It's implied in the scene where he prays with his cook that he feels sorry for him and says that one day his people would be free.
Is this true? I know people say that this film has a lot of inaccuracies. I can't seem to find anything definitive online on whether TJ Jackson was against slavery.
I know that RE Lee, ironically, thought slavery was immoral so it wouldnt be too far fetched.
Can any history buffs help me out?
Yet you post on the The Civil War board that he was.
shareWell I was curious because it would be an historical irony. Sherman wasn't against slavery yet not only fought for the Union but liberated thousands of slaves in his march to the sea. So could any civil war buffs help me out?
shareNeither Jackson nor Lee were abolitionists. They were not against the institution just its harshest applications. They believed that slavery served a purpose, a purpose to prefect the race as God intended. There is a lot of paternalism and parochialism in their view of slavery but it was essentially benevolent racism.
shareNeither Jackson nor Lee were abolitionists. They were not against the institution just its harshest applications. They believed that slavery served a purpose, a purpose to prefect the race as God intended. There is a lot of paternalism and parochialism in their view of slavery but it was essentially benevolent racism.
The best evidence of Lee's views of slavery and the black race can be summed up in a letter he wrote to his wife about the very issue. To paraphrase his letter can be summed up like this: Lee was not entirely comfortable with slavery, and he certainly had no hatred towards the black race, but like 90% of the whites on both sides of the war he was a white supremacist. A view strongly engrained in most of white America at the time in the North and the South.
Lee basically felt that slavery should die of natural causes and as a result of Christian influence on God's time rather than at the point of an abolitionist's gun. He felt ending it in the ladder way would incite long term bitterness between the two races and steer the whites away from a genuine metamorphosis into a more godly view of the black race which would create genuine heartfelt racial harmony, and cause tension between the races to live much longer than it should. Given what happened afterwards, there was probably a lot of truth to that.
As for Jackson, hard to say. He wrote little to nothing on the subject, but there is considerable evidence he regarded the blacks as humans and God's children as well.
Pre-war, Jackson accepted slavery although he wasn't fond of it, and ran a Lexington, Virginia, Sunday school for slaves which taught them to read and write. If anyone had bothered to prosecute, he would have gone to jail for that, but the local eagles never progressed beyond a few cease-and-desist letters. I think Lincoln, Lee, and Jackson all regarded slavery as a necessary evil that they hoped would die out naturally. Lincoln didn't even plan to free any slaves when the war broke out, he just wanted to preserve the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was an emergency measure to recruit Southern slaves to the Northern cause, and only caused a very few slaves to be freed. But once Lincoln saw the results of that test case, he decided to implement Emancipation universally. He only became the proverbial Great Emancipator late in the game.
shareHere is a link that might be helpful to you in answering your question:L
http://cwmemory.com/2009/12/18/stonewall-jackson-black-mans-friend-con tinued/
I am late in the game, but I will comment:
star_in_the_zenith_79
Lee basically felt that slavery should die of natural causesThis sentence implies that Lee was an advocate of gradual emancipation. Do you have a source for that? Because it directly contradicts Lee's actions during the War: to protect and defend the institution of Slavery FOREVER.
slavery should die of natural causes as a result of Christian influence on God's time rather than at the point of an abolitionist's gun.I distinctly remember how you advocated in the past that the North was NOT fighting to abolish slavery, but to save the Union and for economic profit. Who, in this sentence is the "abolitionist's gun" then?
He felt ending it in the ladder way would incite long term bitterness between the two races and steer the whites away from a genuine metamorphosis into a more godly view of the black race which would create genuine heartfelt racial harmony.Where to begin, where to begin: ending the slavey in "the latter way" - you mean by radical move, immediate emancipation - would incite long term bitterness: who's bitterness? Who would be bitter about the fact that slavery ended so abruptly? The slaves, you think?
He felt ending it [would] steer the whites away from a genuine metamorphosis into a more godly view of the black race which would create genuine heartfelt racial harmonyWhat was General Lee's definition of "genuine heartfelt racial harmony"? I hear of this for the very first time. What did he mean by this? Do you mean: legal equality and full citizenship? Do you mean: segregation? What DO you mean when you write Lee wished for genuine heartfelt racial harmony?
This sentence implies that Lee was an advocate of gradual emancipation. Do you have a source for that? Because it directly contradicts Lee's actions during the War: to protect and defend the institution of Slavery FOREVER.
His actions were to defend his home, the state of Virginia from what he deemed as an unlawful invasion of the president of the United States, not to defend slavery. Slavery was merely a dark stain on the Confederate cause, but the fact is, it existed in the North too. And the North did not seek to preserve the Union in order to end slavery in the first place because of some sort of moral superiority they possessed like many people believe.
And I made it clear that my assessments of Lee's views on slavery and the black race came from a letter to his wife, which is where I got most of the information from. Its probably the best evidence of his views on the subject.
I'm not going to sit here and deny Lee and Jackson did not own slaves, or that they were not white Supremacists, I merely argue that their views on the subject were not that different from most white Americans of the day, and that they were in all probability on the more benevolent side of the scale from most Americans. Most of white America regarded the black race as inferior at the time, and their views usually ranged from a genuine hatred and fear of the black race possessed by such people as Cullen Baker and John Wesley Hardin, to benevolent condescension possessed by the gentler souls. But very few people at the time of the American Civil War saw the blacks as equals, in the North or the South.
And the North did not seek to preserve the Union in order to end slaveryIndeed they didn't. American (not Union) politicians and leaders wanted to preserve the Union. If it meant prolonging slavery for sometime - so be it. North would never begin an armed conflict to eradicate slavery: and so they did not!
their views on the subject [Lee&Stonewall on slavery] were not that different from most white Americans of the day, and that they were in all probability on the more benevolent side of the scale from most Americans.1) most Americans of the day were racists, yet did not own slaves.
But very few people at the time of the American Civil War saw the blacks as equals, in the North or the South.Well yes, of course! Finally something we agree on! Of course shades of prejudice were as rich as the rainbow and by our standards - absolutely every single white person in (soon to be dismantled) United States was under the influence!
the North did not seek to preserve the Union in order to end slavery in the first place because of some sort of moral superiority they possessed like many people believe.I wholeheartedly agree with you!
Going back to Robert E. Lee
His actions were to defend his home, the state of Virginia from what he deemed as an unlawful invasion of the president of the United States, not to defend slaveryIs it correct to paraphrase what you are saying: Confederate General Robert E. Lee was more loyal to his home State of Virginia than the Abolitionist cause he believed in?
R E Lee owned slaves himself,even ordered one or more whipped,so if he figured it immoral he was a hypocrite
sharea bit OT, but why was Jackson wearing a forage cap at 1st Man? Shouldn't he have worn the Wheel cap? Is there some debate as to what he wore that day?
shareNo.
But he did believe in educating the slaves, which was radical in the South at that time.