The Library of Virginia published a history several years ago about the erection of the statue of Stonewall Jackson that still stands on the grounds of the Virginia state capitol in Richmond. The statue was funded by British admirers of Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. They actually began fundraising soon after Jackson’s death in 1863. The Library of Virginia account looks at the interesting history of the British effort to raise money for a statue during the Civil War, the creation of the monument, and why it was not actually erected until twelve years later, but what I found most interesting was the participation of Confederate General Jubal Early in the dedication ceremony.
Early was an important figure in Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. He commanded troops under Stonewall Jackson and later he commanded the Second Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia. In 1864, Early was given command of the small Army of the Valley and after several victories in the Shenandoah Valley, he launched his ill-fated attack on Washington, D.C. After the Confederate defeat, Early became one of the architects of the Lost Cause narrative of the Civil War. 21st Century versions of the Lost Cause, which venerates Confederate leaders and identifies them as the the defenders of state and individual rights, owe much of their worldview to the work done by General Early in the decades after the war. He helped craft the revisionist narrative and he excoriated those who deviated from it. In 1873 he was elected the president of the Southern Historical Society, a leading guardian of the Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War.
The Jackson statue arrived in Richmond from England on September 22, 1875 at 21st and Dock Streets. The next day it was dragged by 300 men to the Capitol. The formal unveiling was set for October 26. Before the unveiling, Jubal Early wrote to Virginia Governor James Kemper to complain that he had read that troops from Black militia companies had been invited to participate in in the unveiling. He told Kemper that having African American troops present was “an indignity to the memory of Jackson and an insult to all Confederates who shall attend the inauguration of the statue, and in fact to all who cannot attend.” Early threatened to boycott the ceremony if Black troops were participants, writing “the sun shall not shine on me in Richmond on the day when such an outrage shall be committed.” Early also predicted that if Black soldiers marched in the ceremony, a large number of African American civilians would attend to see the companies from their community parade in Richmond. Governor Kemper was a former Confederate general and a founder of Virginia’s Conservative Party. Early was a prominent Kemper supporter when Kemper was elected governor, ending Reconstruction in the state.
Others joined in the criticism of Black participation in the ceremony. The Lynchburg Virginian newspaper said that former Confederates should remember that the same Black militia companies that would be at the unveiling, “insult them by parade and banners on every anniversary…of the Emancipation Proclamation.” Black troops did not participate in the unveiling.
Note: The Library of Virginia has posted photos of the original documents cited in this article.
Follow Reconstruction Blog on Social Media:
Alright! THIS is one of THE most glaring examples of how Jubal Early, as an individual historian and who might arguably be called the ‘Founder of the Lost Cause School of Historical Studies about the American Civil War/War Between The States’, (the equivalent to Donald Creighton in the Laurentian Thesis and/or Patrick Wolfe in Settler Colonialism), deliberately changed and manipulated the occurrence and connections of the historical events from the writing of it and celebration of culture.
Early was overall a brave and skilled Officer in the war. In short, no matter the various flaws and limits of the historiography he crafted, the fact that he did this, in addition to documenting so much primary and secondary evidence, was itself a heuristic contribution to scholarship.
But this post shows how he deliberately posed HIMSELF as the prism through which to view historical figures, events, etc. And his goal in doing this was his self-accumulation of POWER, (the ability to influence others, outcomes, etc). His arguments inherent in the tenets of the LC thesis have at least some merit, (again in short, for the sake of brevity herein), but this example of Jackson’s statue shows how he would flat out lie/deny the actual history that he had personally either witnessed or was informed about!
Early KNEW as good or better than anyone of the 1862 Confederate Emancipation Treaty attempt! And same of the 1864 Duncan F. Kenner Mission! It’s clear that he never supported ending slavery, or advancing the civil rights of Black Americans, which a number, (by no means all), of the very figures he venerated came to support!
Jackson’s support of education for Black Americans, in defiance of Virginia state law, is so well known, nothing more about it need be said. It is true that a fair measure of the support of Black American education in the pre-war South made use of literature that espoused White Supremacy, but there is no evidence that Jackson did this. And education was a power that could not be constrained; once Black Americans gained literacy, no matter the means by which, this ability could not be controlled. Jackson knew this better than anyone, as after teaching one of his Uncle Cummings Jackson’s slaves to read as a youth, that slave used the newly gained literacy to run away soon after! Jackson knew what he was doing and that literacy was destructive to slavery. He also defied American culture, (particularly that of the South), by publicly treating Black Americans with the same courtesy as he did White Americans, (addressing them as ‘Mr’, ‘Mrs’., ‘Ma’am’, etc, etc), and shaking hands with them.
Jackson also owned several slaves, at war’s start he made some public statements in defense of slavery and his Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia forcibly impressed Black Americans into bondage in areas such as Harper’s Ferry and Maryland and these were conveyed back into the CSA for sale.
However, his experiences in the war evoked a change in his outlook; according to the memoirs of his surgeon, Hunter Holmes Maguire, Jackson came to be open to Emancipationism, feeling that freeing of slaves was the path consistent with the formal Christian that defined his very existence.
Likewise, of Robert E. Lee, I pose the question: Why, exactly, did Early hagiograph and deify him? A: So he would never actually have to DO anything that Lee advocated or exemplified. The context of Early’s sentiments above and elsewhere about slavery and his total refusal to adopt a more progressive outlook about Black Americans can not be reconciled with what the evidence reveals about The Gray Fox! Any reading of such evidences as Lee’s advocacy of education for Black Americans, his support Black American suffrage in the same terms as Abraham Lincoln, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and Oliver O. Howard, his changed and much more progressive views about Black Americans as present in his 27 and 29 March 1865 orders to Richard Ewell and the fact he was willing to personally lead ‘would-have-been’ national Black Confederate troops into battle destroy any legitimacy that Early would claim to reflect the character and views of Lee!
This was so much the case that 15 years later at the 29 May 1890 unveiling of the Lee Monument in Richmond, Virginia, Early could not even attempt to put the same sentiments forth. Not only were Black Americans part of the work crew that set Lee’s statue in place, not only were Lee’s anti-slavery views an important theme in the various speeches, not only were Black Americans in the crowds cheering, Black Americans took an active role in the day’s ceremonies by appearing as re-enactors in a mock battle, apparently as USCT figures.
(Please to note: I am have no interest or intention towards arguing about the existence or non-existence in any way/shape/form of Black Confederates whatsoever at this time.)
From all discernible evidence that I have examined, and the meaning from it gleaned that I can, I can only see Early’s stance above as a dishonoring to Jackson and the promulgation of his own racism over the more progressive views that his contemporaries like Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, James Longstreet, Felix Brannigan, Robert E. Lee, William T. Sherman and even Alexander Stephens came to embrace, albeit all imperfectly, but still heroically.
In short, Early’s main interest was in using history to legitimise and spread his own emotional nationalism!
Anyone who wants a great newspaper clipping of when after the war he was confronted by James Longstreet in person about the demonisation that Early was depicting ‘Old Pete’ with and how Early tucked tail and ran, simply ask me.
Outstanding! Thank you for a great summation.
I agree, The Admin did a great job on the above post. Good information.