Discussion in 'Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson' started by E_just_E, Oct 19, 2016.
So...... what was the answer to the question? @E_just_E
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.
"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.
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'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).
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.
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.
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.
Garnett served as a pallbearer at his funeral didn't he?
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!
How much time do you have?
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?
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.
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".
Told ya Freshly reported in the 1940s...
Separate names with a comma.