The REAL God Warrior: Stonewall Jackson

General Thomas Jackson was quite a dude, wasn't he? A bit of a religious maniac, perhaps, even for the times, but quite the dude.

I don't know a ton about the American Civil War, but I just watched the movie Gods And Generals and am blown away by Stonewall Jackson. I knew he was supposed to be this great general, who stood there like stone wall, but he was quite something: he was a complex, complex man of contradictions and paradox, and I can always appreciate that kind of thing. He was the proto-Patton, albeit perhaps more inclined to follow orders.

The film was absorbing even though it wasn't so much a story as a fairly dry documentary of battles and a bit of the backstory behind each. At four hours, or close to it, the film was about as long as the War itself and I think the battles were played out in real time. I had no idea it was going to be so long. Still, I couldn't stop watching. It may not be a great film, as cinematic art goes (sure, it was well shot, but not very narrative or stylized and not, apparently, edited at all), but the story was inherently fascinating.

The acting was great throughout, too -- Robert Duvall got top billing as General Lee (no, not the orange car), and he was as excellent as always (Duvall is actually related to Robert E. Lee) but everyone was great, including the 7000 re-enactors they used in the film. Ralph Abernathy's daughter did a great job, too, as a house slave.

The standout, though, was Stephen Lang as Stonewall Jackson. He was incredible, and captured the character's every nuance from over-the-top warrior to tender husband and father. It was really a remarkable performance. I've certainly seen lesser efforts win Academy Awards. He had a presence, too, that sounds akin to Jackson's.

Like any good movie with roots in true history, this one being probably more true to history than most of what comes out of Hollywood claiming to be "true stories," it set me on a Google quest to find out more about Jackson. His is a story that definitely doesn't need embellishing.

I've been feeling pretty in touch with my emotions lately, I guess, because there were a few scenes in the film that brought tears to my eyes, including battle scenes and Jackson's death...a result of pneumonia, of all things, contracted while recuperating from grievous wounds inflicted by 'friendly fire.' Maybe it was partial coincidence, but after Stonewall died the South's military adventures turned sour and they were on the run.

He was a great soldier, even if he fought for a cause that most of us might think was misguided or even evil. He didn't fight for that cause (causes, really), anyway, but because it was his duty and because he felt loyalty to his home, Virginia. Besides, few among us would argue that Hitler's Nazi régime was a political embodiment of evil, yet we can still celebrate the stupendous military acumen and skill of generals like Guderian and Rommel, among many others, and the exploits of the SS panzer aces.

Stonewall Jackson's last words are pretty touching and I think they're a fitting tribute to all who have fallen in battle or who went after a life filled with battle -- just before he died, he suddenly began barking out disposition orders and then a look of 'ineffable sweetness' came over his face and he said:

"Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees."


Young Stonewall (he must have had an itch)


The General


Steven Lang as Jackson -- and, at right (left side of picture), with Bobby Duvall as Lee

Read _Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend_ by James I Robertson, otherwise known as Bud Robertson.

The movie you just watched, ostensbily based on a horrendous (imo) book by Jeff Shaara, would be better characterized as a movie version of Bud's biography implanted on the background of Shaara's story, which is to say it's a fairly decent, if highly romanticized story about Stonewall, even if the history surrounding his story in the movie is in many ways absurd.

Lang made a good Stonewall, which shocked me. He played George Pickett in _Gettysburg_ and did that very well also, which I thought would be the problem. Pickett and Stonewall are such polar opposites, it took an exceptional actor to be able to portray them both so well.

Duvall was okay, Jeff Daniels supurb (another actor that shows his vast range by playing this character at the same time he can play someone so idiotic as the _Dumb and Dumber_ character), with the rest, imo, being mediocre at best. But, to each his own. If it did it for you, that's good.

OnEdit:

Maybe it was partial coincidence, but after Stonewall died the South's military adventures turned sour and they were on the run.

You really don't want to get me started on tearing that apart. :-)

:D

Thanks for the recommendation...got that one noted now. I wondered how viewers who'd seen Gettysburg ten years earlier would handle the same actor as Jackson, but I guess he pulled it off. Pretty amazing performance.

I can't sing his praises high enough. I say this as a person who did not like this film, but I *loved* his performance. As you imply, I never thought "Pickett" could pull off being Stonewall, but he did.

even if we don't agree about Jeff Shaara's novel.

I enjoyed Gettysburg a great deal more than Gods and Generals, and found myself inspired to read Alice Trulock's biography of Chamberlain. What an amazing fellow he was!

Beginning with "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara, which inspired the movie "Gettysburg". Michael Shaara died; and his son Jeff wrote a prequel to "Killer Angels"..."Gods and Generals", and finally a sequel, "The Last Full Measure", which has yet to be released as a movie.

I also enjoyed Jeff Shaara's "Rise to Rebellion", which deals with the events leading to the American Revolution. :hi:

I actually feel bad being so pedantic about this, so please accept my apologies in advance. This isn't a criticism of the way you view the books. I've just been dealing with this for a very long time now, and my opinion has grown rather hardened.

The so-called trilogy is really two books wrapped around another that provides a reason for the others to exist. Put another way, Michael Shaara was an exceptional author, and _The Killer Angels_ was an exceptional book that was made into a mediocre movie after the author's death through the urging of his son Jeff and the backing of Ted Turner. Dollar signs erupted, and Jeff took off with it. He's not a bad writer, but he has no voice. He tries to mimic his father, and he does a very poor job of it. "The trilogy" was a marketing ploy and little more. Michael never inteded his story to be anything more than what it was; indeed it didn't need to be.

But that's just my opinion, and again, I mean no offense.

I understand what you mean.

Not being familiar with his work prior to his father's passing, and not knowing the man himself, I'm a little reluctant to view him as being quite so opportunistic. Then again, maybe he is. Or maybe he just wanted to continue writing along those lines as a tribute to his father.

I agree that Michael Shaara's book was beautifully written. It'd be a difficult task for anyone to try to follow up on Killer Angels.

I truly do not know how much of the opportunism was Jeff and how much of it was Maxwell, the director, who partnered with Jeff. My gut says the latter. Maxwell is a complete horse's ass, imo.

When Gettysburg was being made, with a tiny budget, actors with huge names and at the time surging careers did everything they could to play a part in the film. Berenger *wanted* to be Longstreet. Sheen wanted to play Lee. The haunting part of General Lo Armistead was played by Richard Jordan, who wanted to be a part of the film, even though he was dying all during filming of a brain tumor and did not survive to see a wide release. Sam Elliot, who played General John Buford, also longed to make the movie. These people all loved the book or the history or the people.

And then they met Maxwell.

Two of the actors mentioned above threatened to walk off the set half-way through filming. One said, "This is the most unprofessional set I've ever been on" after a short take of a battle scene in which the character was supposed to show strong emotions. The scene was broken by a spooked horse, and the actor never even delivered his lines. The scene was not re-shot, but it actually made it into the film, and it appears rather ridiculous. This was a story about people and relationships, not just a battle, but Maxwell interpreted it as a "battle movie" and so didn't think the loss of the intense emotional scene was such a big deal.

When _Gods and Generals_ was in the planning stages, the question of whether it would ever be filmed was in extreme doubt for a very long time. Of note is that the planning on the movie began shortly after the release of _Gettysburg_. It didn't get made until almost a decade later. Part of the reason for that was that so many people involved with the first filming refused to work with Maxwell ever again, even though they loved the story and wanted it to be portrayed. To get some of the actors they did, they had to get more money, and that took time.

Lang and Daniels are the exceptions. They seemingly are able to endure just about anything, and they have a kind of personality that allows them to pursuade even the least visionary directors to listen to their point of view. Were it not for them, I'm not sure this movie would have been as good as it was.

Okay, I'll stop now. :-)

I had no idea that Jordan was terminally ill at the time. Maybe that's why I found his character particularly endearing. And yes, Daniels is one of my favorite actors, even if he's playing somebody really stupid. I look forward to seeing more of Lang.

You obviously have some inside info on the making of this film. Did you participate in it?

It's a convoluted story of various relationships, and I'd bore you to death if I got into it all. I'm somewhat of an expert on the subject of James Longstreet, and I formed relationships because of this that created contacts with others who were involved in various projects related to raising public awarness of various aspects of the Civil War during the 90's. ("Bud" Robertson, mentioned earlier, was one of those people. I don't think he'd mind me mentioning he feels somewhat plagiarized by the portrayal of Stonewall in the movie under discussion. Maxwell wrote the script, and in the end, it was only loosely based on Shaara's book. A large number of the scenes came directly from Robertson's book.) A flurry of studies of various Civil War subjects in the late 80's and early 90's combined with Ken Burns' PBS series created an upswell in public historical interest that allowed a lot of work to be done that had been impossible before. _Gettysburg_ was a part of that larger, for lack of a better word, movement.

Anyway, I did not participate myself, but I have close friends and other associates who did, one of whom witnessed a scathing exchange between Elliot and Maxwell. You'll note that Buford isn't really in the movie after a certain point. Those parts where he did appear later were all filmed prior to a certain point in the filming process. This was not as it was original conceived. I'm also a member of a couple historical organizations that had some influence in the making of the movie, although in the interest of disclosure, I must admit our influence was of the negative variety since our focus was on portraying more historical reality than romanticism.

This is almost completely off the subject, but I wanted to add it. It fits somewhat because without the movie _Gettysburg_ I'm not sure the effort would have been successful. This is a picture of a monument I helped build by way of fundraising, essay writing, browbeating, and other refinements. There's a long, sometimes tragic backstory to this, which I won't detail, but it explains why I say I'm more proud of this than pretty much anything else of which I've been a part in my life. The mere fact of this monument's existence is a testament to the fact error lives but a day -- the truth is eternal.

Monument to James Longstreet at Gettysburg,

That's right on Confederate Lane, isn't it?

We were pleasantly surprised to see the new monument.

...in a picnic area right off the road.

It was placed and dedicated during the annual reenactment in 1998.

One of my proudest posessions is a picture of the statue as it was being sculpted, autographed by the sculptor, Gary Casteel.

Gettysburg next...haven't seen it before. I know that my visit to the NHS at Gettysburg hit me really hard, even though I never have had a special interest in the Civil War (I reserved that primarily for WWII and Vietnam) -- just the scale of the losses and the disaster that it was. Very sad.

_Gettysburg_ is better history (not that it is good history, mind you) and worse movie-making, and on the whole I enjoyed it far more. The story is deeper as it really is a story about people and relationships and the gray areas of morality, right, and wrong. Daniels' performance is the best in that movie, only because Lang's "Pickett" played a minor role by comparison. Bergenger was an excellent Longstreet, Sheen a horrible Lee.

I really should shut up and let you form your own opinions.

Remember this: That is not a chipmunk on Longstreet's chin, no matter how much it looks like one. :-)

But impressed that everyone had wacky-looking facial hair and that they didn't succumb to the temptation of sprucing things up to a more updated look so that their actors' egos can be assuaged. You know, how a Civil War drama shot in the early '80s would have had all the men with hair like Farrah Fawcett (-Majors).

I think I'll like the first movie, then...IMDB reviews suggested that Duvall is a much more natural Lee than the usually-stellar Martin Sheen, too.

Sheen just could not pull it off. He was a big fan of the historical Lee, and that may have been the problem.

Sheen had one good scene as Lee, one where he's parading before the troops prior to Pickett's Charge. The re-enactors playing their parts see Lee and begin an impromptu chorus of "Lee...Lee...Lee...Lee." It was unplanned and unscripted, and the loving surprise on "Lee's" face is both genuine and true to character.

As for the Chipmunk...this thing is just not natural. It's wrong. It ... It's a freaking chipmunk!!!! :-)

I thought it was a bear rug... :)

I think the Civil War is a lesson we need to always remember. Imagine families and friends torn apart and fighting each other... :-(

You'll like Gettysburg, I think. There's less emphasis on the home lives of the soldiers, and more on the moments at hand. But you still get a feel for the characters.

saddlebred horse with a heart




love me some Traveller



on edit; Robert Lee's horse was Traveller ....one of his, he had several but Traveller went to most of the big battles and on the long hauls because of his smooth racking gait


Jackson's horse was Little Sorrel (I think)

that's for sure. :-)

I saw it the first day it came out....on the big screen,,,this was a couple of years ago

Below is the evidence.

I was always a fan of both Lee and Stonewall. Lee was given good press in the history books I read, and I liked Stonewall for the most egocentric of reasons :hide:

Now I have found too many of my relations who were GAR to retain that affection, but I can still like the Swamp Fox, right?

Schwartzkopf stole his great "flanking manuever" in Desert Storm from Stonewall.:patriot:

i remember reading that he was fascinated by all things spanish, and had just returned from a sabbatical in spain before the war broke out.

usually at least one a day. I always wondered how he managed to acquire them...

This is pretty much a myth.

He liked fruit in general, particularly citrus varieties, and he would eat them whenever he could get them. He was impressed by the lemon because it was so unusual.

The story about his obsession with lemons arose after the war and was wrapped up in the effort to deify RE Lee. That is, for Lee to be presented as a godlike figure, Jackson, who already had that status during the war after his death, had to be taken down a notch to Jesus status. Oddly enough, I'm not even making up these metaphors.

Robertson's massive bio, mentioned previously, details the progression of this myth rather exhaustively.

was the Nineteenth century answer to Patton. Two Confederate officer deaths defined the outcome of the War of Northern Aggression. Early on, it was the death of General Albert Sydney Johnston at Shiloh. Hit by a minie ball in the leg, he ordered his surgeon to attend the needs of the enlisted men before him. He bled to death in his boot.

Jackson was shot down by a gang of Tarheels who forgot the password.

We love him in these parts, since he's of ours, West Virginian. His Mama's buried about two miles from my house as the crow flies. We keep her grave decorated.

But he was insane. Crazy. Battle-junkie. Lemon-sucker. Wouldn't fight on Sunday if A.Lincoln challenged him personally. An artillery professor who had radical ideas about just how hard you could push a human being. His charges were referred to as "foot cavalry" for their ability to go without ceasing and then fight without ceasing. His efforts were worthy of an American Caesar (pre-dictatorial).

Just as the shit was beginning to hit the fan, he made his way here (no small feat from VMI to Marshall's Pillars) to bid "Mama" farewell.

He was brutal in the extreme. Upon receiving remarks from his adjutants as to the heroism of the other side, he responded "Kill them. Kill them all."

There is absoultely no doubt, however, that the discipline he maintained would have resulted in a complete victory at Gettysburg. Lee split TJJ's command into three prior to Gettysburg. And all three commanders failed him, where Jackson knew not the meaning of the word.

Some southerners still hold the entire state of North Carolina to blame for the death of General Jackson.

That's a myth based on a kernel of truth.

Also, just for clarity, his command after his death was essentially split into two units, although it was actually a complete reogranization that had been in the planning stages since the previous Fall. Greatly simplified, there just weren't any commanders Lee considered good enough to take on the task of commanding a third corps-sized unit until he was forced by circumstances to make such a choice.

It was a lemon with salt on it. Which makes sense if you're wearing heavy wool flannel in any kind of heat.

Lee had no commanders who could do what Jackson did: anticipate his thoughts.

Personally, I still don't forgive Longstreet for becoming a corporatist railroad executive after the war, let alone for stumbling on Lee's orders during the second day of Gettysburg. If only Longstreet hadn't dragged his heels, Joshua Lwarence Chamberlain wouldn't have had a chance. But Chamberlain turned out to be a pretty decent example of what it means to be a citizen of the U.S., so it all balances.

And don't get me started on what happened after Johnston died.

Problem is, there are no contemporary references to Jackson having a habit of eating anything but citrus fruits, when he could find them, which wasn't all that often. That's where the kernel comes from. When he did come across some citrus fruit, it was a big deal. During the war especially, it was very rare to find citrus. The "old folks" memories have been shaped by myths about Jackson since their inception.

The bottom line is the story about the lemon sucking does not appear anywhere until a romanticized account of his life was published well after the war, and that account cited no source for the information at all. See Dr. Robertson's massive bio of Jackson for details.

As for Longstreet, this is probably not the thread for it, but I'm afraid to say your understanding of the Gettysburg situation is at variance with reality. If you'd like to discuss it, we could do so in the American History forum.

And he was not a "corporatist railroad executive." He was a cotton broker and insurance agent in New Orleans for a time, after which he had mostly government jobs: commander in the metropolitan police force (ironically leading mostly black militia against rebellious white supremacists contesting an election), post master, ambassador to Turkey, etc. What he did that originally made people dislike him was a) suggest Blacks be allowed the right to vote and b) that Southerners should learn to accept the results of the war and get on with their lives. Pretty much everything else said against him grew out of that.

"Some southerners still hold the entire state of North Carolina to blame for the death of General Jackson."

North Carolinians paid at least one steep price for losing Jackson: heavy casualties at Gettysburg.

Quite a few historians think "Stonewall" was an INSULT... alas, the gentleman who said it was killed in battle, so we will never know for sure.