Lieutenant-General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was one of the greatest of Confederate generals.His death was a body blow to the Confederate cause. He did not favour slavery and ran a Sunday school for black children when he was younger.
Here is a clip from the film Gods and Generals which is a fine example of motivation by a general of his troops.
I don't agree with the example of the "second war of independence" since the first one was not a just war.
However, the War between the States was a war against centralisation and the abolition of the rights of the States and therefore had much more justice about it.
Although sensible politicians on both sides should have done their best to prevent it, regrettably the 19th century was an age when absurd revolutionary ideas held sway causing wars all over the civilised world and leading to the unnecessary deaths of all too many.
The War between the States was not primarily about slavery, contrary to Yankee propaganda. If it were, then why did so many blacks fight for, and support, the South. Were they all just "Uncle Toms"? To say so is simply to insult them and is, already, a form of racism.
It is the case that many black Americans fought for the South and were proud to do so.
Slavery would eventually have died out but it was already being replaced by the modern form of slavery - that of the industrial workers of the machine age who were already being enslaved in dark mills and factories by the plutocrat Yankees of the North whose primary interest was in enriching themselves regardless of the rights of others.
Was that really "progress"? Was this "justice"? Or was it just hypocrisy?
The music in this film is a bit too schamltzy but the speech is good:
Jackson was a zealous Presbyterian and had some flaws but overall he is an impressive personality, especially as he appears to have suffered from narcolepsy and even fell asleep sometimes when eating. He overcame this disability with steely tenacity and went on to greatness.
He was a fine general and his loss - accidentally shot by some fellow Confederates - was a serious blow to the Confederate cause.
...
"I don't agree with the example of the "second war of independence" since the first one was not a just war."
ReplyDeleteWhy was the first one not a just war? The states broke away from the British crown because the British crown was obstinate in its refusal to recognise their ancient rights as freeborn Englishmen. It was plenty just.
"However, the War between the States was a war against centralisation and the abolition of the rights of the States and therefore had much more justice about it."
And one of the rights those particular states cherished so much was the right to treat their fellow human beings as slaves - as less human than themselves.
"Although sensible politicians on both sides should have done their best to prevent it, regrettably the 19th century was an age when absurd revolutionary ideas held sway causing wars all over the civilised world and leading to the unnecessary deaths of all too many."
Absurd revolutionary ideas like the equality of man and the evil of slavery?
"The War between the States was not primarily about slavery, contrary to Yankee propaganda. If it were, then why did so many blacks fight for, and support, the South. Were they all just "Uncle Toms"? To say so is simply to insult them and is, already, a form of racism."
Well many blacks did so, and were proud to do so, because they quite liked having the right to hold slaves themselves. The war may not have been 'primarily about slavery' but it provided an impetus for its final abolition in 1865. There is no reason at all to assume that 'slavery would eventually have died out'. There can be no certainty at all that had the war not taken place slavery would not still exist now in the Southern states today.
"Was that really "progress"? Was this "justice"? Or was it just hypocrisy?"
It was progress. It was progress because it isn't slavery. To compare the 'industrial workers of the machine age' to slavery is disingenuous and hollows the world 'slavery'. The machine age you dislike so much has given people in the US and elsewhere a much higher quality of life than at any other time in history.
It was a good speech though, and they were all brave men.
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteI enjoy my weekly visits to your blog, but I feel I must take issue on this occasion. Please feel free to subject me to your stringent standards of critique.
The UK in 1776 under George III was an illegitimate institution, having unlawfully deposed James II in 1688. Were then the American Colonists not justified in rebelling against a regime that was itself illegitimate, whatever their religious preferences, bearing in mind the lack of universal Protestant orgaisation? How is the original rebel more legitimate than the rebels from that rebel?
You are to be commended posting this speech and reference here relative to General Jackson. It was a difficult war and he commanded honorably trying to strike in the hearts and minds of his men that honor has meaning and consequences. While I agree that the war was brought on for many economic reasons, slavery was so vital an issue and whether in the forefront or on the periphery, slavery cannot be ignored as it ravaged the rights of fellow humans and hollowed them of their individual dignity. Nations are judged in this world and justice had been for too long!
ReplyDeleteFurther, the American War of Independence was a just war in view of the British violations of human rights and flagrant abuse of their citizens.
I shall respond to these comments in a separate article but for the present let me simply say:
ReplyDelete(1) One rebellion does not legitimate another because 2 wrongs do not make a right and one may not do evil that good may come of it. The American Colonists were certainly not seeking to restore the Stuarts. On the contrary, they were even more anti-Stuart than the English Whigs.
(2) The American War of Independence was not made just by British injustice. In any case, it was the American rebels who behaved unjustly and not the Brits. Historical fact.
(3) Slavery need not "[ravage] the rights of fellow humans and [hollow] them of their individual dignity". As Fr Linus Clovis, a descendant of slaves, has learnedly observed, there is more than one type of slavery. He describes as "chattel" slavery that which denies basic human rights distinguishing it from other forms of slavery that do not deny human rights beyond the mere fact of the property relation.
You neither of you address any of these points which are at the centre of the whole debate.
To sustain your position you need to do so.
Tribunus.