Lee
Even the best laid plans in war go awry in the actual execution. Many were the failures, in communications, in leadership and faults in the initial strategy. In no way am I saying that the battle was lost because of Stuart. It was lost for a multitude of reasons, many outlined by M.E Wolf in his excellent post. What I am interested in is, Lee's initial strategy. The strategy that allowed that brilliant man to think he would be successful. I have to believe that Stuart was a vital part of that strategy.
After the battle, Stuart said he was to protect Ewels flank, which he did. This rings hollow to my ear. Stuart had just been reprimanded by Lee, which must have stung his inflated ego. He would not allow a failure to follow on the heels of that rebuke, mild as it was. In C.L. Symonds book "Gettysburg" he states "Stuart......afterward he claimed that his only objective was to guard the left flank.... almost certainly his real purpose was to strike at the enemy from the rear in conjunction with the infantry charge against its front". After the fact it was common for officers to justify their mistakes and attempt to change history to their own advantage. Certainly Sickles spent the rest of his life claiming to have saved the day. Had Stuart lived to the end of the war I have no doubt he would have a story about that day that would have bathed him in Glory. McClellan who rode with Stuart may have been just spouting the message that also kept him from admitting failure.
Stuart, from a hilltop, Cress Ridge, fired one of his artillery pieces four times, it was the signal Lee was waiting for, to let him know Stuart was in position and to start the artillery barage and begin the attack. Although Stuart was in position, the position he was in was in no way helpful to the battle. Custer and Gregg made sure of that. Latter Stuart claimed victory in that skirmish, but we all know that he made a strategic retreat, quickly.
Even the best laid plans in war go awry in the actual execution. Many were the failures, in communications, in leadership and faults in the initial strategy. In no way am I saying that the battle was lost because of Stuart. It was lost for a multitude of reasons, many outlined by M.E Wolf in his excellent post. What I am interested in is, Lee's initial strategy. The strategy that allowed that brilliant man to think he would be successful. I have to believe that Stuart was a vital part of that strategy.
After the battle, Stuart said he was to protect Ewels flank, which he did. This rings hollow to my ear. Stuart had just been reprimanded by Lee, which must have stung his inflated ego. He would not allow a failure to follow on the heels of that rebuke, mild as it was. In C.L. Symonds book "Gettysburg" he states "Stuart......afterward he claimed that his only objective was to guard the left flank.... almost certainly his real purpose was to strike at the enemy from the rear in conjunction with the infantry charge against its front". After the fact it was common for officers to justify their mistakes and attempt to change history to their own advantage. Certainly Sickles spent the rest of his life claiming to have saved the day. Had Stuart lived to the end of the war I have no doubt he would have a story about that day that would have bathed him in Glory. McClellan who rode with Stuart may have been just spouting the message that also kept him from admitting failure.
Stuart, from a hilltop, Cress Ridge, fired one of his artillery pieces four times, it was the signal Lee was waiting for, to let him know Stuart was in position and to start the artillery barage and begin the attack. Although Stuart was in position, the position he was in was in no way helpful to the battle. Custer and Gregg made sure of that. Latter Stuart claimed victory in that skirmish, but we all know that he made a strategic retreat, quickly.