I had the pleasure and quite good fortune of speaking at an event in Ashville, Alabama on Saturday, 8th February, 2025. Here's a recap of the lecture I gave and the very neat place in which I gave it:
Attending Lodge:
I was invited to attend the 28th Annual Lee / Jackson Banquet held at the Ashville Historic Masonic Lodge Building, Lodge Number 186 of the Free and Accepted Masons of the Grand Lodge of Alabama. This particular structure predates the American Civil War and was constructed in 1858. The structure, interestingly enough, has been moved three times since its original construction and currently sits to the rear of the Inzer House on Lot # 61 of the original survey map of the city of Ashville. Its original use saw the first or lower floor utilized by the local Methodist Church congregation and the second or upper floor used by the Masonic Lodge. The Lodge operated from this structure until building another structure and relocating to it in 1885. As a Free Mason myself, I found the building to be quite unique and was honored to have an opportunity to give a lecture at this historical place.
Invitation to Lecture & Lecture:
I was contacted by the local Chapter of Sons of Confederate Veterans to speak on the partnership between Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson. I was very grateful for the opportunity to speak on this topic and very much enjoyed the wonderful hospitality shown to me by the members of Camp 308.
The lecture I gave was mostly centric of the manner in which both Lee and Jackson utilized aspects of Niccolo Machiavelli’s teachings within “The Prince,” which specifically entails interesting advice for those in leadership positions. There are many instances of this advice within the leadership exhibited by both men throughout the conflict. I endeavored to present an argument that is complimentary of examples in which I have found evidence of this connection and how it has impacted each man’s leadership and service to the Confederate States of America.
I began with an introduction to both generals and gave a brief overview of their backgrounds, beginning with Lee’s tenure at West Point and his family lineage, his distinguished service as a young military engineer in the Mexican-American War, as well as strong ties to his native Virginia. I also mentioned his initial hesitation to join the Confederacy until the Commonwealth of Virginia had considered and adopted an ordinance of succession. I further elaborated on his particular role in the service of the Confederate States of America from his assumption of command of the Army of Northern Virginia in June of 1862 from General Joeseph E. Johnston. I also spoke about his calm demeanor, his strategic patience, and his ability to inspire his soldiers; further, how he excelled in defensive warfare and was quite willing to take calculated risks (Ex. Chancellorsville, Gettysburg). I additionally spoke about his leadership style and how he delegated quite effectively, trusted his subordinates, and sought their counsel often; further, how he preferred to maneuver rather than to directly engage in attritional warfare, whenever advantageous and possible. I also spoke to how Lee was the embodiment of the “Southern Gentleman” in the manner with which he purported himself, and how he carried the respect of others, inclusive of his enemies.
I followed my remarks on General Lee with remarks regarding General Jackson. I spoke about his background as a West Point graduate, finishing 17th in his class, followed by his service in the Mexican-American War, and later became a professor of artillery at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). I also spoke about how he earned his famed moniker “Stonewall” at First Manassas in July of 1861 when Brigader General Bernard Bee reportedly shouted, “There’s Jackson standing like a stone wall!” I additionally spoke about the manner in which he conducted the Shenandoah Valley Campaign, in which he defeated three separate Union armies through rapid movements and deception. Additionally, I spoke to Jackson’s becoming Lee’s most trusted corps commander in his commanding of the Second Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia. I continued with remarks on his leadership style, in which he was devoutly religious and considered the war to be a divine mission. Further, he was quite secretive and rarely shared his intentions with his own staff. As a commander, he was aggressive and fast-moving, earning a reputation as a relentless attacker and as an officer who demanded absolute discipline from his men but also inspired immense loyalty among them.
When making a comparison between the two and how they connect to the teachings of Machiavelli, I suggested that they were quite representative of his assertions that a leader should be feared and loved, with fear being reserved for priority over that of being loved. Lee was widely respected, while Jackson instilled fear in both his enemies and sometimes his own men due to his unpredictability. Further, Machiavelli praised rulers who could adapt quickly and exploit their enemy’s weaknesses. Both Lee and Jackson were masterful in their manipulation of the enemy, specifically in their ability to use deception to draw the enemy into unfavorable terms of battle. Another example of their connection to Machiavelli may be found in examples such as the Battle of Chancellorsville, in which Lee and Jackson utilized great risk by effectively splitting their forces in the face of a numerically superior enemy. This particular action hinged on bold risk-taking and a very swift flank maneuver against the enemy’s left. This is relevant given Machiavelli’s praise of leaders who could effectively seize opportunities of which he referred to as “Fortuna.” Jackson’s speed and cunning are representative of the “fox,” while Lee’s calculated aggression represents that of the “Lion.” Each complemented the other as Jackson could effectively read and understand the orders and strategy of Lee and could then follow up with quick and decisive actions, which most often led to very favorable outcomes for the Army of Northern Virginia (Machiavelli, 2003).
In summation, I spoke to Machiavelli’s take on Viritu, as being representative of skill and decisiveness, which is represented by Jackson’s speed and surprise and Lee’s ability to inspire trust and to delegate to his subordinates. Fortuna represents luck and circumstance, which can be compared with Jackson’s early success (Shenandoah Valley Campaign) and Lee’s rise to command after Johnston’s relief from command. Machiavelli further emphasized that great leaders shape their own fate rather than being ruled by luck; Lee and Jackson exemplified this through their adaptability in war (Machiavelli, 2003).
I very much enjoyed the opportunity to speak with the members of Camp # 308 and to share some of the reading and research that I have done on this topic. They were a wonderful audience.
Machiavelli, N. (2003). The prince (G. Bull, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1532).
Display at the event:
For the event, I set up a display of items that I have collected, some of which I use in my educational presentations.
This display was inclusive of an Officer's Frock; Richmond Depot - Type 2 - Shell; an Officer's Mcdowel Brimmed Bummer; an original Springfield Bayonet (Dug); a cannonball (Dug from Cassville, GA); canister shot (Dug from Chickamauga area); Field Glasses (recovered from Chickamauga area); 1864 issue Hardee Guard Flag; Army of Tennessee 2nd issue Wool Bunton Flag; and two original muskets, Standing: 1864 Tower - British Patterned Enfield - Atlanta Campaign, Army of Tennessee; Laid down: 1864 Bridesburg Contract Rifle - Carried by a soldier in the 117th Pennsylvania.
תגובות