body around almost to the extent they did Lincoln's. I'm sure he had his enemies but nowhere near the extent you suggest.
 
You got it. His wife. No mention whatsoever, which is really unusual.

This thread got started while I was doing some research on some Lexington relatives who would have known Jackson and are, in fact, buried only a few plots away from the Jackson family plot where Stonewall was originally buried. Anyway, one of the things I've been waiting for is a copy of one relative's obituary. Yesterday I got it and it's a whole column (the guy was very well known in Lexington) and it manages to not mention the widow or any other family members (there were twelve children) or name a single accomplishment (and there were roads, buildings, canals, etc.). It's actually a rather remarkable piece of writing: lots of praise that actually doesn't say anything. So maybe it's not as unusual as we think, at least in western Virginia.
 
Sorry that was unclear - Julia was born in N. C. about 6 months before Jackson's death and it wasn't until after he moved his headquarters from the Corbin House at Moss Neck to near Hamilton's Crossing around the middle of April that Anna showed up with Julia. According to Douglas, who was by then serving part-time with the Stonewall Brigade and only occasionally with Jackson who had established his headquarters in tents, Julia was put up at the Yerby House (if I remember right). When the campaign began, she and the baby were packed off to Richmond, from where she returned after Jackson was wounded. I believe though that they were renting out their house in Lexington; or at least hadn't been living there for some time, making it unlikely Anna would stay there when she could go back and live with her relatives in N. C. where she had been previously.
I'd always been under the impression that Anna sold the house, which she of course inherited, immediately after Jackson's death, but according to Col Gibson at VMI, she held onto it and continued to rent it out for some years. She must have had a trustworthy renter. She returned to NC shortly after the funeral and burial (Little Sorrel followed later in May and Superior sometime after that).
 
This thread got started while I was doing some research on some Lexington relatives who would have known Jackson and are, in fact, buried only a few plots away from the Jackson family plot where Stonewall was originally buried. Anyway, one of the things I've been waiting for is a copy of one relative's obituary. Yesterday I got it and it's a whole column (the guy was very well known in Lexington) and it manages to not mention the widow or any other family members (there were twelve children) or name a single accomplishment (and there were roads, buildings, canals, etc.). It's actually a rather remarkable piece of writing: lots of praise that actually doesn't say anything. So maybe it's not as unusual as we think, at least in western Virginia.
I would suspect that this is a reflection of the Separate Spheres philosophy that was prominent in the 19thC. Men belonged to the public sphere, whilst women belonged in the private sphere, therefore the obits would reflect on his value to the community as a contributor to its well-being. Condolences to the widow and family would more appropriately be expressed in person, or in a letter.
 
I would suspect that this is a reflection of the Separate Spheres philosophy that was prominent in the 19thC. Men belonged to the public sphere, whilst women belonged in the private sphere, therefore the obits would reflect on his value to the community as a contributor to its well-being. Condolences to the widow and family would more appropriately be expressed in person, or in a letter.

Perhaps you are right. I'd actually never heard of the Separate Spheres philosophy (well, not in so many words) so I learned a new term today. Still, it seems that for such well-known men some mention of there being a wife and children might have been made if nothing else than to say one could pay their respects to them at so and so place and time. In the case of my guy they didn't even list his actual public achievements (which were many). Still just seems odd to me.
 
Perhaps you are right. I'd actually never heard of the Separate Spheres philosophy (well, not in so many words) so I learned a new term today. Still, it seems that for such well-known men some mention of there being a wife and children might have been made if nothing else than to say one could pay their respects to them at so and so place and time. In the case of my guy they didn't even list his actual public achievements (which were many). Still just seems odd to me.
Heh! Have you read any obituaries lately? Some of them seem pretty odd to me!
For more information on Separate Spheres, you might find this interesting.
https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/gender-roles-in-the-19th-century
 
I would suspect that this is a reflection of the Separate Spheres philosophy that was prominent in the 19thC. Men belonged to the public sphere, whilst women belonged in the private sphere, therefore the obits would reflect on his value to the community as a contributor to its well-being. Condolences to the widow and family would more appropriately be expressed in person, or in a letter.
Supposedly a proper Victorian woman was to be in the newspaper only three times in her life: when she was born, when she was married, and when she died. Nothing about when her husband died. And nothing about when her children were born. Maybe the man alone was supposed to be responsible for that.
 
Next to his family plot is the Brooke Family Plot, hosting among others General George Mercer Brook (d 1851) and his sister Anna Maria Brooke (d 1854,) the mother of Richard Brooke Garnett... I find it pretty ironic based on the relationship of Jackson with Dick Garnett.

Garnett served as a pallbearer at his funeral didn't he?
 
Garnett served as a pallbearer at his funeral didn't he?

How much time do you have? :wink:

Short answer:
Yes he did. As every other General who was around Richmond that time. 2/3-rds of Pickett's Division (Garnett's and Kemper's Brigades) were at Richmond at that time. Both brigades were the Military Escort noted in the paper. Kemper, in addition to Garnett, was a pall bearer too.
 
How much time do you have? :wink:

Short answer:
Yes he did. As every other General who was around Richmond that time. 2/3-rds of Pickett's Division (Garnett's and Kemper's Brigades) were at Richmond at that time. Both brigades were the Military Escort noted in the paper. Kemper, in addition to Garnett, was a pall bearer too.
But as I recalled Garnett volunteered. Right?
 
Not only was he a pallbearer. He volunteered and stated he held no hard feelings toward the man. Something I find to be totally unbelievable. Talk about pragmatic!

But as I recalled Garnett volunteered. Right?

According to one single source that was published in 1940, supposedly based on Henry Kyd Douglas' journal and papers. And, of course, that got propagated.

Based on the fact that Garnett's and Kemper's Brigades were there, and all Generals who were there were pallbearers, I see no volunteering, but not getting out of it either... Interestingly enough something that Garnett allegedly said to Douglas (and Pendleton who supposedly was around too,) "how this wrong can be righted, now", could be interpreted in a totally different way, if the "wrong" is meant to refer to what Jackson did to him, instead of Jackson's death.
 
According to one single source that was published in 1940, supposedly based on Henry Kyd Douglas' journal and papers. And, of course, that got propagated.

Based on the fact that Garnett's and Kemper's Brigades were there, and all Generals who were there were pallbearers, I see no volunteering, but not getting out of it either... Interestingly enough something that Garnett allegedly said to Douglas (and Pendleton who supposedly was around too,) "how this wrong can be righted, now", could be interpreted in a totally different way, if the "wrong" is meant to refer to what Jackson did to him, instead of Jackson's death.

Oh my, don't make me dust off Robertson. I believe Garnett stated Jackson's loss was a great loss to the country and he himself was saddened by his death. I could be wrong.
 
Oh my, don't make me dust off Robertson. I believe Garnett stated Jackson's loss was a great loss to the country and he himself was saddened by his death. I could be wrong.

No need. The quote you are referring to is probably this:

"You know of the unfortunate breach between General Jackson and myself. I can never forget it, nor cease to regret it. But I do wish here to assure you that no one can lament his death more sincerely than I do. I believe that he did me a great injustice, but I believe also that he acted from the purest motives. He is dead. Who can fill his place?"

Garnett, allegedly said that with "teary eyes" to Sandy Pendleton (btw the only other man to testify against him in his Court martial trial) and then Pendleton moved asked him supposedly to server as TJ's pallbearer and Garnett "accepted with gratitude".
 
No need. The quote you are referring to is probably this:

"You know of the unfortunate breach between General Jackson and myself. I can never forget it, nor cease to regret it. But I do wish here to assure you that no one can lament his death more sincerely than I do. I believe that he did me a great injustice, but I believe also that he acted from the purest motives. He is dead. Who can fill his place?"

Garnett, allegedly said that with "teary eyes" to Sandy Pendleton (btw the only other man to testify against him in his Court martial trial) and then Pendleton moved asked him supposedly to server as TJ's pallbearer and Garnett "accepted with gratitude".
That's it.
 
Back
Top