MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 11/25/2017 6:12:48 AM
 American Civil War Politics (Unmoderated)    
AuthorMessage
1stvermont
Vermont, VT, USA
top 50
E-4 Specialist


Posts: 81

Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/4/2017 7:38:29 AM
Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments

"The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history"
-Milan Hubl, Czek communist


To read the thread with images of the monuments see here
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514649-Blacks-Originally-Helped-Create-Stonewall-Jackson-Monuments



African American Contributions to memorials for Jackson

Image
https://www.google.com/search?q=stonewall+jackson+statue+cemetery&tbm=isch&imgil=rh-nLQMrDGoHcM%253A%253BdBFD-R5q9Hfc9M%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.findagrave.com%25252Fcgi-bin%25252Ffg.cgi%25253Fpage%2525253Dgr%25252526GRid%2525253D536&source=iu&pf=m&fir=rh-nLQMrDGoHcM%253A%252CdBFD-R5q9Hfc9M%252C_&usg=__21MDGPtAzqIALhEr4SfDS07Ed00%3D&biw=1024&bih=638&ved=0ahUKEwixuPi6uIvWAhUC0iYKHfZuBYkQyjcIOg&ei=2zqtWfHeN4KkmwH23ZXICA#imgrc=rh-nLQMrDGoHcM:


When the statue in Lexington for General Jackson was put up in the cemetery where he is now buried, the first contribution came from Lexington's Baptist Church for negroes. This church was established by a member of Mr. Jackson's Sunday-school. Free blacks and slaves contributed donations in 1863 to build a statue of Stonewall in Virginia.



see image
http://roanokecwrt.com/Fifth%20Presbyterian.html


“Thomas Jackson, like Jesus, was willing to cross real boundaries for the sake of the Gospel.”
-pastor Bill Reinhold Fifth Avenue Presbyterian 

The all black Fifth Avenue Presbyterian church in Roanoke Virginia raised the funds and on may 10 1906 installed a stain glass window in memory of stonewall Jackson. It reads “in memory of stonewall Jackson” and Jackson's last words “Let us cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees.” This date was significant for two reasons. First, it was on May 10, 1863, that Jackson uttered his immortal dying words: “Let us cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees.” Second, 1906 marked the 50th anniversary of the beginning of Jackson’s black Sunday school. The ceremony attended by church members and local sons of confederate veterans. It is still displayed today to honor Jackson. He is the only confederate to have a memorial built dedicated to him in a African American church raised only by blacks. The descendants of his bible school.

Jackson Emphatically the Black Mans Friend

Jackson started a bible study for slaves and free blacks called the Lexington colored Sabbath school where 80-100 local blacks attended. He would teach them to sing songs like amazing grace and read so they could study the bible. It was “entirely his creation, he conceived it, financed it, organized it, and promoted it” said Jackson's reverend William White. Who also said “he was emphatically the black mans friend.” Jackson's wife said he was never more happy than when he was teaching at the colored Sabbath school. When a lawyer told Jackson it was illegal to have such large numbers of slaves gathered together Jackson responded “Sir, if you were, as you should be, a christian man, you would not think it or say it.” to Jackson their were Gods laws, and man s laws, he would follow Gods laws. Jackson contributed to the school even away at war until his death.

“He [Jackson] had stated on several occasions he wished the slaves could be freed”
-Richard G Williams Stonewall Jackson the black man's friend

Jackson was a slave owner but did not hold pro slavery views. He wished that slavery would end but believed God had ordained slavery and only God could abolish it. He should be judged as a man from his time where slavery was legal around the world for thousands of years and an accepted way of life believed to ordained by God. He was kind and gentle to his servants and because of his reputation, two of his slaves asked Jackson to purchase them and he did so. He also allowed them freedom when they wished. One slave Jackson adopted was 4 year old Emma who was mentally hadicapped. His servants reverenced him and “loved him, as they would have done a brother or father” when Jackson got word his elderly house servant Amy passed he wept as if a close loved family member had passed, because they did. Jackson asked how his slaves were doing in letters home during the war and sent gifts on holidays. His slaves joined in mourning his death.

“Jackson neither apologized for nor spoke in favor of the practice of slavery. He probably opposed the institution. Yet in his mind the Creator had sanctioned slavery, and man had no moral right to challenge its existence. The good Christian slaveholder was one who treated his servants fairly and humanely at all times.”
-James I. Robertson, Stonewall Jackson : The Man, The Soldier, The Legend

Jackson had a close personal relationship with his servant Jim Lewis who tearfully led Jackson horse to his burial place at his ceremony. It had become common remark in the camp that none knows of the generals plans but this old negro. Asked how he became in such confidence of the general

"Lord sir, "Massa never tells me nothing, but the way I knows is this. Massa says his prayers twice a day, morning and night. But if he gets out of bed three times in the night to pray, you see I just commences packing my sack, for I know there's will be the devil to pay the next day"
Lewis gave advice to Jackson who took his recommendations, their were few people Jackson listened to, Lewis was one of them.


Jackson was Pro Union

Jackson was a pro union man and was against secession. He sought peace between secessionist and unionist by working with churches north, and south, to unite in a national day of prayer to plead to God to avert a war. Jackson once had a secession flag removed at VMI that students had put up and he replaced it with the union flag. Jackson was very anti-war as a result of his experiences in the Mexican-american war. Jackson said “people who are anxious to bring on war don't know what they are beginning for.” He called war “the sum of all evils”

Why did he Fight?

Jackson was a moderate states rights democrat who favored keeping Washington's nose out of Virginians business and working within the union to resolve differences and remained pro union after the deep south secession. However what changed for many in Virginia when Lincoln called for volunteers to invade the deep south cotton states. This was seen by Jackson as it was most Virginians, as a major violation of state sovereignty and the constitution, and a just cause for secession. Jackson thought it unimaginable that a “fellow American would invade and fight another American.”

“To Jackson, Lincoln had launched a war of aggression against sovereign states, that is why he fought”
-S.C Gwynne Rebel Yell The Violence, Passion and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson Simon and Schuster 2014

Like most antebellum Americans Jackson's first loyalty was to his state. When Virginia left their was no question as to Jackson allegiance.

“He believed the constitutional rights of the states had been invaded, and he never had a doubt as to where his allegiance was due. His sword belonged to his state”
-Anna Jackson Wife of Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson

His wife Anna said “He would never have fought for the sole object of perpetrating slavery.”

“Jackson fought for the constitutional rights of the South, and any one who imagines he fought for slavery knows nothing of Jackson.”
-William C. Chase, in Story of Stonewall Jackson : A Narrative of the Career of Thomas Jonathan (Stonewall) Jackson 

Lincolns call for volunteers led Jackson and Virginia to leave the union, nothing to do with slavery like the cotton states.

I'll Take my Stand Causes of Southern Secession- the Upper South
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152556-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Upper-South


An American Hero- Northern Reactions to Jackson Death

Jackson was seen as an American hero because of his religious faith, his bravery, and his character. He was a loving husband and father who loved children, a caring, kind, gentle person who had great compassion on his soldiers and civilians sick, wounded or mistreated.

“Northerners pride themselves that he was a fellow citizen of the republic, an American, independent of northern or southern birth”
-Catherine Hopley

“In the north there was widespread admiration for Jackson, for both his christian piety and his warrior prowess...an Honorable man”
-Harpers Weekly

“quiet, modest, brave, noble, Honorable, and pure. He fought neither for reputation know, nor for future personal advancement.”
-Henry Beecher abolitionist newspaper the Independent

“Stonewall Jackson was a great general, a brave soldier, a noble christian, and a pure man”
-Washington Chronicle
Abraham Lincoln wrote in a response to the editor thanking him for the “excellent” article on Jackson

“this army takes pride in Stonewall...to have fought against him is next to having fought under him
Charles Adams Jr Union solider

“In my soldiers heart I cannot but see him as the best solider of all this war, and grieve at his untimely death
-Union general Governer Warren

References

-Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend by Richard G. Williams Jr.  (Author), James. I. Robertson Jr.
-Still Standing: The Stonewall Jackson Story James I Robertson Jr. (Actor), Bill Potter (Actor), Ken Carpenter (Director)
--S.C Gwynne Rebel Yell The Violence, Passion and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson Simon and Schuster 2014
-Such Troops as these The Genius and Leadership of confederate General Stonewall Jackson Bevin Alexander Berkeley Caliber 2014
---------------
“The CSA congress can have no such power over states officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states the foundation of the confederacy”
-1864 Virginia supremeCourt

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 508

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/4/2017 7:41:04 AM
Your apologetics are getting strident.

1stvermont
Vermont, VT, USA
top 50
E-4 Specialist


Posts: 81

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/4/2017 8:02:40 AM

Quote:
Your apologetics are getting strident.
--OpanaPointer


I believe it is sad when telling history is called apologetic. I do think it proves this true.

"It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for their derision."
-Major General Patrick Cleburne, C.S.A. Jan. 2, 1864
---------------
“The CSA congress can have no such power over states officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states the foundation of the confederacy”
-1864 Virginia supremeCourt

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 508

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/4/2017 8:22:32 AM
You are trying to paint the statues inspired by the KKK as a good thing. That's a serious reality problem.

1stvermont
Vermont, VT, USA
top 50
E-4 Specialist


Posts: 81

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/4/2017 8:05:57 PM

Quote:
You are trying to paint the statues inspired by the KKK as a good thing. That's a serious reality problem.
--OpanaPointer



I was unaware the blacks of Jacksons Sabbath school were kkk members in 1863 before the kkk was around. Equally i was also unaware the descendants of that school who installed a mirror dedicated to jackson in their all black church were kkk members.

Facts are stubborn things, they tend to tell the truth.
---------------
“The CSA congress can have no such power over states officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states the foundation of the confederacy”
-1864 Virginia supremeCourt

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 508

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/4/2017 8:45:36 PM

Quote:

Quote:
You are trying to paint the statues inspired by the KKK as a good thing. That's a serious reality problem.
--OpanaPointer



I was unaware the blacks of Jacksons Sabbath school were kkk members in 1863 before the kkk was around. Equally i was also unaware the descendants of that school who installed a mirror dedicated to jackson in their all black church were kkk members.

Facts are stubborn things, they tend to tell the truth.
--1stvermont

That was ABSURD.

Gregory C. White
Canton, GA, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal
Posts: 172

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/5/2017 12:13:21 AM

Quote:

Quote:
You are trying to paint the statues inspired by the KKK as a good thing. That's a serious reality problem.
--OpanaPointer



I was unaware the blacks of Jacksons Sabbath school were kkk members in 1863 before the kkk was around. Equally i was also unaware the descendants of that school who installed a mirror dedicated to jackson in their all black church were kkk members.

Facts are stubborn things, they tend to tell the truth.
--1stvermont


Keep us informed with the facts. They certainly do not fit the agenda and
narrative some would have us believe about American history, one filled
with countless warts and contradictions. Its past-time to take off the
rose-colored glasses when telling the story of America and its heroes,
not all of whom we share.
---------------
"I do not believe that any man can adequately appreciate the world of to-day unless he has some knowledge of...[and] some feeling for...the history of the world of the past." Theodore Roosevelt

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5566

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/5/2017 6:02:01 AM
You have made the assumption that 1stVermont has the facts, Gregory C. White.

I believe that he has an agenda that will be revealed the longer that he talks.

There is more here than a revisionist history.


OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 508

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/5/2017 6:33:13 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
You are trying to paint the statues inspired by the KKK as a good thing. That's a serious reality problem.
--OpanaPointer



I was unaware the blacks of Jacksons Sabbath school were kkk members in 1863 before the kkk was around. Equally i was also unaware the descendants of that school who installed a mirror dedicated to jackson in their all black church were kkk members.

Facts are stubborn things, they tend to tell the truth.
--1stvermont


Keep us informed with the facts. They certainly do not fit the agenda and
narrative some would have us believe about American history, one filled
with countless warts and contradictions. Its past-time to take off the
rose-colored glasses when telling the story of America and its heroes,
not all of whom we share.
--Gregory C. White

Yep, those Confederate statues have feet of clay.

1stvermont
Vermont, VT, USA
top 50
E-4 Specialist


Posts: 81

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/5/2017 5:30:26 PM

Quote:
You have made the assumption that 1stVermont has the facts, Gregory C. White.

I believe that he has an agenda that will be revealed the longer that he talks.

There is more here than a revisionist history.


--George


Hopefully my only agenda is to tell history and share interesting facts. I know that is unpopular today but its all the more reason in my mind to do so. So is your claim that the statues and the stained glass window are not a reality? they are fake and made up revisionism? or that Jackson did not start a colored school for blacks? or that they did not actually donate to his statue or they did not raise the funds for the glass window and dedicate it to him in their church? what is it or am i missing another option. Did the KKK sneak in the black church and put in a stained glass window dedicated to stonewall to piss off modern politically correct individuals? just what are you claiming?


maybe, just maybe, the south was not all a bunch of evil slave owning racists.
---------------
“The CSA congress can have no such power over states officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states the foundation of the confederacy”
-1864 Virginia supremeCourt

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 508

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/5/2017 5:42:05 PM
"Hopefully my only agenda is to tell history and share interesting facts. "

It's obviously not.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5566

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/6/2017 6:27:07 AM

Quote:
Hopefully my only agenda is to tell history and share interesting facts. I know that is unpopular today but its all the more reason in my mind to do so. So is your claim that the statues and the stained glass window are not a reality? they are fake and made up revisionism? or that Jackson did not start a colored school for blacks? or that they did not actually donate to his statue or they did not raise the funds for the glass window and dedicate it to him in their church? what is it or am i missing another option. Did the KKK sneak in the black church and put in a stained glass window dedicated to stonewall to piss off modern politically correct individuals? just what are you claiming?


I am claiming that you are a baiter. You may think that you are challenging the comfortable norms of the majority but in fact you only obfuscate with logical fallacies.

e.g. blacks contributed to a fund for a statue or a window. Ergo, slavery wasn't all that bad.

As well, I tire of people who presume that post secondary institutions are evil bastions of progressive and liberal thought whereby students are brainwashed into believing untruths.

In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth though I will say that it may be difficult to leave a post secondary institution without a measure of liberal thinking in one's make-up. If we must label, there are also people of a more conservative bent who may graduate with progressive thoughts banging around in their heads. Progressive conservatives, imagine that.

Do you really think that scholars who have studied the civil war era have not examined issues like slavery from all sides?

Do you really think that they have not noticed a concerted effort to revise history and to sanitize the institution of slavery.

Scholars must examine all the primary documents to determine validity and reliability. They must review and study primary resources to determine patterns and trends and truths.

Their findings and their essays and theses must pass peer review. It's called academic rigour. There are standards of research that must be met.

So please spare us this specious, "obviously PC thought" when someone expresses dismay at your use of "evidence" that slavery was just a hunky-dory institution that served blacks very well. You cannot prove that with a series of quotes and isolated incidences.

1st Vermont, you make me uncomfortable and I confess that I do wonder whether you are a member of any special interest groups.

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2889

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/6/2017 9:09:54 AM
Looks like we have a Hornets Nest here!?
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 508

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/6/2017 9:17:44 AM
Nah, just a "Nazis weren't so bad" category error.

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2889

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/6/2017 9:27:31 AM
Issues, & a preconceived agenda?
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 508

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/6/2017 10:26:19 AM
And a ton of copy-pasta.

jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 173

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/6/2017 1:11:32 PM

Quote:
Looks like we have a Hornets Nest here!?
--Michigan Dave


I would say "hagiography."

Let us begin with a some apparent contradictions:

1) Jackson was not pro-slavery and even wished the slaves could be freed.
His actions say otherwise. He owned slaves, bought slaves, and directed their labors. No evidence has been presented that he freed anyone, though that was well within his rights and power to do so.

2) Jackson was anti-secession,"any one who imagines he fought for slavery knows nothing of Jackson.”
Yet, he served the cause of secession, which its advocates maintained had as its "cornerstone" the perpetuation of race-based slavery, in perpetuity.

3) “To Jackson, Lincoln had launched a war of aggression against sovereign states, that is why he fought.”
Jackson was a graduate of West Point and had served with distinction during the war with Mexico. Having this record of training and service, he surely understood that firing on the flag of his nation, as had occurred in Charleston Harbor, was an act of aggression that no president could ignore.

4)“Jackson fought for the constitutional rights of the South, and any one who imagines he fought for slavery knows nothing of Jackson.”
What "constitutional rights", other than the owning of other people? This statement is self contradictory in that the stated purpose for the enterprise of seceding and forming a new nation, repeatedly made by the people leading it, at the time they were doing it, was to maintain and perpetuate the institution of slavery. (See Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech; the articles of secession for South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas; and the writings/activities of the Secession Commissioners- for the last I recommend Apostles of Disunion, by Chares Dew.)

Now for some fallacies/false assumptions/untruths:

A) Like most antebellum Americans Jackson's first loyalty was to his state. When Virginia left their was no question as to Jackson allegiance.
Officers in the U.S. Army from the Southern states were split, with 49% remaining loyal to the Union, and 51% leaving for service with the CSA. Robert E. Lee's immediate family was shocked by his decision, and it could be argued that they would have remained unionists if Robert had. If Lee's daughter, Mary, and their cousin, Orton Williams (on staff with Gen. Scott), are to be believed, many officers were waiting to see what Robert E. would do, and, "Now that Cousin Robert had resigned, everyone seemed to be doing so." Heck, a sizable portion of Virginia refused to secede, and became a separate state in the Union.

This does not even consider the northern states. If one reviews the literature following the assault on Fort Sumter, it is all about "the flag of our nation", not Ohio, or New Jersey, or Wisconsin. While they certainly had state loyalties on some issues, their "nation", or "country", to an overwhelming degree, was the U.S.A.

B) It is assumed that Jackson's establishing a church for slaves and teaching them to read (hymns and the Bible) was predicated on altruistic motives.
I can believe this in part, for Jackson, as he was reportedly a nice man. I believe, however, that other motives may have played a role, as well. What was heard, taught, and expressed in that church in Lexington, as well as others around the South at the same time (under white supervision), was not any form of 'liberation theology'. They would not hear sermons about their role as slaves as would be heard in the Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian churches of the North.
No, they would be treated with the proof-texted passages that reminded them that slavery was natural state, as ordained by God (cursed "Sons of Ham/Canaan" Genesis 9:20-27), and that they should be obedient (1 Corinthians 7: 20-24, Ephesians 6: 5-9, and 1 Timothy 6: 1-8, for example). In brief, evangelizing slaves, under white supervision, was also a method for control and pacification. Since Jackson believed that slavery was at least permitted, if not instituted, by God, and he was fulfilling a perceived calling to evangelize them, he'd make sure they heard the right message.

C)"Jackson was a moderate states rights democrat who favored keeping Washington's nose out of Virginians business."
Except when it came to fetching back Virginia's escaped slaves, or suppressing servile insurrection, or enforcing the perceived right to take their slaves anywhere, including states and territories where slavery was outlawed, etc.

Like any other state, Virginians loved a strong federal government when it served their purpose, and would claim states rights when it didn't. In fact, before the war, it was Northern states who were most stridently claiming "states rights" with their "conscience laws" (defiance of mandatory assistance by citizens in enforcing the fugitive slave act), statutes that mandated emancipation of slaves who had been kept in that state for a specified period, or the the transportation of slaves through free states/territories. (See also SCOTUS:Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856-57; Ex Parte Archy, 1858; and Abelman v Booth, 1859).

Thomas Jackson made choices. He didn't like slavery, yet he chose to indulge in it. He didn't believe in secession, yet he fought to help it succeed. Being a man of education and means who had traveled outside his own region, he had to have been aware of the scriptural/theological arguments against slavery. After all it was during his lifetime that the Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches (the three largest Christian denominations in the U.S. at the time) had experienced fierce internal debates and, finally, schisms over the issue of slavery. Jackson chose the pro-slavery interpretation. In my opinion, his beneficence is overstated and over rated. His moral courage is questionable. We remember him today only because he served the cause of secession for slavery with great ability. His memory only belongs in a textbook for military tactics.

Yours,
JohnT

(Note: The best work I have seen on the history of the secession movement is William W. Freehling's two volume set, The Road to Disunion)



OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 508

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/6/2017 1:43:10 PM
They depend on us not doing the heavy lifting. But somebody always does.

1stvermont
Vermont, VT, USA
top 50
E-4 Specialist


Posts: 81

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/6/2017 5:39:52 PM

Quote:

Quote:
Hopefully my only agenda is to tell history and share interesting facts. I know that is unpopular today but its all the more reason in my mind to do so. So is your claim that the statues and the stained glass window are not a reality? they are fake and made up revisionism? or that Jackson did not start a colored school for blacks? or that they did not actually donate to his statue or they did not raise the funds for the glass window and dedicate it to him in their church? what is it or am i missing another option. Did the KKK sneak in the black church and put in a stained glass window dedicated to stonewall to piss off modern politically correct individuals? just what are you claiming?


I am claiming that you are a baiter. You may think that you are challenging the comfortable norms of the majority but in fact you only obfuscate with logical fallacies.

e.g. blacks contributed to a fund for a statue or a window. Ergo, slavery wasn't all that bad.

As well, I tire of people who presume that post secondary institutions are evil bastions of progressive and liberal thought whereby students are brainwashed into believing untruths.

In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth though I will say that it may be difficult to leave a post secondary institution without a measure of liberal thinking in one's make-up. If we must label, there are also people of a more conservative bent who may graduate with progressive thoughts banging around in their heads. Progressive conservatives, imagine that.

Do you really think that scholars who have studied the civil war era have not examined issues like slavery from all sides?

Do you really think that they have not noticed a concerted effort to revise history and to sanitize the institution of slavery.

Scholars must examine all the primary documents to determine validity and reliability. They must review and study primary resources to determine patterns and trends and truths.

Their findings and their essays and theses must pass peer review. It's called academic rigour. There are standards of research that must be met.

So please spare us this specious, "obviously PC thought" when someone expresses dismay at your use of "evidence" that slavery was just a hunky-dory institution that served blacks very well. You cannot prove that with a series of quotes and isolated incidences.

1st Vermont, you make me uncomfortable and I confess that I do wonder whether you are a member of any special interest groups.
--George




I think you read to much into my post sir. I never said slavery was "not all that bad" because blacks built and paid for a window dedicated to Jackson. That logic came from your head not mine. I said, blacks built a window dedicated to Jackson, nothing more.

As for pc in universities that i would suggest is for another topic and another day. I would also suggest I dont come up with facts that are unknown to the historical communities, just their disciples, textbooks, books used in classes, and the general public. My general views are held by the majority of historians before secular peorgresivism and marxism became the dominate thought, in other words revisionism. That is why what is belived, and what is historically true is easily exposed.You just need one willing.


But i must ask, what does this have to do with maintaing civil war statues? unless of course it makes it easier to rewrite history somehow or make people forget their past, that is the only purpose i can think of.


"The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history"
-Milan Hubl, Czek communist
---------------
“The CSA congress can have no such power over states officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states the foundation of the confederacy”
-1864 Virginia supremeCourt

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 508

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/6/2017 5:47:16 PM
Your PCness is decidedly awkward.

1stvermont
Vermont, VT, USA
top 50
E-4 Specialist


Posts: 81

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/6/2017 6:06:06 PM

Quote:

Quote:
Looks like we have a Hornets Nest here!?
--Michigan Dave


I would say "hagiography."

Let us begin with a some apparent contradictions:

1) Jackson was not pro-slavery and even wished the slaves could be freed.
His actions say otherwise. He owned slaves, bought slaves, and directed their labors. No evidence has been presented that he freed anyone, though that was well within his rights and power to do so.

2) Jackson was anti-secession,"any one who imagines he fought for slavery knows nothing of Jackson.”
Yet, he served the cause of secession, which its advocates maintained had as its "cornerstone" the perpetuation of race-based slavery, in perpetuity.

3) “To Jackson, Lincoln had launched a war of aggression against sovereign states, that is why he fought.”
Jackson was a graduate of West Point and had served with distinction during the war with Mexico. Having this record of training and service, he surely understood that firing on the flag of his nation, as had occurred in Charleston Harbor, was an act of aggression that no president could ignore.

4)“Jackson fought for the constitutional rights of the South, and any one who imagines he fought for slavery knows nothing of Jackson.”
What "constitutional rights", other than the owning of other people? This statement is self contradictory in that the stated purpose for the enterprise of seceding and forming a new nation, repeatedly made by the people leading it, at the time they were doing it, was to maintain and perpetuate the institution of slavery. (See Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech; the articles of secession for South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas; and the writings/activities of the Secession Commissioners- for the last I recommend Apostles of Disunion, by Chares Dew.)

Now for some fallacies/false assumptions/untruths:

A) Like most antebellum Americans Jackson's first loyalty was to his state. When Virginia left their was no question as to Jackson allegiance.
Officers in the U.S. Army from the Southern states were split, with 49% remaining loyal to the Union, and 51% leaving for service with the CSA. Robert E. Lee's immediate family was shocked by his decision, and it could be argued that they would have remained unionists if Robert had. If Lee's daughter, Mary, and their cousin, Orton Williams (on staff with Gen. Scott), are to be believed, many officers were waiting to see what Robert E. would do, and, "Now that Cousin Robert had resigned, everyone seemed to be doing so." Heck, a sizable portion of Virginia refused to secede, and became a separate state in the Union.

This does not even consider the northern states. If one reviews the literature following the assault on Fort Sumter, it is all about "the flag of our nation", not Ohio, or New Jersey, or Wisconsin. While they certainly had state loyalties on some issues, their "nation", or "country", to an overwhelming degree, was the U.S.A.

B) It is assumed that Jackson's establishing a church for slaves and teaching them to read (hymns and the Bible) was predicated on altruistic motives.
I can believe this in part, for Jackson, as he was reportedly a nice man. I believe, however, that other motives may have played a role, as well. What was heard, taught, and expressed in that church in Lexington, as well as others around the South at the same time (under white supervision), was not any form of 'liberation theology'. They would not hear sermons about their role as slaves as would be heard in the Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian churches of the North.
No, they would be treated with the proof-texted passages that reminded them that slavery was natural state, as ordained by God (cursed "Sons of Ham/Canaan" Genesis 9:20-27), and that they should be obedient (1 Corinthians 7: 20-24, Ephesians 6: 5-9, and 1 Timothy 6: 1-8, for example). In brief, evangelizing slaves, under white supervision, was also a method for control and pacification. Since Jackson believed that slavery was at least permitted, if not instituted, by God, and he was fulfilling a perceived calling to evangelize them, he'd make sure they heard the right message.

C)"Jackson was a moderate states rights democrat who favored keeping Washington's nose out of Virginians business."
Except when it came to fetching back Virginia's escaped slaves, or suppressing servile insurrection, or enforcing the perceived right to take their slaves anywhere, including states and territories where slavery was outlawed, etc.

Like any other state, Virginians loved a strong federal government when it served their purpose, and would claim states rights when it didn't. In fact, before the war, it was Northern states who were most stridently claiming "states rights" with their "conscience laws" (defiance of mandatory assistance by citizens in enforcing the fugitive slave act), statutes that mandated emancipation of slaves who had been kept in that state for a specified period, or the the transportation of slaves through free states/territories. (See also SCOTUS:Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856-57; Ex Parte Archy, 1858; and Abelman v Booth, 1859).

Thomas Jackson made choices. He didn't like slavery, yet he chose to indulge in it. He didn't believe in secession, yet he fought to help it succeed. Being a man of education and means who had traveled outside his own region, he had to have been aware of the scriptural/theological arguments against slavery. After all it was during his lifetime that the Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches (the three largest Christian denominations in the U.S. at the time) had experienced fierce internal debates and, finally, schisms over the issue of slavery. Jackson chose the pro-slavery interpretation. In my opinion, his beneficence is overstated and over rated. His moral courage is questionable. We remember him today only because he served the cause of secession for slavery with great ability. His memory only belongs in a textbook for military tactics.

Yours,
JohnT

(Note: The best work I have seen on the history of the secession movement is William W. Freehling's two volume set, The Road to Disunion)



--jthlmnn



1] allow me to help your understanding so those contradictions can disappear. Jackson wished the slaves could be free, yet believed God ordained slavery and only he could end it. he was not an abolitionist nor anti slavery, never said he was.

2] This assumes Jackson thought secession was about slavery. I assure you this is not the case. I would argue neither did Virginia or even the cotton states Stevens was speaking to thought so. The fact one claims the "cornerstone" speech is proof secession was over slavery is the perfect example of pc influencing history. What people are allowed to read, what they are told to think, what they are not allowed to read. But hardly on topic.


3/4] And i am told the pc version knows their history. Surley, they would be aware of this incident of what i speak? surely. It is such a major impact on the causes of war. Once more history taught as it was can fix this issue, once more a thread should be done on this subject.


A] I would suggest a few examples where some chose nation over state cannot change the obvious fact that the vast majority were loyal to state first, lee himself is an example so is Jackson. I would ask John to present any historian pc or other who would go against this claim. I would like support for the claim 49% of southern army men went north to fight. West Virginia is another matter and was stolen, their was never a fair vote done neither were all the counties done, it was taken illegally and shows Lincoln does like secession, when it helps him.

b] I dont disagree jackson was not teaching them abolitionism, in fact he in all likely he taught them similar to his close friend Dabney on slavery.

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Virginia-South-R-Dabney/dp/0873779290

So i dont disagree there. However the purpose of the church was to teach them to read so they could read the bible and to save their souls. IF you claim otherwise you need to support it from jackson.


c] Once more the pc version comes through. I in no dout believe you think you have a "the south was only states rights because of slavery" what of the fugitive slave laws argument, once more pc does not teach the whole story nor a proper understanding of the union. I will save this for my thread on secession.


I enjoyed your post and look forward to discussing secession in the future with you. I think a proper understanding of him removes your claims of his inconsistencies because events altered them. I think a thread on secession will fix many of those for you. I would also argue the south did not lose the debate on slavery and jackson was personally friends with one of the leading men in the south on the subject, he followed the bible the best he know how as a devout christian.No question dabney heavily influenced Jackson's thinking.

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Virginia-South-R-Dabney/dp/0873779290



---------------
“The CSA congress can have no such power over states officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states the foundation of the confederacy”
-1864 Virginia supremeCourt

Gregory C. White
Canton, GA, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal
Posts: 172

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/6/2017 11:55:54 PM

Quote:

Quote:
You have made the assumption that 1stVermont has the facts, Gregory C. White.

I believe that he has an agenda that will be revealed the longer that he talks.

There is more here than a revisionist history.


--George


Hopefully my only agenda is to tell history and share interesting facts. I know that is unpopular today but its all the more reason in my mind to do so. So is your claim that the statues and the stained glass window are not a reality? they are fake and made up revisionism? or that Jackson did not start a colored school for blacks? or that they did not actually donate to his statue or they did not raise the funds for the glass window and dedicate it to him in their church? what is it or am i missing another option. Did the KKK sneak in the black church and put in a stained glass window dedicated to stonewall to piss off modern politically correct individuals? just what are you claiming?


maybe, just maybe, the south was not all a bunch of evil slave owning racists.
--1stvermont



I've not read it, but have you read the 2006 book "Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend" by Richard G. Williams ? The foreward was written by renowned Civil War historian and Jackson scholar James I. Robertson.


---------------
"I do not believe that any man can adequately appreciate the world of to-day unless he has some knowledge of...[and] some feeling for...the history of the world of the past." Theodore Roosevelt

Lightning
Glasgow, UK
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class


Posts: 452

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/7/2017 8:52:37 AM
Let's all remember that African Americans (mostly freedmen or citizens, plus a few runaway slaves) were captured and sent south as slaves by the Army of Northern Virginia on its two forays north of Virginia. There can no be labelling of any of the Confederate officers as moderate when they allowed this to happen.

Cheers,

Colin
---------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."

jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 173

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/7/2017 5:18:03 PM

Quote:
allow me to help your understanding so those contradictions can disappear. Jackson wished the slaves could be free, yet believed God ordained slavery and only he could end it. he was not an abolitionist nor anti slavery, never said he was.


You stated that, "Jackson was not pro-slavery, and even wished the slaves could be freed." I illustrated the contradiction between those sentiments and his actions. Within the belief system that held institutional, race-based slavery was ordained by God, the option to emancipate those whom you own exists, and is acceptable. There was nothing in the religiously based rationale for slavery that mandated ownership of slaves by any individual. Jackson could have, at any time he chose, exercised the option of emancipation without violating his religious convictions. He did not.


Quote:
This assumes Jackson thought secession was about slavery. I assure you this is not the case. I would argue neither did Virginia or even the cotton states Stevens was speaking to thought so. The fact one claims the "cornerstone" speech is proof secession was over slavery is the perfect example of pc influencing history. What people are allowed to read, what they are told to think, what they are not allowed to read. But hardly on topic.


You stated, "Jackson was anti-secession,'any one who imagines he fought for slavery knows nothing of Jackson'.” I am not sure sure what the latter had to do with the former, but I addressed them both. For the former: He was anti-secession, yet participated, with enthusiasm, to help it succeed. For the latter: De facto he was fighting for slavery, as that was the stated purpose for the endeavor. I do not rest this assertion solely on the Cornerstone Speech. You will note below the reference to the published articles of secession from several states, as well the correspondences/statements of the secession commissioners, who were sent forth to evangelize other slaveholding states to join in the cause. I base it on their own words.



Quote:
And i am told the pc version knows their history. Surley, they would be aware of this incident of what i speak? surely. It is such a major impact on the causes of war. Once more history taught as it was can fix this issue, once more a thread should be done on this subject.


Nothing to address my argument? It appears to have been ineffective, so I will rephrase.
Here we have Mr. Jackson, a graduate of the United States Military Academy, a former officer in the regular army of the United States, a combat veteran of the Mexican War, and now an instructor at a military academy. With all his education, training, and experience, he would understand full well, and far better than 99% of the population who had never served, the meaning of, "They have fired on our flag." Beyond the bombardment of a single building, which is grave enough, firing on an installation under the national colors is the same as firing on the nation as a whole. It is not merely aggressive, it is a de facto declaration of war. Jackson, with all of his education, training and experience in the armed forces of the United States, also knew, full well and far better than 99% of those who had never served, that such an assault must be answered, and answered with force.

So, the president, as authorized under the Constitution, calls for volunteers to respond to this act of armed aggression. Does Mr. Jackson respond in a manner consistent with his education, training and experience? No. Mr. Jackson concludes that it is the president who is launching a war of aggression. If not a contradiction, this line of reasoning is, at the least, severely inconsistent.



Quote:
I would suggest a few examples where some chose nation over state cannot change the obvious fact that the vast majority were loyal to state first, lee himself is an example so is Jackson. I would ask John to present any historian pc or other who would go against this claim. I would like support for the claim 49% of southern army men went north to fight. West Virginia is another matter and was stolen, their was never a fair vote done neither were all the counties done, it was taken illegally and shows Lincoln does like secession, when it helps him.


Since most of the population of the United States was located in the North (19m North-12m South), and their reaction was not based upon loyalty to their individual states, but rather upon their loyalty to the nation as whole, your assertion of "most Americans" being loyal to state first falls apart. When you add those in the south who remained loyal unionists, the assertion weakens further. (For Southern Unionism, I recommend The South vs The South, Wm. W. Freehling, 2001, Oxford U. Press; and Bitterly Divided: The South’s Inner Civil War, David Williams, 2008, The new Press)

As for the percentages, I specified officers, not 'army men'. Officers had a choice: they could remain, or resign and 'go South'. Enlisted men did not have that freedom. I found those numbers in this paper/presentation by Paul Kensey of the American Civil War Round table of Australia: [Read More] Mr. Kensey is not clear from which of his 3 sources he drew his numbers, but they are listed at the bottom. Should you come up with contradictory documentation, please share.

Two responses regarding Virginia: 1) The difference in geography, and therefore, the enterprises in Western Virginia vs Eastern Virginia had existed for a long time. The Westerners had long been at odds, political, economic and otherwise, with their brethren in the East. As was common with several "border states" loyalties tended to be divided according to region. The difference in W. Virginia was that they had some people who had the notion and the energy to form a separate state government, and remain in the Union. Is this secession? That topic would be worthy its own thread. 2) The voting on the May 1861 referendum regarding secession was not by secret ballot, but orally. If you check newspapers of that time, there appear thinly veiled (and not so thinly veiled) threats of violence to any who might dare to vote against secession. Intimidation cannot be discounted as a factor, in that referendum. So, allegations of "stolen" elections in West Virginia don't go very far with me.


Quote:
I dont disagree jackson was not teaching them abolitionism, in fact he in all likely he taught them similar to his close friend Dabney on slavery.

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Virginia-South-R-Dabney/dp/0873779290

So i dont disagree there. However the purpose of the church was to teach them to read so they could read the bible and to save their souls. IF you claim otherwise you need to support it from jackson.


I suggest a look at the impact of the Nat Turner Rebellion on the Evangelization of slaves, especially in Virginia. Jackson might have had motives as pure as the driven snow. Given the time and the place, however, I am skeptical of his altruism.



Quote:
Once more the pc version comes through. I in no dout believe you think you have a "the south was only states rights because of slavery" what of the fugitive slave laws argument, once more pc does not teach the whole story nor a proper understanding of the union. I will save this for my thread on secession.


I do not understand what it is that you are trying to say here. In the ante-bellum U.S. (actually, at any time of U.S. history), each state would use "states-rights" when it served their interests, and a strong central government whe that served their interests. The Fugitive Slave Act was an example. What is the problem?



Quote:
I enjoyed your post and look forward to discussing secession in the future with you. I think a proper understanding of him removes your claims of his inconsistencies because events altered them. I think a thread on secession will fix many of those for you. I would also argue the south did not lose the debate on slavery and jackson was personally friends with one of the leading men in the south on the subject, he followed the bible the best he know how as a devout christian.No question dabney heavily influenced Jackson's thinking.

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Virginia-South-R-Dabney/dp/0873779290


--1stvermont


(Edited for ease of reading)

BTW- May I suggest that you click on the "Help" button in the upper right of the screen and look at the various shortcuts for the forum. Specifically, if you want to share a link, there are things to type before and after the url that make it easier for the rest of us to connect with that web page.

Yours,

JohnT

1stvermont
Vermont, VT, USA
top 50
E-4 Specialist


Posts: 81

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/15/2017 6:34:54 AM
Former Slave Votes to Erect Confederate Monument

African American and former slave John Harris was a republican in 1870 from Mississippi house of representatives. According to the journal of house of representatives of Mississippi He voted for S.B no 25

“an act for the benefit of the confederate monument now in process of erection on the capital square Jackson, Mississippi”

All six black house of representatives voted in favor of the bill. Harri gave a speech in favor recorded in the newspaper the daily Clarioledger, Jackson Miss feb 23, 1890

""Mr. Speaker! I have arisen here in my place to offer a few words on the bill. I have come from a sick bed...Perhaps it was not prudent for me to come. But, Sir, I could not rest quietly in my room without...contributing...a few remarks of my own.
"I was sorry to hear the speech of the young gentleman from Marshall County. I am sorry that any son of a soldier should go on record as opposed to the erection of a monument in honor of the brave dead. And, Sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines and in the Seven Days' fighting around Richmond, the battlefield covered with the mangled forms of those who fought for their country and for their country's honor, he would not have made that speech.

"When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made no requests for monuments. But they died, and their virtues should be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I too, wore the gray, the same color my master wore. We stayed four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I would have been there yet.

"I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions. When my mother died I was a boy. Who, Sir, then acted the part of a mother to the orphaned slave boy, but my 'old missus'? Were she living now, or could speak to me from those high realms where are gathered the sainted dead, she would tell me to vote for this bill. And, Sir, I shall vote for it. I want it known to all the world that my vote is given in favor of the bill to erect a monument in honor of the Confederate dead."
---------------
“The CSA congress can have no such power over states officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states the foundation of the confederacy”
-1864 Virginia supremeCourt

1stvermont
Vermont, VT, USA
top 50
E-4 Specialist


Posts: 81

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/15/2017 9:33:30 AM

Quote:

Quote:
allow me to help your understanding so those contradictions can disappear. Jackson wished the slaves could be free, yet believed God ordained slavery and only he could end it. he was not an abolitionist nor anti slavery, never said he was.


You stated that, "Jackson was not pro-slavery, and even wished the slaves could be freed." I illustrated the contradiction between those sentiments and his actions. Within the belief system that held institutional, race-based slavery was ordained by God, the option to emancipate those whom you own exists, and is acceptable. There was nothing in the religiously based rationale for slavery that mandated ownership of slaves by any individual. Jackson could have, at any time he chose, exercised the option of emancipation without violating his religious convictions. He did not.


Quote:
This assumes Jackson thought secession was about slavery. I assure you this is not the case. I would argue neither did Virginia or even the cotton states Stevens was speaking to thought so. The fact one claims the "cornerstone" speech is proof secession was over slavery is the perfect example of pc influencing history. What people are allowed to read, what they are told to think, what they are not allowed to read. But hardly on topic.


You stated, "Jackson was anti-secession,'any one who imagines he fought for slavery knows nothing of Jackson'.” I am not sure sure what the latter had to do with the former, but I addressed them both. For the former: He was anti-secession, yet participated, with enthusiasm, to help it succeed. For the latter: De facto he was fighting for slavery, as that was the stated purpose for the endeavor. I do not rest this assertion solely on the Cornerstone Speech. You will note below the reference to the published articles of secession from several states, as well the correspondences/statements of the secession commissioners, who were sent forth to evangelize other slaveholding states to join in the cause. I base it on their own words.



Quote:
And i am told the pc version knows their history. Surley, they would be aware of this incident of what i speak? surely. It is such a major impact on the causes of war. Once more history taught as it was can fix this issue, once more a thread should be done on this subject.


Nothing to address my argument? It appears to have been ineffective, so I will rephrase.
Here we have Mr. Jackson, a graduate of the United States Military Academy, a former officer in the regular army of the United States, a combat veteran of the Mexican War, and now an instructor at a military academy. With all his education, training, and experience, he would understand full well, and far better than 99% of the population who had never served, the meaning of, "They have fired on our flag." Beyond the bombardment of a single building, which is grave enough, firing on an installation under the national colors is the same as firing on the nation as a whole. It is not merely aggressive, it is a de facto declaration of war. Jackson, with all of his education, training and experience in the armed forces of the United States, also knew, full well and far better than 99% of those who had never served, that such an assault must be answered, and answered with force.

So, the president, as authorized under the Constitution, calls for volunteers to respond to this act of armed aggression. Does Mr. Jackson respond in a manner consistent with his education, training and experience? No. Mr. Jackson concludes that it is the president who is launching a war of aggression. If not a contradiction, this line of reasoning is, at the least, severely inconsistent.



Quote:
I would suggest a few examples where some chose nation over state cannot change the obvious fact that the vast majority were loyal to state first, lee himself is an example so is Jackson. I would ask John to present any historian pc or other who would go against this claim. I would like support for the claim 49% of southern army men went north to fight. West Virginia is another matter and was stolen, their was never a fair vote done neither were all the counties done, it was taken illegally and shows Lincoln does like secession, when it helps him.


Since most of the population of the United States was located in the North (19m North-12m South), and their reaction was not based upon loyalty to their individual states, but rather upon their loyalty to the nation as whole, your assertion of "most Americans" being loyal to state first falls apart. When you add those in the south who remained loyal unionists, the assertion weakens further. (For Southern Unionism, I recommend The South vs The South, Wm. W. Freehling, 2001, Oxford U. Press; and Bitterly Divided: The South’s Inner Civil War, David Williams, 2008, The new Press)

As for the percentages, I specified officers, not 'army men'. Officers had a choice: they could remain, or resign and 'go South'. Enlisted men did not have that freedom. I found those numbers in this paper/presentation by Paul Kensey of the American Civil War Round table of Australia: [Read More] Mr. Kensey is not clear from which of his 3 sources he drew his numbers, but they are listed at the bottom. Should you come up with contradictory documentation, please share.

Two responses regarding Virginia: 1) The difference in geography, and therefore, the enterprises in Western Virginia vs Eastern Virginia had existed for a long time. The Westerners had long been at odds, political, economic and otherwise, with their brethren in the East. As was common with several "border states" loyalties tended to be divided according to region. The difference in W. Virginia was that they had some people who had the notion and the energy to form a separate state government, and remain in the Union. Is this secession? That topic would be worthy its own thread. 2) The voting on the May 1861 referendum regarding secession was not by secret ballot, but orally. If you check newspapers of that time, there appear thinly veiled (and not so thinly veiled) threats of violence to any who might dare to vote against secession. Intimidation cannot be discounted as a factor, in that referendum. So, allegations of "stolen" elections in West Virginia don't go very far with me.


Quote:
I dont disagree jackson was not teaching them abolitionism, in fact he in all likely he taught them similar to his close friend Dabney on slavery.

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Virginia-South-R-Dabney/dp/0873779290

So i dont disagree there. However the purpose of the church was to teach them to read so they could read the bible and to save their souls. IF you claim otherwise you need to support it from jackson.


I suggest a look at the impact of the Nat Turner Rebellion on the Evangelization of slaves, especially in Virginia. Jackson might have had motives as pure as the driven snow. Given the time and the place, however, I am skeptical of his altruism.



Quote:
Once more the pc version comes through. I in no dout believe you think you have a "the south was only states rights because of slavery" what of the fugitive slave laws argument, once more pc does not teach the whole story nor a proper understanding of the union. I will save this for my thread on secession.


I do not understand what it is that you are trying to say here. In the ante-bellum U.S. (actually, at any time of U.S. history), each state would use "states-rights" when it served their interests, and a strong central government whe that served their interests. The Fugitive Slave Act was an example. What is the problem?



Quote:
I enjoyed your post and look forward to discussing secession in the future with you. I think a proper understanding of him removes your claims of his inconsistencies because events altered them. I think a thread on secession will fix many of those for you. I would also argue the south did not lose the debate on slavery and jackson was personally friends with one of the leading men in the south on the subject, he followed the bible the best he know how as a devout christian.No question dabney heavily influenced Jackson's thinking.

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Virginia-South-R-Dabney/dp/0873779290


--1stvermont


(Edited for ease of reading)

BTW- May I suggest that you click on the "Help" button in the upper right of the screen and look at the various shortcuts for the forum. Specifically, if you want to share a link, there are things to type before and after the url that make it easier for the rest of us to connect with that web page.

Yours,

JohnT

--jthlmnn





Thanks for your post due to time and other interests my response will be brief and possibly the last. It is hard to understand men from a different time with different worldviews, I would strongly suggest reading some bio's of him or to check out the references I gave in my op.


Its a good point. Jackson however was referring to the institution he thought ordained by God that should not be judged by man [himself] despite what his own thoughts were. He also did free a slave that wished so. At least two of his slaves asked him to purchase them and there is no indication they ever asked or wanted freedom from him. Had he denied them that, than you would have a case or at least a contradiction from what he said vs his actions.


He worked with "enthusiasm" to stop secession. That is until Lincolns call for volunteers and his home country of Virginia left the union.How would you say he supported secession? in what way? As for what caused secession I will refer you to the threads where they are the topic on this forum, especially the upper south since we are talking of Jackson.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?ForumID=32&ID=32632


But let us assume secession was because of slavery. That would not conclude Jackson or the csa soldiers fought to preserve slavery as every civil war historian would tell you that i know of.



I must once more reefer you to the subject I am referring to that had such an impact on Jackson and the whole upper south.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?ForumID=32&ID=32632



No question northerners especially recent immigrants [30% of the north] and republicans [about half the north bolstered by immigration] tended to be more loyal to nation than state, it was still not the popular opinion. I am currently reading Tenting Tonight by James Robertson who says the same thing. He said both north and south tried to reach a certain federal army number that was never achieved. Instead men volunteered not for the federal government army [witch was held in suspican by Americans since it founding] but for their states in large numbers. As for west Virginia i agree it deserves it own thread.



I would ask what causes the skepticism of Jackson personally? I would suggest their is nothing to go off other than modern biases/assumptions because he was from the south, and guilty of being white.



Thanks for the suggestions I shall look into it, thanks sir.





---------------
“The CSA congress can have no such power over states officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states the foundation of the confederacy”
-1864 Virginia supremeCourt

jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 173

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/18/2017 1:40:11 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
allow me to help your understanding so those contradictions can disappear. Jackson wished the slaves could be free, yet believed God ordained slavery and only he could end it. he was not an abolitionist nor anti slavery, never said he was.


You stated that, "Jackson was not pro-slavery, and even wished the slaves could be freed." I illustrated the contradiction between those sentiments and his actions. Within the belief system that held institutional, race-based slavery was ordained by God, the option to emancipate those whom you own exists, and is acceptable. There was nothing in the religiously based rationale for slavery that mandated ownership of slaves by any individual. Jackson could have, at any time he chose, exercised the option of emancipation without violating his religious convictions. He did not.


Quote:
This assumes Jackson thought secession was about slavery. I assure you this is not the case. I would argue neither did Virginia or even the cotton states Stevens was speaking to thought so. The fact one claims the "cornerstone" speech is proof secession was over slavery is the perfect example of pc influencing history. What people are allowed to read, what they are told to think, what they are not allowed to read. But hardly on topic.


You stated, "Jackson was anti-secession,'any one who imagines he fought for slavery knows nothing of Jackson'.” I am not sure sure what the latter had to do with the former, but I addressed them both. For the former: He was anti-secession, yet participated, with enthusiasm, to help it succeed. For the latter: De facto he was fighting for slavery, as that was the stated purpose for the endeavor. I do not rest this assertion solely on the Cornerstone Speech. You will note below the reference to the published articles of secession from several states, as well the correspondences/statements of the secession commissioners, who were sent forth to evangelize other slaveholding states to join in the cause. I base it on their own words.



Quote:
And i am told the pc version knows their history. Surley, they would be aware of this incident of what i speak? surely. It is such a major impact on the causes of war. Once more history taught as it was can fix this issue, once more a thread should be done on this subject.


Nothing to address my argument? It appears to have been ineffective, so I will rephrase.
Here we have Mr. Jackson, a graduate of the United States Military Academy, a former officer in the regular army of the United States, a combat veteran of the Mexican War, and now an instructor at a military academy. With all his education, training, and experience, he would understand full well, and far better than 99% of the population who had never served, the meaning of, "They have fired on our flag." Beyond the bombardment of a single building, which is grave enough, firing on an installation under the national colors is the same as firing on the nation as a whole. It is not merely aggressive, it is a de facto declaration of war. Jackson, with all of his education, training and experience in the armed forces of the United States, also knew, full well and far better than 99% of those who had never served, that such an assault must be answered, and answered with force.

So, the president, as authorized under the Constitution, calls for volunteers to respond to this act of armed aggression. Does Mr. Jackson respond in a manner consistent with his education, training and experience? No. Mr. Jackson concludes that it is the president who is launching a war of aggression. If not a contradiction, this line of reasoning is, at the least, severely inconsistent.



Quote:
I would suggest a few examples where some chose nation over state cannot change the obvious fact that the vast majority were loyal to state first, lee himself is an example so is Jackson. I would ask John to present any historian pc or other who would go against this claim. I would like support for the claim 49% of southern army men went north to fight. West Virginia is another matter and was stolen, their was never a fair vote done neither were all the counties done, it was taken illegally and shows Lincoln does like secession, when it helps him.


Since most of the population of the United States was located in the North (19m North-12m South), and their reaction was not based upon loyalty to their individual states, but rather upon their loyalty to the nation as whole, your assertion of "most Americans" being loyal to state first falls apart. When you add those in the south who remained loyal unionists, the assertion weakens further. (For Southern Unionism, I recommend The South vs The South, Wm. W. Freehling, 2001, Oxford U. Press; and Bitterly Divided: The South’s Inner Civil War, David Williams, 2008, The new Press)

As for the percentages, I specified officers, not 'army men'. Officers had a choice: they could remain, or resign and 'go South'. Enlisted men did not have that freedom. I found those numbers in this paper/presentation by Paul Kensey of the American Civil War Round table of Australia: [Read More] Mr. Kensey is not clear from which of his 3 sources he drew his numbers, but they are listed at the bottom. Should you come up with contradictory documentation, please share.

Two responses regarding Virginia: 1) The difference in geography, and therefore, the enterprises in Western Virginia vs Eastern Virginia had existed for a long time. The Westerners had long been at odds, political, economic and otherwise, with their brethren in the East. As was common with several "border states" loyalties tended to be divided according to region. The difference in W. Virginia was that they had some people who had the notion and the energy to form a separate state government, and remain in the Union. Is this secession? That topic would be worthy its own thread. 2) The voting on the May 1861 referendum regarding secession was not by secret ballot, but orally. If you check newspapers of that time, there appear thinly veiled (and not so thinly veiled) threats of violence to any who might dare to vote against secession. Intimidation cannot be discounted as a factor, in that referendum. So, allegations of "stolen" elections in West Virginia don't go very far with me.


Quote:
I dont disagree jackson was not teaching them abolitionism, in fact he in all likely he taught them similar to his close friend Dabney on slavery.

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Virginia-South-R-Dabney/dp/0873779290

So i dont disagree there. However the purpose of the church was to teach them to read so they could read the bible and to save their souls. IF you claim otherwise you need to support it from jackson.


I suggest a look at the impact of the Nat Turner Rebellion on the Evangelization of slaves, especially in Virginia. Jackson might have had motives as pure as the driven snow. Given the time and the place, however, I am skeptical of his altruism.



Quote:
Once more the pc version comes through. I in no dout believe you think you have a "the south was only states rights because of slavery" what of the fugitive slave laws argument, once more pc does not teach the whole story nor a proper understanding of the union. I will save this for my thread on secession.


I do not understand what it is that you are trying to say here. In the ante-bellum U.S. (actually, at any time of U.S. history), each state would use "states-rights" when it served their interests, and a strong central government whe that served their interests. The Fugitive Slave Act was an example. What is the problem?



Quote:
I enjoyed your post and look forward to discussing secession in the future with you. I think a proper understanding of him removes your claims of his inconsistencies because events altered them. I think a thread on secession will fix many of those for you. I would also argue the south did not lose the debate on slavery and jackson was personally friends with one of the leading men in the south on the subject, he followed the bible the best he know how as a devout christian.No question dabney heavily influenced Jackson's thinking.

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Virginia-South-R-Dabney/dp/0873779290


--1stvermont


(Edited for ease of reading)

BTW- May I suggest that you click on the "Help" button in the upper right of the screen and look at the various shortcuts for the forum. Specifically, if you want to share a link, there are things to type before and after the url that make it easier for the rest of us to connect with that web page.

Yours,

JohnT

--jthlmnn





Thanks for your post due to time and other interests my response will be brief and possibly the last. It is hard to understand men from a different time with different worldviews, I would strongly suggest reading some bio's of him or to check out the references I gave in my op.


Its a good point. Jackson however was referring to the institution he thought ordained by God that should not be judged by man [himself] despite what his own thoughts were. He also did free a slave that wished so. At least two of his slaves asked him to purchase them and there is no indication they ever asked or wanted freedom from him. Had he denied them that, than you would have a case or at least a contradiction from what he said vs his actions.


According to his wife, Anna, Jackson believed that slavery was "allowed" (not ordained) by God for some unknown/unknowable reason. If you know of some document written by Jackson where he states "ordained", please share, for the distinction is important. God "allows" evil to exist, but that does imply that the Lord's human creations should not oppose evil where they find it. In fact, most Christian theologies, including that of Jackson's Presbyterian denomination, mandate opposition to such things.

The 1818 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church reached the following conclusions regarding slavery:
-It was a sin
-It was utterly inconsistent with the laws of God
-It was a gross violation of the sacred rights of nature
-It was totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of the Gospel
-That it was the duty of all Christians...to obtain the complete abolition of slavery
(Taken verbatim from the website of the American Presbyterian Church [Read More])

The debate within the Presbyterian denomination continued, and, with the popularization of Biblical citations (or prooftexting, depending on which side of the debate you favored) to justify slavery, from the 1830s onward, the differences became more acute.

Jackson had to be aware of the arguments against slavery from within his chosen denomination. His attraction to ministry, and his office within his parish, would make him more interested and aware of the theological debates. in addition, a pastor from his own town of Lexington, VA, had been a major figure in the controversy that led to the 1818 statement cited above. His choice of the pro-slavery argument indicates to me one of three inclinations:

-It was a convenient rationalization that let him off the hook
-The presence of moral laziness (he didn't want to think that hard about it)
-The presence of moral cowardice (acting upon his personal belief was a battle he would not fight, despite his denominations teachings regarding conscience)

As to the slaves:
I am aware that two slaves, Albert and Amy, asked to be purchased by Jackson. Amy was about to be sold to help pay a debt, and feared being sold "down South" (deep cotton country)- a much harsher existence than her current situation. Being considered preferable to an unknown master in place known among slaves as a living hell is not a high bar to overcome. Albert offered to make installment payments to Jackson, with emancipation being granted upon the final payment. The war began before the payments were completed, and I have not seen any record of what eventually happened to Albert.



Quote:
He worked with "enthusiasm" to stop secession. That is until Lincolns call for volunteers and his home country of Virginia left the union.How would you say he supported secession? in what way? As for what caused secession I will refer you to the threads where they are the topic on this forum, especially the upper south since we are talking of Jackson.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?ForumID=32&ID=32632


Two separate questions:
Did Jackson support secession? What was his personal motivation for doing so?

From the moment Jackson offered his services to the erstwhile CSA, he supported secession. That's what those states, including Virginia, were attempting, and he fought to make that attempt successful. The fact that he thought he had good reason to now support secession is a given, but does nothing to alter the fact that he did end up supporting secession.


Quote:
But let us assume secession was because of slavery. That would not conclude Jackson or the csa soldiers fought to preserve slavery as every civil war historian would tell you that I know of.


By fighting in service of a supposed government whose primary, if not sole, reason for existence was the preservation and expansion of race-based slavery, they all fought for slavery. You fight for that government or organization, you fight for their stated cause. That is an unavoidable fact that personal motivation cannot change.


Quote:
I must once more reefer you to the subject I am referring to that had such an impact on Jackson and the whole upper south.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?ForumID=32&ID=32632


And I must refer you to my response above.


Quote:
No question northerners especially recent immigrants [30% of the north] and republicans [about half the north bolstered by immigration] tended to be more loyal to nation than state, it was still not the popular opinion. I am currently reading Tenting Tonight by James Robertson who says the same thing. He said both north and south tried to reach a certain federal army number that was never achieved. Instead men volunteered not for the federal government army [witch was held in suspican by Americans since it founding] but for their states in large numbers. As for west Virginia i agree it deserves it own thread.


This is an assertion that has been parroted often enough that it has become accepted as a truism. While I can accept that many followed state before nation, I have yet to encounter evidence that sufficiently supports most. Lincoln's call(s) for volunteers went directly to the states because that was SOP for the USA: maintain a small standing army and call out the state militias when the need arises. That the "regular" U.S. Army had not reached specific numbers during war says nothing about notions of "country." It says more as to what was practical: administratively, economically, socially, etc. If you would care to cite the page number of the statement you attribute to James Robertson, I would like to take a peek at it.


Quote:
I would ask what causes the skepticism of Jackson personally? I would suggest their is nothing to go off other than modern biases/assumptions because he was from the south, and guilty of being white.


Your suggestion says more about your own biases, than about anything I have written. I am very skeptical about the ways in which Jackson has been commonly portrayed, some of them bordering on beatification. When I dig for the sources on which these portrayals are based, I often find flimsy or contradictory evidence.

For example, the claim that Jackson was illegally teaching slaves to read and write at his Sunday School. Jackson was never challenged on teaching them to read and write, however. The challenge was that the Sunday School was an unlawful assembly of blacks. In other words, it wasn't what was being done, but the mere fact of gathering. (Remember that one of the reactions to the Nat Turner revolt had been severe restrictions as to how many Blacks could gather in one place, at one time.) Even Major Dabney, whom you have cited above, states in his 1866 biography of Jackson,

Quote:
“It has been said that we prohibit the slave all access to letters, and do not permit him to learn to read even the book of life. This, again, is unmingled falsehood; there is no law in Virginia, forbidding a master to teach his slaves literature; and as many of them can read, and do read God’s Word, as of the agricultural peasantry of boasted England.”





Quote:
Thanks for the suggestions I shall look into it, thanks sir.






--1stvermont


I live to serve.

Yours,

JohnT

1stvermont
Vermont, VT, USA
top 50
E-4 Specialist


Posts: 81

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/19/2017 8:10:47 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
allow me to help your understanding so those contradictions can disappear. Jackson wished the slaves could be free, yet believed God ordained slavery and only he could end it. he was not an abolitionist nor anti slavery, never said he was.


You stated that, "Jackson was not pro-slavery, and even wished the slaves could be freed." I illustrated the contradiction between those sentiments and his actions. Within the belief system that held institutional, race-based slavery was ordained by God, the option to emancipate those whom you own exists, and is acceptable. There was nothing in the religiously based rationale for slavery that mandated ownership of slaves by any individual. Jackson could have, at any time he chose, exercised the option of emancipation without violating his religious convictions. He did not.


Quote:
This assumes Jackson thought secession was about slavery. I assure you this is not the case. I would argue neither did Virginia or even the cotton states Stevens was speaking to thought so. The fact one claims the "cornerstone" speech is proof secession was over slavery is the perfect example of pc influencing history. What people are allowed to read, what they are told to think, what they are not allowed to read. But hardly on topic.


You stated, "Jackson was anti-secession,'any one who imagines he fought for slavery knows nothing of Jackson'.” I am not sure sure what the latter had to do with the former, but I addressed them both. For the former: He was anti-secession, yet participated, with enthusiasm, to help it succeed. For the latter: De facto he was fighting for slavery, as that was the stated purpose for the endeavor. I do not rest this assertion solely on the Cornerstone Speech. You will note below the reference to the published articles of secession from several states, as well the correspondences/statements of the secession commissioners, who were sent forth to evangelize other slaveholding states to join in the cause. I base it on their own words.



Quote:
And i am told the pc version knows their history. Surley, they would be aware of this incident of what i speak? surely. It is such a major impact on the causes of war. Once more history taught as it was can fix this issue, once more a thread should be done on this subject.


Nothing to address my argument? It appears to have been ineffective, so I will rephrase.
Here we have Mr. Jackson, a graduate of the United States Military Academy, a former officer in the regular army of the United States, a combat veteran of the Mexican War, and now an instructor at a military academy. With all his education, training, and experience, he would understand full well, and far better than 99% of the population who had never served, the meaning of, "They have fired on our flag." Beyond the bombardment of a single building, which is grave enough, firing on an installation under the national colors is the same as firing on the nation as a whole. It is not merely aggressive, it is a de facto declaration of war. Jackson, with all of his education, training and experience in the armed forces of the United States, also knew, full well and far better than 99% of those who had never served, that such an assault must be answered, and answered with force.

So, the president, as authorized under the Constitution, calls for volunteers to respond to this act of armed aggression. Does Mr. Jackson respond in a manner consistent with his education, training and experience? No. Mr. Jackson concludes that it is the president who is launching a war of aggression. If not a contradiction, this line of reasoning is, at the least, severely inconsistent.



Quote:
I would suggest a few examples where some chose nation over state cannot change the obvious fact that the vast majority were loyal to state first, lee himself is an example so is Jackson. I would ask John to present any historian pc or other who would go against this claim. I would like support for the claim 49% of southern army men went north to fight. West Virginia is another matter and was stolen, their was never a fair vote done neither were all the counties done, it was taken illegally and shows Lincoln does like secession, when it helps him.


Since most of the population of the United States was located in the North (19m North-12m South), and their reaction was not based upon loyalty to their individual states, but rather upon their loyalty to the nation as whole, your assertion of "most Americans" being loyal to state first falls apart. When you add those in the south who remained loyal unionists, the assertion weakens further. (For Southern Unionism, I recommend The South vs The South, Wm. W. Freehling, 2001, Oxford U. Press; and Bitterly Divided: The South’s Inner Civil War, David Williams, 2008, The new Press)

As for the percentages, I specified officers, not 'army men'. Officers had a choice: they could remain, or resign and 'go South'. Enlisted men did not have that freedom. I found those numbers in this paper/presentation by Paul Kensey of the American Civil War Round table of Australia: [Read More] Mr. Kensey is not clear from which of his 3 sources he drew his numbers, but they are listed at the bottom. Should you come up with contradictory documentation, please share.

Two responses regarding Virginia: 1) The difference in geography, and therefore, the enterprises in Western Virginia vs Eastern Virginia had existed for a long time. The Westerners had long been at odds, political, economic and otherwise, with their brethren in the East. As was common with several "border states" loyalties tended to be divided according to region. The difference in W. Virginia was that they had some people who had the notion and the energy to form a separate state government, and remain in the Union. Is this secession? That topic would be worthy its own thread. 2) The voting on the May 1861 referendum regarding secession was not by secret ballot, but orally. If you check newspapers of that time, there appear thinly veiled (and not so thinly veiled) threats of violence to any who might dare to vote against secession. Intimidation cannot be discounted as a factor, in that referendum. So, allegations of "stolen" elections in West Virginia don't go very far with me.


Quote:
I dont disagree jackson was not teaching them abolitionism, in fact he in all likely he taught them similar to his close friend Dabney on slavery.

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Virginia-South-R-Dabney/dp/0873779290

So i dont disagree there. However the purpose of the church was to teach them to read so they could read the bible and to save their souls. IF you claim otherwise you need to support it from jackson.


I suggest a look at the impact of the Nat Turner Rebellion on the Evangelization of slaves, especially in Virginia. Jackson might have had motives as pure as the driven snow. Given the time and the place, however, I am skeptical of his altruism.



Quote:
Once more the pc version comes through. I in no dout believe you think you have a "the south was only states rights because of slavery" what of the fugitive slave laws argument, once more pc does not teach the whole story nor a proper understanding of the union. I will save this for my thread on secession.


I do not understand what it is that you are trying to say here. In the ante-bellum U.S. (actually, at any time of U.S. history), each state would use "states-rights" when it served their interests, and a strong central government whe that served their interests. The Fugitive Slave Act was an example. What is the problem?



Quote:
I enjoyed your post and look forward to discussing secession in the future with you. I think a proper understanding of him removes your claims of his inconsistencies because events altered them. I think a thread on secession will fix many of those for you. I would also argue the south did not lose the debate on slavery and jackson was personally friends with one of the leading men in the south on the subject, he followed the bible the best he know how as a devout christian.No question dabney heavily influenced Jackson's thinking.

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Virginia-South-R-Dabney/dp/0873779290


--1stvermont


(Edited for ease of reading)

BTW- May I suggest that you click on the "Help" button in the upper right of the screen and look at the various shortcuts for the forum. Specifically, if you want to share a link, there are things to type before and after the url that make it easier for the rest of us to connect with that web page.

Yours,

JohnT

--jthlmnn





Thanks for your post due to time and other interests my response will be brief and possibly the last. It is hard to understand men from a different time with different worldviews, I would strongly suggest reading some bio's of him or to check out the references I gave in my op.


Its a good point. Jackson however was referring to the institution he thought ordained by God that should not be judged by man [himself] despite what his own thoughts were. He also did free a slave that wished so. At least two of his slaves asked him to purchase them and there is no indication they ever asked or wanted freedom from him. Had he denied them that, than you would have a case or at least a contradiction from what he said vs his actions.


According to his wife, Anna, Jackson believed that slavery was "allowed" (not ordained) by God for some unknown/unknowable reason. If you know of some document written by Jackson where he states "ordained", please share, for the distinction is important. God "allows" evil to exist, but that does imply that the Lord's human creations should not oppose evil where they find it. In fact, most Christian theologies, including that of Jackson's Presbyterian denomination, mandate opposition to such things.

The 1818 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church reached the following conclusions regarding slavery:
-It was a sin
-It was utterly inconsistent with the laws of God
-It was a gross violation of the sacred rights of nature
-It was totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of the Gospel
-That it was the duty of all Christians...to obtain the complete abolition of slavery
(Taken verbatim from the website of the American Presbyterian Church [Read More])

The debate within the Presbyterian denomination continued, and, with the popularization of Biblical citations (or prooftexting, depending on which side of the debate you favored) to justify slavery, from the 1830s onward, the differences became more acute.

Jackson had to be aware of the arguments against slavery from within his chosen denomination. His attraction to ministry, and his office within his parish, would make him more interested and aware of the theological debates. in addition, a pastor from his own town of Lexington, VA, had been a major figure in the controversy that led to the 1818 statement cited above. His choice of the pro-slavery argument indicates to me one of three inclinations:

-It was a convenient rationalization that let him off the hook
-The presence of moral laziness (he didn't want to think that hard about it)
-The presence of moral cowardice (acting upon his personal belief was a battle he would not fight, despite his denominations teachings regarding conscience)

As to the slaves:
I am aware that two slaves, Albert and Amy, asked to be purchased by Jackson. Amy was about to be sold to help pay a debt, and feared being sold "down South" (deep cotton country)- a much harsher existence than her current situation. Being considered preferable to an unknown master in place known among slaves as a living hell is not a high bar to overcome. Albert offered to make installment payments to Jackson, with emancipation being granted upon the final payment. The war began before the payments were completed, and I have not seen any record of what eventually happened to Albert.



Quote:
He worked with "enthusiasm" to stop secession. That is until Lincolns call for volunteers and his home country of Virginia left the union.How would you say he supported secession? in what way? As for what caused secession I will refer you to the threads where they are the topic on this forum, especially the upper south since we are talking of Jackson.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?ForumID=32&ID=32632


Two separate questions:
Did Jackson support secession? What was his personal motivation for doing so?

From the moment Jackson offered his services to the erstwhile CSA, he supported secession. That's what those states, including Virginia, were attempting, and he fought to make that attempt successful. The fact that he thought he had good reason to now support secession is a given, but does nothing to alter the fact that he did end up supporting secession.


Quote:
But let us assume secession was because of slavery. That would not conclude Jackson or the csa soldiers fought to preserve slavery as every civil war historian would tell you that I know of.


By fighting in service of a supposed government whose primary, if not sole, reason for existence was the preservation and expansion of race-based slavery, they all fought for slavery. You fight for that government or organization, you fight for their stated cause. That is an unavoidable fact that personal motivation cannot change.


Quote:
I must once more reefer you to the subject I am referring to that had such an impact on Jackson and the whole upper south.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?ForumID=32&ID=32632


And I must refer you to my response above.


Quote:
No question northerners especially recent immigrants [30% of the north] and republicans [about half the north bolstered by immigration] tended to be more loyal to nation than state, it was still not the popular opinion. I am currently reading Tenting Tonight by James Robertson who says the same thing. He said both north and south tried to reach a certain federal army number that was never achieved. Instead men volunteered not for the federal government army [witch was held in suspican by Americans since it founding] but for their states in large numbers. As for west Virginia i agree it deserves it own thread.


This is an assertion that has been parroted often enough that it has become accepted as a truism. While I can accept that many followed state before nation, I have yet to encounter evidence that sufficiently supports most. Lincoln's call(s) for volunteers went directly to the states because that was SOP for the USA: maintain a small standing army and call out the state militias when the need arises. That the "regular" U.S. Army had not reached specific numbers during war says nothing about notions of "country." It says more as to what was practical: administratively, economically, socially, etc. If you would care to cite the page number of the statement you attribute to James Robertson, I would like to take a peek at it.


Quote:
I would ask what causes the skepticism of Jackson personally? I would suggest their is nothing to go off other than modern biases/assumptions because he was from the south, and guilty of being white.


Your suggestion says more about your own biases, than about anything I have written. I am very skeptical about the ways in which Jackson has been commonly portrayed, some of them bordering on beatification. When I dig for the sources on which these portrayals are based, I often find flimsy or contradictory evidence.

For example, the claim that Jackson was illegally teaching slaves to read and write at his Sunday School. Jackson was never challenged on teaching them to read and write, however. The challenge was that the Sunday School was an unlawful assembly of blacks. In other words, it wasn't what was being done, but the mere fact of gathering. (Remember that one of the reactions to the Nat Turner revolt had been severe restrictions as to how many Blacks could gather in one place, at one time.) Even Major Dabney, whom you have cited above, states in his 1866 biography of Jackson,

Quote:
“It has been said that we prohibit the slave all access to letters, and do not permit him to learn to read even the book of life. This, again, is unmingled falsehood; there is no law in Virginia, forbidding a master to teach his slaves literature; and as many of them can read, and do read God’s Word, as of the agricultural peasantry of boasted England.”





Quote:
Thanks for the suggestions I shall look into it, thanks sir.






--1stvermont


I live to serve.

Yours,

JohnT

--jthlmnn




Thanks for the thoughtful post. I believe Jackson thought it ordained by God, not just permitted witch was clear since it was going on in Virginia. But I am going off of Robertson here and memory. I think Jackson was aware of the debate over slavery and was also influenced by his close friend Dabney one of the leading southern [pro slavery] theologian in the country. As i posted earlier his book a defense of virginia and the south lays out the biblical arguments for slavery and responses to objections by those who parted from the pro slavery view. Jackson would have been aware of all of these. So to Jackson it was

1] Follow god
2] follow man.

He chose the first. It is interesting you brought up the statement by the The 1818 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church as i am just reading it quoted in a book today for the first time, funny.


According to the VMI museum of jacksons house [visited this summer] Albert was freed i thought even before the war, maybe 62. This is also stated in the still standing the stonewall Jackson documentary.

http://www.vmi.edu/museums-and-archives/stonewall-jackson-house/



Jackson did not support the secession movement and worked against it. Not till Virginia left did he serve his home country. I dont think in his mind he ever supported secession, he supported defending Virginia from forighn invaders. But I was more referring to the original secession movement of the deep south and those in Virginia who supported it.



I think this is better to be disused on the threads made on causes of secession as i disagree with your assumptions. But even so, that does not conclude that Jacksons motivations were to extend or preserve slavery.
Did northern soldiers fight to end slavery? did northern soldiers who owned slaves fight to do so? its much more complex and deserves its own thread.



How do we define most from many? of course none can say for certain, no poll was done. I would say most if we include all of antebellum america. Many in 1860. Most in the south. I am looking for a quote from a solider in Sherman's army marching though the south. In his diary he mentions how in the south their are no americans, only Georgians and south carolinas etc. Perhaps it is one of those things [i would say so with the rifled musket] that is assumed and not as correct as thought. The modern "nation" idea of america started after the war and during. We went through a major transformation that I think explains state loyalty pre civil war vs national today. Here is a thread i did on the subject.


“To nationalize as much as possible, even currency, so as to make men love country first before their states, all private interest, local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals everything should be subordinate now to the interests of the government”
-Republican Senator John Sherman of Ohio

From Union to Empire- The Political Effects of the Civil war
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?511837-From-Union-to-Empire-The-Political-Effects-of-the-Civil-war


Your argument is that almost half of the officers in the federal army stayed union that were from the south. But also look at the cadets, most went with state. I also think you put to much weight on 162 people to decide the countries loyalties. Clearly this did not represent the south as a whole. Where did they live, who did they marry and other issues effected the desistions. I would also suggest the federal military will be the section of the country most pro federal than any other section of the country. How many southerners volunteers for their states vs 162 officers who stayed union? it seems the exception not the rule. The link even says how Lee could not accept the norths offer to go to war against Virginia. Lincoln of course called on militia, he also called for federal volunteers and a larger standing army that could never reach its asking for [somewhere around 40,000 i think] yet hundreds of thousands volunteered for state. My guess the federals troops would be better paid, fed, equipped and managed.


Ok i am looking at Robertson's book p 21. Lincoln called for 22,700 regular army troops and "even at a time when the union was consumed with patriotic fever, federal recruitment officers barley succeeded in signing up 2,000 men."

than on p22

"they offered their servise not to the central government but to their states, whits had always been the focus of their patriotism"



Well I am not sure who has said that, my op reads

"When a lawyer told Jackson it was illegal to have such large numbers of slaves gathered together"


---------------
“The CSA congress can have no such power over states officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states the foundation of the confederacy”
-1864 Virginia supremeCourt

jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 173

Re: Blacks Originally Helped Create Stonewall Jackson Monuments
Posted on: 9/20/2017 1:40:11 AM

Quote:

Ok i am looking at Robertson's book p 21. Lincoln called for 22,700 regular army troops and "even at a time when the union was consumed with patriotic fever, federal recruitment officers barley succeeded in signing up 2,000 men."

than on p22

"they offered their servise not to the central government but to their states, whits had always been the focus of their patriotism


It's been a long day and I only have time for one thing before catching some Zs.

Proclamation 83, May 3, 1861
"And I also direct that the Regular Army of the United States be increased by the addition of eight regiments of infantry, one regiment of cavalry, and one regiment of artillery, making altogether a maximum aggregate increase of 22,714 officers and enlisted men, the details of which increase will also be made known through the Department of War."


I am puzzled by Robertson's numbers. I count 9 regiments of infantry, one regiment of cavalry and about 6 batteries of artillery that were organized and in service by Fall of the same year. (As a guide, I used this sentence, which appears at the beginning of the regimental histories: "Organized by direction of the President May 4, 1861, and confirmed by Act of Congress July 29, 1861."[Read More]) Since the infantry regiments came under the "new" organization (3 battalions of 800 men each=2,400), that would be 21,600 men. Add the cavalry and artillery (about 1,500 men) and the total number of men surpasses Lincoln's goal. Looking at it another way, the infantry and cavalry regimental goals were met, with only the artillery coming up short.

Yours,

JohnT

 American Civil War Politics (Unmoderated)    
 Forum Ads from Google