DoDMERB missed one!

[mtnman17]

So I found this while doing some general leisure reading on the Civil War. I guess that DoDMERB missed his file back in 1841, when he was applying :rolleyes:.

General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson was one of the most gifted commanders in U.S. History. But he has a dubious distinction that had haunted his legacy since the 1850’s; Jackson has been accused of being a hypochondriac.

Jackson had some strange distinctions:

1 He thought he was “out of balance” in battle if he didn’t raise one arm while on his horse. He said he wanted to, “Keep the blood balanced.”

2.He refused to have pepper on his food, stating it made his left leg weak.

3.Despite wartime shortage, Jackson would constantly suck on lemons because he felt it helped his “dyspepsia.”

4.His staff noticed his strange diet, some of his meals consisted of only raspberries, bread, and milk.

5.Jackson was only comfortable when he was in an upright position, and I mean standing straight up. He felt it helped his organs stand “naturally” one atop each other. For this reason he had no chairs in his study at Lexington, Virginia. He spent long hours reading the Bible or memorizing Virginia’s laws.

6.While on honeymoon with his second wife (seeing how his first wife had died) he took her to Eastern America so he could bath in the mineral spas to “improve my sagging bad health.”

7.Even while he was a plebe West Point, first classman Ulysses S. Grant called him a “fanatic” whose “delusions took strange forms- hypochondria, fancies that evil spirits had taken possession of him.”

8.Jackson offered some dietary advice to his sister Laura, “If you commence on this diet, remember it is like a man joining a temperance society, if he afterwards tastes liquor he is gone.”

9.His complaints listed almost endlessly through his young manhood: rheumatism, chilblains, poor eyesight (witch he treated by dipping his head in a vat of cold water, eyes open, for as long as he could hold his breath), cold feet, nervousness, neuralgia, impaired hearing, tonsillitis (which required surgery), biliousness and “slight distortion of the spine” as Jackson stated in the late 1840’s.

Because of these things it is now said Jackson was a hypochondriac. But modern physicians have stated that Jackson may have suffered from the fairly common and most uncomfortable diaphragmatic hernia. This is the theory of Dr. E.R. MacLennan of Opp, Alabama. He states that this hernia caused Jackson to suffer from his many body ailments.

Ironically Jackson’s habit of draping his abdomen with cold towels to heal his “dyspepsia” may have caused his death. Soon after the amputation of his left arm at Chancellorsville, cold towels were laid on his abdomen as Jackson did everyday. This may have led to his contraction of pneumonia that killed him.

[patentesq]

Was this before the days of Mullen?:shake:

[LineInTheSand]

U.S.A. history or C.S.A.?

[AF6872]

A Fantastic winning Gerenal none the less. If He had not died after Chancellorsville there may have been a different outcome at Gettysburg. He and Longstreet would have made a difference with Lee. Longstreet alone could not convince him but with Jackson, who knows. There stands Jackson as a "Stone Wall" rally on the Virginians. VMI knows him well.

[sprog]

Yes, VMI knows Jackson well. He is buried in Lexington and people still leave lemons at his grave. A little weird, but he was kind of a weird dude. He was an awful teacher at VMI by the way. He would just memorize lectures and would not respond to questions from cadets who didn't get it. If a cadet didn't understand, he'd just go back to the earlier point in the lecture and repeat it verbatim. He was not a professor you wanted to have.

He may have taught at VMI and fought for the CSA, but he's also a West Pointer who fought in the Mexican War for the US Army.

[Luigi59]

(IMHO) Like Lee, Jackson is another traitor who should have been hanged for treason.

As a slave owner, he believed in the cause of defending slavery.

He wrote that he believed God created slavery, therefore man should not try to abolish it, and as long as he treated his slaves fairly, it was possible to be a "good" slave owner.

There stands Jackson as a "Stone Wall" rally on the Virginians.

Some historians believe the phrase "standing there a like a stonewall" an indictment of his ineptitude for failing to come to the aid of his other troops in need, rather than a rallying cry.

Other CSA generals were not that impressed with Jackson, most notably Joseph Jonston and Longstreet - neither of which had much confidence is Jackson's abilities.

You maybe over-rated him as a general.

[patentesq]

Oh boy, here we go! :rolleyes::eek::redface::mad::smile:

[sprog]

(IMHO) Like Lee, Jackson is another traitor who should have been hanged for treason.

.

Jackson was killed during the war, so the hanging may not have had much impact.

[Luigi59]

Jackson was killed during the war, so the hanging may not have had much impact.

DOH! Of course you are correct! Hanging is my standard answer for every CSA traitor. :thumb:

[flieger83]

(IMHO) Like Lee, Jackson is another traitor who should have been hanged for treason.

As a slave owner, he believed in the cause of defending slavery.

He wrote that he believed God created slavery, therefore man should not try to abolish it, and as long as he treated his slaves fairly, it was possible to be a "good" slave owner.



Some historians believe the phrase "standing there a like a stonewall" an indictment of his ineptitude for failing to come to the aid of his other troops in need, rather than a rallying cry.

Other CSA generals were not that impressed with Jackson, most notably Joseph Jonston and Longstreet - neither of which had much confidence is Jackson's abilities.

You maybe over-rated him as a general.
Luigi,

Relax.

This is a discussion about the "quirks" of Gen'l Jackson; not an indictment of him, the CSA, the cause they fought for, the inclusion of slavery as an item of vilification of ANYONE that served the CSA, etc. It was/is simply a discussion (humorous to all historians) about TJ Jackson's quirks.

Your comment about his nickname being perhaps one of scorn was uttered by Gen'l Joe Johnston's Chief of Staff in relaying his OPINION of what General Bee (killed almost immediately afterward) said and has had some historians wondering forever: what did he (Gen Bee) mean? Regardless of what General Bee meant, Jackson's brigade turned the tide at Manassas when the Union forces were set to overrun the Confederates.

In my research of my familial ancestor, Joseph E. Johnston, I never found anything derogatory of Gen'l Jackson at all. I've NOT done such due diligence with Gen Longstreet so I can't comment there.

Anyway...let's get back on track about his "quirks" and such...he's a fascinating figure from a very ugly time of civil war. His profound Presbyterian faith (a deacon who tried not to fight on Sunday but would NOT shirk from it), his dislike of fancy uniforms and trappings of importance (he usually wore old clothes as a uniform) just make him all the more interesting.

And he's not the only one with "quirks..." from that war. There are many more that could be discussed in this topic.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

[AF6872]

As with Sun Tzu, Vegetius, Ceasar, Hannibal, Charlemagne, De Saxe, Holger Danske, Frederick, Napoleon, Murat, Grant, Lee, Sheridan, Johnston and Patton. Generals had their faults and were often on the wrong historical side but they had one redeeming quality. They Won Battles!

[JCraft]

(IMHO) Like Lee, Jackson is another traitor who should have been hanged for treason.



You maybe over-rated him as a general.

One could argue that the CSA had a right to succeed from the Union. Where does it say in the Constitution otherwise? If Jackson, Lee, and all the other members of the CSA were "traitors" and should be hanged, then shouldn't Washington, Samuel Adams, and all the members of the Revolution be hanged as well for succeeding from Great Britain?

I totally agree that the Union needed to win the war; two separate nations would never had won WWI or especially WWII (if it even would have occurred). As for the slavery issue, the war was not about the slaves! Even Generals in the North (Grant, Sherman to name) owned slaves. Lincoln's Emancipation Act only abolished slavery in the North (not Confederate territory). Slavery is awful, no questions about it, but that was not the basis for the Civil War.

[jtoye]

One could argue that the CSA had a right to succeed from the Union. Where does it say in the Constitution otherwise? If Jackson, Lee, and all the other members of the CSA were "traitors" and should be hanged, then shouldn't Washington, Samuel Adams, and all the members of the Revolution be hanged as well for succeeding from Great Britain?

No, they won.

[mtnman17]

One could argue that the CSA had a right to succeed from the Union. Where does it say in the Constitution otherwise?

What if I went really deep on you, and said that because the constitution never actually provides for a process such as secession, just as it does not provide for nullification, that the Confederate States never really succeeded? There was no such process, so technically, the Confederate States of America really should not have been recognized by any government (Lincoln didn't recognize them, he saw the CSA as certain states in rebellion, not as a separate country) because they really were part of the United States the entire time..... So technically, no matter what good ole Jeff Davis said, he was President of no more than a party of rebels, never a President of a nation, or Confederacy of nations.

This also would mean that the process of readmitting states to the union is illegitimate as well, something again, that Lincoln did not put much faith in (he only wanted to require 10% of each state to have to pledge allegiance). Then President Johnson came in and required all southern citizens to swear an oath of loyalty, however he did not allow certain generals and plantation owners, the leaders of the rebellion, to do so (well, most of them. He pardoned alot).

Had the South won, and Lincoln actually recognized the government, things would have been different.

But the above controversy, in my eyes, is an important thing to study. Did the 'CSA' ever actually become it's own sovereign nation? I say no, because the Constitution never actually provided for secession. The CSA was no more than a political party with it's own 'private' army, and other things.

Note- I've lived my entire life in NC, and am very proud of my state and our rich history. The above is just the conclusion I reached after many many many years of reading and many many many discussions with others who have authority on the topic of the civil war, authors and the like. Not trashing the CSA, only questioning their actual legitimacy.

[LineInTheSand]

What if I went really deep on you, and said that because the constitution never actually provides for a process such as secession, just as it does not provide for nullification, that the Confederate States never really succeeded? There was no such process, so technically, the Confederate States of America really should not have been recognized by any government (Lincoln didn't recognize them, he saw the CSA as certain states in rebellion, not as a separate country) because they really were part of the United States the entire time..... So technically, no matter what good ole Jeff Davis said, he was President of no more than a party of rebels, never a President of a nation, or Confederacy of nations.

This also would mean that the process of readmitting states to the union is illegitimate as well, something again, that Lincoln did not put much faith in (he only wanted to require 10% of each state to have to pledge allegiance). Then President Johnson came in and required all southern citizens to swear an oath of loyalty, however he did not allow certain generals and plantation owners, the leaders of the rebellion, to do so (well, most of them. He pardoned alot).

Had the South won, and Lincoln actually recognized the government, things would have been different.

But the above controversy, in my eyes, is an important thing to study. Did the 'CSA' ever actually become it's own sovereign nation? I say no, because the Constitution never actually provided for secession. The CSA was no more than a political party with it's own 'private' army, and other things.

Note- I've lived my entire life in NC, and am very proud of my state and our rich history. The above is just the conclusion I reached after many many many years of reading and many many many discussions with others who have authority on the topic of the civil war, authors and the like. Not trashing the CSA, only questioning their actual legitimacy.

The Constitution is for the United States...anything not specifically designated for the federal government is left to the states.

Thomas Jefferson....in his inauguration speech....

"If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form," the author of the Declaration of Independence said, "let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

[flieger83]

The Constitution is for the United States...anything not specifically designated for the federal government is left to the states.

Thomas Jefferson....in his inauguration speech....

"If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form," the author of the Declaration of Independence said, "let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

As my beloved grandmother would have said (former President, Daughters of the Confederacy) "Praise be...a Yankee that understands..."

She was rather...passionate about the "War of Northern Aggression."

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

[raimius]

I totally agree that the Union needed to win the war; two separate nations would never had won WWI or especially WWII (if it even would have occurred). As for the slavery issue, the war was not about the slaves! Even Generals in the North (Grant, Sherman to name) owned slaves. Lincoln's Emancipation Act only abolished slavery in the North (not Confederate territory). Slavery is awful, no questions about it, but that was not the basis for the Civil War.

Might want to review the history a little more. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in Confederate states, not the Union (that would have angered the Border States). The whole conflict DOES go back to slavery. The South suceeded because they feared Lincoln was an abolitionist and because they were losing power in both the House and Senate. They knew they did not have the population to keep power in the House, and feared new states would be free, shifting the balance to free states. Sure, "States' Rights" was a big factor, but that was only because they wanted slavery as one of those "rights."

[LineInTheSand]

I beg to differ. States rights were "big" because people, north and south, identified more with their states than the "whole nation".

[Luigi59]

Might want to review the history a little more. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in Confederate states, not the Union (that would have angered the Border States). The whole conflict DOES go back to slavery. The South suceeded because they feared Lincoln was an abolitionist and because they were losing power in both the House and Senate. They knew they did not have the population to keep power in the House, and feared new states would be free, shifting the balance to free states. Sure, "States' Rights" was a big factor, but that was only because they wanted slavery as one of those "rights."

Of course, exactly correct. :beer1:

[raimius]

I beg to differ. States rights were "big" because people, north and south, identified more with their states than the "whole nation".

...and which of those "right(s)" caused a Civil War?

[AF6872]

Possibly this one and its interpretation (correct or incorrect) at the time:

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/statesrights.html

Notice the "limitation on the powers of the Federal Government". We are still arguing that now!

The precedence for dissension.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/protectivetariffs.html

[JCraft]

Yeah, I defiantly made a mistake about the Emancipation Act (it did indeed free the Southern States' slaves, my bad :frown:)

I just see the war as a war for State's Rights. Had the South abolished slavery on it's own (which would in turn might have allowed Great Britain to come in on the Confederacy's side), I feel the war would have been more justified. The South felt (reasonably) that the North was overly oppressive. Northern Tariffs, Southern resources being handled badly by the industrialization of the North. Centralization and "big government" was also a huge factor: the Confederacy wanted states to be able to do what they wanted (and yes, slavery was a big factor here). But still, do states have rights to allocate resources as they wish? While slavery indirectly helped fuel the fire and (I believe) made the war justifiable for the North, Lincoln was a big government politician and (again, my opinion) overly controlling.

My question is are state's allowed to succeed from the Union? Does that make a war justifiable? Both sides had slaves, both sides had racist people, but both sides also had people that thought slavery was awful (Gen. Lee for example). By far, the two best things the war accomplished was the eventually abolition of slavery and keeping the nation together.

As for Lincoln recognizing the CSA as a sovereign nation, he never did so in words, but it seems that his actions may indicate otherwise. By blockading Southern ports, invading his own country are reasonable grounds for recognition. On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to say that the CSA was just a band of rebels under organized leadership. You have to win the war in-order for the war to called a "Revolution" and not a "Civil War." Plus, if the CSA was in-fact a nation, then I live in a "conquered nation." :thumbdown: Oh well, guess it's over now...

[green4life]

I would recommend this as a good read...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4989622

http://www.amazon.com/Team-Rivals-Political-Abraham-Lincoln/dp/0684824906


Thread Jack in progress.

[tonk002]

(IMHO) Like Lee, Jackson is another traitor who should have been hanged for treason.

As a slave owner, he believed in the cause of defending slavery.





Ok... Jefferson was a slave owner and wrote about how blacks were inferior to whites because he thought black slaves had, among other things: body odor, a lack of intelligence when compared to Native Americans, and a smaller skull. Should Jefferson have been tried and put on treason?