Ethan S. Rafuse: "Stonewall" Jackson - June 7, 2012

[@fattmouth7715]

My Great Great Grandfather fought in the Stonewall Brigade. My Great grandfather was named Stonewall Bowman.

[@doreekaplan2589]

Jackson was my relative

[@OscarDelSanto_OscarDS]

Thank you so much for sharing this video

[@lukeboyd6548]

"If you want to see Athens and Sparta; go to Lexington." Hell yeah RAH VIRGINIA MIL

[@sirtom68]

Very nice.

[@akgeronimo501]

Read "A Good Soldier", great book about the man.

[@ldg2655]

akgeronimo501 : i will look for it... thanks!

[@joshuabeatty7406]

Stone Wall Jackson was a Brilliant tactician very intelligent in Strategy by using deception as his guide

[@stevestringer7351]

He used deception and aggression. Also, no-one knew his entire plans. Most of the time hisncommanders were in the dark as to what their orders would be. I believe that this, at times could have caused some poorly coordinated actions that, while most of the time ended in victory.... had they been better communicated may have resulted in better coordination and bigger victories.

[@savanahmclary4465]

I wish I had been with Stonewall Jackson, when he got shot.. I would have saved him .

[@carywest9256]

Your comments are very intelligent, so you must be medically trained by claiming you could have saved Gen.T.J.Jackson.

[@NuncNuncNuncNunc]

He was shot intentionally. Best fragging in history.

[@CatherineLee3000]

My birthday is January 21st!

[@rvz77]

Would you like a cake 🎂?

[@rickmarosi-yz9wt-s5b]

If I lived during the Civil War, I would have departed from the north, traveled at my expense, brought my own rifle, & requested to serve under Stonewall to fight against the invading Yankees. Stonewall never lost a battle, was always out in front of his troops. while his opponent Generals were found quivering 5 miles behind the front lines.

[@devanarayanababu1996]

dude, really? thats insane

[@carywest9256]

I hate to burst ya bubble, but The Mighty Stonewall did lose the battle of Kernstown,VA. Make no mistake, l highly admire the man for a statement he made after the day had been won at Gaine's Mill. He praised the Texas Brigade for storming the heights of Boatswain Creek and capturing the cannon and cassion.

[@NuncNuncNuncNunc]

Well aren't you a sweet little defender of slavery. Bless your heart.

[@johnatherton878]

@@devanarayanababu1996 Ha, ha! Yes.

[@johnatherton878]

@@NuncNuncNuncNunc We don't study him because he "defended slavery." He was a really good fighter, one of the best on either side.

[@sammyc7565]

“No my first name ain’t baby.. it’s Janet .. Ms Jackson if you’re nasty.”

[@leeatterberry1239]

Lincoln. Grant. Sherman. 💪

[@willoutlaw4971]

Thank you to the 18th N. Carolina Regiment. You guys sent Stonewall straight to hell.

[@risenfromyoutubesashesagai6302]

Ho skeezer!!

[@hoss-lk4bg]

god we miss Shelby foote, this poor kid comes off like it's a high school project, bad

[@jsong8282]

SC Gwynne has a book talk about his biography of Jackson, “Rebel Yell”, which is on KZbin and very good

[@Pandaemoni]

He is an interesting figure. He was committed religious zealot whose faith was so strong that he said he felt no fear in battle because God was watching and judging. He made awful military appointments (preferring Presbyterians of no talent over good soldiers of other faiths). If God was judging, fitting that God ultimately swept him off the field and made him die slowly (possibly because he was too good at fighting for the worst cause any American fought for in American military history). But he was undeniably brave and an effective military commander even if many of his men resented him and he was kinder to his slaves than most southern slave-owners (which is not exactly the highest of praise, but he did seem to genuinely care about his slaves, at times, as more than just valuable assets). Study of Jackson is legitimate just as the study of Erwin Rommel or any enemy commander might be. He would have absolutely no place in the modern military, but that just means there are lessons to be drawn from him about what is good and what is bad. (Murdering U.S. soldiers being pretty bad.)

[@stevestringer7351]

Sir, you make no sense. You seem to be poorly informed about Gen. Jackson. You mention that he was not necessarily liked by his men.... this is only partly true. His troops, at first, did not understand the meed for drilling or discipline.... that is until they got into combat then they discovered that, as one veteran said "it was better to sweat than bleed" and his men grew to love and respect Genl. Jackson. You mention his choice of following his state.... he did that. However, the thinking of the time dictated that a persons FIRST loyalty was to his or her state/home before a government far away. (Not the view of today... but we are talking about views at the time). You mentioned that there would be no room for him in the modern military.... sorry to inform you but.... his strategy and tactics are still studied and taught in ALL of the military institutions of the world. Finally. You mentioned him as a slave owner.... he actually had 6 slaves. 4 were "given" to him as a dowry for his 2nd wedding and 2 of his slaves were products of the slaves themselves asking him to purchase them and one of them was able to purchase his own freedom. He neither apologized for now argued against slavery... to his understanding of the Bible, slavery had always existed and he was not the one to argue with the Bible. However, he did teach people of color to read, used his own personal mo ey to help finance a colored sunday school and was considered by MANY of the spaves and freed persons of color to be a "friend to the colord people". There is a lot more to the man that the small box you try to put him in and write him off as evil. He was definitely a man of his time. I wonder though, would your opinion of him or Gen. Lee or any of the other commanders of the C.S.A. be different if they did everything the same way except fight for the union? Would your opinion change?

[@Pandaemoni]

@@stevestringer7351 Thanks for your response, though I think you misunderstand me in parts. I expressly wrote that Jackson was an efficient military commander *worthy* of study, and I compared him to Rommel, so of course people still study his tactics. That doesn't mean he'd fair well in the modern military, where forcing your personal religious principles on your men is frowned upon and favoring men who happen to share your Presbyterian denomination over those of more and greater ability, but of other denominations, would be prohibited. Also, yes he was kinder too his slaves than most slave owners (so far as we know), but he never freed them (again, so far as we know) and he participated in a system of white supremacy such that he bought the slave Emma and gave her as a gift to his wife AND he fought in a war whose principle goal was the defense of slavery. He also taught some slaves to read (so they could read the Bible) and taught them Christian values and religion. That is not a bad thing, but the movement to evangelize to slaves had been around for decades...among white supremacists. Some of that was in response to the belief that a Christian slave would read in the Bible that slaves had a religious "duty" to submit to their masters (as Paul wrote, slaves were to submit to their earthly masters "with fear and trembling" as they do to God himself). These evangelization movements really were kicked off after the Nat Turner slave rebellion decades before the Civil War. Many slave owners believed Christian slaves were more docile slaves, but virtually all believed blacks were inferior (too inferior to be allowed to conduct their own spiritual affairs). In Jackson's case, there is no way to know if he thought Christianity would render slaves docile, but that is the context of the system he participated in. Plus, he was such a zealous Christian that of course he taught his slaves his religion, but... what would have happened if a slave had said, "Yeah, that's nice and all, but I'm coverting to Judaism." I don't think there's any doubt that would not have been looked upon favorably by Jackson. Yes, also, many men at the time were more loyal to their states than to the Union, but not all. Major General Miegs, who converted Lee's home in Arlington into Arlington National Cemetary comes to mind, having made the cemetery because he wanted Lee (who he decried as a traitor) to see the war dead that Lee was responsible for. Like Lee, Jackson undoubtedly was aware of the sentiments of pro-Union Southerners AND the arguments for slavery being a moral evil, and he chose to ignore those arguments and go on fight for slavery and to continue owning slaves. That his conduct was "less evil" than that of others of his age doesn't render it "good" or noble, just less evil. Finally, Union commanders had failings too, I don't give them or the Union a free pass. The Union, by and large, was racist by modern standards (even if they were, on the whole, anti-slavery by the time of the War) and that too is a species of "lesser evil." I think it is undeniable that, at least, Union commanders have the distinction of not killing other men in defense of slavery, but of course they have faults and flaws too, just not that one. It was Union racism, as much as Southern racism, that led to the failure of Reconstruction. People in the Union were not committed to the equality of blacks and just wanted to sweep all the racial problems in this country under the rug and let the South oppress blacks rather than continue the harder work of making things better. The position of the "North" in that regard may be better than actually oppressing blacks themselves, but not by much. And there are examples of the "North" doing similarly oppressive things in the century that followed, just not on the same scale or with the same viciousness. As this is super long and typed out on my phone, apologies for any typos. Perhaps I will revisit and edit this....perhaps.

[@Pandaemoni]

@WaterlooCalling it a "war" is just semantics, the word itself doesn't justify anything. I do not believe that a State militia, of any era, going to war to defend the right to own slaves, can be morally justified. It is clearly waging an unjust war (and one the Southerners started by firing on troops at Fort Sumter). Even during the Civil War many realized that if the North won, hanging would be the tradition for the political and military leaders of the South who rebelled. I don't believe the prevailing opinions are all that different today on what happens to traitors... and even those traitors had good reason, which the Confederacy certainly did not. I would not say Jackson was "evil" as an individual, but he certainly committed evil deeds, and if you or I slaughtered U.S., servicemen, even for a better cause than the right to oppress other men and women, I don't believe that could be justified with "At the time, lots of people wanted to do the same thing." I get that that sort of moral relativism lets a lot of historical figures off the moral hook. Still, when others around at that time 8n that era DID see the immorality of what was being done and reaiized it was both wrong and treasonous, why do their views get zero weight? Morality isn't judged by popular opinion, but even if it were, shouldn't we also poll the 3.5 million Southern slaves' opinions and not just the 5.5 million white voices to determine what's moral? What about Northern opinion, why don't we count them? Add to that that the South shot first, bringing the war on themselves, so the defense "but lots of us thought this was a good idea, therefore anything we do is justified", to me that rings hollow. Jackson was like a mirror image of John Brown, both of whom understandably have been called "traitors" in the legal sense. Both were religiouly zealous types who sought to kill others for a cause they believed in, and both were equally wrong. John Brown is different to me, subjectively, in that I think cause was just, but I still condemn the manner in which he tried to pursue his goals. Jackson gets the same treatment from me regardless of whether either deserves the label "soldier" or "traitor" and regardless of the fact that both were men of their time.

[@savanahmclary4465]

Kurt, What is the difference between an American Northerner, than that of an American Southerner? Without a Uniform? .... I'm waiting? There is NO DIFFERENCE! THEY ARE ALL "AMERICANS!" Even Abraham Lincoln could not tell the difference. If you had a CLUE who the Americans were, then and NOW! And the TRUTH BE TOLD .. then TODAYS' School Books would be trashed! For a huge percentage of the original citizens, residing the NORTHERN STATES are FROM SOUTHERN HERITAGE and are blood relatives. NO ONE WANTED WAR in the USA, among their families. NORTH, or South! As ALL WARS are about Money and who controls it. So, is TRUE ABOUT THE AMERICAN UN CIVIL WAR... Before the Civil War broke out in the "Port" of Charleston, South Carolina: It was clear that the political atmosphere was out of control and War was imminent: The Northern Cousins called their Southern Cousins, together for a family Reunion, for fear it would be their last, for a while. The Cousins made a pact: That they each would heed their countries call and would serve in their States' Army. But to be sure that they would NOT shoot and kill their cousins. in the heat of battle. THEY BOTH AGREED TO WEAR A RED BANDANA TIED AROUND THEIR NECKS. NORTH and SOUTH COUSINS. (RED NECKS.) SO, they would not MISTAKENLY shoot their own cousins, in battle. In many of the battles, in the SOUTH, the Union Cousins would TEAM with their "Bandanaed RED NECKed SOUTHERN COUSINS" and would shoot UNION OFFICERS...For they wanted the WAR OVER. And life go back to normal. For they did NOT want the UNION OFFICERS to RETURN back home to their neighborhoods.

[@Pandaemoni]

@@savanahmclary4465 I completely agree that, take away the uniforms, and you can't say who was a Northerer (vs a Southerner). Doubly so because the Union was a coalition of BOTH free and slave states that fought the Confederacy, with the Union slave states (like Missouri and Kentucky) generally thinking of themselves as "Southern" at that time. There were many Southerners who remained loyal to and fought for the Union. The estimate is that 100,000 men from Confederate States (not even counting Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland and Delaware, which were pro-Union slave states) who fought in the Union Army *against* the Confederacy. And of the roughly 500 Union officers from Confederate States at the start of the Civil War, only about 300 defected to the South, with 2/5ths remaining loyal. The notion that was a conspiracy among the soldiers on both sides to murder Union officers to end the war is ludicrous, but feel free to educate me with a source if I am wrong. It is undermined by the fact that the Union won the war, which would not have been possible without officers. Plus the suggestion that "redneck" is a Civil War term is incorrect, as the term is attested as far back as the 1830s, well before the war. There are periods when it was used to refer to prople wearing red bandanas, as in the West Virginian coal miner resistance movement, but the origin of the term is not that. Most likely, and we will never know for sure, it was referring to white people working under the Sun and getting sunburnt necks. There are also theories about it relating to people being angry or poor people suffering from pellagra which can cause a reddening of the skin. But, it was in use in the 1830s. I definitely do not deny the humanity of Confederates, and I outright celebrate the contributions of Southerners who fought against the Confederatacy. The cause, of the Confederates, however, was to perpetuate a system that itself denied the humanity of 4 million Southerners (nearly half the Confederate population!) simply because they were not white. I hope you and I can at least agree that slavery was a monstrous evil that needed to end. Though no one who lives through one "loves" a war, war was the only vehicle that was going to bring an immediate end to that horrible and wicked practice, because Confederates were not going to let it go without one. Yet we can all rejoice that "Confederates," unified in their support of that evil, is NOT a synonym for "Southerners" because not all Southerners took that same evil position. When you count up all the Southerners in the border states, in the Union army, and the 4 million black Southerners, there may well have been a 50-50 split among "Southerners" on that issue.

[@hoss-lk4bg]

high school project, god we miss Shelby foote. nice try kid, talks way to fast, like our grands, slow down son, u need decades more knowledge to attempt this in public

[@paulmanson253]

Hmm. A very wise lady,one of her pet phrases was ,perception is everything, context is everything. I very much enjoyed this lecture. Imperfect ? Certainly. Nevertheless, heavy on content,very fast paced. That calm,measured ,elegant delivery by Shelby Foote,you are quite correct in using as a standard. The man is iconic. His depth of knowledge, his accent,his pacing. Very very different from this somewhat hurried delivery. But at least here,the lecturer is listening to his words and correcting as he goes along. A minor annoyance. As someone who spent four weary years in university listening to various competencies, from expert to actively incompetent, I say the drawbacks in delivery are minor. This guy is energetic and understandable. One guy I knew in my 20s was a Vietnam veteran who had been deliberately trained to make sense of such things as radio intercepts,and he stated he only needed about 30% of content to be able to understand and write out a coherent briefing of such. By example,he taught me a great deal how to make the best of the imperfect. This lecture was well worth listening to. It is unfortunate his delivery irks you so,but I do not think it deserves the negativity you give it. Takes all kinds. But when I think of some of the classroom time I was forced to endure,the drawbacks here are minor.

[@leeatterberry1239]

I don't even think Robert e Lee was at all even a good general at best

[@willoutlaw4971]

The Confederate troops who shot and killed Stonewall Jackson should have been awarded The Congressional Medal of Honor and Marksmanship Badges. To bad they didn't shoot Robert E. Lee also.

[@christoff124]

fuck you.

[@willoutlaw4971]

@@christoff124 Another example of neo confederate high brow discourse. We appreciate the months long mental exercise you endured to come up with your response. Now you can take a well earned rest.

[@christoff124]

@@willoutlaw4971 your not worth anything more than a fuck you

[@TheOneAndOnlyRalph]

@@thomasblair6707 Lincoln should have executed all the Traitors in the South - Fuck You Asshole Losers!

[@Markbeb3]

Have fun in hell bitch.