Stuart JEB Stuart v. Michael Shaara

[12th Missouri Yankee]

Jeb Stuart was unmatched in his abilities and the North feared him, thus there will always be criticism aimed at his successes in battle. He was a talented man, and a pleasure to research.

 

[johnnydef47]

a trip to Gettysburg when I was young and the movie was my first impression of the war and I definitely spent a few years after believing that they were the truth and always thought little of Stuart because of it. to be truthful I thought little of Lee as well until I became more educated. the book and the movie, although I love both is very pro Longstreet

 

[diane]

It's from a lecture by Gary Gallagher where he cited an interview Michael Shaara did in talking about how he wrote the book. In a few days I may be able to post that lecture.

Edit: It took less time than I thought.

First, he talks a little bit about Killer Angels at about the 1 hour 1 minute point of this video:

And the first part of this video discusses Killer Angels. The exact reference is around the 28 minute point of this video.

One thing I noticed was Gallagher doesn't believe Gettysburg was the turning point. I've thought that for some time, for mostly the same reasons he put forth! That's a key point, if one is criticizing Stuart for the loss of that battle, to consider. You - yes, you with the plume! - you lost the turning point of the whole war! Appomattox is YOUR fault! This conveniently puts the defeat of the Confederacy at the doorstep of a man who died before the war ended and the finger-pointing began.

 

[12th Missouri Yankee]

That is an astute observation. Excellent comments Diane.

 

[DRW]

a trip to Gettysburg when I was young and the movie was my first impression of the war and I definitely spent a few years after believing that they were the truth and always thought little of Stuart because of it. to be truthful I thought little of Lee as well until I became more educated. the book and the movie, although I love both is very pro Longstreet

Isn't it ironic and kind of funny that while Longstreet was vilified in the South in his lifetime, the influence of Shaara's portrayal in Killer Angels (and the Gettysburg movie too) gave Longstreet victory over his detractors in the end? I have friends who know little about the CW but consider Longstreet a great guy or even hero. You wouldn't have seen that 30 years ago.

 

[K Hale]

But it makes a good bait!
Once Shaara has got you hooked, then you might want to know how it really was. At least that was what happened to me. Therefore, although it is not history it can lead to history.

Unfortunately, many people remain convinced that it IS history. I know, because they come to this forum and post about Gettysburg being Stuart's fault for disobeying Lee's orders and joyriding.

Shaara's vision of Stuart is BS. He did an unnecessary disservice to Stuart and to Civil War scholarship in general.

 

[alexjack]

Unfortunately, many people remain convinced that it IS history. I know, because they come to this forum and post about Gettysburg being Stuart's fault for disobeying Lee's orders and joyriding.

Shaara's vision of Stuart is BS. He did an unnecessary disservice to Stuart and to Civil War scholarship in general.

That's probably true but I suppose if you're going to write a novel as opposed to an historically correct work of reference then you're going to play a little fast and loose with the truth.

 

[Northern Light]

Just read Wittenberg and Petruzzi if you want real research. If you don't...well, what can I say, except to say again. Read the book.

I have just read this and I am going to read it again more closely. I sort of galloped through it because it was such an enjoyable read and now would like to trot through it to take in more of the details. It certainly illuminates Stuart's ride and makes sense of what otherwise seems like a question mark in Stuart's career.

 

[K Hale]

That's probably true but I suppose if you're going to write a novel as opposed to an historically correct work of reference then you're going to play a little fast and loose with the truth.

If he had to slander somebody, I wish he had made the effort to find someone who actually deserved it.

 

[diane]

If he had to slander somebody, I wish he had made the effort to find someone who actually deserved it.

A large part of the cavalry Lee did have was poorly led and disciplined - not so Stuart's. He did it himself, though! There's some dispute about whether that bawling out Stuart got from Lee actually happened but Lee was certainly sharp with him. He was more angry with himself than Stuart, I think. The presence of the captured wagons also adds fuel to the Stuart-goofed-up theme - Lee snapped that they were useless to him but later, when the ANV was high-tailing it to Virginia, all that feed came in mighty handy!

 

[Billy Yank]

It's from a lecture by Gary Gallagher where he cited an interview Michael Shaara did in talking about how he wrote the book. In a few days I may be able to post that lecture.

Edit: It took less time than I thought.

First, he talks a little bit about Killer Angels at about the 1 hour 1 minute point of this video:

And the first part of this video discusses Killer Angels. The exact reference is around the 28 minute point of this video.

Thanks for posting this, Col. Cash. Learned of "David Ireland" in Gallagher's lecture, today. I have a new project now: researching Ireland.

 

[MRB1863]

He went to Carlisle for a good reason.

His original orders told him that Early would be operating in the vicinity of York, and that the other two divisions of Ewell's Corps would advance on Harrisburg. When Early got to York and found that Early had already left, the logical step was then to go to Carlisle in the hope of finding the rest of Ewell's Corps. Instead, he found Union troops there. It was in an effort to obey the orders he was given.

And, if you read those orders very carefully and then follow Stuart's march, I can make a very strong argument that he obeyed those orders to the letter.

Eric,
Agree 100% with your post. Was merely speculating on Stuart's thoughts. Speculation not based on the facts, just my opinion. I've been studying Stuart's role in the Gettysburg campaign and agree he did follow Lee's orders and was a great leader. Thanks for keeping this subject on the fact tract!

 

[rickvox79]

For all it's fault, I will have to be someone that defends the movie Gettysburg. My first brush with the Civil War was when I was probably 6 or 7 and I grew up interested in history (WW2 especially when I was younger). I was still a young teen (14) when Gettysburg came out and so the visual representation was huge for me. Now that doesn't mean that it is all accurate obviously, but it was something that helped stoke my interest in the Civil War. Of course, the only problem is does it drive you into wanting to learn more from more accurate sources like books? Or do you just watch it and take everything as face value without doing more extensive research.

For me it drove me to want to learn more by reading multiple books and studying the battle in more detail. But for others they may just take it as the gospel truth because it is on their TV. But I will always enjoy the movie personally, inaccuracies aside.

 

[Elennsar]

My main problem with the wagons as a convert - I think Stuart chose to take them a day or so longer than they may have been beneficial for him and his pace.

It made sense in the context of the rest of his orders, but it was a choice of if they were getting in the way or fulfilling what he was out to do - and he choose a route that meant putting up with their encumbrance.

But that's hardly grounds for anything other than comparison - calling it grounds for censure is a sign of looking for things to fault, and Stuart deserves better.

If you want to rip him a new one, do it for not hanging Robertson - Robertson managed to find a way to be as disappointing as possible despite having orders a child could have understood.