DoDMERB missed one!

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by mtnman17, Feb 16, 2011.

  1. mtnman17

    mtnman17 USMA Appointee 2015

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    1
    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:.

     
  2. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was this before the days of Mullen?:shake:
     
  3. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    U.S.A. history or C.S.A.?
     
  4. AF6872

    AF6872 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    237
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2011
  5. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    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.
     
  6. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    (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.
     
  7. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh boy, here we go! :rolleyes::eek::redface::mad::smile:
     
  8. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    Jackson was killed during the war, so the hanging may not have had much impact.
     
  9. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    DOH! Of course you are correct! Hanging is my standard answer for every CSA traitor. :thumb:
     
  10. flieger83

    flieger83 Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    343
    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
     
  11. AF6872

    AF6872 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    237
    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!
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011
  12. JCraft

    JCraft Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2011
  13. jtoye

    jtoye NAPS '12 appointee

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, they won.
     
  14. mtnman17

    mtnman17 USMA Appointee 2015

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  15. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    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."
     
  16. flieger83

    flieger83 Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    343
    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
     
  17. raimius

    raimius USAFA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,239
    Likes Received:
    272
    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."
     
  18. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    I beg to differ. States rights were "big" because people, north and south, identified more with their states than the "whole nation".
     
  19. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    Of course, exactly correct. :beer1:
     
  20. raimius

    raimius USAFA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,239
    Likes Received:
    272
    ...and which of those "right(s)" caused a Civil War?
     

Share This Page