Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War
experience of the writer should have run on parallel lines. An ordinary
soldier, therefore, who notwithstanding his lack of such experience
attempts the task, may be justly accused of something worse than
presumption. But if we were to wait for those who are really qualified
to deal with the achievements of famous captains, we should, as a rule,
remain in ignorance of the lessons of their lives, for men of the
requisite capacity are few in a generation. So the task, if it is to be
done at all, must perforce be left to those who have less knowledge but
more leisure.
In the present case, however, the mass of contemporary testimony is so
large that any initial disadvantages, I venture to think, will be less
conspicuous than they might otherwise have been. The Official Records
of the War of the Rebellion contain every dispatch, letter, and
message, public or confidential, which has been preserved; and in the
daily correspondence of the generals on both sides, together with the
voluminous reports of officers of all grades, the tale of the campaigns
is written so plain that none can fail to read. Again, Stonewall
Jackson’s military career, either in full or in part, has been narrated
by more than one of his staff officers, whose intercourse with him was
necessarily close and constant; and, in addition, the literature of the
war abounds with articles and sketches contributed by soldiers of all
ranks who, at one time or another, served under his command. It has
been my privilege, moreover, to visit the battle-fields of Virginia
with men who rode by his side when he won his victories, to hear on the
spot the description of his manœuvres, of his bearing under fire, and
of his influence over his troops. I can thus make fairly certain that
my facts are accurate. But in endeavouring to ascertain the strength of
the armies at different periods I have been less fortunate. For the
most part I have rested on the Official Records;[1] it is to be
regretted, however, that, so far as the Confederates are concerned,
there are several gaps in the series of returns, and I have found it
extremely difficult to arrive at a fair estimate of the approximate
strength at any period within these intervals. For instance, the
numbers at Lee’s disposal at the end of August 1862 rest on the basis
of a return dated July 20, and in the meantime several regiments and
batteries had been transferred elsewhere, while others had been added.
I have done my best, however, to trace all such changes; and where
officers and employed men are not included in the returns, I have been
careful to add a normal percentage to the official totals.
As regards Jackson’s place in history, my labours have been greatly
facilitated by the published opinions of many distinguished
soldiers—American, English, French, and German; and I have endeavoured,
at every step, as the surest means of arriving at a just conclusion, to
compare his conduct of military affairs with that of the acknowledged
masters of war. His private life, from his boyhood onwards, has been so
admirably depicted by his widow,[2] that I have had nothing more to do
than to select from her pages such incidents and letters as appear best
suited to illustrate his character, and to add a few traits and
anecdotes communicated by his personal friends.
Several biographies have already been published, and that written by
the late Reverend R. L. Dabney, D.D., sometime Major in the Confederate
army, and Jackson’s Chief of the Staff for several months, is so
complete and powerful that the need of a successor is not at once
apparent. This work, however, was brought out before the war had
ceased, and notwithstanding his intimate relations with his hero, it
was impossible for the author to attain that fulness and precision of
statement which the study of the Official Records can alone ensure. Nor
was Dr. Dabney a witness of all the events he so vigorously described.
It is only fitting, however, that I should acknowledge the debt I owe
to a soldier and writer of such conspicuous ability. Not only have I
quoted freely from his pages, but he was good enough, at my request, to
write exhaustive memoranda on many episodes of Jackson’s career.
Cooke’s Life of Jackson is still popular, and deservedly so; but Cooke,
like Dr. Dabney, had no access to the Official Records, and his
narrative of the battles, picturesque and lifelike as it is, can hardly
be accepted as sober history. On the other hand, the several works of
the late Colonel William Allan, C.S.A., in collaboration with Major
Hotchkiss, C.S.A., are as remarkable for their research and accuracy as
for their military acumen; while the volumes of the Southern Historical
Society, together with the remarkable series of articles entitled
“Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,” written by the leading
participants on either side, are a perfect mine of wealth to the
historical student. I need hardly add that the memoirs and biographies
of both the Federal and Confederate generals, of Lee, Grant, Stuart,
Sherman, Johnston, Longstreet, Beauregard, McClellan, Hancock,
Pendleton and others, are a necessary complement to the Official
Records.
Nevertheless, with all this mass of information at my command, had it
not been for the exceeding kindness of the friends and comrades of
Stonewall Jackson, I much doubt whether I should have been able to
complete my task. To the late Major Hotchkiss, his trusted staff
officer, whatever of value these volumes may contain is largely due.
Not only did he correct the topographical descriptions, but he
investigated most carefully many disputed points; and in procuring the
evidence of eye-witnesses, and thus enabling me to check and amplify
the statements of previous writers, he was indefatigable. Dr. Hunter
McGuire, Medical Director of Jackson’s successive commands, has given
me much of his valuable time. The Reverend J. P. Smith, D.D., Jackson’s
aide-de-camp, has rendered me great assistance; and from many officers
and men of the Stonewall Brigade, of Jackson’s Division, and of the
Second Army Corps, I have received contributions to this memorial of
their famous chief. Generals Gustavus Smith, Fitzhugh Lee, Stephen D.
Lee, and N. G. Harris, Colonel Williams, Colonel Poague, and R. E. Lee,
Esquire, of Washington, D.C., all formerly of the Confederate States
Army, have supplied me with new matter. Colonel Miller, U.S.A., most
courteously responded to my request for a copy of the services of his
regiment, the First Artillery, in the Mexican war. The late General
John Gibbon, U.S.A., wrote for me his reminiscences of Jackson as a
cadet at West Point, and as a subaltern in Mexico; and many officers
who fought for the Union have given me information as to the tactics
and discipline of the Federal armies. The Reverend J. Graham, D.D., of
Winchester, Virginia; Dr. H. A. White, of Washington and Lee
University, Lexington, Virginia, author of an admirable life of General
Lee; and the Hon. Francis Lawley, once Special Correspondent of the
_Times_ in the Confederate States, have been most kind in replying to
my many questions. To Major-General Hildyard, C.B., late Commandant of
the Staff College, I am indebted for much valuable criticism on the
campaigns of 1862; and my warmest thanks are here tendered to the
Commander-in-Chief, Field-Marshal Lord Wolseley, for much information
and more encouragement.
I cannot conceal from myself, however, that notwithstanding the
numerous authorities I have been enabled to consult, as well as the
intrinsic interest of my subject, many of the following chapters will
be found excessively dull by civilian readers. Stonewall Jackson’s
military career was not all hard fighting; nor was it on the
battlefield alone that his supreme ability for war was made manifest.
His time and thoughts were more occupied by strategy, that is, by
combinations made out of the enemy’s sight, than by tactics, that is,
by manœuvres executed in the enemy’s presence. But strategy,
unfortunately, is an unpopular science, even among soldiers, requiring
both in practice and in demonstration constant and careful study of the
map, the closest computation of time and space, a grasp of many
factors, and the strictest attention to the various steps in the
problems it presents. At the same time, it is a science which repays
the student, although he may have no direct concern with military
affairs; for not only will a comprehension of its immutable principles
add a new interest to the records of stirring times and great
achievements, but it will make him a more useful citizen.
In free countries like Great Britain, her colonies, and the United
States, the weight of intelligent opinion, in all matters of moment,
generally turns the scale; and if it were generally understood that, in
regular warfare, success depends on something more than rank and
experience, no Government would dare entrust the command of the army to
any other than the most competent soldier. The campaigns of the Civil
War show how much may be achieved, even with relatively feeble means,
by men who have both studied strategy and have the character necessary
for its successful practice; and they also show, not a whit less
forcibly, what awful sacrifices may be exacted from a nation ignorant
that such a science exists. And such ignorance is widespread. How
seldom do we hear a knowledge of strategy referred to as an
indispensable acquirement in those who aspire to high command? How
often is it repeated, although in so doing the speakers betray their
own shortcomings, that strategy is a mere matter of common-sense? Yet
the plain truth is that strategy is not only the determining factor in
civilised warfare, but that, in order to apply its principles, the
soundest common-sense must be most carefully trained. Of all the
sciences connected with war it is the most difficult. If the names of
the great captains, soldiers and sailors, be recalled, it will be seen
that it is to the breadth of their strategical conceptions rather than
to their tactical skill that they owe their fame. An analysis of the
great wars shows that their course was generally marked by the same
vicissitudes. First we have the great strategist, a Hannibal, or a
Napoleon, or a Lee, triumphing with inferior numbers over adversaries
who are tacticians and nothing more. Then, suddenly, the tide of
victory is checked, and brilliant manœuvres no longer avail. Fabius and
Scipio, Wellington, Nelson, and St. Vincent, Grant, Sherman, and
Farragut, have replaced the mere tacticians; and the superior
resources, wielded with strategical skill, exert their inevitable
effect. Or it may be that fortune is constant throughout to her first
favourite; and that a Marlborough, a Frederick, a Washington, a Moltke,
opposed only by good fighting men, never by an accomplished strategist,
marches from victory to victory. It is impossible, then, to estimate
the ability of any general without considering his strategy. Moreover,
in this age of inventions, of rapid movement, and of still more rapid
communication, the science is more complicated and even more important
than heretofore; and it is deserving, therefore, of far closer
attention, from both soldiers and civilians, than it has hitherto
received. It is for these reasons that I have described and discussed
in such minute detail the strategy of the campaigns with which Jackson
had to do.
I have only to add that should anything in these pages wound the
susceptibilities of any one of those splendid soldiers and gallant
gentlemen who took part in the Civil War, whether he be Northerner or
Southerner, I here tender him my humblest apologies; assuring him, at
the same time, that while compiling these pages I have always borne in