contemplate. Others of us are madernmore sanguine, even sanguinary, by thernthought.rnAt the time of the Wir for SouthernrnIndependence the American pohty,rnhaving reached its apex w ith the ConstitutionalrnConvention of 1787 in Philadelphia,rnwas already in decline. Americanrncivilization, however—North andrnSouth—was in man- respects in itsrnfullest flower, a product of the colonialrnpast brought to full maturity and unblightedrnas yet by the vulgarity, coarseness,rnand abstraction of industrial empire.rnI refer skeptics or dissenters to thernrecord, the primary literature, of the CivilrnWar period. That a modern-day readerrncan find solace in the history of hisrncountry’s hitherto greatest crisis as arnpeople—not least for the nobility andrnheroism that our forebears were forcefullyrnengaged in displaying a brief 130-rnsomething years ago—is testimonv tornthe terrible condition of that countryrntoday. Southerners and Northerners,rnUnion and Confederate, officers and enlistedrnsoldiers, the men who fought thernWar Between the States were men indeed;rnoffspring of a culture in whichrnphysical strength and stamina, resourcefulness,rncourage, and stoicism were lialanccdrnby cultivation, a little learning,rnfluency in self-expression (written andrnspoken), and the gentlemanly gentlenessrnthat used to be called gentility. Thesernqualities were reciprocal, and reciprocated.rnMen who had been compatriotsrnonh months or a few years before remainedrnbrothers across the lines: therntragedy of this bungled unnecessary warrnis necr more poignant than in the scoresrnof instances, from First Manassas tornNash’ille, in vhich warriors paid homagernto the braverv of their opponents—rnsometimes, as at Gettysburg, to thernpoint of cheering them forward. It masberntoo much to say that the AmericanrnCivil War, the first war in which troopsrn(Jackson’s) were transported bv trainrnto the front and the first that experiencedrntrench warfare, was also the lastrnmajor war to which tlie character of therncoml:)atants was intrinsic. But not bv arnlot.rnArigid, duty-dri’en, almost painfullyrnserious man, Thomas JonathanrnJackson appears at first look as one of thernwar’s less chivalric commanders, more arnmodel of the modern military man established,rnperhaps, bv Cromwell. As arnfighter. General Jackson was all business.rnRather than praise the valor of opposingrntroops, he once remarked to a subordinaternwho had expressed regret at havingrnto shoot gallant men in action that hernwould kill cver man, as he did not wishrnthe encmv to be brae. At least one reviewrnof Robertson’s book I have seenrnspeaks of a contradiction between Jackson’srnrelentlessness in battle, and hisrnstern piety. In fact there was no contradictionrnon account of that ver sternness,rnas I think Robertson himself wouldrnagree. Unlike Robert E. Lee, StonewallrnJackson was no Tidewater aristocrat butrnan orphan from the hill country of northwesternrnVirginia, where he led a lonelyrnhardserabble existence before winningrnadmission to West Point Academw Ticiturnrnand shabb- beneath an old foragerncap—he wore his blue VMI facultv uniformrninto the early months of the war, atrnthe risk of drawing friendly fire—^Jacksonrnforewent Lee’s quiet elegance in dress,rne”cn more Jeb Stuart’s sartorial flambovance.rnIn many ways, he was more of arnRoundhead than a Cavalier, whose strictrnPresbyterianism translated in the Americanrnsetting as a Southern type of NewrnEngland Puritanism. Jackson had hopedrnthat war might be averted; when it came,rnhe understood the crisis in theologicalrnterms. The infidel North intended therndestruction of his sacred homeland, arncountry entrusted by God with His purpose.rn”Now,” Robertson says, “he couldrnbegin the long but holy task of lifting thernAlmightv’s scourge from the countr andrnobtaining God’s blessing on the mostrnfaithful side.” However, as a professionalrnmilitarv officer Jackson was acutely awarernof the disadvantages the Confederacyrnwas under in its defiance of the IgnitedrnStates of America. “We cannot stand arnlong war,” he told his wife. Yet the pricernof defeat was terrible. “I myself see inrnthis war, if the North triumph,” hisrnbrother-in-law recalled him saing, “arndissolution of the bonds of all society. Itrnis not alone the destruction of our property,rnbut the prelude to anarchy, infidelity,rnand the ultimate loss of free responsiblerngovernment on this continent.”rnTherefore, the South must not lose.rnAnd so Jackson urged upon Lee thatrnsmall bands of Confederate troops be organizedrnto mount a series of inx’asions tornthe north, holding cities for ransom,rnparoling prisoners, attacking and retreatingrneverywhere. “I would make it hot forrnour friends at their homes and firesides,rnall the way to Kansas.” In laying his proposalrnbefore Lee, Jackson, as Robertsonrnobserves, “was advocating ruthless, uncompromisingrnwar with the enemy. Hisrnprecedent was the Old Testament; hisrnjustification was the freedom of thernGod-loing people of the South,” whornafter all were fighting a purel)’ defensivernwar. At bottom, he was arguing that arnweaker government could not defeat arnfar more powerful one, using the meansrnof conventional warfare. “That premise,”rnRobertson remarks, “was currentrnbut unacceptable to Confederate authorities.”rnTherefore, deprived of thernchance to pursue what he considered thernmost effective and economical (in livesrnas in materiel) of possible strategies,rnJackson was for hitting hard—killing everyrnman—that the war might end asrnsoon as possible, and the troops on bothrnsides return to their homes and families.rnJackson’s own wife, Anna, gave birth tornhis onl’ child to survive a few months beforernthe events at Chancellorsvillc.rnOne aspect of Jackson’s faith is, undeniably,rndisturbing. On a night late inrn1862, while the destruction of thernrailroad between Harpers Ferry andrnWinchester was in progress, Jackson hadrna long conversation with Surgeon HunterrnMcGuire about religion. “I have no fearsrnwhatever that I shall ever fall under thernwrath of God,” he stated. “I am as certainrnof my acceptance, and heavenly reward,rnas that I am sitting here.” Jackson’srnassuredness on this point suggests therndegree to which his admired, and admirable,rnrighteousness pressed close uponrnself-righteousness, as it did on a numberrnof occasions in his life and career.rnMost godly, even saintly, men and women,rnprofoundly conscious of the inevitabilitvrnof human sinfulness defilingrnthose lics most humbK, conscientiously,rnand heroically dedicated to doing thernwill of God, have felt reason to fearrnfalling under God’s wrath. That Jacksonrnbelieved divine punishment, in the casernof himself, to be unimaginable is lessrnsuggesti’e of the unshakableness of hisrnPresbyterian faith than of its imperfectrnformation.rnThat is, however, a personal consideration.rnThe broader one has to do withrnJackson’s devotion to the Cause. ForrnStonewall Jackson the fact of his being arnGod-fearing man and his country a Godfearingrnnation produced the unquestioned,rnand unquestionable, conclusionrnthat God was a Confederate. Now itrnmay be that this sort of theological andrnmoral certainty is necessarv to men confrontedrnby the intense suffering, pri’a-rn34/CHRONICLESrnrnrn