Stonewall Jackson: the Man, the Soldier, the Legend. By James I. Robertson, Jr. (New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1997. Pp xxiii + 950. Maps. Bibliography. Notes. Index.).

            James I. Robertson’s massive Stonewall Jackson offers a definitive treatment of the Virginia general for new scholars and history buffs. Robertson does not offer a new treatment of the general but instead explores the reality of Jackson’s life, a reality clouded by one-hundred and forty-seven years of Lost Cause mythology, amateur history, and hero worship. The hero worship was not always done by fawning southerners. Lord Frederick Roberts and Douglas MacArthur extolled Jackson’s greatness, and even his contemporary northern opponents respected him. True to his legend, Jackson was a deeply religious man and a very strict sabbatarian. During the Civil War his staff was to a man religious (but also eclectic, with Episcopalians, Dutch Reformed, and Presbyterians represented). He was not, as some have suggested, obsessed with lemons; he simply liked all fruits. Roberston disregards the anecdotal Jackson for a tragic historical figure. Roberston’s Jackson is, above all else, a sad man. The inspiring Thomas Jackson of film and story is nowhere to be found, replaced instead by a sad, brooding, and even insecure man. His personality deficiencies helped him serve the strategic aims of Confederate commander Robert Lee wee; he was both an excellent subaltern and an excellent leader. But military glory did not fundamentally change Thomas Jackson. He remained an enigmatic and contradictory figure in life and in death. His sadness was perhaps only limited; one of his students, Captain Thomas Boyd, eulogized Jackson by declaring him, “indeed a soldier of the cross.”

            Roberston argues that Jackson’s childhood war formative in a way other Jackson historians did not explain. In 1831 Jackson was sent away from his mother; he was seven years old. Julia Jackson Woodson died shortly thereafter. Jackson found some stability in the presence of his six uncles, but Jackson’s childhood reinforced much of his sad and solitary disposition. His similarly gloomy adolescence was seemingly capped by a final great disappointment; hoping for an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Jackson was passed over and the slot went to one Gibson Butcher.

Jackson’s military record is treated fully in Robertson’s book, but his experiences as a soldier are explored holistically. The Mexican War was a proving and training ground for Jackson. Jackson’s spirituality came to a head in Mexico; he was fascinated by Catholicism and seems to have been genuinely curious about Catholic religiosity. His baptism of fire gave him the needed military experience to build his career once he returned to the United States. It also served as a major area of emotional happiness for Thomas, and his family life in the years that succeeded the Mexican War must be termed the most peaceful of his life. He moved to Lexicngton, Virginia and took a position at VMI. He became involved in the life of the community and joined the Presbyterian Church. His social life led him into the circle of the Junkin family. Dr. George Junkin was president of Washington College and the father of Elinor Junkin. Elinor and Thomas married in 1853 and enjoyed a happy family life. Their happiness was ephemeral. Elinor died in the fall of 1854. Jackson remarried Mary Anna Jackson a few years later and in many ways lived a life of relative solitude until the Winter of 1861.

Jackson’s Civil war record does not need revisiting, but his politics at the outset of the Civil War might appear hard to reconcile to his later virulent conduct in battle. Jackson considered himself a “Union” man and was disturbed by secession. His intense religiosity convinced him that he was fighting for the righteous side and that the Yankee armies deserved to be exterminated for going against God’s soldiers. That he was shot by his own soldiers (the Tar Heel 18^th) provided a final tragic reality to his sad life.

Roberston’s book is exhaustive and difficult to review because of its size. The author does maintain his thesis that Jackson’s life was a sad one; this work, through solid scholarship, enhances Jackson’s reputation because it humanizes a man that has been seen as a demi-god for so long.

Miles Smith                                                                                         Texas Christian University

Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend. By James I. Robertson. New York: Macmillian Publishing 1997. p.950.

            During, and after the Civil War, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson’s life captured the interest of all those that have learned of his adventures and exploits.  Countless books, papers and articles have been published concerning the life of Stonewall Jackson.  Each work takes a slightly different view of Jackson’s exploits.  In Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend, James I. Robertson continues the tradition of exploring the man and the myth.  Although many works have attempted to construct a true depiction of General Jackson, none has achieved the level of thoughness as this work of James Robertson.  Robertson has returned to the use of the substantial amounts of primary documents, available to the researcher, rather than taking myths, associated with Jackson, at face value.  Robertson attempts to get at the essence of the man behind Jackson rather then what he later became, a general.

            Robertson begins his work by looking at what made Stonewall Jackson a great man.  According to Robertson, only after examining the true nature of Jackson’s life can enable the researcher to understand him as a general.  Robertson begins with the early life of Stonewall Jackson, from his infancy to his time at West Point.  He spends some time investigating Jackson’s childhood, after the death of his parents, and the hardships that followed.  Robertson has concluded that this very hardship could be the source of Stonewall Jackson’s tenacity and drive.  Robertson demonstrates Jackson’s devotion and integrity by explaining the difficulty that he first had after entering West Point.  Despite being near the bottom of his class shortly after entering the Academy, Jackson was able to eventually work his way up the class rank to being near the top at his graduation.  After his class graduated from the academy and received commissions, most officers were sent to fight in the war with Mexico.  According to Robertson, Jackson arrived too late to take part in the fighting in the north, but did see widespread action within Mexico.  While in Mexico, Jackson learned many of the methods and skills he would later use during the Civil War.  While serving in Mexico, Jackson also became taken with religion.  After studying the different faiths available, he eventually became a devout Presbyterian. 

            After the war with Mexico, Stonewall Jackson left the army and took a position at the Virginia Military Institute.  While teaching at the Institute, Jackson became well known and appreciated member of the community and the church.  According to Robertson, Jackson had finally found the life that he had been searching for since childhood.  When the Civil War came, Jackson felt as if this life was being threatened.  In Robertson’s opinion, Jackson went to war to protect his family, church and state.  According to Robert, Jackson felt that Lincoln had betrayed the nation, the Constitution and God.  With theses views it was imperative that Jackson join the Confederacy as soon as possible.

            Robertson then moves his work into the Civil War.  He begins with Jackson’s leadership at Bull Run.  This is the battle where Jackson stood like a Stonewall in the face of the enemy.  He then explores Jackson’s campaigns in the Shenandoah Valley and the Unions inability to stop the outnumbered Confederates.  Robertson examines the transformation from professor to aggressive warrior.  He concludes that Jackson’s religious belief played an important role in his abilities as a military commander.  Jackson placed his life in the hands of God and concentrated on the attack.  Robertson then goes on to gives a synopsis of the battles that Jackson played a significant role in.  These include the Peninsular Campaign, Antietam, The Second Bull Run and Chancellorsville.  In each of these battles, Jackson leads his men with distinction and skill.  Eventually Jackson is shot by friendly fire and died shortly after.  Since his death, Stonewall Jackson has become a legend and has been touted as a military genius around the world.  Robertson concludes that this has taken place due to Jackson’s surprise and speed in his attacks.  The South revered him to this day, as others respect him and study his life and career.

            Overall, Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend is an excellent book.  It is easily read and enjoyed by anyone who picks it up.  It is apparent, the many hours of research accomplished by Robertson.  Robertson has produced a masterpiece that will judge all future works on Stonewall Jackson.  He has enabled the reader to see the man behind the general and this is essential to understanding Stonewall Jackson.  

Chris Draper

Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend. By James I. Robertson, Jr., 1997.                      

In, Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend, James Robertson has created a biographical masterpiece.  In this detailed and analytical study, we come to understand the make-up of Jackson and the process that took him to military greatness.  Far better than with most biographies, Robertson depicts the factors that explain Jackson’s greatness.  Few American historical figures receive more attention than Stonewall Jackson.  He burst into public awareness during the Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1862 and remains a fascination to this very day.  Yet despite the massive amount of published accounts, few can approach, and none can match, the quality of Robertson’s work. 

Among the greatest service that Robertson provides is the successful effort to dispel many myths of Jackson’s eccentricity.  Without doubt, Jackson had some unusual behavior, which historians often confuse with eccentricities.  But writers have exaggerated these into legendary proportion far beyond reality.  Biographers and historians create and perpetuate these myths with little reference to original source material.  Robertson chose to return to primary research—information from people who knew Jackson—to help us understand the personality and character of the man.  He avoided the wide use of secondary references, which often provide undocumented source material for much of this mythology.  From his original research, a very different perception of Stonewall Jackson emerges.  It is the view of a man who had established himself in the society of Lexington, Virginia; was widely respected in the religious circles of his time; and was able to cultivate an incredible amount of loyalty from subordinates, peers, and superiors as well as gaining the love of his compatriots.  Had Jackson been the erratic personality that many historians love to picture, such a following would have been impossible. 

The hallmarks of Jackson’s greatness stem from an incredibly strong willpower and determination, supported by a sense of integrity and discipline.  It appears that Jackson developed these qualities from his own intelligent observations and analysis of the world around him.  Orphaned in his youth and raised by caring but detached relatives on the Virginia frontier, Jackson became self-reliant and developed a high set of personal values.  Despite his native intelligence, Jackson was not well educated prior to arriving at West Point.  He was barely able to gain acceptance into the military academy where he struggled mightily during his first several years.  Although at the very bottom of his class during the first year at the academy, he improved every year through hard work and exposure to academically focused information until he ultimately graduated in the upper third of his class (seventeenth of fifty-nine).  Several of his classmates remarked that had the course of study lasted one more year, Jackson would have finished at the very top.  This accomplishment demonstrates the self-made nature of Jackson and the life he created.  He shaped his untutored intellect into a brilliant and incisive mind through hard work, determination, and tenacity.  At West Point, his accomplishments received the respect of both faculty and peer, and assured assignment into the military arm of his choice, the field artillery. 

Jackson and most of his classmates went from their West Point graduation directly into the Mexican War.  Initially assigned to Zachary Taylor’s army, Jackson and his unit arrived too late to participate in the fighting of northern Mexico.  But as Winfield Scott planned a drive on Mexico City, Jackson’s unit transferred to Scott’s command.  As a result, he participated in the battles of Veracruz, Cerro Gordo, Contreras, and Chapultepec castle—the “Halls of the Montezuma.”  During the fighting from Veracruz to Mexico City, Jackson consistently distinguished himself, receiving promotion to permanent First Lieutenant and Brevet Major.  His performance at Chapultepec and the subsequent fighting for Mexico City earned special recognition from General Winfield Scott himself.  Jackson learned how to apply military expertise at all levels during this service in Mexico.  He learned administrative, legal, logistical, tactical, and strategic lessons all of which enhanced his professional skills.  He served with officers who would later be important figures on both sides of the American Civil War.  But the experiences he incorporated most were those of successful leadership.  Jackson learned that the taking of strong defensive positions and accomplishing bold flanking movements were not merely tactical evolutions.  They were the result of imaginative and courageous leadership.  The fruits of these lessons would surface in the actions of General Stonewall Jackson during the American Civil War over fifteen years later.

During the years between the Mexican War and the Civil War, Jackson further developed characteristics that were the hallmarks of his adult life.  Paramount among these was commitment to the Christian faith and his membership in the Presbyterian Church.  Jackson had a compulsion for religion and spent many years of his youth seeking an appropriate affiliation.  After becoming a Presbyterian, his faith and commitment continued to strengthen throughout his life.  After the Mexican War, Jackson left the army to take a position at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia.  Although his teaching techniques were never well refined, he gained the respect of cadets, faculty, and administration due to his integrity and the authenticity of his leadership.  Members of the local community also held Jackson in high esteem, as he became a valued part of their society.  During his years in Lexington, Jackson was married twice—his first wife died young—and he valued the family relationships that accompanied these unions.  Jackson established a happy and satisfying life in Lexington during the years preceding the American Civil War.  He was also in position for immediate assimilation into the Confederate army subsequent to secession of the state of Virginia. 

Jackson and his brigade received fame for resisting Union advances during the battle of Manassas.  The timely arrival of Jackson’s brigade at Henry house, coupled with stalwart leadership and determined fighting was critical to defeating the Yankee attack.  The story of his brigade “standing like a stonewall” is legendary and gave him the sobriquet by which he has been identified ever since.  Despite recognition for his courage and the fighting ability of his command, there were some leaders—Jefferson Davis in particular—who believed his advocacy for rapid pursuit of the retreating Union army was irresponsible.  Yet his credibility remained sufficiently high to ensure he received command of the small Confederate army in the Shenandoah Valley.  The effectiveness of his leadership in early 1862 resulted in Jackson becoming the early icon of the Confederate States of America.  Jackson’s valley campaign is a classic study in operational agility and strategic maneuver.  It placed Lincoln and the Union high command in constant uncertainty and had a great impact on military planning and execution. 

The first major engagement of the valley campaign was Jackson’s attack on James Shields army at Kernstown in the lower Shenandoah Valley.  Shields held a two to one superiority and repulsed Jackson’s attack, but the vigor with which it occurred caused Lincoln to recall Nathaniel P. Banks’ army from support of McClellan’s peninsula operation.  Lincoln believed that Banks needed to return to the valley and succor Shields’ force.  In a series of engagements against Fremont at McDowell, against the Federal garrison at Front Royal, and against Banks at Winchester, Jackson drove down the valley creating great dislocation for Union forces.  Lincoln hoped to trap and destroy Jackson’s army by ordering McDowell into the valley at Front Royal, Fremont in from the west, and with Banks’ reformed army in the lower valley.  But Jackson slipped the trap, brushed back Fremont’s forces at Cross Keys, and fell on Shields at Port Republic driving his army twenty miles and forcing it to reassemble at Lauray.  With less than 18,000 men, Jackson had stymied 70,000 Federals for over five weeks and ensured that McDowell’s force would not be available to support McClellan’s master plan against Richmond.  In Robertson’s words”

Unquestionable, Jackson’s overall performance in the valley was brilliant.  He combined initiative, secrecy, audacity, rapid marches, flashing strikes at unexpected places, unrelenting assaults, and pursuits in quest of total victory.  Familiarity with terrain, the ability to isolate segments of the enemy, turning a strategic withdrawal into a tactical offensive—these were Jackson’s attributes.  They were the ingredients that emerged in the valley and would mark the remainder of his career.[1]

Robert E. Lee ordered Jackson’s army to cooperate in the attack on McClellan’s army threatening Richmond from the vicinity of the Chickahominy River.  Jackson and his army were exhausted from their exertions of the valley campaign and the rapid movement to engage McClellan’s right flank.  Lee’s plan to dislodge McClellan was complicated and difficult to coordinate.  The performance of Jackson and his army was below their normal standards.  Yet Lee was successful in driving McClellan from the gates of Richmond, and Jackson’s troops broke the Union line during the crucial battle of Gaines’ Mill.  Historians love to criticize Lee and Jackson over military mistakes and problems of coordination throughout the Seven Days Battle.  They long for neat and well-ordered evolutions precisely planned and perfectly executed.  Lost in this is the fact that chaos is the normal state on the battlefield, and the ability to prevail in spite of it is the true measure of greatness.  In this regard, both Lee and Jackson were successful in the Seven Days Battle. 

Robertson explains Jackson’s subsequent role with the same incisiveness as his description of the valley campaign.  From the Seven Days Battle through the end of his life, Jackson’s role was that of corps commander under the direct leadership of Robert E. Lee.  The period of independent command that he enjoyed in the valley campaign was at an end.  Yet if he performed brilliantly as an independent commander, his work as corps commander under Lee was no less remarkable.  Due to their defeat in the Seven Day’s Battle, the Union army refocused its efforts to the Centerville area to which Lee began moving his army.  As the advance corps for the Army of Northern Virginia, Jackson engaged and defeated Banks in the Battle of Cedar Mountain, played a key role in the defeat of Pope in the Second Battle of Manassas, and drove the Union forces back toward Washington until checked at the Battle of Chantilly.  His corps played a key role in the first invasion of the North including the capture of Harpers Ferry, and holding the line against McClellan’s strong attacks at Antietam Creek.  Jackson’s corps also held the right flank of Lee’s army during the Battle of Fredericksburg, thereby leaving Ambrose Burnsides only the option of attacking up Marye’s Heights and suffering an overwhelming defeat.  The Battle of Fredericksburg set the stage for the Battle of Chancellorsville. 

Chancellorsville was, of course, a tactical masterpiece by Lee and Jackson.  It also was the culmination of the most successful military partnership in the history of warfare.  As Lee and his army remained at Fredericksburg, Joseph Hooker moved across the Rappahannock River to position his army on Lee’s left flank.  In the face of this enemy threat, Lee divided his army twice.  He left part to hold Fredericksburg while sending an element to face Hooker on his flank.  He then left part to face Hooker, while sending another element to get on his flank.  In this surprise movement, Jackson attacked Hooker’s right flank and drove him back toward the Rappahannock.  While conducting a reconnaissance of the retreating Union army, Confederate troops mistakenly fired on Jackson’s party, mortally wounding the great captain.  Although the most dramatic element of the Battle of Chancellorsville was Jackson’s flanking attack, Lee still had two more days of fighting before the Federal force was finally defeated.  It remains as area of speculation as to what would have happened in this battle had Jackson not been felled at the crucial moment.  It is also interesting—and equally speculative—to think about what would have happened in future battles had Jackson continued at Lee’s side.  But counterfactuals aside, Robert E. Lee must now face the future with a new command structure from which his most able commander would be absent. 

James Robertson’s book, Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend, is clearly an admiring account of this great man.  Yet it is not slavishly so.  While recognizing Jackson’s great attributes and abilities, he also notes that Jackson had probably reached the height of his potential.  Although a military genius, he was most effective when there was a buffer between him and governmental authorities.  He clearly lacked the political skills to functions on the level of a Robert E. Lee, or a Ulysses S. Grant.  His rigidity in dealing with subordinate commanders of high rank had already begun to fray his credibility among certain leaders.  Only his great success in battle prevented his highhanded actions from becoming a source of political controversy.  He could not continued to arrest general officers and threatened their court marshal—as he did in the valley and while a corps commander—and remained effective at the highest level of command.  Yet his personal make-up and sense of duty would hardly allow him to act otherwise.  With Robert E. Lee to guide him, control him, and protect him, his greatness could flower and bring great benefits to his cause.  In these circumstances—as Robertson points out—he was without peer.  Many admirers of Stonewall Jackson credit him for much of the success of Robert E. Lee.  In reality, the opposite is nearer the truth.  Lee knew how to harness Jackson’s greatness while shielding him from his own deficiencies.  The loss of Jackson was, without question, a blow to the Confederacy.  It was a blow because they lost a general officer who was employed precisely within his capability and functioning on his stride. 

Gary J. Ohls