Patriot Perspective
Stonewall Jackson
"[M]y religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave." --Stonewall Jackson
Today we mark the birth anniversary of Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson (1824-1863), a great military commander and a man of equally great faith who gave his life for the cause of liberty and states' rights.
Jackson died of pneumonia after being wounded by a security detail in the dark of night after resounding victory at the Battle of Chancellorsville in May 1863. Upon learning that Jackson lay dying, Gen. Robert E. Lee said, "Give General Jackson my affectionate regards, and say to him: he has lost his left arm but I my right."
22 Comments
Kyle J. in Chicago
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Excuse me? This guy was a racist fighting for the right of white people to buy, sell, and own black people.
Leon Foonman in Pitcairn Island
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM
People had the right to buy and sell black people when Jackson was around. It was granted to them by the Founders and was a God Given Right, just like all the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. So get over it! Like most Patriotic Americans I applaud the Founders and think they were wise beyond their years. If they Founders were still around, who knows, maybe we wouldn't have this Affirmative Action imposter as president; he'd be out working on a plantation like God intended him to.
Don in C falls Montana
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 9:31 PM
Leon, that is a grossly inaccurate interpretation of our founders and the history of slavery in this country. Our founders were conflicted. They knew it was a sin to hold slaves and many of them wanted to outlaw it in the beginning but they knew the country would never have survived the division it would have caused. Thomas Jefferson lamented that he feared for our country, because God was clearly against slavery. The British monarchy introduced slavery, not the founders. The declaration of independence was the basis for their freedom. Get a clue.
Jsmith in Fredericksburg VA
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 7:47 AM
I am curious to see your evidence that he was a racist. You are perhaps unaware that he was a Sunday School teacher for blacks in Lexington before the war, and invariably showed kindness to all he met, regardless of race.
Steve in Fort Smith, AR
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM
Stonewall Jackson was neither racist nor traitor. A God-fearing man of great stature fighting for states rights, legally, to separate from the union.
Robert E. Lee was given slaves by the father of his bride and graciously thanked him, and subsequently gave each of them their freedom - PLUS - their choice to remain on his place and work for a wage if they desired not to leave. It would not bother me in the least if the editors of Patriot Post cleaned up these replies by removing those of ignorant and uninformed posters like Tom H. and Kyle J. who clearly have no clue (and Leon, too).
Hey libs, get a book and read it. No, not a comic book or a modern revisionist book, go down to the used book store and buy some old history books that were written before the liberal revisionists began omitting content that is unfavorable to their cause and agendas.
confederatexpat in Tucson
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 12:13 AM
I can't believe you jerk. Jackson had more integrity than you'll ever be able to summon in your sad life. Try, try very hard, to get some sense of history before you embarrass yourself any more.
Tom H. in Rock Island, IL
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 5:02 PM
He was a great military leader and strategist. However, he and all the other leaders of the War of the Southern Rebellion were traitors and should have been shot.
Rob06 in Riverside, CA
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 5:42 PM
Jackson was a gifted combat commander and a moral Giant. His cause was state's rights, not slavery - something you fans of Lincoln might want to revisit. The Southern states had a right leave the Union - Lincoln fought to ensure they returned - likely for the revenues southern cotton production brought in.
So - if you're in Chicago, and you don't know jack about the civil war, try not to post your ignorance - it's unbecoming. And if you think the Confederate States of America's soldiers were traitors, you've got your head in the sand - those states left the Union - the soldiers were not traitors, they were patriots to their own cause. They might b seccesionists if anything, but traitor - no way.
Wayne Miller in Hinesville, Ga
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 8:56 PM
We don't shoot traitors in this country. We reward them with Cabinet posts and name them one of the last Century's 100 Most Influential Women. Jane Fonda, John Kerry, and Ramsey Clark are prime examples of true traitors. Fonda and Kerry for consorting with North Vietnam and Ramsey Clark with Iran. Jackson was a product of his times and you can't put today's values in that context. By your reasoning, every person in the South should have been shot.
confederatexpat in Tucson
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 12:14 AM
We'll win the next time yankee a$$hole
Tom H. in Rock Island, IL
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM
That's OK. We'll burn Atlanta down again too!!
Doug in Mooresville NC
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM
You're behind the times; we already are winning. Look at the demographic shifts south- & westward over the last 30 yrs & see if any of these Yankee wingnuts can deny that high tax, goonion dominated states in the north & midwest are being abandoned in droves.
To all those who deny the right of unjustly governed to secede from an oppressive gov't: British Airways is ready when you are.
M Rick Timms MD in Georgia
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 6:42 PM
I suggest Tom H and Kyle take a moment to follow the links in Mark Alexanders post to review some FACTS about the War. While slavery was one of many issues leading to the legal separation of the southern States from what had become an oppressive "Union of States", it was certainly not the issue for which Southerners gave their lives. Neither was it the issue for which Lincoln sacrificed more than half of the men of the era. Lincoln was determined to force the preservation of a Union - even if that meant violating the Constitution.
Lincolns forced will of central government over States rights has led us to the situation we face today - that of unconstrained Federal Government with little regard for the will of the individual States.
These men, Gen Lee in particular, were men of faith, character, and devotion to their homes - Their States. It was General Lee, who freed the slaves of the estate of George Washington at Arlington, slaves that were willed to him in wife's estate. Lincoln, by contrast , only freed those slaves over which he had no authority, while ignoring the issues of slavery in the Union States. Lincoln used slavery simply as a tool of expediency during war. Lincoln new that the Constitution of the Confederacry forbid the importation of slaves, and that as such slavery was not critical for the future of the South. But the South was critical for the Union, and Lincoln refused to allow Southern States to leave the Union of States peacefully.
Once again, my thanks to Mark for remembering true Patriots, and men of Honor.
TLK in Madison, AL
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 11:33 PM
Response Part I: In addition to your analysis of the issues that were threaded through the war, I can attest to at least one significant ember that helped start the fire. During a visit to the Lowell, MA region in the late 1980s, my host (a 3rd generation descendant of a wealthy New England investor) showed me remnant physical evidence of what was at stake just prior to the start of the war. As you may have guessed, it was money, and lots of it.
In the 1850s, England was the world leader in the production and sale of fine linen fabric. This was facilitated by a number of things, but particularly their access to cheap, abundant cotton. With the development of large cotton plantations in the southern U.S., British access to large quantities of cotton was made easier as compared with transporting cotton from India. A group of wealthy New England investors, recognizing the opportunity to beat the British at their own "linen" game, invested millions of dollars in building linen mills on the banks of the Lowell river (the buildings still stand to this day and have been restored and converted to small retail shops and eateries, very nicely I might add).
As my host explained, the British, upon learning of the intent of these New England investors and recognizing the potential consequences if they were to gain control of the cotton supply in the southern U.S., began to engage in dialogue with key players in the southern states so as to contractually secure purchase of nearly all cotton produced therein, thus, preventing their New England competitors from ever being able to get their linen business started. As part of the deal, the British agreed to provide ship loads of small arms, munitions, cannon and even some naval force coverage of cotton shipments as they left southern ports. (see Response Part II)
TLK in Madison, AL
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 11:35 PM
Response Part II: When the New England investors caught wind of the British strategy, they realized that their investment was in serious jeopardy and, as you might imagine, began to petition their elected officials in Congress to address the matter. Somehow or other Uncle Sam needed to put a stop to this terrible thing, right? Now the States' Rights issue comes into the picture. Lincoln knew the States' Rights issue was legit (from a Constitutional perspective). So, he surmised that the most time-effective way to sway a nation to take an action that could curtail the intent of the British and the southern states was to get them to rally around a social issue - slavery and its abolition. To that end, Lincoln was successful. But he usurped the Constitution in the process.
Adam W. in Frederick, MD
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 8:56 PM
Happy BirthdayThomas Jackson! Thank you to The Patriot Post for recognizing Jackson and Lee!!!
BTW, the Civil War was not about slavery. Learn your history and not whats fed to you through the media
Jsmith in Fredericksburg VA
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 7:46 AM
Thank you for marking this great man's birth. One small correction: he was not wounded by a security detail, but by a NC regiment in the middle of the battle of Chancellorsville. My g-g-g-uncle was shot and wounded not 200 yards away later the same night, but by the yankees instead of by his own men.
DMN in USA
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 10:27 AM
A traitor to his country in defense of slavery.
JR in CAnada
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Clearly one of the most silly posts on here. Go read a history book and learn before every one thinks you are an ID-10-T
DMN in USA
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 11:11 AM
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid - its cornerstone rests - upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and moral condition. This - our new government - is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth" - Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy on the reason for secession.
This is what Stonewall Jackson fought for, and you want honor him?
Fred Snelson in Cody, WY
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 6:43 PM
My great great grandfather died in northern Arkansas serving the CSA. He didn't own slaves, and he didn't die for slavery. The Federal troops he fought were 200 wilderness miles from thier supply depot in Rolla, MO. The Union Army survived in the south by "foraging." That meant stealing all the crops and livestock from southern farmers and leaving thier children to starve. No matter what your revisionist-history book says, the Civil War was not JUST about slavery.
M Rick Timms MD in Georgia
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 7:51 PM
Those of you that cannot seem to comprehend the issue of States Rights, and the significance that the issue played in the lives of "Americans" of 1860, need only look at the abuse of Power by a modern Imperial President and a Democrat Senate that empowers him to regulate every aspect of our daily lives. I recommend a book by Grady Mcwhiney, a professor of History at TCU, called "Cracker Culture", which describes the origin of the term "cracker" and documents the disparate cultures of the English North, and the Celtic South. It was this underlying cultural divide , and the history of their prior European relationship brought across the Atlantic, that supported the call for secession, and to this day is evident in the disparate nature of Northerners and Southerners.