Stonewall Did Stonewall Jackson Get Assassinated?

I seem to recall many, many years ago a brief article in a Confederate Veteran Magazine regarding the shooting of General Jackson by a veteran of the 18th NC who implied that Jackson was not the beloved commander of all. In fact, according to his brief account, Jackson was frequently discussed by many of his troops as being a "suitable" target to be fragged! Does anyone else recall that article on CV magazine?

Also, here is an article that may be of interest to those who would like to know more regarding the officer who ordered "oen fire."

http://www.fredericksburg.com/town_...cle_d4da4d59-5fd0-5bfe-9d24-e4505662d08f.html

J
 
I don't know why, really, they would want to kill the general at that particular moment. The soldiers knew they were winning - why take out the commander who was doing the winning? This theory has always put me in mind of the suicide theory for this tragic incident. Jackson committed suicide at the height of his career...that's been rather well argued! But, it does miss one crucial point - Jackson was a Calvinist and suicide was not within the realm of a thought as it would interfere with God's direction for his life. Same with the friendly fire theory - the men wouldn't kill a general mid-battle who was in the process of winning.

This theory also assumes there was hatred for Jackson within the ranks so bad this thought came up frequently. Not so. He wasn't loved but neither was Grant, or Forrest. But these commanders led their men to victory more often than defeat, and would fight. The men might think they were sons of a beach, hate their guts and everything else, but they would follow them and if they were transferred away would work to get back. They wanted to win.
 
Thought provoking thread for a Monday morning (well at least for me I read on Monday). But evidence is slim and there were many recorded instances of friendly fire , which I guess if you were a conspiracy theory person you could argue that is provides a great cover, but I dont see he was the victim of an assasination for the reasons many others have given.
 
I don't know why, really, they would want to kill the general at that particular moment. The soldiers knew they were winning - why take out the commander

Because it was one short moment where they could claim plausible deniability, the few seconds before the fog of situation cleared and the repeated "hold fire" command was for sure finally directed at the pickets in front of Jackson.

On motivations: If you had an actually desparate dislike of your commander while on campaign it was not something you'd blab or write down. In that army there were no illusions about punishments for insubordination. But if an opportunity suddenly presented itself for a few seconds -- and you can claim plausible deniability for those seconds -- what then? You'd experienced a little pressure from your hassled folks back home to ditch the cause, and you've come to a realization that taking out a strategic player like Jackson could definitely shorten your war (to heck with rich slaveowners). A powerful combination of motivations.

You know, Jackson was hit 3 times -- that's three times -- so it's not so much of a stretch to suppose that he in particular was the one being aimed at, not just the result of the rest of the volley in the direction of the party.

This is only to say that the possiblility of assasination really can't be so easily dismissed or made fun of.

Of course only real evidence from that time and campaign could strongly support an assassination scenario (let's knock it off with "fragging," a modern term that only proves we watch movies about VietNam).

Bottom line for me: I'm not seeing strong real period evidence Jackon was assassinated but -- posse guys aside -- it's not a silly thing to suppose he might have been.
 
Last edited:
@diane will know this - was anyone else hurt in the volley? Horses and/or other men?
 
Because it was one short moment where they could claim plausible deniability, the few seconds before the fog of situation cleared and the repeated "hold fire" command was for sure finally directed at the pickets in front of Jackson.

Now motivation: If you had an actually desparate dislike of your commander while on campaign it was not something you'd record in your notebook or letter home. In that army there were no illusions about punishments for insubordination. But whenf an opportunity suddenly presented itself for a few seconds -- and you can claim plausible deniability for those seconds -- what then? You've experienced a little pressure from your hassled folks back home to ditch the cause, and you've come to a realization that taking out a strategic player like Jackson could definitely shorten the war. A powerful combination of motivations.

You know, Jackson was hit 3 times -- that's three times -- so it's not so much of a stretch to suppose that he in particular was the one being aimed at, not just the result of a volley in the direction of the party.

This is only to say that the possiblility of assasination really can't be so easily dismissed or made fun of.

But of course only real evidence from that time and campaign could strongly support an assassination scenario (let's knock it off with "fragging," a modern term that only proves we watch movies about VietNam).

Bottom line for me: I not seeing strong real period evidence Jackon was assassinated but (you posse guys aside) it's not either a silly thing to suppose he might have been.

No, it's not a silly thing to suppose but it doesn't seem a very probable thing either. The thought processes you describe for soldiers disposed to do away with their commander seem a little overdone for Average Joe but then a lot of convoluted things can go through one's head very rapidly without really forming into thoughts. It requires a number of grievances stacked in the back of that head to spark. For me, the grievances weren't that bad. Jackson was tough, expected a lot out of his men, had little empathy and so forth - A P Hill referred to him as 'that crazy Presbyterian' - but it doesn't seem like that feeling was at a level to deliberately target Jackson. Besides, it would have had to been the feeling of the 18th's commander, Major Barry, since he ordered the volley. More than once, incidentally. Getting hit three times by close range volley fire is amazing - it should have been a lot more. Forrest was caught by volley fire from a distance and there were ten shots in his horse and his saddle - none in him - but that's a good volley. One might suggest they were aiming at him, which they were, and it was broad daylight. Major Barry was heartily sorry his orders led to Jackson's death, and it was thought by his family that his life-long remorse led to his early death - doesn't sound like someone who had it in for Jackson.
 
WILLIAM H. McLAURIN, Adjutant 18th NC regiment:

How Jackson and Hill, their staff and couriers got in front

was never satisfactorily explained. Neither of them was in

the habit, day or night, of riding or otherwise going in front

of the skirmishers, or line, when they ordered an advance,

and the enemy known to be at a short distance on that night

they certainly woiild not knowingly have put themselves between

the lines at such a time. Such a body of horsemen

could not have ridden through any part of Lane's brigade

that night without its being known. We were never more

on the alert, and wide awake than that night, and I don't remember

to have ever heard of a member of the brigade saying

that he knew they had gone in our front.

It was more than probable that

the delay occurring by the complication on Lane's right,

caused them to ride forward on the mountain road, leading

towards Chancellorsville, passing beyond Lane's left, and

they were thus in our front, when the firing began. Whatever

may be the true statement of how they got in that position,

there was nothing more certain than that they came

from our front when the firing began.


My comments: This was a veteran regiment, had been with ANV for a long time and there are noted instances of the men cheering Jackson at various times, and fought hard for him. I believe it is 100% an accident and that Jackson should have been more careful and should have made it known what he was doing but there is no indication of that.
 
@diane will know this - was anyone else hurt in the volley? Horses and/or other men?

I believe three officers were killed and five horses killed. Everybody was wounded, some very seriously. A P Hill's group was ahead of Jackson's and all were shot except Hill, who managed to hit the dirt and stay there. He was later wounded, too. I'm not sure but I think both parties consisted of thirteen men besides Jackson. There were hurt people all up and down the road.
 
No, it's not a silly thing to suppose but it doesn't seem a very probable thing either....but then a lot of convoluted things can go through one's head very rapidly without really forming into thoughts... It requires a number of grievances stacked in the back of that head to spark...the grievances weren't that bad. ...it doesn't seem like that feeling was at a level to deliberately target Jackson...it would have had to been the feeling of the 18th's commander, Major Barry, since he ordered the volley. ...incidentally. Getting hit three times by close range volley fire is amazing - it should have been a lot more... One might suggest they were aiming at him...Barry was heartily sorry his orders led to Jackson's death...doesn't sound like someone who had it in for Jackson.

So it takes as long a list to indicate Jackson wasn't assassinated as it does to indicate he was assassinated - which kinda supports my earlier point.

These then are a half dozen good solid indicators against assassination. (Except the odd single shot premise. Let's go back to calm logic on that one: three shots hitting Jackson is a better indication he was aimed at than one shot hitting Jackson would be. That's to understand that a volley fire did not preclude acquiring a target if one was in view when the volley took place. We're well into the age of the rifle by this campaign.

Anyway I offer empathy in wanting to think that three wouldn't have wanted to kill Jackson in that moment.
 
Last edited:
So it takes as long a list to indicate Jackson wasn't assassinated as it does to indicate he was assassinated - which kinda supports my earlier point.

These then are a half dozen good solid indicators against assassination. (Except the odd single shot premise. Let's go back to calm logic on that one: three shots hitting Jackson is a better indication he was aimed at than one shot hitting Jackson would be. That's to understand that a volley fire did not preclude acquiring a target if one was in view when the volley took place. We're well into the age of the rifle by this campaign.

Anyway I offer empathy in wanting to think that three wouldn't have wanted to kill Jackson in that moment.

Pretty much! The target was acquired if not totally recognized - that's one difficulty with assassination. They would have to be targeting all their officers then, which really is a stretch. And, Jackson was harder to spot in his black raincoat. It's just that the lines were so close and people from both sides were riding around into each other's lines - it was not a safe place for the general to be for starters. But the men who fired the volley only saw riders coming their way, imho. I'm actually surprised only three shots hit him and none hit Little Sorrel. It helps to look at the terrain, too. That factored into what happened as well, what they could see for the low road, for instance. It was one of those well traveled sunken roads. I've always thought Jackson himself was responsible for his death - he had a moment of impulse to go see for himself what was going on and was very eager to pursue the advantage he knew he had gained. His blood was up, as it were!
 
I was reading a book (Civil War Goats and Scapegoats by H. Donald Winkler), and it made up a big point. Stonewall Jackson’s death was most likely intentional. Here are the pieces of evidence the book used to prove that point:

1. Every time Jackson’s party passed through the clearings of the woods, they were briefly in full moonlight.
2. Jackson’s attire and silhouette made him instantly recognizable.
3. He wore a distinctive visored cap from the VMI.
4. He rode a small horse (Little Sorrel).
5. He leaned forward in the saddle like a jockey.
6. Men close enough to take aim should have recognized the general and Little Sorrel the instant they were spotted.
7. When AP Hill and others screamed out to cease fire, his voice and Virginian accent should have removed any doubt about which side they were on.
8. Only Jackson was hit three times, as if he were singled out.

Why would the CSA soldiers do such a thing? Here are some reasons why they might want to assassinate Jackson:

1. Jackson inflicted harsh military discipline.
2. Anyone not doing exactly what he was told to do was accused of mutiny.
3. Troublemakers were shot.
4. He forced his men to cover as much ground on foot as did when on horses, and to do so regardless of the rain, mud, heat, dust, or winter winds.
5. He drove hungry men as hard as those who were well fed.
6. After marching all day, his men were required to polish their weapons before going to sleep.

My verdict: Jackson’s death was INTENTIONAL
It was,simply, friendly fire at night. Happened often. Jackson was hit simultaneously by 3 shots.
 
You know, Jackson was hit 3 times -- that's three times -- so it's not so much of a stretch to suppose that he in particular was the one being aimed at, not just the result of the rest of the volley in the direction of the party.

Would the suggestion then be that multiple individuals simultaneously fired at Jackson? How would that come about? It would seem easier to hypothesize a single disgruntled soldier than either a preplanned conspiracy or a sudden spontaneous decision by several men to shoot the general.

Our hypothetical assassin(s) would be surrounded by a mass of soldiers, most of whom were presumably loyal.

Friendly fire is a sad constant of war. I see no reason to doubt it in this case.
 
Jackson was a stern disciplinarian but my understanding is that he was mostly respected by the troops he commanded. Even General Richard Garnett, who Jackson placed under arrest for apparently withdrawing without orders from the Kernstown battlefield, overlooked that harsh action and acted as one of the pall bearers at Jackson's funeral. So the idea that Jackson would have been targeted by the soldiery does not ring true.
 
...at least the posse has allowed the topic some legs this time. My work's done here.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top