Comments on: J.E.B. Stuart: Battle of Gettysburg Scapegoat http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-battle-of-gettysburg-scapegoat.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=jeb-stuart-battle-of-gettysburg-scapegoat From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:24:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: jim mitchell http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-battle-of-gettysburg-scapegoat.htm#comment-733265 jim mitchell Sun, 04 Sep 2011 17:30:30 +0000 #comment-733265 I also would like to know more about a semmingly total break-down of stuarts calvary agints custers inferior force,? it seems tome that there was a lack of command and control,and subordinate leaders to take control on the battle field I also would like to know more about a semmingly total break-down of stuarts calvary agints custers inferior force,? it seems tome that there was a lack of command and control,and subordinate leaders to take control on the battle field

]]> By: Gary Rowe http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-battle-of-gettysburg-scapegoat.htm#comment-600070 Gary Rowe Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:31:29 +0000 #comment-600070 That's the way I see it also. That's the way I see it also.

]]> By: DRL http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-battle-of-gettysburg-scapegoat.htm#comment-579670 DRL Tue, 31 May 2011 03:19:34 +0000 #comment-579670 I'm also concerned what JEB was thinking when he confronted Custer on July 3 rd. Wasn't he (JEB) supposed to attect the Yankees from the rear ? Didn't Custer route JEB with an inferior force ? It seemed everything went wrong for G. Lee on that day !!! I'm also concerned what JEB was thinking when he confronted Custer on July 3 rd. Wasn't he (JEB) supposed to attect the Yankees from the rear ? Didn't Custer route JEB with an inferior force ? It seemed everything went wrong for G. Lee on that day !!!

]]> By: buff http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-battle-of-gettysburg-scapegoat.htm#comment-579120 buff Mon, 30 May 2011 20:01:39 +0000 #comment-579120 just a comment: 1. 10 of lee's 15 highest ranking generals (not excluding lee) had poor performances in different degrees of severity. hard to win a ballgame when 2/3 of your heavy hitters are having a bad day 2.you'll see in southern memoirs the reference to lee's position as "the absurity of our position" true--lee's smaller army stretched out almost 6 miles which gives him approx. 11,000 troops per mile and about 40 pieces of artillery---to meade's larger army not only controlling the heights but concentrated into about 3 miles for approx 27,000+ troops per mile and 100 pieces of artillery and lee is thinking about making a completely obsolete "frontal assault" against two VERY modern terms of the civil war--entrenched infantry supported by artillery "en-mass". 3. as i read lee's orders to stuart--if stuart reached haymarket and "encountered a hindrance" rejoin the army, screening it's movement and join up with the 2nd corps. he certainly encountered a "hindrance" as hancock's 2nd porps blocked his way and they exchanged fire for a time. 4.here's something to think about!! in sept when charles marshall and lee sat down to write out a rought draft of the battle to go to congress/archives, lee kept the final copy and gave it back to marshall on jan 1st. marshall completed it and sent it in on the 6th but in his memoirs he states something amazing; "all the injurious statements had been stricken out" giving the impression that lee must have really aired-it-out or teed-off on some people--there were certainly bad performances all around. but apparently he decided to take the entire blame on himself---"i thought my army invincible"--"i probably asked my troops to do what was not possible" BUT there was one reprimand in the report that was a strong one in lee's subtle and controlled way---'the army's movement were greatly embarrassed by the absence of cavalry". in the 1950 eisenhower and field marshall montgomery west over the battle of gettesburg--both agreed that lee should have listened to longstreet. just a comment:
1. 10 of lee's 15 highest ranking generals (not excluding lee) had poor performances in different degrees of severity. hard to win a ballgame when 2/3 of your heavy hitters are having a bad day
2.you'll see in southern memoirs the reference to lee's position as "the absurity of our position" true–lee's smaller army stretched out almost 6 miles which gives him approx. 11,000 troops per mile and about 40 pieces of artillery—to meade's larger army not only controlling the heights but concentrated into about 3 miles for approx 27,000+ troops per mile and 100 pieces of artillery and lee is thinking about making a completely obsolete "frontal assault" against two VERY modern terms of the civil war–entrenched infantry supported by artillery "en-mass".
3. as i read lee's orders to stuart–if stuart reached haymarket and "encountered a hindrance" rejoin the army, screening it's movement and join up with the 2nd corps. he certainly encountered a "hindrance" as hancock's 2nd porps blocked his way and they exchanged fire for a time.
4.here's something to think about!! in sept when charles marshall and lee sat down to write out a rought draft of the battle to go to congress/archives, lee kept the final copy and gave it back to marshall on jan 1st. marshall completed it and sent it in on the 6th but in his memoirs he states something amazing; "all the injurious statements had been stricken out" giving the impression that lee must have really aired-it-out or teed-off on some people–there were certainly bad performances all around. but apparently he decided to take the entire blame on himself—"i thought my army invincible"–"i probably asked my troops to do what was not possible" BUT there was one reprimand in the report that was a strong one in lee's subtle and controlled way—'the army's movement were greatly embarrassed by the absence of cavalry". in the 1950 eisenhower and field marshall montgomery west over the battle of gettesburg–both agreed that lee should have listened to longstreet.

]]> By: Mike http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-battle-of-gettysburg-scapegoat.htm#comment-568535 Mike Sat, 21 May 2011 15:53:24 +0000 #comment-568535 This a good question. I am not an authority but I will comment as follows: In order to control the Missippi, the South would have wanted to begin with New Orleans. The city was in Union hands for most of the war. Diverting the necessary resources to re-take New Orleans would likely not have been wise as all other fronts would have been weakened. Secondly, in order to take control of the river a fleet of boats and ships would have been required, assets the South did not have. This a good question. I am not an authority but I will comment as follows:

In order to control the Missippi, the South would have wanted to begin with New Orleans. The city was in Union hands for most of the war. Diverting the necessary resources to re-take New Orleans would likely not have been wise as all other fronts would have been weakened.

Secondly, in order to take control of the river a fleet of boats and ships would have been required, assets the South did not have.

]]> By: sebaSTIAN PESKIND http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-battle-of-gettysburg-scapegoat.htm#comment-285131 sebaSTIAN PESKIND Thu, 27 May 2010 16:27:04 +0000 #comment-285131 this article though it is well written does not fully enclose the m,any things that happened at Gettysburg and led to the defeat of the Confederate army. Though JEB Stuart was partly accountable for the loss at Gettysburg the real cause of defeat was lack of communication between generals and a misacurrate reading of unioun troops in the surrounding area. I also have a question why didnt the confeds use the Missisipi or at least fight for it? It was vital for transportation of munitions, like where there was too much cattle in texas but no one could figure out the way to get it to the hungry mouths of the Army of Northern Virginia so I cant understand why the COnfederate didnt launch a full scale attack on controlling the Missisipi and reversing the Anaconda plan and preventing the invasion of the South? btw there needs to be a good civil war video game this article though it is well written does not fully enclose the m,any things that happened at Gettysburg and led to the defeat of the Confederate army. Though JEB Stuart was partly accountable for the loss at Gettysburg the real cause of defeat was lack of communication between generals and a misacurrate reading of unioun troops in the surrounding area. I also have a question why didnt the confeds use the Missisipi or at least fight for it? It was vital for transportation of munitions, like where there was too much cattle in texas but no one could figure out the way to get it to the hungry mouths of the Army of Northern Virginia so I cant understand why the COnfederate didnt launch a full scale attack on controlling the Missisipi and reversing the Anaconda plan and preventing the invasion of the South? btw there needs to be a good civil war video game

]]> By: max http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-battle-of-gettysburg-scapegoat.htm#comment-281633 max Fri, 21 May 2010 15:46:21 +0000 #comment-281633 jeb stuart has a funny name jeb stuart has a funny name

]]> By: Don http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-battle-of-gettysburg-scapegoat.htm#comment-275990 Don Sat, 15 May 2010 09:24:25 +0000 #comment-275990 I might add, the Souths best General was Nathan Bedford Forrest, on account he is currently considered the father of contemporary gorilla tactics. The other Generals were lost in Ancient History. I might add, the Souths best General was Nathan Bedford Forrest, on account he is currently considered the father of contemporary gorilla tactics.

The other Generals were lost in Ancient History.

]]> By: Don http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-battle-of-gettysburg-scapegoat.htm#comment-275976 Don Sat, 15 May 2010 09:05:16 +0000 #comment-275976 I'm probably confused here, as I was not there. But I have long felt that had Stuart hit the ridge from the rear, just as Picket's men got within grape range or musket range, the ridge line would have split. At the Gettysburg park, now, there is criticism of the South's Cannon overshooting the Union line. To me that hints that the entire battle relied on Stuart hitting the line from the rear, at just the right moment and the Souths cannon fire was most determined to soften things up for Stuart. Ah well, the Union was destined to win anyway. The Aristocracy of the south was sure to go. I'm probably confused here, as I was not there. But I have long felt that had Stuart hit the ridge from the rear, just as Picket's men got within grape range or musket range, the ridge line would have split.

At the Gettysburg park, now, there is criticism of the South's Cannon overshooting the Union line. To me that hints that the entire battle relied on Stuart hitting the line from the rear, at just the right moment and the Souths cannon fire was most determined to soften things up for Stuart.

Ah well, the Union was destined to win anyway. The Aristocracy of the south was sure to go.

]]> By: Nicholas http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-battle-of-gettysburg-scapegoat.htm#comment-275320 Nicholas Fri, 14 May 2010 16:52:43 +0000 #comment-275320 Great article ( : Great article ( :

]]>