Site of Stonewall Jackson’s Death Gets New Name

Jackson Shrine Death SiteA subtle but important change is underway at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park (FSNMP): the site where Stonewall Jackson died is getting renamed. The building formerly known as the Stonewall Jackson Shrine will henceforth be officially referred to as the Stonewall Jackson Death Site.

The reasons for the change, says FSNMP Chief Historian and Chief of Interpretation John Hennessy, is to help give visitors a clearer a sense of what to expect when they visit.

“[T]he name ‘Jackson Shrine’ is not very helpful to visitors,” he says. “Most people have no idea what to expect. They expect a shrine in a modern sense, and of course, the term ‘shrine,’ which was commonly used for a historic site in the 1920s, is hardly ever used in that context today.”

The name “Jackson Shrine” dates back to a casual reference in a newspaper article written by Virginia Lee Cox for the Richmond Times-Dispatch on November 16, 1926:

Yesterday in the simple, little, frame house near Guinea Station where, on May 10, 1863, General Stonewall Jackson died, a group of interested women transformed the bare, little room in which he “crossed over the river” into some semblance of its original setting, and made there the beginnings of a Jackson Museum which they hope will grow into a fitting tribute to one of the South’s great heroes.

The group which yesterday made that first pilgrimage to the Jackson Shrine was composed of….[i]

At the time, the word “shrine” was a commonly used synonym for museum. For instance, a 1934 pamphlet published by the Virginia Commission on Conservation and Development, Historic Shrines of Virginia, listed thirty-five sites, including “Jackson’s Deathplace.”

Today, the term as originally used is largely unfamiliar to modern travelers.

“‘The Jackson Shrine’ was an informal name,” Hennessy says. “It is not a legally applied name. It’s not in our legislation or anything of that sort.”

Among National Park Service sites, only Ft. McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine includes the word in its official designation. The Alamo, too, remains an officially designated shrine.

The Fredericksburg area apparently had a plethora of shrines once upon a time, at least according to the Free Lance-Star. Today, only the Hugh Mercer Apothecary Shop, which sits on Caroline Street, has a sign that says “Shrine open daily.” But reporting on October 13, 1928, on the dedication of Jackson’s death site as a museum, the local newspaper boasted, “This section, already rich in historic shrines, and due in the future to boast even more, had another shrine added to its list yesterday when the house in which ‘Stonewall’ Jackson died was formally dedicated as a place where lovers of history and heroism might journey and worship.”

“But certainly the term ‘shrine’ is not consistent with our organizational commitment to objective and holistic interpretation of history,” Hennessy explains. “I mean, we get people who come in who are bristling from the start because, ‘What is this? Why are our tax dollars running a shrine to Stonewall Jackson?’ And then we also get people coming in from the start not expecting objective, holistic interpretation—expecting a kind of invitation to mourn. That’s not what the site is, either.

“We think the new name, the new label, puts the site on more neutral ground for visitors coming in. Just makes for a better environment for us to do our work,” he says.

Park officials also hope clarifying the name will make the site safer.

“[T]he intensity of the discourse over Confederate iconography—or Confederate icons, in the case of Jackson,” raised security issues, Hennessy admits. “There’s no question that in the present tumult over Confederate symbols and icons in the aftermath of Charleston and, especially, in the aftermath of Charlottesville, there was a good deal of chatter online that we saw about ‘What is this shrine to Jackson? It needs to go.’”

The name change offered a way for the park to defuse some of those concerns. “It’s such a simple thing to remove that aspect of it without altering the site, without altering the experience,” Hennessy says. “The focus is still on Jackson’s death and why it mattered and why it matters.”

“It remains our most personal site,” he adds. “One, it’s the only site that we have that’s focused on an individual. And secondly, it’s the site where our visitors have the most personal experience with our staff. It’s often one on one, or one and a family. And so it’s a site that has tremendous interpretive potential that . . . all our staff who’s worked there over the years has recognized. And none of that, none of that is changing.”

The park changed the site’s name once before, back in 1979. At the time, the site was known as simply “The Jackson Shrine.” Adding “Stonewall” to the name clarified the difference between the Civil War General and former president Andrew Jackson, another Southern military commander with a catchy nickname—“Old Hickory”—who first earned renown in the War of 1812. The seventies also saw the Jackson Five peak in popularity and Reggie “Mr. October” Jackson make five trips to the World Series, creating additional layers of cultural confusion.

New highway signs—the most visible indication of the name change—went up in August at a cost of $50,000. “But other than the signs, everything else will be replaced in due course on a normal schedule,” Hennessy says. “So the cost of doing it is really confined to the signage.”

Hennessy says the park staff has been using the new name internally for about a year already, and the park’s website already reflects the change. Otherwise, he predicts the name change will take about three years for the park to fully implement.

“It will have to filter its way through other media,” he explains. “Our brochures, for example, were reprinted last summer just before we … made the decision, so that’s going to take three years. We ordered a three-year supply of brochures, so that’s not changing on the brochures.”

For the park’s outside partners, the name change may take even longer. “Our tourism partners, localities—it’s probably going to take five to seven years to filter through entirely,” Hennessy says. “And, you know, in twenty years, there will probably still be people out there who’ll call it ‘Stonewall Jackson Shrine.’ That’s just the way these things work.”

In the end, he says, visitors can bring whatever perspective they want to the site. “To some eyes it will remain a ‘shrine,’ and that’s fine. Our intent is not to impose on any visitor how they ought to view the site,” he says.

While the name change might be a “significant issue” for some, Hennessy thinks the benefits far outweigh those issues. “[B]ecause the nature of the site’s not changing, and we think it really serves our visitors and serves the site, too, and its security, we think it’s the right thing to do,” he says. “So we’re forging ahead.”

————

[i] Virginia Lee Cox, “Jackson Museum is Begun Where Great Stonewall Died,” Richmond Times Dispatch, November 16, 1926. The author is indebted to FSNMP historian Eric Mink for providing this newspaper article. Eric was also kind enough to furnish the pamphlet Historic Shrines of Virginia and “First Civil War Shrine” from the October 13, 1928, Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star.

This entry was posted in Battlefields & Historic Places, National Park Service and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Site of Stonewall Jackson’s Death Gets New Name

  1. James Burster says:

    This is obviously a case of political correctness.
    Let’s be honest here!

    • John S Olss says:

      Yes indeed, let’s be honest. Deification of treason is offensive. Period

      • Jacob Boyd says:

        The US was founded on treason.

      • Robert Rainey says:

        Treason? Perhaps you should research the writings of our founding fathers and their firm belief that should the sovereign people of each State deem that the Federal or State government are detrimental to their liberty and well being, it is their right to meet in convention and elect a new government.
        What was treasonous was Lincolns trampling of the constitution and destroying the government our founding fathers gave us.

      • Connie Chastain says:

        Confederates were not treasonous.

      • Connie Chastain says:

        Jacob Boyd, indeed. The American revolution was rebellion and treason because the British crown legitimately owned the colonies. The federal union did not own the states, so secession was not treason. Thus, the union was wrong to militarily invade the seceded states and kill Southerners to “preserve the union”, and Confederates were justified in fighting for their political independence and to defend homes, families and communities from the barbarians in blue.

      • Connie Chastain says:

        The shrine is not deification of treason or anything else, not even Jackson.. One definition of shrine is “a place or site venerated for its association with a famous person or event.” (Venerate means to hold in deep respect.) Americans have apparently been dumbed down to the point they no long can conceptualize a word or phrase having more than one meaning.

        Don’t worry. Treason is not deified.

      • Lee Russom says:

        “No Treason” was a book soon after the war written by no fan of the South abolitionist Lysander Spooner.
        Read, learn, repent of the effed up notion Confederates are/were traitors.
        http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-0.htm

  2. Alton Bunn says:

    I understand the reasons for the change, however I’m not enthusiastic about the new name.

  3. Meg Groeling says:

    … and that is fine with me. It is about time.

  4. I’ve lived in Virginia for 34 years, and seeing that site name while traveling I-95 always prompted a sardonic chuckle from me.

  5. Jenny Reb Smith says:

    As I am more worried about the history and preservation of the monument than the name I am fine with the slight name change only. Tho I do not think giving liberals what they want is a good answer. I would like some kind of protection granted to the site so that no more changes may be done.

    • Meg Groeling says:

      I am going to object politely to your assumption that somehow it is ‘liberals” who wanted to take another look at the term “shrine.” If one stays within your assumption, as a liberal I will say that this liberal wants to remember that humans are humans and should not be worshipped at shrines. General Jackson had many issues that should automatically remove him from anyone’s pantheon of gods.

      • Connie Chastain says:

        Meg Groeling, One definition of shrine is “a place or site venerated for its association with a famous person or event.” Venerate means to hold in deep respect.There’s another look at the term “shrine” for you. Note that there’s nothing in those definitions that would imply people are worshiping Jackson as a god. Please.

        Americans have apparently been dumbed down to the point they no long can conceptualize a word or phrase having more than one meaning.

  6. James Gleason says:

    And so continues our falsification and rewriting of history – so sad. I am glad the truth exists, despite our efforts to change it. I simply hope our great country will not experience what other great civilizations did, when they destroyed/altered/mocked their own monuments and SHRINES!

    • Robert Rainey says:

      Agreed James and I would hope that all know which countries you are alluding too. The continued assault on this country’s history, heritage and culture will destroy the country and leave only myths and fables.

    • George Wunderlich says:

      I must respectfully disagree. Generals are not gods. They do not deserve shrines, endless we are Rome and worship them. This was a poorly chosen name to begin with. Shrine denotes a holiness not to be given to mere mortals. As a conservative with strong southern roots, I always flee that shine was the wrong name.

      • Connie Chastain says:

        Shrine is also defined as “a place or site venerated for its association with a famous person or event” and one definition of venerate is deep respect. So shrine does not automatically denote holiness. In this case, shrine is perfectly applicable — a place deeply respected for its association with the loss of a great Confederate general.

      • Lee Russom says:

        Doidju even read the article? It explains why the word was chosen back then.
        Sheesh with people ignorantly commentating what they know NOT of!!

  7. Bonnie Jean says:

    The name change is less important than the site being maintained as is. However one feels about the Civil War and those who fought in it… they were all human beings with faults and virtues. Stonewall Jackson was someone who many felt strongly about and in a good way as a person. He was very sincere in his faith, he was a great tactical general, and he also taught young black children about the Bible and how to read. No one is perfect in this world and destroying history creates situations where you are doomed to repeat it. There are many flawed heroes in this world…MLK is said to have been a womanizer who had several illegitimate children. if that is true, does it negate all of the great things he did ? I would say no. There are rumors about many major figures in world history. Some deserve condemnation, but not obliteration…because we miss the lessons that history may teach us.

    • Lee Russom says:

      mlk is a documented womaniser/adulterer. Don’t forget he was married. So in that sense, he was worst than just a womaniser. PLUS, he was an ordained preacher of the Word of God.
      Additionally, he was a plagiariser which makes him a thief. His college thesis, his dream speech were plagiarised.
      All held together makes him a rather despicable human being. So weighed against whatever “good work” some think he did, is the “”good”” outweighed?
      I believe so.

      • Bonnie Jean says:

        I read the post about the No Treason writings and it was very thought provoking. And as a Christian I agree with your comments. I was just trying to help stop the madness of the destruction of history when I wrote about MLK and thinking of the concept of “loving the sinner, hating the sin”. If we use the same standards so many of our national “heroes” or revered leaders would be in a situation of the bad outweighing the good…JFK, RFK, FDR, and many others. I am with you , but fearful of further destruction of our history and its memorials. Sometimes I feel as if I daily walk a tightrope when I speak out with a desire to keep and learn from history, both the good and the bad and what may lie in the muddle.

  8. Jacob Boyd says:

    Stop changing names, removing monuments, adding passive ‘context’ plaques, etc. Our ancestors were not evil, nor should outsiders get to define who they were as people.

    • Meg Groeling says:

      Outsiders? Since when is the FSNMP an outsider?

      • Connie Chastain says:

        Yes. The FSNMP is an outsider. It is the feds and they’ve been outsiders in most of their actions since they decided to shred the Constitution so they can meddle into areas the Constitution originally prohibited to them. Americans today accede to it all kinds of power to the fedgov it should not have. It is what’s wrongly worshipped as a deity.

      • Donald Smith says:

        Since when does the federal government decide how localities may remember their heroes?

    • Mike Maxwell says:

      Why visit?
      There is so much information and factual content to be accessed on the Internet, why do people persist in making “pilgrimages” to National Historic sites and old battlefields? For a fraction of the cost, more and better detail can be gleaned from libraries and online references…
      Connection. Personal interaction. Affirmation that there yet exists a place where something significant occurred; and for the duration of the visit, a sense of “being there,” touching the same articles and ground ancestors and historic figures interacted with, removed only by Time.
      Having witnessed the questionable renaming of established historic sites at Shiloh NMP (the “Hornet’s Nest” is now the thicket, and the “Sunken Road” is being rebranded as the trace, or something similar) I can appreciated the concern with politically correct labelling, destruction of memorials, and virtual re-writing of History: WHO decides? If something requires “clarification” because evidence has been ignored, then add another plaque providing explanation. Nothing wrong with that. Otherwise…
      Please just leave it alone.

  9. Douglas Pauly says:

    Seems like common sense reasoning to me with the name change. Much ado about nothing appears to be being made out of it…

    • Donald Smith says:

      Perhaps, but if the whole matter was really “much ado about nothing,” then why blow $50,000 on new signs? Even in the D.C. area, that’s serious money. Someone really, really wanted to change those signs. Why? Was the Spotsylvania County sheriff overwhelmed by confused tourists, who’d been disoriented by the word “shrine?”

      You’ll have to forgive those of us with Confederate ancestors who look askance at this move, and don’t just shrug this off. Symbols of the Confederate legacy are under assault everywhere. It’s important for the Park Service to know that it can’t treat the important Confederate legacy sites, and the memories they hold, as just pieces of property to be managed as the feds see fit.

      I’ll stipulate that that’s probably not what happened here. It appears that Ranger Hennessey has lots of credibility with the ECW crowd, so I’m sure he’s a sincere and fair historian. But, during the 150th anniversary, it seemed to me that the Park Service was too willing to bend to complaints about Confederate symbols. Those complainers are still out there, and they are persistent, even relentless. (Even destructive—check out the statues in Charlottesville). So, the only alternative we have is to be just as persistent and relentless. That seems to be the best way to ensure that the Park Service listens to us, too.

      • Douglas Pauly says:

        Well, $50k is what it evidently cost. I’m well aware of the assault that certain memorials and statues, Confederate and others, are under. I personally don’t look at this as the same thing. Nothing was or is being torn down. It’s a simple name change, and one that, to me anyways, makes sense. I always viewed the term “shrine” to mean something akin to a holy site. I personally do not view Jackson’s place of death as that, and I’ll wager most others don’t or won’t either.

    • Lee Russom says:

      “A simple name change”, eh?
      Thinkest thou you were roads, buildings, etc. that had their names changed to mlk this and that to be changed back to their original names, there’d be much ado about nada lotta? NAW, the national association of the always complaining people would lose their minds and go on a national riot and all THAT entails.

      • Douglas Pauly says:

        Is that what should happen, having riots and committing mayhem over this? I think reasonable people understand why this was done. I personally have no reason to NOT believe the Ranger who has announced this. It is indeed a SIMPLE NAME CHANGE, and it has become much ado about NOTHING on here. I take wagers right now that absolutely nothing happens as a result of this change, and that nobody who is posting on here will see their lives negatively affected because of it. This is NOT the same as the wholesale targeting of Confederate monuments and statues in cities that has been going on. That is bad enough. Equating this to that just doesn’t pass muster..

  10. John Sinclair says:

    I understand and appreciate the passion on both sides here. Over the years, certain words take on a different meaning or connotation than they did when originally uttered. The word “shrine” today has religious connotations that may no longer be appropriate despite the respect that may be owed to the accomplishments of General Jackson.

    • Connie Chastain says:

      Mr. Sinclair, your approach of discarding older definitions of terms and using only contermporary ones is a recipe for dumbing down the culture — narrowing its perspective. If your approach is right, then let’s trash everything written before 1970 or people will misunderstand. For criminy’s sake, people aren’t animals with no concept of history and a limited ability to learn. If they think “shrine” means “religious” a currently published dictionary, available online, will tell them one definition of shrine is a place or site venerated for its association with a famous person or event — and venerate does not mean worship, its meaning also includes deep respect.

      The war on Confederate artifacts is an expression of deep hatred for the Southern people; a war that will soon be directed at U.S. artifacts as an expression of hated for Americans.

  11. Greg Randall says:

    Gregory Randall
    Some of the remarks are rediculous for the change
    I have roots both sides to beginning of Virginia
    I am tired of all the crap against the south
    Why you Yankee lovers worship Lincoln as a Greek God in DC
    The man who cause close 700,000 deaths with illegal invasion
    The man who said any state had the right to leave the union when senator ,then 1861 states what do I do with out my revenue.
    The man that destroyed our true republic and gave us an all powerful centralist govt what founders did not want!!!

    • Lee Russom says:

      For the record, herr lincoln never was a Senator. He was a one term member of the House of Representatives. And yes, on the floor, he did so state, even to the minutest details.

  12. Mike Maxwell says:

    If I believe “aliens from another galaxy” assisted with the Union Victory at Gettysburg, there is nothing to stop me from writing a book on the subject (and in today’s climate, it might sell reasonably well.) However, when it comes to renaming Little Round Top at Gettysburg NMP as “Zorg’s Low Round Hill,” then I claim that a line has been crossed: History has been sacrificed for the sake of expediency, provocation, “current belief,” or just plain bloody-mindedness.

  13. Bonnie Jean says:

    Lots of Excellent Food for thought here. Yes, America can be the promised land if we value it and if we keep the values of the founding fathers…imperfect though they were.

  14. GCS says:

    This is highly offensive to me as a Southern man. This ungodly empire is dedicated to destroyinh our heritage and replacing us as a people. This union remains an abomination.

  15. David Corbett says:

    Money better spent feeding the poor, fighting crime or reducing I-95 traffic. It smacks of grandstanding.

  16. Chris Mackowski says:

    Robert Rainey, I removed your last post because the material you copied and pasted was unattributed and unsourced. Copying and pasting like that is a violation of copyright laws.

    • Robert Rainey says:

      Sometimes the truth makes people uncomfortable. I shall do a little research to find the author that laid it out truthfully.

      • Chris Mackowski says:

        It has nothing to do with “truth makes people uncomfortable.” It has to do with 1) checking your sources and 2) getting expressed permission to use someone else’s work. Failure to do so is a violation of copyright laws. If you posted something without permission, and ECW allowed that, ECW would be liable.

        You are welcome to post a link if you find one, but please do not copy and paste someone else’s work without their expressed permission. Thank you.

  17. Chris Mackowski says:

    I am befuddled by some of the comments here that talk about the meaning of the word “shrine.” Indeed, it was historically used as a synonym for “museum.” That’s an antiquated meaning, though, not generally understood by people today, who tend to (overwhelmingly) consider “shrine” as having a religious connotation. That’s all explained in the article, but I wonder if some people read any of that.

    Whether it’s a sign of social ignorance that people don’t know the historical meaning, or whether it’s a sign of the evolution of the language, or both, is immaterial. Common usage is common usage. It’s precisely because of confusion over the word’s meaning that the NPS said it changed the name. I think this discussion illustrates their concerns quite well.

    • Donald Smith says:

      Perhaps, but what qualifies the National Park Service to determine what the accepted meaning for the word “shrine” is? It appears that the locals first deemed Jackson’s death site a “shrine,” and that was common usage for this word in that region at the time. What qualifies the National Park Service to change commonly accepted names of historic places? Was that part of the surrender terms at Appomattox or Durham Station?

      Would the National Park Service change the name of a Native American burial site that, in its opinion, was known by an incorrect, misleading name?

      The National Park Service is a federal agency. There is no guarantee, but only a hope, that the people who work at Civil War National Parks and Battlefields will show empathy and respect for the Confederate side and its memory. As we all know, there is lots of hostility, even loathing toward the Confederacy’s legacy nowadays. Those of us with Confederate ancestors can’t help but wondering if the Park Service desires to commemorate the Confederate legacy—or police it, and shape it into something it considers “objective.”

      Now, I’ll admit, this is just a few signs. But, was it really worth fifty thousand dollars to do this? Someone must have really, really wanted to change those signs. Seems like overkill to me.

      Your post makes no mention of it, so I suspect the locals weren’t asked their opinion of the change. It sounds as if they were just told the name would change, and that would be that.

    • Lyle Smith says:

      This is a good argument for why they shouldn’t have changed the name. People could have learned the antiquated meaning of the word shrine.

      Personally, I support keeping Lost Cause monumentation up so that we will remember the Lost Cause. Future Americans should know about it and see it in its original place. America has so little history, we really should try and maintain what little we have, for better or worse, as best we can.

  18. John says:

    Well… if the goal of ECW was to get everyone to come out of the woodwork…. they certainly succeeded. Haha. Sad to see everyone so eager to (collectively) fan the flames….

    Terrible to see 32 comments (and counting) on a story that centers around the contextual use of the word “shrine”, and virtually zero comments/discussion on the other great stories posted on this site that are actually about the Civil War. Shameful.

    • Bonnie Jean says:

      I think people are more concerned about the destruction of pieces of our history, than they are the name change. That is why so many come out. Also, as there are many points of view on the War Between the states… and deep feelings on both sides… that is what you are seeing. Not just disagreement with a name change. I believe we should respect those feelings.

  19. “The reasons for the change . . . is to help give visitors a clearer a sense of what to expect when they visit.” This would be much easier to swallow were it not for the current frenzied environment of renaming and monument removing. Count me a skeptic.

  20. PS: There also seems to me to be a contradiction in the article. Giving visitors “a clearer a sense of what to expect when they visit” and ““[T]he intensity of the discourse over Confederate iconography—or Confederate icons, in the case of Jackson” are different motivations. I understand and sympathize with the security issues, but the move to rename can’t be separated from the current trend in renaming and removing monuments – whether you favor that trend or not.

    • Chris Mackowski says:

      Here’s John’s full quote, which might help clarify: “I think that the desire to have clarity for our visitors has been the long-standing conversation about it. I think the intensity of the discourse over Confederate iconography—or Confederate icons, in the case of Jackson—accelerated us.”

  21. Mike Maxwell says:

    Added for context, merely to show there are “shrines to fallen soldiers” in other parts of the world: https://whatson.melbourne.vic.gov.au/placestogo/melbournelandmarks/historic/pages/4465.aspx

  22. billhenck says:

    The basic question here is why is the Jackson site part of the FSNMP and historically significant? Is it because Jackson died there or is it because people may have viewed it as a shrine in the 1920s? Shouldn’t the Jackson death site be called the Jackson Death Site because it is the Jackson death site? It seems like common sense. Just like the house where Lincoln died is called the House Where Lincoln Died because it is the house where Lincoln died. This is history, not polemics.

    • Mike Maxwell says:

      I disagree, because the basic question here is this: “Why after nearly 100 years is the label given to this site of concern?” And the agenda at issue is, “How should those concerned with the preservation and interpretation and explanation of History respond?”

  23. Dennis Cotner says:

    Face facts, the NPS backed down to politics when they aren’t supposed to deal with politics in their business or dealings.

  24. The same arguments in this case could be made for other sites (and are being made). The objections to monuments and memorials have gone way beyond “Confederate iconography”, as many predicted they would. “Memorial” carries with it the meaning of “honor” and “respect.” So should we change the name of the Jefferson Memorial? The Lincoln Memorial? Others? Both men, in my opinion, deserve these memorials. There is a JFK Memorial Plaza in Texas. I believe that is proper and I would not want the name changed. JFK deserves that memorial. However, revelations and accusations in recent years about JFK’s womanizing could be seen as a legitimate reason by some to “change the name.” Are we coming to a point in America when we can have no public heroes? Do our heroes have to be flawless in order to deserve a memorial? Who gets to define “flaw”?

    Looking to the future, this might be a good time to invest in a sign making company.

  25. Mike Miller says:

    .

    “Strike Pharoah’s name from the obelisk so new Pharaoh’s name may be chiselled.”

    .

  26. Robert Bauer says:

    Should cut visitation by half, who is going to go miles out of their way to visit a “site” ? The name change still wont satisfy the leftists who will not rest until all traces of history they deem offensive are erased.

  27. Douglas Pauly says:

    A question for the admin folks on here that has nothing to do with this subject matter. How come I have to sign in every time I come to these boards? I always check the box that says “Save my name, email…etc.” when I do sign in. Until a few months ago, when I signed in, I stayed signed in, and could just comment and not have to do anything else. Along those lines when the boxes are checked for “notifying me of new comments via email”, nothing happens. I DO get the notifications of new threads being posted, but I don’t have to check any boxes for that. Anyone else having such a problem? Thanks..

  28. Rob Orrison says:

    This is political correctness, I think that is obvious. Not a horrible thing in this situation, but make no doubt, it is due to the current political and social circumstances around Confederates

  29. Pingback: Week In Review: September 16-22, 2019 | Emerging Civil War

  30. Joe says:

    I can tell the Confederados didn’t read the article. Such snowflakes!

    So let’s keep the name…as Guinea Station. Take the rebellious so-called general off the sign. Let people who want to research history research why Guinea Station is being remembered…as the place where a slaveowner died.

    • Bonnie Jean says:

      In the annals of history, he was one of the greatest military strategists of all time. You can respect him for that even if you do not like the side he fought for. Oh, and he did not own any slaves. When he married his second wife, three slaves came with her. One was her personal assistant, and two were to help around the house. Stonewall Jackson grew up dirt poor and could not afford slaves. He did not ask them to do anything he would not do. He worked at tending the garden right along with him. They lived in the house, not in a hell hole like many of the day. And when the war began, he made sure they had safe places to go. Not all slave owners were monsters, although most were. I am not pro-slavery at all. But the north were quite the hypocrites, in many cases the hell holes where the poorly paid factory workers lived and worked were not much better. They were beaten and raped too. Or burned up in fires because the owners did not build buildings with adequate means of getting out as they were so consumed with greed they needed every inch of space for all of their workers, including children. The war between the states was fought for many different reasons, and many believe it could have been avoided if Lincoln adhered to Constitutional Law. Thanks to the work of William Wilberforce and others who followed him, the slave trade slowly began to fall out of fashion, thank the Lord. It only took us a few hundred years to catch on … that and a war that was bloodier than many before and after. So there is blood and guilt on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line and from sea to shining sea. The current sex trafficking that goes on around the globe is a sickening form of slavery … and few seem to be concerned about that in any country.

  31. Bonnie Jean says:

    Chris, I respect your authority as an administrator of this on line community. But my source is Stonewall Jackson’s Diary. So perhaps someone has tampered with that along the way. It is a printed copy, rather than in his own handwriting, so that is certainly possible.

    I also have a family owned infantryman’s diary. The Campbell Clan of which I was born into kept good records both in the North and the South. I will have to re-read my books/diaries to see why there is a discrepancy between your account and mine. Those diaries are hand-written. I like to stick to the Truth as close as is humanly possible so if you have a particular source that I can access I would appreciate it. Thank you.

    • Chris Mackowski says:

      Jackson didn’t keep a diary. The closest thing are “The Memoirs of Stonewall Jackson,” but those were actually written by his wife (with the help of a ghost writer) after the war. I don’t have Bud Robertson’s book on hand, or I’d give you page numbers, but I urge you to check out his Jackson bio. In the book, he talks a little bit about all six of Jackson’s slaves.

      • Bonnie Jean says:

        Thank you. I will be happy to do that. The Diary I have claims to be from Jackson’s own hand… and it is a very old book handed down to me as the (unofficial) family historian. So I will have to further investigate that. I do have some things in his own hand from his book of letters to his wife and his “code of conduct” that I think he formed while he was at West Point. But I am not sure exactly how they were obtained or reproduced. But I will look up the Bud Robertson book as I love History and love to know the Truth. Thank you again.

      • Chris – While it is true that Jackson did not keep a “diary” in the truest sense of the word, he actually did keep a journal which would be “the closest thing” to a diary (rather than the “Memoirs” by Mary Anna). As Professor Robertson notes in his introduction of “Stonewall Jackson’s Book of Maxims”:

        “His book of maxims first appeared at this time [while Jackson was at West Point]. The 8×1/8″ x 101/4″ blue marbled notebook began as a list of criteria in choosing one’s friends. From the start, the notebook was a reminder for self-improvement. Jackson began writing in the journal around 1848 and added statements over the next five years.”

      • Chris Mackowski says:

        Indeed, Jackson did keep his book of maxims, which is in Tulane’s collection and which has been published, under Robertson’s editorship, as “Stonewall Jackson’s Book of Maxims” through Cumberland House. But I wouldn’t consider that a diary or even a journal, per se.

Leave a Reply