Stuart Jeb Stuart - is he over rated?

[ArcLight]

The first couple of years the South had a cavalry advantage.
And the Union had some bad cavalry generals like Pleasanton.

But it seems like JEB Stuart is over rated. He liked to bask in the lime light and didn't always do his job of scouting and screening. This was true at Antietam and at Gettysburg.

Do you think he was over rated?

 

[rpkennedy]

No. He was probably the finest pure cavalryman that the war produced and excelled in every aspect of cavalry strategy and tactics.

Ryan

 

[J. Stanley]

This is my takeaway from Longacre's biography on the man: J.E.B. Stuart: The Soldier and the Man.

To summarize, Longacre notes Stuart had his ups and downs - overall quite a good cavalryman, but not one without flaws.

As a tactician, Stuart was very good at using his horse artillery in any action. His horse artillery did good work at Nicodemus Heights during the battle of Antietam and the battle of Fredericksburg. Longacre did, however, express the opinion that Stuart was slower to appreciate the value of mixing mounted and dismounted action. A criticism of Stuart's tactics was that he was too prone to dividing his command into far-flung detachments and one of Stuart's opponents, James H. Wilson, was of the opinion that Wade Hampton was the better commander of the two because he "used his entire corps with consummate ability". Longacre seems to side with Stuart's critics that Wade Hampton was the better commander.

At the operational level, Stuart had his good and bad moments.

Of his 5 raids (Peninsula, Second Manassas, Chambersburg, Dumfries, Gettysburg), 3 were quite successful at a strategic level. Dumfries was just pointless and wasted precious horseflesh. Gettysburg had plenty of blame to go around, but Stuart did detach his weakest brigades for Lee and left the job of watching the Army of the Potomac to his worst subordinate. He also did have bad moments such as June 28- July 1, 1862, wherein he was too far from the main army to support them in any way, and the Maryland campaign, wherein he was very lax in scouting and failed to guard Turner's Gap despite orders to do so.

As a scout, Lee said: "He never brought me a false piece of information." But Lee might have simply been sentimental given that Stuart had just died. Stuart had his good moments - he did deliver good intel on Pope's dispositions and McClellan's post-Antietam and he did good work at Mine Run in alerting Lee of Meade's maneuver. But Longacre points out that Stuart also underperformed in scouting roles during the Maryland Campaign and the first day of the Wilderness.

While I might sound overly negative on Stuart, I still think him to be an able commander. He had lapses in judgment, but what commander didn't? His skills might be a bit overstated, but that doesn't mean he was bad. He held his ground well against a rejuvenated Federal cavarly corps and was undeniably very good at combined arms - mixing his cavalry and artillery together.

 

[archieclement]

I would say no, despite somewhat a thought at first to wish to say yes......

But who are the multiple cavalry commanders that have indisputable uncontroversial concensus opinion of being better? From both armies? From Confederate side? If there isn't any or several, how could be overated?

While personally I like western ones like Shelby and Forrest, realisticly they were in more sideshow theatre's, generally against lesser opposition, which doesn't really invite fair comparison.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I agree Stuart is overrated, but in a very specific way. Stuart's reputation was made by riding around McClellan twice. Those rides provided useful intelligence, but that he didn't get caught on either reflected the poor organization and inadequate numbers of the AotP cavalry as much as anything. The rides inflated his stature, as did his death making him a Confederate martyr.

That said, being overrated doesn't necessarily equate to being bad, and that's certain true with Stuart. He was an A- who believed himself to be A+ and for a long time was perceived as being A+++.

I think @J. Stanley offered an excellent appraisal. I'll add that Stuart was a little too much of a gloryseeker for his own good, but never as foolhardy as Custer. Even his Gettysburg ride is quite understandable, and netted a pretty substantial boon in terms of the wagon train he captured.

Stuart was one of the most well-rounded cavalry officers of the war. He didn't consider any aspect of cavalry service beneath him - unlike Forrest, Wheeler, or Morgan who were good-to-great fighters, but frequently insubordinate and resented being asked to do anything besides raid and fight. Stuart was the reason the ANV had the best cavalry in the Confederate Army. He built a cavalry corps that was able to frequently stall Sheridan in 1864, despite Sheridan's advantages in numbers and equipment. Hampton may have ended up better in the end, but he started with zero cavalry experience and no doubt learned a great deal from Stuart.

Is there any cavalry general, on either side, that can be reasonably argued as being better than Stuart or Hampton? Wilson seemed to have gotten pretty good by 1865, and Buford or Merritt warrant consideration, but I wouldn't rate them above Stuart and (by 1864) Hampton. Minty did great in 1863, but was practically invisible in 1864. By 1865, Sheridan had mastered the use of combined arms, but his cavalry excelled in 1864 only when he fought the B-team in the Shenandoah. I've already noted why Forrest, Wheeler, and Morgan aren't in contention. Van Dorn had one good raid, but most of his combat service was failing in command of small armies at Pea Ridge and Corinth.

As a tactician, Stuart was very good at using his horse artillery in any action. His horse artillery did good work at Nicodemus Heights during the battle of Antietam and the battle of Fredericksburg.

In my early years on CWT, I asked whether the Union Army even used horse artillery. Stuart's use of it horse artillery outshone anything the Union did - at least in terms of posterity.

 

[ArcLight]

Let me clarify.
I'm not saying Stuart was bad.
Only that during key battles (Antietam and Gettysburg) he was not doing his job and was glory hunting.
He captured draft horses and wagons during Gettysburg, which are needed, but didn't do his main function, and that hurt Lee.

At Antietam he attended a dance, and wasn't doing his job.

I'm not criticizing his tactical abilities.

 

[bankerpapaw]

The first couple of years the South had a cavalry advantage.
And the Union had some bad cavalry generals like Pleasanton.

But it seems like JEB Stuart is over rated. He liked to bask in the lime light and didn't always do his job of scouting and screening. This was true at Antietam and at Gettysburg.

Do you think he was over rated?

I think Stuart was very competent, but he did love his Headlines!!

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

The first couple of years the South had a cavalry advantage.
And the Union had some bad cavalry generals like Pleasanton.

But it seems like JEB Stuart is over rated. He liked to bask in the lime light and didn't always do his job of scouting and screening. This was true at Antietam and at Gettysburg.

Do you think he was over rated?

He was highly capable, and was not over-rated in that regard. On the other hand, he was a bit self-centered, and he did make a few serious mistakes in judgement (my opinion, backed up in a couple of instances by fact).