GDG- RE: Stuart as Infantry Commander

[Smith David]

Somewhere in all the reading I did of Chancellorsville as a precursor to
Gettysburg, I thought in one book I saw a suggestion that Stuart himself
wanted to become commander of the new Confederate 3rd? Corps when it was
formed, instead of A.P. Hill, and was dissapointed when this did not
happen.  The author suggested that Stuart was not chosen, because he was
irreplaceable as the head of the cavalry, and because, although
successful, his attacks at Chancellorsville were rather straightforward
and got a lot of people killed (my ancestor's New Jersey unit fought on
the other side, shooting down Confederates until they ran out of
ammunition).  This might have been Ernest Ferguson in his latest, which
is critical of Stuart.

Also, and I apologize for engaging in supposition here when the
preference was for facts, I thought I saw in some of the Southern papers
before the G'burg campaign suggestions that Stuart was going to try
another "raid" or "ride around the Union army."  He was getting pretty
good at them, by now, and they seem to increasingly be the way he
interacted with the Union forces.  Whether this was linked to a sense of
needing to redeem himself, I don't know.  For whatever reason, Stuart
went where he went and Lee was deprived of cavalry when he needed it
most - I'm sure there is "plenty of blame to go around."

David G. Smith

"It was a good plan.  He shouldn't have sent away his cavalry."  -- The
purported comments of a wounded Stonewall Jackson when asked about
Hooker's plan at Chancellorsville.

-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com
[mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] On Behalf Of
gettysburg-request at arthes.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 1:02 PM
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Gettysburg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 11

Send Gettysburg mailing list submissions to
	gettysburg at arthes.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	gettysburg-request at arthes.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
	gettysburg-owner at arthes.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Gettysburg digest..."



Message: 3
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:06:52 -0400
From: "David W. Gaddy" <dwgaddy at crosslink.net>
Subject: GDG- Re: Gettysburg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 10
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Message-ID:
	<5.2.1.1.0.20060809104706.00b83740 at dwgaddy.pop.crosslink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed


>Subject: RE: GDG- Stuart and the historians II
>Message: 3 Tom Ryan)

In re Dennis's questions:


><<I wonder what we can learn about Stuart after Brandy Station.
>
>What effect did the three grand reviews  have on the combat readiness
of
>Stuart's troopers?
>
>Was Stuart overconfident about the ability of his troopers to handle
the
>growing capabilities of the Federal cavalry?>>
>
>Dennis,
>
>         Good questions.  Oddly enough, I do not detect any major
changes 
> in Stuart
>as a person or a cavalry leader after the battle at Brandy Station.
>Although he took heat from the Southern newspapers for being surprised
and
>almost losing the battle, the person whose opinion counted the most to
>Stuart, General Lee, seemed almost totally unfazed by the whole affair.
>Lee, of course, was primarily concerned about results of performances,
and,
>since the Union cavalry withdrew and Stuart held the ground after the
>battle, that apparently in Lee's mind was tantamount to victory.  There
was
>little if any sign of criticism of Stuart on the part of Lee.  As a
matter
>of fact, Lee started the invasion of the North the next day after the
>battle, June 10, as if nothing unusual had taken place.
>
>         I think by this stage of the war, mid-1863, Stuart had
formulated his
>mental approach to combat, and had adopted certain principles in
commanding
>his cavalry units that did not change despite what could be considered
a
>setback at Brandy Station.  It is true, I believe, that Stuart became a
>little overwhelmed with his sudden elevation from command of a three
brigade
>5,000-man force to five brigades with about 10,000 men.  And he wanted
to
>display this new found notoriety to the public with the grand reviews
he
>staged.  But even that was not unusual, because reviews were a standard
part
>of his training and discipline of the troops.  So it was not that much
out
>of the ordinary.  There is also no evidence that the reviews caused any
>degradation of the division.  On the contrary, there is some evidence
that
>it lifted the morale of his cavarymen to some degree.
_________________________________________________
Tom, Two thoughts: I wonder if the doubling of subordinates caused pause

(apart from command and control
shake-out). I am thinking of Stuart's service a short time earlier as 
replacement for Powell Hill, who took over from Stonewall at 
Chancellorsville and was then wounded himself. My impression is that
Stuart 
easily moved into "corps commander" responsibility during that brief but

critical time, and I often wonder what the difference might have been
had 
he been retained in that role. (Could it have been because Lee valued
him 
more highly in the G2/cav cdr role and thought that Hill--on a good 
fighting day--was the best he could make available as a replacement for 
Jackson?)

Second, as to the reviews. In one of those moments I subject myself to 
every once in a while, I was re-reading the highly opinionated history
of 
Jefferson Davis's nemesis, Edward A. Pollard, in re G'bg. Pollard 
characterized the cavalry reviews not in a negative way, but as intended

principally to attract Federal attention and divert from the ANV move 
northward, characterizing the latter as being undertaken to draw Hooker
and 
the AoP out of Virginia--which it did. Interesting. I found none of the 
criticism of Stuart I was looking for from the former editor of the 
Richmond Examiner.

Regards,
Dave Gaddy




------------------------------

You may unsubscribe at
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg

End of Gettysburg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 11
******************************************