Stonewall Jackson question

MikeyB

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
In Landscape Turned Red, Sears retells a story concerning Ewell and Jackson. He writes:
General Richard Ewell, trying to spare the life of a particularly courageous Union officer in one of the Valley battles, earned a Jackson rebuke. "The brave and gallant Federal officers are the very kind that must be killed," he insisted. "Shoot the brave officers and the cowards will run away and take the men with them."

Does anyone have anymore detail on this incident? Was Jackson talking about executing prisoners or not giving quarter? Was Jackson ordering the targeting of officers and Ewell trying to argue against?

Thanks for the help,
mike
 
Cross-checking with Sears' footnotes, it comes from Robert Stiles' Four Years Under Marse Robert, p. 245-246:

The following little story, which I quote from Dr. McGuire, but which I heard many times before reading it in print, well illustrates one of the points of difference between them [meaning Stonewall and Ewell].
At the battle of Port Republic an officer commanding a regiment of Federal soldiers and riding a snow-white horse was very conspicuous for his gallantry. He frequently exposed himself to the fire of our men in the most reckless way. So splendid was this man's courage that General Ewell, one of the most chivalrous gentlemen I ever knew, at some risk to his own life, rode down the line and called to his men not to shoot the man on the white horse. After a while, however, the officer and the white horse went down. A day or two after, when General Jackson learned of the incident, he sent for General Ewell and told him not to do such a thing again ; that this was no ordinary war, and the brave and gallant Federal officers were the very kind that must be killed. "Shoot the brave officers and the cowards will run away and take the men with them?"


I think it means not giving quarter, that if you shoot the brave ones, all you will have left are the cowards that will not stand and fight - resulting in victory for the Confederates.

I'll see if I can find it told by Dr. McGuire.
 
Cross-checking with Sears' footnotes, it comes from Robert Stiles' Four Years Under Marse Robert, p. 245-246:

The following little story, which I quote from Dr. McGuire, but which I heard many times before reading it in print, well illustrates one of the points of difference between them [meaning Stonewall and Ewell].
At the battle of Port Republic an officer commanding a regiment of Federal soldiers and riding a snow-white horse was very conspicuous for his gallantry. He frequently exposed himself to the fire of our men in the most reckless way. So splendid was this man's courage that General Ewell, one of the most chivalrous gentlemen I ever knew, at some risk to his own life, rode down the line and called to his men not to shoot the man on the white horse. After a while, however, the officer and the white horse went down. A day or two after, when General Jackson learned of the incident, he sent for General Ewell and told him not to do such a thing again ; that this was no ordinary war, and the brave and gallant Federal officers were the very kind that must be killed. "Shoot the brave officers and the cowards will run away and take the men with them?"


I think it means not giving quarter, that if you shoot the brave ones, all you will have left are the cowards that will not stand and fight - resulting in victory for the Confederates.

I'll see if I can find it told by Dr. McGuire.
IMO, in this particular instance, since the officer on the white horse was still engaged in combat and there was no report of him surrendering, no quarter would not apply. Giving no quarter meant taking no prisoners.
 
Cross-checking with Sears' footnotes, it comes from Robert Stiles' Four Years Under Marse Robert, p. 245-246:

The following little story, which I quote from Dr. McGuire, but which I heard many times before reading it in print, well illustrates one of the points of difference between them [meaning Stonewall and Ewell].
At the battle of Port Republic an officer commanding a regiment of Federal soldiers and riding a snow-white horse was very conspicuous for his gallantry. He frequently exposed himself to the fire of our men in the most reckless way. So splendid was this man's courage that General Ewell, one of the most chivalrous gentlemen I ever knew, at some risk to his own life, rode down the line and called to his men not to shoot the man on the white horse. After a while, however, the officer and the white horse went down. A day or two after, when General Jackson learned of the incident, he sent for General Ewell and told him not to do such a thing again ; that this was no ordinary war, and the brave and gallant Federal officers were the very kind that must be killed. "Shoot the brave officers and the cowards will run away and take the men with them?"


I think it means not giving quarter, that if you shoot the brave ones, all you will have left are the cowards that will not stand and fight - resulting in victory for the Confederates.

I'll see if I can find it told by Dr. McGuire.
thanks for the information. this certainly paints the incident in a much better light than what one might read from the Sears excerpt.
 
Oh, okay. I thought giving no quarter means not stopping fighting, to keep up pressure. Thanks for clearing that for me. :smile:
No quarter indeed refers to not accepting offers or attempts to surrender, essentially massacring those who would otherwise become prisoners-of-war. However, if fighting is still occurring and those involved have yet to make the attempt to surrender it certainly is no violation of anything to kill them!
 
Sam Watkins of the 1st Tennessee offered a different viewpoint to Jackson's: he claimed that he never bothered to shoot at officers but only at enlisted men who were more likely to do him harm. Of course this was in retrospect.
 
Sam Watkins of the 1st Tennessee offered a different viewpoint to Jackson's: he claimed that he never bothered to shoot at officers but only at enlisted men who were more likely to do him harm. Of course this was in retrospect.
And unfortunately like many other of Sam's comments it must be taken with a veritable pillar of salt!
 
Back
Top