Stonewall Jackson the Failed Teacher

Yes, it is a fact, and it is also a fact that he was leading a volunteer army that was undisciplined and had never experienced the hardships of war. His treatment might seem harsh on the face of it, but men at war must be molded to deny themselves and virtuously all else for the good of the service. Jackson would have experienced such molding during his professional military training; the men he had to lead had to get a crash course in such discipline. By no stretch of the imagination was he a horrible human being or a hypocrite.

If one treats themselves better than his soldiers, uses different measures to judge himself and his subordinates, and uses a higher power to justify it to boot, in my book he is a horrible human being and a hypocrite.

In my book, leaders lead by example. He never did. He never held himself to the same standard as a subordinate to his leaders, than he held his subordinates in relation to him. It was ok for him to disregard direct orders, but not for his subordinates to even act and show initiative without consulting him, even if he did not give them any orders.

Calling him a hypocrite, might be just a bit too lenient methinks...
 
If one treats themselves better than his soldiers, uses different measures to judge himself and his subordinates, and uses a higher power to justify it to boot, in my book he is a horrible human being and a hypocrite.

In my book, leaders lead by example. He never did. He never held himself to the same standard as a subordinate to his leaders, than he held his subordinates in relation to him. It was ok for him to disregard direct orders, but not for his subordinates to even act and show initiative without consulting him, even if he did not give them any orders.

Calling him a hypocrite, might be just a bit too lenient methinks...

So I'm currently reading 'Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend' by James I. Robertson, and either you're discussing some other guy by the same name or Robertson wrote a fictional masterpiece. On more than one occasion Robertson talks about Jackson being pleased with initiative on the part of his subordinates.

You can call Jackson whatever you want, I suppose, but when someone calls him a horrible human being and a hypocrite it says more about the person saying it than it does about Jackson.

Edited
 
Last edited:
Gosh, E-just-E, tell us what you really think! :laugh:

I don't know about horrible human being but I can see how some people on the receiving end of his sense of justice would definitely feel that way. Back in the Seminole Wars Jackson thought one of his fellow officers was fooling around with a woman not his wife and raised a fuss about it that sent the guy into oblivion and ruination...and later discovered he was totally wrong. He didn't apologize for this because he believed he was right despite the evidence to the contrary!
 
Gosh, E-just-E, tell us what you really think! :laugh:

I don't know about horrible human being but I can see how some people on the receiving end of his sense of justice would definitely feel that way. Back in the Seminole Wars Jackson thought one of his fellow officers was fooling around with a woman not his wife and raised a fuss about it that sent the guy into oblivion and ruination...and later discovered he was totally wrong. He didn't apologize for this because he believed he was right despite the evidence to the contrary!
I don't dislike Jackson, but I think his behavior toward that officer (French) and several of his subordinates (especially Garnett) was uncalled for and doesn't reflect well on him.

I also suspect Jackson's childhood didn't give him great people or conflict resolution skills, sadly.
 
Empathy was not Jackson's strong suit, that's certain. He would become indignant and very angry if he was on the receiving end of unjust accusations but he never seemed to connect that same feeling in subordinates. He arrested so many of his subordinates that Lee finally had to come along and make him turn them loose so somebody could command the troops! A P Hill called him "that crazy old Presbyterian fool". That's what he was snarling while he was marching along on foot behind his famed Light Division...he couldn't lead them because he was under arrest but he could follow them!
 
I don't dislike Jackson, but I think his behavior toward that officer (French) and several of his subordinates (especially Garnett) was uncalled for and doesn't reflect well on him.

I also suspect Jackson's childhood didn't give him great people or conflict resolution skills, sadly.
Pretty much. Myself, secretly suspect Aspergers...or at least definite lack of social skills here. He did try to be sociable tho, read books on social etiquette, joined nearly every club/society in Lexington, made calls, etc. Whether or not he could successfully communicate with these people though is another story.
 
Empathy was not Jackson's strong suit, that's certain. He would become indignant and very angry if he was on the receiving end of unjust accusations but he never seemed to connect that same feeling in subordinates. He arrested so many of his subordinates that Lee finally had to come along and make him turn them loose so somebody could command the troops! A P Hill called him "that crazy old Presbyterian fool". That's what he was snarling while he was marching along on foot behind his famed Light Division...he couldn't lead them because he was under arrest but he could follow them!
In my personal experience, people who have overcome great obstacles are usually very empathetic toward other people's difficulties as a result or very unsympathetic. Jackson very much strikes me as the latter!
 
Pretty much. Myself, secretly suspect Aspergers...or at least definite lack of social skills here. He did try to be sociable tho, read books on social etiquette, joined nearly every club/society in Lexington, made calls, etc. Whether or not he could successfully communicate with these people though is another story.
I'm usually suspicious of diagnosing historical figures after the fact, but I think the Aspergers theory makes sense. He actually reminds me a bit of some classmates I had who had Aspergers.
 
Oh really?
I have read quite a few books on ASD/Aspergers, also experience, am studying the subject. Of course it is just speculation, but Jackson did seem in behavior/ personality a bit Aspergers.(Or maybe just traits, similarities, nothing more. He was certainly a very unique individual!)
 
I'm usually suspicious of diagnosing historical figures after the fact, but I think the Aspergers theory makes sense. He actually reminds me a bit of some classmates I had who had Aspergers.
I'm suspicious of the same, @Zella, if not downright ornery about the practice. I've been cranky on more than one post about what I feel is unfair Monday morning diagnosis of Mary Lincoln. :redface:

While I agree that Jackson had some traits that fit nicely into a description of Asperger's Disorder, I also think he has a lot that don't....he was certainly a complex guy, though, and I think when shown warmth and affection he responded in kind. He'd be a fun guy to have some lemonade with, that's for sure!
 
Agreed.Some diagnoses are simply ridiculous. Like really, asd?(I even heard somewhere that Buddha was autistic...people!!!)
But at the same time, some do make sense...(Jackson included, :whistling:)
 
Tvtropes actually calls Jackson a savant with a 'serious mental disorder like OCD' or words to that effect, on the trope Southern Fried Genius. Not sure about this one...
 
Agreed.Some diagnoses are simply ridiculous. Like really, asd?(I even heard somewhere that Buddha was autistic...people!!!)
But at the same time, some do make sense...(Jackson included, :whistling:)
I think they can make sense (sorry if I'm being too much of a stickler - I'm a psychologist in real life :D). The biggest problem with historical diagnoses is the same problem with diagnostics in the present - they can ignore factors that explain behavior better than a psychological deficit.

In Jackson's situation, he had a really tough childhood and lost some of the most important people in his life. Is it any wonder that he was stern and socially awkward? He certainly wasn't a creative thinker in terms of teaching (as repeating the same lesson rather than explaining it better shows), but that's hardly diagnostic in itself.
 
Oh really?
I have read quite a few books on ASD/Aspergers, also experience, am studying the subject. Of course it is just speculation, but Jackson did seem in behavior/ personality a bit Aspergers.(Or maybe just traits, similarities, nothing more. He was certainly a very unique individual!)
In my psych class, a classmate with Aspergers did a presentation on his personal experiences. It was quite interesting. My roommate a year or two later had it as well. She was a lovely person and we're still really close friends, but we had some pretty heated battles in the beginning before we got used to each other. :smile:

I'm suspicious of the same, @Zella, if not downright ornery about the practice. I've been cranky on more than one post about what I feel is unfair Monday morning diagnosis of Mary Lincoln. :redface:

While I agree that Jackson had some traits that fit nicely into a description of Asperger's Disorder, I also think he has a lot that don't....he was certainly a complex guy, though, and I think when shown warmth and affection he responded in kind. He'd be a fun guy to have some lemonade with, that's for sure!
Poor Mary Todd! I agree about the way she is often discussed.

That's a good point about his complexity! One of my favorite quotations is Whitman's "I contain multitudes." I think of it often when I read about Jackson.
 
I think they can make sense (sorry if I'm being too much of a stickler - I'm a psychologist in real life :D). The biggest problem with historical diagnoses is the same problem with diagnostics in the present - they can ignore factors that explain behavior better than a psychological deficit.

In Jackson's situation, he had a really tough childhood and lost some of the most important people in his life. Is it any wonder that he was stern and socially awkward? He certainly wasn't a creative thinker in terms of teaching (as repeating the same lesson rather than explaining it better shows), but that's hardly diagnostic in itself.
That makes a lot of sense! It's good to get a professional opinion. :smile:
 
In my psych class, a classmate with Aspergers did a presentation on his personal experiences. It was quite interesting. My roommate a year or two later had it as well. She was a lovely person and we're still really close friends, but we had some pretty heated battles in the beginning before we got used to each other. :smile:


Poor Mary Todd! I agree about the way she is often discussed.

That's a good point about his complexity! One of my favorite quotations is Whitman's "I contain multitudes." I think of it often when I read about Jackson.
I wish I could like your post multiple times. :D

I think ol' Stonewall is the kind of guy who would've done very well with one close friend who was always there for him. I know a lot of people like that, who just need that one connection to overcome their own shyness, sense of not belonging, etc. To some extent, he found a bit of this with Stuart, who could actually joke around with Jackson and bring out another side to him. It would have been heartbreaking for Jackson to have survived the War and try to move forward without Stuart.
 
I wish I could like your post multiple times. :D

I think ol' Stonewall is the kind of guy who would've done very well with one close friend who was always there for him. I know a lot of people like that, who just need that one connection to overcome their own shyness, sense of not belonging, etc. To some extent, he found a bit of this with Stuart, who could actually joke around with Jackson and bring out another side to him. It would have been heartbreaking for Jackson to have survived the War and try to move forward without Stuart.
I'd never thought about his friendship with Stuart like that, but it makes sense completely!

I think Jackson had issues trusting people, but he seems to have very different and very warm interactions with those who he could trust and who did bring him out if his shell.

The main thing that stood out to me in his childhood is how much he got passed around among various relatives. I can't help but think that eroded his ability to naturally trust people. I've often wondered if the instability of his early years also contributed to how rigid he could be later in life. A sense of imposing order when he could, if that makes sense?
 
We have a couple good threads back in the archives about whether or not Stonewall was an aspie! Myself, I think there is a good case to be made for it but, of course, our subject is no more and can't be evaluated. Some think he had epilepsy. That might account for some of his nap attacks - he fell asleep in church one day and snored so loudly the lady behind him stabbed him with a hat pin. I mean stabbed! He didn't wake up... But...again, we have no EEG or anything else to help confirm that. And...epilepsy and autism often go together.

As amweiner says, it could all be a matter of his chaotic raising. A lot of people whose lives are jumbled seek control, order and continuity. Sherman is an example of this as well - being a soldier meant stability. It's interesting to note Jackson and Stuart's friendship. Stuart was outgoing, fun-loving, dearly loved good food and laughed that there were never leftovers when he got done at a dinner! Jackson instinctively knew he needed just such a person in his life. When Jackson did lay out a proper dinner, butter and wine and the works, Stuart just couldn't resist teasing him about his extravagant tastes and amazing gluttony - made Jackson at least smile! He also brought Jackson a spiffy new uniform - always style conscious! - to replace his beat up, raggedy one. Stuart was the only such person in Jackson's life, by the way, and I think that might have been why he started doing better toward the end.
 
To be honest, I wonder if Stonewall Jackson lived during the Battle of Chancellorsville. Assuming nothing else changes and the Civil War ends in the manner we recognize how would Jackson reacted to Reconstruction? Considering Jackson educated his slaves in Virginia despite being illegal would he have been Reconstruction-friendly and if so how would this affect Reconstruction as a whole if a prominent Confederate general like Jackson endorsed it.

I would really be afraid to make an assumption on the hilited line. Based on what I think, with people he new turning into radical republicans scalawags, officers he went to West Point turning into Carpetbaggers and turning into thieves, may have been a little more than he could stand. Making Death a blessing. :frown: SALUTE! :lee:

I was thinking he might have packed up Julia and Mary Anna, and headed for South America. On the other hand, he might have decreed that it was God's will and become a model citizen, but hopefully not a teacher again.:frantic:

There is no reality that I can imagine that sees Jackson happily enduring the outcome of the war.

Theologically speaking, Jackson was a Calvinist, or what many today call "reformed." He believed that God has planned everything out according to His will long before the world was formed. It was this kind of faith that allowed Jackson to be the virtually fearless military commander that he was, and he was deeply convinced that the South was fighting the equivalent of a holy war and that God would not let them be ultimately defeated. The outcome of the war would have shaken Jackson to the very core of his being, and it may have been more than he could bear.

Edited
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top