Team 3 makes a strong case against the heroism of Jackson. As an undecided juror, Team 3 gave many points as to his offensive tactics and grueling marches that did not help the Southern cause.

Robert E. Lee was an inspiration to citizens of the CSA and has been the object of hero worship since the moment of his death. That doesn’t mean that he was a great leader. Lee’s tactics were perpetually offensive, and though they won him battles, they ultimately lost him the war. The Confederacy began the fight with less man power that the Union. While the losses for both sides throughout war were similar in number, the casualties were a greater proportion of the Confederate population. Not only battlefield attrition, but desertion as well depleted the Confederate ranks, and unlike the Union, the Confederacy had no population reserves to draw from for replacements. Nor was the loss of men the only problem. The Confederacy also could not replace capable officers who died, so they were replaced by incompetent men.
 The Pennsylvania Campaign and the Maryland Campaign both represent stages of the war when Lee was unnecessarily on the offensive. Though he believed that this was the way to win, fighting on the offensive tack would do nothing to accomplish overall Confederate War aims. Not to conquer, but to withdraw. Though in some situations, he had not wanted a general engagement; his tactics put him into a prime position for such an occurrence. Even some of Lee’s own commanders (E. Porter Alexander) and some fairly eminent historians are in agreement.
 The situation at Petersburg was the culmination of Lee’s poor decision making. He needed troop mobility to avoid a siege situation, which would have further depleted his numbers. What he did was deplete his strength until there wasn’t a large enough force to be mobile and still defend the Confederacy. He backed himself into a corner that turned into a 200+ day siege.
 Robert E. Lee’s flaw as a leader was that he could not discern the ideal strategy that would conserve manpower and achieve Confederate war aims. “The grand strategy of the defense was therefore not only a feasible alternative; it was also more likely to have led to victory.” (101)

The goal of a commanding general must be to win the war, not simply to meet the enemy in glorious combat whenever it is offered. As Nolan noted, Lee was aware that he had fewer troops to deploy than Northern commanders; however, he still used his limited number of men recklessly to continue his policy of a constant offensive. He sent huge numbers of troops against the “admirable federal defensive line” at Gettysburg and even mounted a bloody assault against Fort Stedman in the closing days of the war which made his men “run a gauntlet of terrible fire” (78). Lee and his admirers have created a false dichotomy, establishing only two options: mount an offensive in the North or face a siege in Richmond. In fact, Lee showed that he could maintain an army in Virginia even after Antietam, and his successful defensive efforts with a decimated army during the last years of the war showed that a defensive strategy could have been successful. Such a “defensive grand strategy” could have reduced Lee’s losses from his limited troops and, perhaps, changed the elections of 1864 (101). Rather than engaging in unadvisable battles which resulted in Pyrrhic victories at best, Lee could have forced northern armies to fight on his terms, perhaps neutralizing their numerical superiority.

In response to the Royster Debate, I would agree with the group that advocated Jackson as overrated and whose decisions hastened the defeat of the south. Those who mentioned his long marches and tiresome ambition particularly caught the attention of an undecided jury member, such as myself, and "hastened" my choice for their group.

Amen and Amen to Mr. Ned Daniell's representation :]
Nolan second-guessed Lee's every action from the safety of his study, but Lee was daily making life-or-death decisions, as cliche as that perhaps is. In his aggression I see a desire to move the battle away from Confederate land. If he could get his soldiers fighting on Northern soil on the offensive, morale would improve with the advancement and support from home would be buoyed as well. Lee was also smart enough to consider the social and political scene in the North in his estimations, as evidenced by the letter to his wife. That he guessed incorrectly is not a sign of bad judgement or inepitude, but rather a lack of understanding or experience with such matters in such a volatile period. He did incur heavy casualties, but in war death is necessary. And Nolan looks with great specificity and emphasis at North-South death tallies and Lee's constant call for more troops, but never does he address the return correspondence. What was he being told about more troops? Perhaps he believed that there would be replacements for his forces, that more men would join the cause. Lee was not afraid to fight, even when outnumbered. He pressed every advantage to further his cause. He attempted to turn every shortcoming or disadvantage into positive movement on the battlefield. If he constantly pushed for long enough, he could push the enemy back on its heels and take the upper hand.

(Rebel Yell) General Robert E. Lee waz thee bes' darn' tootin'...ok so a little over the top, but you get the point, that Lee was good at his job. At least one would hope so, since he was the protege to Winfield Scott, his motto of audacity won him many battles, but could not win the war. It was his personal belief that if he could win every battle there might be a chance of the South winning the war. Still he knew the problem with this strategy , and that was pure and simple numbers. Lee's strategy may have succeeded in dragging out the war, and forcing talks if he had won more battles. From Lee the American people saw first hand the strategy of "a good defense is a good offense", and how it could win a fight even with an inferior force.

Lee was completely committed to the Confederate cause, willing to give his all, to encourage his troops till the end, and determined to bring the Confederates to victory. This "idee fixe" or obsession of his allowed him to be a powerful, commanding Confederate officer. He understood that constantly being on the defensive was not good military strategy; even when he chose to be on the defense, it was with an offensive motive in mind. Lee's troops suffered considerable setbacks in comparison to the Federals, including casualties and desertions. Lee was aware of these challenges and did his best to counteract them, to keep up his men's morale. He was observant, smart, intuitive, and brave; Lee was truly one of the best Confederate commanders, maintaining a "spirit of aggression, which remained permanently his most prominent characteristic as a soldier" (89).

In Royster’s book, Stonewall Jackson is described as an “intrepid general” and “the idol of the people”. Many viewed him as the George Washington of the Confederate Revolution. Women thought he was good looking and many lined up to get his autograph. He displayed a strong sense of faith and many times he told his wife that earthly praise and recognition were only transitory compared to heavenly things. Jackson is remembered as an aggressive general who was able to unite his men and defeat the Federal troops on many occasions. His leadership and tact during the Valley Campaign won him a reputation for relentless audacity. Jackson was able to bring unity to the Confederate Army through the cohesive attacking of the Yankees. Royster goes on to say that it was ultimately his commitment to the offensive that caused his death. Stonewall Jackson was a significant leader of the Confederate cause, and enabled the Confederacy to be strengthened and achieve success in the ways it did. Many Southerners believed that if Jackson had lived, the Confederacy would have won indefinitely.

Stonewall Jackson's reputation has been greatly over exaggerated since the South's victory at Bull Run in 1861. Following the battle, newspapers all across the South began praising Jackson; this praise continued throughout the war, even past his death. However, newspaper writers and the general public were blind to his excessive ambition that ultimately cost the Confederacy the war. "Jackson's long marches and lethal battles came at the cost of great pain to his men."(72) Jackson always took the offensive throughout the war which led to exhausted troops and high casualty rates. "Emulation of Jackson's methods after his death hurt the Confederates more than it helped."(76) These offensives that Jackson launched continued past his death and did nothing to help the Confederate cause. Along with ambition, the lack of trust in his commanders was one of Jackson's flaws. Stonewall never backed down in battle, he also never backed down from his own opinion. Jackson never accepted others opinions and was never willing to accept his opinion as being wrong. His opinion of taking the offensive at Chancellorsville, despite others' suggestions, was what ended up ending his life. The ambition and the legacy of Jackson are two things that the Confederacy could have done without. These traits from Jackson ended up costing the Confederacy the war.

It would seem from this debate that the history of Stonewall might be slightly skewed. Stonewall was important to the Southern cause not because of his military prowess, but because of the reputation that preceded him. Even though there were discrepancies with the facts that have been reported that disprove the accepted belief of Stonewall being a hero. (This view is the amalgamation of all the responses in short hand.) Both sides argued well, in the end though I would have to agree team F-N because they argue that what matters is the perception of today.

Stonewall Jackson portrayed an image to the world which differed greatly from his true person. "All admire his genius and great deeds; no one could love the man for himself. He seems to be cut off from his fellow-man and to commune with his own spirit..." This hardly sounds like a man who was being considered for the future president of the Confederate States of America. Newspaper exaggerated his gradure for their own personal advancement and to provide a hero for the Confederacy. Even his wife took note of the numerous innacurate descriptions of Jackson(69). Ultimetely, people wanted Jackson to be greater than he actually was so badly, that "they wrote the history of what had not occurred in order to show that they had not judged wrong in resorting to war" Southerners tried to rationalize their defeat by looking to Jackson's supposed greatness and the subsequent loss of his leadership as a reason for defeat so they would not have to accept the truth about being outmatched by the North.

Just letting everyone know the book has been found and is at the library desk

I agree with Team 2 as to whether or not Jackson was an effective leader in the Civil War for the Confederacy. After reading the responses and arguements, I believe that under the circumstances given to Jackson and the choices that he had to make in response to those circumstances were what he thought was best. It was not his fault that people may have over-glorified him for his victories. It shows that people really cared for him and his leadership and this inspired them.

Team 3 makes the most convincing argument, against Jackson. They effectively argue that his leadership style was not effective and in most cases was detrimental to the Confederate cause.

I agree with the F-N position at this point. Even if everything Chris has stated is absolute truth (I cannot say, having not done the research myself), I think Jackson's importance was as Stephen said: "[e]very cause needs a hero." What was actually relevant for the war effort at home was the character of Stonewall Jackson, not the man's actual personality. Royston and team F-N distinguished between these two very well. McPhee wrote that the "Confederates needed a person that could symbolize the ideal soldier, and Jackson fit the bill." And further, I do not think Jackson's military leadership can be so easily discounted because he did win battles, and he did encourage aggressiveness. I do not know much about war, but it seems to me that a positive emotional and psychological attitude is at least part of any victory. Jackson did burn bright and fast, more like a firework than a steady candle flame, so it is conceivable that he would have burned out had he survived. But his contribution, as it was during his lifetime, definitely inspired the Confederate war effort, both on the home front and the battle front.