NF Best Books on J. E. B. Stuart?

[JulieWeathers]

Col. J.E. B. Stuart IV said the John Thomason's biography was best because he was a military-trained man as opposed to an acedemician.

I don't dismiss books because they are old. I hold Mosby's memoir in high regard because he cited so many references to events. You could tell he was a lawyer with meticulous detail. That coupled with interesting stories made it a good read and well worth going down the rabbit hole chasing the references he cited.

 

[Juliet]

It is a long time since I read it but Robert J Trout's " With Pen and Sabre, the Diaries and letters of JEB Stuart's Staff Officers" gives a good insight as to things happening around Stuart whilst not concentrating completely on the man himself.

I'm interested in this as my family ancestor was PMB Young-one of the Calvary leaders.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Am best guessing here. My first instinct would be to opt for a work written by someone who rode with Stuart and personally knew him well.

Writing about someone you knew personally will offer readers a unique firsthand perspective, but the risk of bias and the limits of knowledge aren't much better than a memoir.

Later biographers have more sources for accuracy and evaluation, and are more likely to offer even-handed appraisal.

However, knowing the subject can help bring them to life. Depending on the sources available, some biographies tell you about their subject without ever getting a real sense of personality, without getting inside their head. Having known a person should avoid that.

JEB has several descendants living in the Richmond area, and THEY (almost to a person) prefer the book by John A. Thomason in 1930, just titled Jeb Stuart

So what? They never met Jeb. All they know are family stories, likely laudatory. Do they prefer Thomason's biography simply because it's the one that makes Stuart look best?

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Writing about someone you knew personally will offer readers a unique firsthand perspective, but the risk of bias and the limits of knowledge aren't much better than a memoir.

Later biographers have more sources for accuracy and evaluation, and are more likely to offer even-handed appraisal.

However, knowing the subject can help bring them to life. Depending on the sources available, some biographies tell you about their subject without ever getting a real sense of personality, without getting inside their head. Having known a person should avoid that.

Thought these are valid general points made, both ways.

Bias of course is always present, regardless of whether the writing is firsthand or secondhand.

Agree that biographers can form stronger impressions of their subjects by gathering more sources of perspectives (from those who were present) for evaluation.

 

[JulieWeathers]

Thought these are valid general points made, both ways.

Bias of course is always present, regardless of whether the writing is firsthand or secondhand.

Agree that biographers can form stronger impressions of their subjects by gathering more sources of perspectives for evaluation.

To an extent. I'm a bit dismayed at times that some modern "historians" look at things through a modern lens instead of simply examining the material before them. I had one particular book recommended to me about female spies in the Civil War because it was the "go to" book on female spies. I was aghast at the inaccuracies and flat out lies. She even admits in the notes at the end of the book some of the newspaper articles she included for reference were later proven to be false, but they were simply too juicy to be left out. So she presented them as fact and if a person hadn't delved deeper they would not have known the newspaper articles were false and she knew they were.

Bias of course is always present, regardless of whether the writing is firsthand or secondhand.

True, which is why I put no account in Heros Von Borcke's book nor Stuart's brother-in-law who tended toward such purple prose even Stuart hated and he enjoyed publicity.

Reading books like Libby Custer's are interesting, but I don't much stock in them for accuracy. (Not that she had much if anything to say about Stuart.)

I would have liked to have seen a collection of letters between Flora and Stuart. If anyone has seen such a beast, I'd be interested. The collection of letters between Jackson and his wife are fascinating.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

She even admits in the notes at the end of the book some of the newspaper articles she included for reference were later proven to be false, but they were simply too juicy to be left out.

Ah, an author who went to the "don't let truth get in the way of a good story" school of writing.

 

[JulieWeathers]

Ah, an author who went to the "don't let truth get in the way of a good story" school of writing.

Yep. I seldom leave negative reviews on Amazon, but I did on that scapegrace.