Stuart JEB Stuart v. Michael Shaara

[DRW]

As much as I love Killer Angels, Shaara's depiction of Stuart as basically an overgrown adolescent has always annoyed me. Shaara uses the word "joyriding" three times to describe Stuart's activities: twice early in the book in the voice of Longstreet and once late in the book in the voice of Charles Marshall. First of all, the word "joyriding" is an anachronism. Searches on ngram and also newspapers on loc.gov show that the expression (and its variations "joy riding", joyride, "joy ride") was not used in the context Shaara intended until after 1900. Putting aside the accuracy of Shaara's charge against Stuart (which I know has been debated on this board before), what are Shaara's sources for his depiction of Stuart as Gettysburg? Is it Marshall's memoir? What is the history of the debate and "memory" over Stuart's performance at Gettysburg: when did the charges against him start? Who started them? What is the consensus now? (Also, any other favorite anachronisms in KA?)

 

[AndyHall]

"Liked" for the effort put into the etymology of "joyriding."

 

[Rio Bravo]

It wasn't a Joyride. Lee had accepted Stuart's plan of making a raid through the mountains and then joining Ewell in Pennsylvania.

 

[ErnieMac]

As much as I love Killer Angels, Shaara's depiction of Stuart as basically an overgrown adolescent has always annoyed me. Shaara uses the word "joyriding" three times to describe Stuart's activities: twice early in the book in the voice of Longstreet and once late in the book in the voice of Charles Marshall. First of all, the word "joyriding" is an anachronism. Searches on ngram and also newspapers on loc.gov show that the expression (and its variations "joy riding", joyride, "joy ride") was not used in the context Shaara intended until after 1900. Putting aside the accuracy of Shaara's charge against Stuart (which I know has been debated on this board before), what are Shaara's sources for his depiction of Stuart as Gettysburg? Is it Marshall's memoir? What is the history of the debate and "memory" over Stuart's performance at Gettysburg: when did the charges against him start? Who started them? What is the consensus now? (Also, any other favorite anachronisms in KA?)

I'd suggest you read Plenty of Blame to Go Around by Eric J. Wittenberg and J. David Petruzzi. They go into some depth on the origin of the charges. Interesting note about joyriding, seems to have originated about the same time as the automobile came on the scene.

 

[DRW]

I'd suggest you read Plenty of Blame to Go Around by Eric J. Wittenberg and J. David Petruzzi. They go into some depth on the origin of the charges. Interesting note about joyriding, seems to have originated about the same time as the automobile came on the scene.

Exactly: the term bursts on the scene around 1905 and typically refers to "borrowing" another person's automobile for a drive without the owner's knowledge or consent (nothing at all to do with a scenic cavalry ride around the Union army) . It seems that early cars didn't have effective locks - or maybe any locks at all? NY made "joyriding" a criminal offense in 1909. Thanks for the Wittenburg/Petruzzi recommendation!

 

[diane]

Lol! Wondered how a CW cavalryman was going to joyride when the vehicle for that wasn't invented yet! Guess 'grand-standing' would be a better term? Don't agree with it, though. Jeb Stuart loved to gussy up in all the finery he could put on his person, and he loved to be petted, and preened from time to time, but it seldom got in the way of his job. He was deadly efficient.

 

[MRB1863]

Maybe joy-trotting. Many facts related to Stuart's Ride may reflect his personality and life experiences. While Stuart was flamboyant, like Diane said he was efficient. I have to wonder if he proceeded to Carlisle in the Gettysburg campaign for a tactical reason. Or was it because Flora's father had been commandant at the war college and Stuart felt compelled to show his capability to invade Cooke's previous post? I don't think Stuart was "joyriding" but rather interpreting Lee's orders to suit his own personality. After all, he did consider attacking Washington upon stealing the federal wagons within sight of the city. That would have really made news!

 

[Nathanb1]

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.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

It's Wittenberg, not Wittenburg if you're trying to locate the book.

There are three full, lengthy chapters in the book that deal with the controversy over Stuart's ride, including lengthy passages of direct quotes.

And if you have lingering questions after reading it, I would be pleased to try to answer them for you. However, the book should answer pretty much all of them.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Maybe joy-trotting. Many facts related to Stuart's Ride may reflect his personality and life experiences. While Stuart was flamboyant, like Diane said he was efficient. I have to wonder if he proceeded to Carlisle in the Gettysburg campaign for a tactical reason. Or was it because Flora's father had been commandant at the war college and Stuart felt compelled to show his capability to invade Cooke's previous post? I don't think Stuart was "joyriding" but rather interpreting Lee's orders to suit his own personality. After all, he did consider attacking Washington upon stealing the federal wagons within sight of the city. That would have really made news!

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.

 

[Elennsar]

The only thing I can think of to fault as a serious concern is that the operation was planned based on some optimistic assumptions, and it shows.

This isn't all on Stuart, but as Stuart was the one making decisions in the field, how he responded to it deserves attention - he did what he thought was best, but that's not enough to count as right.

It is, however, enough to acquit him of all reasonable charges in the context of what Lee should have done when he showed up.

You want irresponsible raiding for kicks and giggles, look at Morgan - not Stuart.

 

[BillO]

I'm half way through the Harry Pfanz book "Gettysburg the first day" and Erics' book is sitting here patiently waiting. so I guess I'll see in a bit.

 

[cash]

As much as I love Killer Angels, Shaara's depiction of Stuart as basically an overgrown adolescent has always annoyed me. Shaara uses the word "joyriding" three times to describe Stuart's activities: twice early in the book in the voice of Longstreet and once late in the book in the voice of Charles Marshall. First of all, the word "joyriding" is an anachronism. Searches on ngram and also newspapers on loc.gov show that the expression (and its variations "joy riding", joyride, "joy ride") was not used in the context Shaara intended until after 1900. Putting aside the accuracy of Shaara's charge against Stuart (which I know has been debated on this board before), what are Shaara's sources for his depiction of Stuart as Gettysburg? Is it Marshall's memoir? What is the history of the debate and "memory" over Stuart's performance at Gettysburg: when did the charges against him start? Who started them? What is the consensus now? (Also, any other favorite anachronisms in KA?)

In thinking about Killer Angels, we always have to keep in mind the fact that Michael Shaara only read one book all the way through [this is not to say he didn't consult any other books, but there was only one book he thoroughly devoured] in his research, and that's James Longstreet's memoir, From Manassas to Appomattox.

On page 343, Longstreet writes, "If General Stuart could have claimed authority of my orders for his action, he could not have failed to do so in his official account. He offered no such excuse, but claimed to at under the orders of his chief, and reported that General Lee gave consent to his application for leave to make the march. So our plans, adopted after deep study, were suddenly given over to gratify the youthful cavalryman's wish for a nomadic ride."

 

[E_just_E]

Putting aside the accuracy of Shaara's charge against Stuart (which I know has been debated on this board before), what are Shaara's sources for his depiction of Stuart as Gettysburg? Is it Marshall's memoir? What is the history of the debate and "memory" over Stuart's performance at Gettysburg: when did the charges against him start? Who started them? What is the consensus now? (Also, any other favorite anachronisms in KA?)

First and foremost: Shaara is a fiction writer. Killer Angels and the movie Gettysburg should not viewed as more historically accurate than Steve Berry's The Lincoln Myth.

About those charges and who started them: After that Battle, there were not enough fingers for CS Generals to point to other GS Generals. All CS Corp Commanders and most Division Commanders had fingers pointed at them: Too early, too late, why fight there, why not fight there etc. R. E. Lee resigned of command after that battle (not accepted.) How those were propagated? Plenty of CS Generals in the battle who survived the war, published memoirs or talked to writers about their memories of the battle and wanted to get their tails out of blame. Lots of what ifs then. And Stuart was not around to defend himself, and Longstreet, the other common receiver of blame, just ignored them.

As to what happened, I agree 100% with Eric Wittenberg (Plenty of Blame to Go Around is a great book, btw) :
Stuart was following orders to go to York. According to his memoirs, John Brown Gordon (of Early's Division of Ewell's Corps) had clear orders to cross the Susquehanna east of York (and he assumed that his next orders would be to go to Philly via Lancaster.) Ewell's Corps' main body, with Albert Jenkins in and out of PA as early as the 19th of June as the advance team, had orders to cross the river at Harrisburg. If you look at a map with different dates and the locations of the Confederate troops in PA, Gettysburg was not even in the equation, until both bridges were burned. Hill's and Longstreet's Corps were to congregate there and see whether they would go due east to York to cross there or Northeast to Carlisle & Harrisburg to cross there. Stuart's orders likely were: Go to York, if we are not there, go to Carlisle, because that's were we are crossing. No bridges, move back to West of Gettysburg to plan and regroup became the plan, which Stuart had no means to know, until he got up to Carlisle and after shelling the town got information that Ewell's Corps moved down South, and he followed. If there is a single person to blame about the result of Gettysburg for the CSA, is Robert Edward Lee who did not learn the lesson the Federals learned in Fredericksburg and decided to make a futile attack.

 

[Philip Leigh]

In thinking about Killer Angels, we always have to keep in mind the fact that Michael Shaara only read one book all the way through [this is not to say he didn't consult any other books, but there was only one book he thoroughly devoured] in his research, and that's James Longstreet's memoir, From Manassas to Appomattox.

Please cite you source.

 

[Billy Yank]

Finally. Getting, "Plenty of Blame..." for Christmas. Just finishing-up Jeff Wert's book about the 3rd. day at Gettysburg for the 2nd. time. If I get snowed-in, I'll have plenty of coffee & toilet paper as well as a good book.

 

[cash]

Please cite you source.

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.

 

[War Horse]

Shaara openly admits he is not an historian and the book should not be considered such. It is entertaining but definitly not history.

 

[FarawayFriend]

Shaara openly admits he is not an historian and the book should not be considered such. It is entertaining but definitly not history.

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.

 

[War Horse]

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.

Exactly, if you've watched Gettysburg more than twice I would have to say your hooked.