Yesterday, historian Eric Michael Burke tweeted this thread below about our practice of referring to Confederate general Thomas Jackson as “Stonewall.” I have to admit that I’ve always done so without much thought and owing to the popularity of the nickname itself, but perhaps I should rethink this.
"Jackson, standing like a stone wall" is nonsensical if it refers to the man. Bee must have been referring to the unit by the name of its commander, which I believe was common practice. So how exactly did Stonewall become that commander's personal nickname?
I can't think of another civil war General for whom we include the nickname into the name itself and use it as the normal way of referring to them. We don't normally refer to Bulldog Grant or War Horse Longstreet or Rock of Chickamauga Thomas, or Grey Ghost Mosby, or Old Snapping Turtle Meade.
A casual newspaper search shows Jackson being referred to as "Stonewall" by December 1861, and thousands of times more during the course of the war to April 1865. The name certainly is mythologizing in the hands of Confederate hagiographers, but it was absolutely contemporary to the war, and I'm sure he was better known by that name <b><i>in his own lifetime</i><b> than by his given name.
One doesn't need to use "Stonewall" habitually when writing about him, but it seems unsustainable to reject it on principle when Jackson was widely, if not universally, known that way at the time.
While managing the Baltimore Civil War Museum I referred to him as Stonewall, but often asked people about what tone of voice and how General Bee referred to him as a stone wall. Was it our of exasperation, that Jackson was not moving up in aid, that he was hesitant to engage? Or was it how calm and collected he was in the face of the Union attack?
I don't see the harm in addressing him by his nickname, but I always state that he and others broke their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I agree with the commenters who suggest that they might identify Jackson with his nickname in quotation marks the first time they reference him. Every time, however, anyone writes about high-ranking Confederate officers or political figures, they should also identify them as traitors to the people and government of the United States, and whose foe was the United States Army and Navy. Referring to them as traitors will ease the task of persuading governments to take down memorials and honors. After all a traitor is not honorable or worthy of emulation.
I think it depends on what kind of publication we are talking about. I certainly wouldn't take this step in a scholarly article or book, though this has nothing to do with whether I believe Jackson committed treason.
When I write about Jackson I call him General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson the very first time I reference him and then use Jackson the rest of the time I refer to him. I do this for reader recognition. Most novice readers are familiar with the name “Stonewall” and would not know him by simply his name. This is to prevent confusion.
I think it should stay. To me absolutely no reason to change. The history of Jackson speaks for itself. The change of not calling him Stonewall is meaningless. It causes another unnecessary discussion. Let’s work on real issues and not this made up BS. Just my opinion. The change in attitude of the war, reasons for the war and getting rid of the Lost Cause is where the efforts need to go to move forward. This discussion does none of that. Again in my option.
Reading the comments on Burke’s Tweet, very interesting and enlightening. My 1973 Civil War and Reconstruction professor, from Pennsylvania, essentially taught the lost cause. He said that some people thought perhaps rebel general Bernard Bee (a traitor to his oath) was accusing Jackson of stalling, but since he died of his wounds the next day the professor chose to believe that Bee was praising Jackson. Here is some Bee family oral history https://twitter.com/momexpat/status/1522898608361721856?s=21&t=DN5dpuQ4Xm8WjRVvZsjhDw
And while we’re on the topic of names, I believe I’ll start referring to the Union forces as the United States Army, and the rest as rebellious traitors. Just to be consistent with deconstructing my lost cause heritage.
Stonewall's fine by me. But Jackson!?! Nevermore! It's 2022, and however unlikely it may be that we shall see 2023 (etc.), it's gone past time to thoughtlessly, reflexively and cravenly promote the patriarchy in such a fashion. "Stonewall Jackson & [maiden name of his mother's mother]", or nothing at all!
I don’t agree. That’s what his nickname was and how he was known. Compare him to Erwin Rommel, who was known as the Desert Fox. That doesn’t mean you support him or the regime he stood for.
I'm surprised you, as a Jew, don't have more interest in Judah Benjamin. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg once gave a speech about the guy. She seemed to kind of dig him, too. https://www.unz.com/isteve/ruth-bader-ginsburg-on-judah-p-benjamin/
One more comment like this and you will be permanently deleted from this newsletter.
Couldn't care less.
"Jackson, standing like a stone wall" is nonsensical if it refers to the man. Bee must have been referring to the unit by the name of its commander, which I believe was common practice. So how exactly did Stonewall become that commander's personal nickname?
I can't think of another civil war General for whom we include the nickname into the name itself and use it as the normal way of referring to them. We don't normally refer to Bulldog Grant or War Horse Longstreet or Rock of Chickamauga Thomas, or Grey Ghost Mosby, or Old Snapping Turtle Meade.
Allegheny Johnson immediately comes to mind.
A casual newspaper search shows Jackson being referred to as "Stonewall" by December 1861, and thousands of times more during the course of the war to April 1865. The name certainly is mythologizing in the hands of Confederate hagiographers, but it was absolutely contemporary to the war, and I'm sure he was better known by that name <b><i>in his own lifetime</i><b> than by his given name.
One doesn't need to use "Stonewall" habitually when writing about him, but it seems unsustainable to reject it on principle when Jackson was widely, if not universally, known that way at the time.
Great point. I agree.
While managing the Baltimore Civil War Museum I referred to him as Stonewall, but often asked people about what tone of voice and how General Bee referred to him as a stone wall. Was it our of exasperation, that Jackson was not moving up in aid, that he was hesitant to engage? Or was it how calm and collected he was in the face of the Union attack?
I don't see the harm in addressing him by his nickname, but I always state that he and others broke their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I agree with the commenters who suggest that they might identify Jackson with his nickname in quotation marks the first time they reference him. Every time, however, anyone writes about high-ranking Confederate officers or political figures, they should also identify them as traitors to the people and government of the United States, and whose foe was the United States Army and Navy. Referring to them as traitors will ease the task of persuading governments to take down memorials and honors. After all a traitor is not honorable or worthy of emulation.
I think it depends on what kind of publication we are talking about. I certainly wouldn't take this step in a scholarly article or book, though this has nothing to do with whether I believe Jackson committed treason.
When I write about Jackson I call him General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson the very first time I reference him and then use Jackson the rest of the time I refer to him. I do this for reader recognition. Most novice readers are familiar with the name “Stonewall” and would not know him by simply his name. This is to prevent confusion.
I think this is a very reasonable suggestion. Thanks for the comment, Michael.
I think it should stay. To me absolutely no reason to change. The history of Jackson speaks for itself. The change of not calling him Stonewall is meaningless. It causes another unnecessary discussion. Let’s work on real issues and not this made up BS. Just my opinion. The change in attitude of the war, reasons for the war and getting rid of the Lost Cause is where the efforts need to go to move forward. This discussion does none of that. Again in my option.
Mike
I think Burke is correct, but might Jackson's connection to the "Stonewall Brigade" be lost sight of?
Good question.
I think that he has a point, especially with regard to demythologizing this semi-deranged religious fanatic and homicidal traitor.
Reading the comments on Burke’s Tweet, very interesting and enlightening. My 1973 Civil War and Reconstruction professor, from Pennsylvania, essentially taught the lost cause. He said that some people thought perhaps rebel general Bernard Bee (a traitor to his oath) was accusing Jackson of stalling, but since he died of his wounds the next day the professor chose to believe that Bee was praising Jackson. Here is some Bee family oral history https://twitter.com/momexpat/status/1522898608361721856?s=21&t=DN5dpuQ4Xm8WjRVvZsjhDw
And while we’re on the topic of names, I believe I’ll start referring to the Union forces as the United States Army, and the rest as rebellious traitors. Just to be consistent with deconstructing my lost cause heritage.
Just for the record, the author of the tweet is also a big advocate of moving from "Union" to "United States Army."
Stonewall's fine by me. But Jackson!?! Nevermore! It's 2022, and however unlikely it may be that we shall see 2023 (etc.), it's gone past time to thoughtlessly, reflexively and cravenly promote the patriarchy in such a fashion. "Stonewall Jackson & [maiden name of his mother's mother]", or nothing at all!
I don’t agree. That’s what his nickname was and how he was known. Compare him to Erwin Rommel, who was known as the Desert Fox. That doesn’t mean you support him or the regime he stood for.
Desert Fox