Firstly I would like to thank all of my fellow bloggers who have “liked” or commented positively on my Post “Jackson’s Army of the Valley. Unfortunately it seems that I have offended a number of other “people” who have expressed their concerns via email and for this I wish to apologize.

Well no actually, I don’t.

There is nothing in the blog which would be offensive to most “normal” people. I have absolutely no time for those small minded, petty individuals, who have nothing better to do but be anti-social on the internet.

In fact, according to a new study published by the University of Manitoba, internet trolls — people who commonly lurk on message boards and post offensive material to get a rise out of people — exhibit anti-social behavior in their offline settings as well.

So you trolls are just jerks in real life as well!!!

I have to say I found most of these comments very amusing. Of those comments that were coherent there were three main themes:

Firstly I am apparently Un-American

Un-American for posting a blog on the Confederacy! I think these learned people need to do more research.

Well mates, I’ll be buggered, I think these people have a Roo or two loose in the back paddock. I am proud to be a true blue, dinky-di, Un-American from Downunder. In fact I am totally Un-American. Coo-eee!

Being Un-American does not mean I am Anti-American although the events of the last week would not make me on my lonesome if I was!

Secondly, in writing a blog about Jackson I am supporting the memory of a slave owner.

The post was not about Jackson, but about an army of toy soldiers, collected, and painted over a number of years.

My blog is about toy soldiers – if you don’t like it don’t read it. My blog is about military history – if you don’t like it don’t read it. My blog is about painting miniature terrain and figures – if you don’t like it don’t read it, and lastly my blog is for fellow enthusiasts – if you are not one then go and put another bloody shrimp on the barbie, but definitely don’t read it.

Whilst it is true Jackson did own two slaves it is a mistake to look back on pastimes through modern lenses. This is nothing more than the historical fallacy of “presentism” or the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Any decent student of history knows this.

Often misunderstood are Jackson’s feelings about slavery. He owned two slaves, both
of whom had asked him to purchase them after the deaths of their masters. Anna
Morrison brought three slaves to the marriage. Jackson viewed human bondage with
typical simplicity. God had established slavery for reasons man could not and should not
challenge. A good Christian had the twin responsibilities of treating slaves with paternal
affection and introducing them to the promises of God as found in holy scripture.
Toward that end, Jackson taught a Sunday afternoon Bible class for all slaves and
freedmen in Lexington.

Essential Civil War Curriculum | James I. Robertson, Jr., “Stonewall” Jackson: Christian Soldier | October 2010

Now do not get me wrong I am not and never will be a supporter of the enslavement of any peoples, and I am not an apologist for Thomas Jackson. I admire the way he carried himself through life, I admire his leadership of men, I admire his military genius and I admire the way he spent his last days with dignity. At 3:15 on Sunday afternoon, May 10, 1863, he awakened from a coma long enough to say clearly: “Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees.” Minutes later, Jackson died. I do not admire his ownership of slaves.

Thirdly I do not understand that the history of the Civil War is all about slavery.

Firstly I need to explain that I have major in History and Classical studies from the University of Newcastle, Post graduate studies in History from Monash University, have been a tutor at both of these institutions and at the Victoria Police Academy and Airlie Officer training college. I regularly speak at conferences and run seminars on the use of military simulations for scenario planning. I am not an expert in the American Civil War but I know how to read and understand history.

Secondly I understand that we now have a present historical context which is attempting to re-write, minimise and deny history following the sad events of the death of George Floyd.

White supremacists encouraged by political rhetoric and partisan police seem to be cleaving the US apart. To an observer from afar these seem to be more important factors than symbols of a bygone era. The anti-confederacy movement is advocating the destruction of monuments and symbols of the confederacy which to me appears just like the destruction of the 6th century Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban which was widely condemned.

I can only repeat the words of George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Scholars have argued about the causes of the American Civil war from just a few years after it ended until the present day some one hundred and fifty six years later.

Let us have a look at this in more detail.

Many maintain that the primary cause of the war was the Southern states’ desire to preserve the institution of slavery. Others minimize slavery and point to other factors, such as taxation or the principle of States’ Rights.

In 2011, at the outset of the wars sesquicentennial, a Pew Research Center poll found that Americans were significantly divided on the issue, with 48% saying the war was “mainly about states’ rights,” 38% saying the war was “mainly about slavery,” with the remainder answering “both equally” or “neither/don’t know.” 

As already indicated a common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it was more about the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.

Another key issue was states’ rights.

The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn’t support, especially laws interfering with the South’s right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.

Another factor was territorial expansion.

The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone. In this sense the North was also discriminating against free peoples of colour.

Meanwhile, the newly formed Republican party, whose members were strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence.

The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, as President in 1860 sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence.

Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war.

We are fortunate enough to have a large number of primary sources to use in our understanding that led up to the war.

Each of the 11 states that seceded from the Union all published declarations of Secession and all of these are available in the Library of Congress. More importantly four states, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas issued statements declaring their reasons for seceding. These reasons are analysed below:

The above diagrams are an analysis of how many words were devoted to the issues raised in each state’s Declaration as a percentage of the whole. “Context” refers to procedural language and/or historical exposition.

Click for a full analysis of the documents.

Two major themes emerge in these documents: slavery and states’ rights. All four states strongly defend slavery while making varying claims related to states’ rights.  Other grievances, such as economic exploitation and the role of the military, and Lincoln’s Election receive some attention in some of the documents. Again when we are talking about slavery the issue is not about the right for individuals to own slaves but about the economics of slavery and political control of that system.

Scholars will never fully agree on the causes and all we can really be certain about is that the causes were multi-factorial.

The words of one of my history professors, Godfrey Tanner, still rings clear in my ears “where learned scholars differ we cannot afford to be dogmatic”.

So to you trolls I say “I am happy with my understanding of the history and if you don’t like it crawl back under your bridge”.

References:

• Stonewall Jackson Essay
• Stonewall Jackson Resources

• G.F.R. Henderson, Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War. (2 vols.) London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1898.
• Jedediah Hotchkiss, Make Me a Map of the Valley: The Civil War Journal of Stonewall Jackson’s Topographer. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1973.
• Mary Anna Jackson, Memoirs of Stonewall Jackson. Louisville Kentucky: The Prentice Press, 1895.
• Robert G. Tanner, Stonewall in the Valley: Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson’s Shenandoah Valley Campaign, Spring 1862. Mechanicsburg Pennsylvania: Doubleday & Co., 1976
• Frank E. Vandiver, Mighty Stonewall. New York: McGraw Hill, 1957
• James I. Robertson, Jr., Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend. New York: McMillan Publishing, 1997.
• Essential Civil War Curriculum | James I. Robertson, Jr., “Stonewall” Jackson: Christian Soldier | October 2010