The thing is, the evidence is there, if anyone wishes to find it- and easily accessible. I feel I can stick my nose in here because having read ' Killer Angels ' all those years ago, came away with the requisite ' Stuart was culpable ' thing, which I'll bet most beginners get stuck in. Since Shaara's work is at best a kind of gateway drug, the general tendency is to accidently bump into better and better accounts of the battle, MUCH better character readings, and become intrigued enough to go digging seriously about some of these men who did so, so poorly at the hands and pen of Shaara.
It's a little tough to recommend a book(s) when the author is here, but I was doing it, swear, before Eric Wittenberg became a member, I'm not being polite because we have an author as a member here who writes on a lot of cavalry subjects.. I thought Stuart's movements were extremely well covered in ' Gettysburg's Forgotten Cavalry Actions ', which I'll get wrong if I attempt a synopsis. My point is, between this and other sourced, factual resources, it's incredibly easy to ascertain Stuart's movements and intentions June and July, 1863. And gosh- if a genuine beginner can understand and follow all of it, any one can. Stuart's fault? Pretty happy to be able to have an opinion based on reading, but have to say of course not.