The Longstreet-Gettysburg Controversy

You can quote a book but what do you have to knowingly advance the conversation? Just a book you haven't read.

Truly my last words on the topic of Stuart

1. What I have to knowingly advance the conversation by dint of book quotes is proof -- primary source. Irrefutable evidence to a point of view. Try it. It silences the opposition at times.

2. I have read the book, discussed its contents with the author at length, and written much in the way of correspondence on the topic with others. Perhaps you should pause a bit before making unsubstantiated claims.
 
Even though I have been critical of Longstreet the onus is in the end on Lee as army commander. There is nothing to suggest that defeat at Gettysburg would destroy the AOP or lead the US to throw in the towel. Nor is there any evidence that CS victory at Gettysburg would have resulted in British, French diplomatic recognition.
A victory, possibly even minor, would likely have alarmed the northern populous and the politicians in Washington. The 1864 elections were around the corner.
 
1. What I have to knowingly advance the conversation by dint of book quotes is proof -- primary source. Irrefutable evidence to a point of view. Try it. It silences the opposition at times.
Lee's orders then would be irrefutable evidence to a point of view? Not just a point of view? I'm sorry. What is your position on this?
 
Lee's orders then would be irrefutable evidence to a point of view? Not just a point of view? I'm sorry. What is your position on this?

1. Stuart followed orders
2. Cavalry was available to Lee
3. The remaining cavalry had directives from Stuart that were not fully fulfilled
3. Lee chose not to use the available cavalry

Done. Other things to do, now.
 
Well no. You said there was no cavalry there. And there was, the quality is ambiguous. Stuart moved upon lee's orders. Everything is according to plan. So far. And the route stuart takes is known to him. He made the same route the previous october but in the oposite direction.

I never said that Lee had no cavalry available. My issue was with the quality not quantity. The quality matters because that impacts Lee's decisions how to use them.
 
I never said that Lee had no cavalry available. My issue was with the quality not quantity. The quality matters because that impacts Lee's decisions how to use them.
I think Lee used the Cavalry at his disposal wisely considering their capabilities. Remember we are talking about Beverly Robertson here!
 
That was the big problem. There's a reason why Robertson was relieved of command just after Gettysburg. Stuart has to share some of the blame for that.

Ryan

Looking back with hindsight, Stuart could have left Hampton in command of those forces. He would have had a highly capable, energetic officer in charge of the cavalry remaining with Lee.
 
Looking back with hindsight, Stuart could have left Hampton in command of those forces. He would have had a highly capable, energetic officer in charge of the cavalry remaining with Lee.
Again the Virginians. What two brigades did Stuart leave with Robertson in command? North Carolinians.

Edit: Correction: What two Regiments did Robertson command during the Gettysburg campaign? North Carolinians!
 
Looking back with hindsight, Stuart could have left Hampton in command of those forces. He would have had a highly capable, energetic officer in charge of the cavalry remaining with Lee.
I still feel Stuart could have left Lee with better cavalry leadership. He left his baggage!
 
Back
Top