| |

J.E.B. Stuart: Battle of Gettysburg ScapegoatAmerica's Civil War | 6 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post
Initial blame for the disaster at Gettysburg was directed, naturally enough, at Lee. Texas Senator Louis T. Wigfall spoke openly of Lee’s blunder at Gettysburg and his utter want of generalship. For his part, Lee offered to resign, a pro forma offer that he knew Confederate President Jefferson Davis would refuse. Soon, however, critics zeroed in on another high-ranking general: Jeb Stuart. A well-connected Mobile newspaper correspondent based in the Confederate capital of Richmond reported that for some time back many serious charges have been made against Stuart, reflecting severely upon him. His vanity seems to have controlled all his actions, and the cavalry was used frequently to gratify his personal pride and to the detriment of the service. The reporter continued, At the Battle of Gettysburg, he was not to be found, and Gen. Lee could not get enough cavalry together to carry out his plans. Subscribe Today
Lee himself, in his mild way, complained that the movements of the army preceding the battle of Gettysburg had been much embarrassed by the absence of cavalry. To this, Stuart’s adjutant, Henry McClellan, responded: It was not the want of cavalry that General Lee bewailed, for he had enough of it had it been properly used. It was the absence of Stuart himself that he felt so keenly.
John S. Mosby, whose initial scouting report had contributed much to Stuart’s decision to go ahead with the raid, criticized Robertson for his failure to join Lee’s army quickly enough after the Union army had begun its pursuit. Stuart had ridden around General Hooker while Robertson had ridden around General Lee, Mosby said. The only thing I blame Stuart for was not having him [Robertson] shot.
The frustration of not having Stuart’s counsel, and the meager results of his raid, might have been overshadowed by a great victory at Gettysburg. The shock of defeat, however, led the South to look for scapegoats. Stuart has been criticized through the years for misinterpreting Lee’s orders, and this has caused him to receive more widespread unfavorable comments than any other commander involved in the campaign.
The raid, its failure and its impact on the operations of the Army of Northern Virginia at Gettysburg should be evaluated in three respects. First, the raid’s accomplishments must be evaluated against what was expected. Did the raid accomplish what Lee and Stuart had hoped for? Second, the raid must be appraised against the larger strategic picture. What influence, if any, did the raid have on the operations of the army? Third, was the raid a sound military movement, and if not, who should be held accountable for the consequences?
Stuart was tasked by Lee to gain information on the enemy’s movements and to damage and delay the enemy before joining Ewell in Pennsylvania. By evaluating the validity of Stuart’s claims of success in his battle report, it becomes clear that the raid was a failure in this respect. First, Stuart claimed that he caused serious loss to the enemy in men and material and spread terror and consternation to the very gates of the capital. He captured a large wagon train of supplies, but the loss only inconvenienced Hooker. By no means did it affect Union army operations. Many of the 1,000 prisoners were teamsters, garrison troops or detached cavalry, and their loss therefore had no impact on the Union Army. And although Stuart damaged telegraph lines and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, the damage was quickly repaired and the railroad between Baltimore and Washington remained intact. The panic Stuart claimed he instigated in Washington and Baltimore in no way affected Maj. Gen. George C. Meade and the Union army’s movement toward Lee.
Second, Stuart asserted that a large part of Union cavalry and the entire Union VI Corps was sent to intercept him, which prevented its participation in the first two days’ fight at Gettysburg. There is little truth to this claim. Most of the Union cavalry was already placed on the army’s flanks, and only two brigades of Brig. Gen. Irvin Gregg’s division were sent in pursuit of Stuart. The VI Corps was sent through Westminster as part of Meade’s strategy to guard his right flank against Lee, but not in response to Stuart. At any rate, the VI Corps arrived at Gettysburg late on July 2 and helped to stop the Confederate attack. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Tags: 19th Century, America's Civil War, American Civil War, Historical Conflicts, Historical Figures
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
6 Comments to “J.E.B. Stuart: Battle of Gettysburg Scapegoat”
A long article that misses the point. The first, and foremost decision in a battle is the ground upon which it is to be fought. For some reason, one must always justify Lee’s blunder. The truth is, Lee’s success prior to Gettysburg was mainly due to the strategic decisions recommended by Jackson. Check the battle history of the Confederates, pre and post Gettysburg.
Lee was a mild mannered, extreme egotist, and this was reflected at Gettysburg. Longstreet had it correct, re-deploy the army and select the ground upon which to fight. The significant battles of the Gettysburg campaign
were fought on the worst possible terrain for the Confederates, and Lee made all those battle decisions.
The question is raised: Was lee really the great general of the southern forces?
By DENNIS MILAM on Sep 17, 2008 at 6:57 am
Lee was a great General, just as their are great college football coaches. However, anytime one is a great college head coach, watch how quickly his offensive and defensive cordinators move on to be HEAD COACHES?
Lee had a “Loose” management style, undestanding that great Generals like Jackson and Longstreet performed best when NOT micromanaged, and allowed to utilize their critical thinking skills.(And prior to Gettysburg it was a perfect style.)………..Lee assumed that other Generals did not need exacts, and details as well?….But, some did……And Gettysburg was where it surfaced….On both sides, according to all military’s of the world studdying the War of Northern Agression, all are in agreement that Stonewall Jackson’s mind to military tactics, was as Einstein was to physics!…………But, Lee was still a magnificent field commander.
By roho on Jan 30, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Stuart was not the scapegoat—Custer was the hero at Gettesburg..plain and simple. Lee’s battle plan on the thrid day was wonderful–but it was spoiled by one George Armstrong Custer. The East Calvery Battelfield was the key to victory, and the North won that battle thus keeping Stuart from carrying out his mission. If Stuart could have made it into the rear of the Meade with his 5800 horsemen, then Pickett’s charge would not have been in vain. Study the battle–you will see the truth.
By albert sewell on Feb 17, 2009 at 9:26 am
General Lee’s army won battle after battle against federal troops who were led by less than stellar generals. Did General Lee get the idea his army was invincible? I tend to think so. Would the Battle of Gettysburg have a different outcome if he had listened more to his generals? I think so. The loss of General Jackson was also a factor at Gettysburg.
By Denzil Minyard on Oct 31, 2009 at 11:07 pm