Such Troops as These: The Genius and Leadership of Confederate General Stonewall Jackson

by Bevin Alexander

Acclaimed military historian Bevin Alexander offers a provocative analysis of Stonewall Jackson’s military genius and reveals how the Civil War might have ended differently if Jackson’s strategies had been adopted.

The Civil War pitted the industrial North against the agricultural South, and remains one of the most catastrophic conflicts in American history. With triple the population and eleven times the industry, the Union had a decided advantage over the Confederacy. But one general had a vision that could win the War for the South—Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson.

Jackson believed invading the eastern states from Baltimore to Maine could divide and cripple the Union, forcing surrender, but failed to convince Confederate president Jefferson Davis or General Robert E. Lee.

In Such Troops as These , Bevin Alexander presents a compelling case for Jackson as the greatest general in American history. Fiercely dedicated to the cause of Southern independence, Jackson would not live to see the end of the War. But his military legacy lives on and finds fitting tribute in this book.

Genres: Civil War, History, Military History

336 pages, Paperback

First published September 2, 2014

About the author

Bevin Alexander is an American military historian and author. He served as an officer during the Korean War as part of the 5th Historical Detachment. His book Korea: The First War We Lost was largely influenced by his experiences during the war.

Bevin has served as a consultant and adviser to several groups due to his military expertise, including work for the Rand Corporation, work as a consultant for military simulations instituted by the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, and as director of information at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia. .

He was formerly on the president’s staff as director of information at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va., and is a retired adjunct professor of history at Longwood University, in Farmville, Virginia.

Reviews

[Todd Kiger · Rating 1 out of 5]

Over the past few years I’ve read a great many books, mostly historical in nature. I’ve never had to force myself to finish a book like I did with Bevin Alexander’s book on Stonewall Jackson. Let me clarify by stating I grew up approximately 15 miles from Jackson’s birth place and currently reside (for over 20 years) in his hometown of Clarksburg, WV; I pass his statue daily and I take pride in his intelligence and military acumen. But this book was difficult to read. It’s almost as if Alexander wrote this with a feeling that he wished the Confederacy would have won the war. He bogs you down in minute details of each conflict to the point it’s unclear who is on which side. There was not sufficient detail on Stonewall and too much on the author attempting to showcase HIS military prowess and research of war maneuvers. I was left feeling cheated on the details of Jackson and his life.

[Doug · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bevin Alexander clearly tells you where he is going in Such Troops as These when he dubs Stonewall Jackson, " ...by far the greatest general ever produced by the American people" in the second sentence of the introduction. He spend pretty much the rest of the book making his point. He makes a good case for Jackson being the most capable general on either side during the Civil War. Alexander has very few kind words for any other general. One is used to McClellan, Burnside, Pope, Beauregard, Johnston et al getting bad press, but the vitriol directed at Robert E. Lee was a little surprising to me (even though his actions at Gettysburg probably lost the war for the South). He claims that on not less than four separate occasions the South could have won the war in one fell swoop if the leadership had adopted Jackson's strategic and tactical concepts. This seems to me somewhat problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is his continued assertion that a mistake on the part of even one subordinate can subvert the plans of even the best general. On numerous occasions Alexander uses hindsight to be critical of the actions of many leaders and to predict the probable success of Jackson's methods. Gee, knowing what I know now, I could have defeated Wellington at Waterloo. What did I get from this book? - a profound sense of sadness that so many thousands of brave soldiers on both sides died because of the ineptitude of their leaders.

[Evan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read "Rebel Yell" and was fascinated with the life of and the individual Stonewall Jackson. That book is an incredibly interesting biography of Jackson. This book is about military tactics and strategy. It portrays Jackson's genius in terms not discussed in Rebel Yell. I found the details of Jackson's strategy and the ensuing battles extremely engaging. I think I can sum up the overall tone of the book with the last paragraph:

"The Army of Northern Virginia was one of the most tireless, indomitable, and heroic armies in the history of the world. It possessed in a corps commander one of the supreme military geniuses of all time, Stonewall Jackson. But its senior commander, Robert E. Lee, was a second rate individual. With this deadweight holding it down, the army was unable to ascend to glory. The cause this army represented was finally lost by Lee at Gettysburg."

Jackson does seem like a military genius to me. I would love for him to have faced Sherman in the west to test his ability. I think against an actual capable commander, like Sherman, Jackson may not have had the success he did against the idiots in the Eastern campaigns.

[David Timma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent look at the role Jackson played in the war, not very flattering in its portrayal of Lee...

[Holly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sheer brilliance. I'm speechless.

[William Ginn · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book can be summed up as this - Jackson was a genius. Lee was an idiot. Longstreet was an idiot. Jefferson Davis was an idiot. Abraham Lincoln was an idiot. Meade was an idiot. McClellan was an idiot. Hooker was an idiot. Burnside admitted he was an idiot, and he was right.

She sheer amount of Monday morning quarterbacking of battles and encounters - phrased as: "if only the South had done X (usually following Jackson's advice), then they would have won the war" - is stunning.

The only reason I didn't give this 1 star is that there is some good writing, and descriptions of the battles in it. The analysis is all done with hindsight, and completely ignores the fog of war that existed during the American Civil War. The author assumes that everyone (except Jackson) has perfect knowledge and doesn't know better.

I just wonder what Robert E. Lee did to the author to hurt him so badly.

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

This wasn't the book on Stonewall Jackson I was intending to purchase, but it was extremely interesting and informative. Alexander makes a compelling case for Jackson being the only Confederate general that actually understood warfare (only to have everybody ignore his ideas). Alexander paints a scathing picture of Lee, however: "The army was commanded by an officer who had demonstrated that he was irresponsible, indifferent to protecting the lives of his soldiers, and incapable of absorbing the most basic rules of warfare. He had learned nothing from Stonewall Jackson."

[Joseph · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good analysis of Jackson's generalship. A bit critical of Robert E. Lee, so Lee aficionados might not agree with Alexander's conclusions. The book has a basic overview of the campaigns Jackson fought, along with several vignettes of Jackson interacting with his troops. Alexander ties in some of the great battles of history, and how Confederate leadership could have responded to similar situations faced by the Confederacy. Overall, a concise study that pulls no punches.

[David Sims · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the best - not the worse . However it is true that Lee is overrated and Jefferson Davis no match for Lincoln. Weakest part of the book is that Alexander fails to convey the charisma of Jackson who could make the tough decisions because of it.

[Jay Guffey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Learned so much about stonewall jackson that I never knew

[Roger Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unlike many historians, Alexander makes his bias about Jackson very clear on the first page and works very hard for the rest of the book to prove that Jackson was the best general on the Confederate side. He points out on numerous occasions that if Lee had only listened to Stonewall, the Rebels would have won many more great victories and forced the Union to sue for peace. Most historians however still believe that Lee was the greatest general produced by the South and his leadership kept the Southern cause alive for 4 long years. The author does present some very clear descriptions of the many battles in which Jackson played a role and he does provide interesting background about Stonewall's private life as well. For this reason, it is well worth reading!!

[Tom Lange · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great read. My prospective of the American Civil War has been altered. I knew that Jackson was an excellent and highly praised General. I also knew that the war was riddled with not so great Generals. What I did not really understand completely until this book is how some other highly praised Generals made very unwise choices that most likely got many many people killed that did not have too and the war could have been over very quickly without such tragic losses. It makes you wonder if that would have been a good thing just the same. What would have happened if the South won quickly? Not exaclty a great ending either, but it still makes you think about how many lives were just thrown away with no regard. I just take a star (maybe 1.5) away for minor issues. I have had my fill of those trying to rewrite history and explain how the civil war was not REALLY about slavery. BLAH BLAH BLAH. The other is the awkward way his man crush for Jackson comes out over and over. Once the facts are on the table as well as he laid them out, there was no need for him to beat that drum so hard. We get it.

[Zachary · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is not so much a biography of Jackson or an analysis of his style of command or tactical genius so much as a chance for the author to identify all he thinks the generals of the time should have done with Jackson. As such, he takes every opportunity to credit to Jackson hind sight he did not have and understanding of how to fight and win battles based on later assessments, and, most of all the author's own ideas. Indeed, much of the book is typical retelling of battles, interspersed with innumerable counterfactuals in which the pertinent jonbar hinges would have always been "had they listened to Jackson". I am sure the author has a solid understanding of the subject, and I am sure he is right in many places, but it doesn't make for an interesting, edifying, or enjoyable reading experience. This is all the more so because Alexander clearly hold most everyone involved in the Civil War save for Jackson in contempt. There is a fine book that can be written about Jackson's genius and leadership, but this is not it.

[Rob McFarren · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book which presented an alternative narrative on Southern leadership in the Civil War. Well researched, this chronicle of the war through the actions and plans of Jackson is interesting. The tactical and operational aspects of this book were great. However, some of the strategic analysis on what Jackson thought would win the war seemed lacking and actually was a bit naive, in my opinion, of actually ending the war with movement. The entire Western theater is ignored, as is any potential and hypothetical response by the North to those proposed actions by Jackson. Still, the book was thought provoking and a different take on the leadership of the Confederacy.

[Mitchell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bevin Alexander brilliantly explains in depth how Stonewall Jackson led and maneuvered his troops. With the moment since Thomas was born to the tragic accident at Chancellorsville where he was shot down by his own men. This truly a beautiful master peace with facts flying at you from every corner.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

If Jackson's military and political leaders had listened, Jackson's tactics could have saved tens of thousands of lives on both sides of the conflict. The lessons learned then may have prevented the loss of hundreds of thousands in the senseless direct frontal assaults of World War I.

[Madison · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alexander does an excellent job of highlighting Jackson's wizardry.

[Eddie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow. I knew Jackson could of change outcomes in many of the Civil War battles if they would of put him in charged. The same backwards thinking in the South which caused the war also lost it.