FW: GDG- Stuart and the historians

[Tom Ryan]

<<I've always found that to be the single strongest point in Stuart's
defense, regardless of Stuart's motivation for requesting permission for
this movement: Lee said yes.  Stuart was, above all else, a good soldier.
If Lee had said no, anything that I have read about Stuart indicates that
Stuart would have been unhappy but he would have done his duty without
reservation. If Stuart's presence was so essential to Lee, Lee should never
have authorized the action. Lee, more than anyone else, was guilty of
assuming that everything would go right and nothing would go wrong.>>

Margaret,

	In recent weeks, I have been going through the reoords tracing Stuart's
career as a cavalry officer since his graduation from West Point including
his service in Texas and Kansas before the CW.  The evidence shows that you
would not find a better "soldier" than Stuart who was a stickler for
personal discipline and was demanding in that category of his subordinates.
The widespread impression of Stuart as a flamboyant cavalier ironically is
also true, but what is often overlooked is the serious cavalryman who did
not brook incompetence or irresponsibility in his men or in himself for that
matter.

Regards, Tom