What happened with Jeb Stuart? (1 Viewer)

[Aleš]

Today i watch a movie Gettysburg(Tom barenger,Martin Sheen),great movie.
Well i was always on the side of the south,not because of the slavery but just because i think there were weaker and it is amazing how they still fight for so many years even that the north have factorys and more soldiers,...
Maybe the answer is because of the general Lee.
Well one of his generals Long street i think it was who say that General Lee is the reason that they stay together for so many years.
I am sorry that they didnt win at the Civil War.
Well in this movie i see that everyone ask where was General Jeb Stuart?
So i wish to know?
Why he didnt send messenger to tell Lee about the North armys,why he didnt come before to be in this campaign sooner,he come at third day?
Why the South didnt use his cavalry last day?
They attack only with infantry,well at least in this movie id dint see no cavalry charges?
Where were JEB STUART!???
or better question WHY HE DIDNT COME SOONER!?

And other thing is that general Lee really lost himself in this battle.Why he didnt listen to his general LongStreet,when he tell him that they could not win.
Lee must know that but i think he look after his image of a man that do not run,that is why he tell to his soldiers at the end of the movie"do not let them see you run" maybe if the LongStreet command they will not lost,but i think Lee wannt to attack them because he knew that every day North will get more troops but south will not get them no more....But here is the question where were soldiers from Texas,Florida,Georgia,...and some other souther states,....they mention only Virginia,so it look like that even the South have mayn countries the real fighters were from Virginia(Lee,almost all generals,troops,....) where were other soldiers from other states.
Maybe if the Texans come in bigger numbers the south can win,or the Teneseens,Louisiana,...where were those chaps?

 

[trooper]

Ales, you ask questions that are almost impossible to answer briefly. However Stuart was given permission to move north on June 25th with latitude to raid far and wide. On 28th June he captured a Union supply train of some 125 wagons, supplies vital to the Confederacy, which restricted his speed. His orders instructed him to meet up with the army at Harrisburg, but during his absence Lee changed his plans and moved towards Gettysburg and Cashtown instead. All factors contributing to his failure to report back to Lee until the second day of the battle, not the third as you say. His cavalry were employed on the third day swinging round to attack the Union flank and rear in support of Pickett's frontal assault but were engaged by the union cavalry and driven back.
The reason that there was so much mention of Virginia is that Lee's command was the Army of Northern Virginia, although there were troops from other states within it's structure. For example Kershaw's Brigade was composed of regiments from South Carolina, Barksdale's from Mississippi, Semmes's, Bennings and Woffard's from Georgia, Law's from Alabama, Robertson's from Texas and Arkansas, Hays's and Nicholl's from Louisiana,Hoke's from North Carolina.

 

[Deitz]

Ales,

I am disheartened to hear you say that you wished the South had won. I hope I have misunderstood your statement.

I put that on par as saying, I wish Slovenia did not break away from Yugoslavia and win their independence.

 

[DCN1898]

There were also Confederate armies in the west, In Tennessee and Arkansas. That is where most western Confederates fought. Lee had representatives from most all Confederate states in the Army of Northern Virginia, but most soldiers were from the eastern states.
There were also about 100,000 white southerners that fought for the Union cause.

 

[Spitfrnd]

For anyone interested in the reasons for Confederate failure at Gettysburg, there have been a number of discussions here that were rather interesting, including the one in this thread
http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11644&highlight=Gettysburg&page=6
While I am a limited student of the ACW, I found UKReb's arguments logical and persuasive. Among other things he includes Stuarts absense near the beginning of the battle but it was only one of several problems he noted:

1. Buford's excellent evaluation of the high ground and the following sacrifice by the Federal I Corps in their valiant attempt to hold their lines on July 1st.

2. The failure of Ewell to timely inform General Lee on July 1 that Culp's Hill was vunerable and subject to capture.

3. The absence of JEB Stuart

4. Ewell's subsequent failure to pursue with his Second Corps later on July 1.

5. Powell Hill's complete mishandling of Third Corps

6. The failure of Second Corps senior officers to co-ordinate their commands into action on July 2.

7. The loss of John Bell Hood early in the fighting on July 2.

8. The breakdown of the July 2 echelon attack and the wounding of Dorsey Pender.

9. The collective decision by Meade and his corps commanders to stay and fight on July 3.

10. Lee's failure to assume direct tactical command on July 3.

11. Meade's localised counterattack at Culp's Hill early on July 3.

12. The magnificent performance of Winfield Hancock throughout the battle but especially on the third day.

13. Longstreet's disobedience on July 3.

14. The ANV high command completely under-estimating the resolve of the ordinary Union soldier when fighting to defend his home-turf.

I also agree with a point he made in another thread to the effect that Gettysburg may have been a territorial high water mark but the Confederate fate was already sealed by that time due mainly to their previous losses and their disasterous campaign in the west.

 

[DCN1898]

Meade also defended a fish hook shaped defensive position with short lines of communication and re-enforcement. Meade was able to quickly send elements of the Union 2nd Corps to Cemetery Hill from Cemetery Ridge, on July 2nd. Lee had a lot longer lines of communication and never seemed to have effective control of Ewell's Corps.

 

[Aleš]

Well,if we know that South must attack them,while North is on the hill with the cannons and that you must cros one mile up hill to reach them (north) and you have less man they have it is NO WAY that you can win.No one can win this.Not even Napoleon.It is suicide so i really do not understand why Lee attack them.He gamble the south victory.....
The Longstreet tell him that this is a mistake,that the right flank is still open and that they should go right or was that Picket who say that,well anyway why Lee is not listen to them and go right?
And the whole march was a disaster,....how can anyone think that 70000 man will be enough to make North (washington surender)???
He march with 70000 man so he must know that he will lost a lot of divisions before he will reach Washington,so even if he can win at Gettysburg he will have maybe 30000-40000 man to march on Washington,....i am sure North will get an army from volounteers around 200000 to stop Lee before he reach washington so.....
I think the mistake was made before and the south was never good at attacking anyway,they were good with defense so they win but when need to attack,they are just not ready....
But no matter what happened i still am a fan of South,they are just more cool people,the history,country is more beautyfull,people are more friendly,....the south should win.....
Maybe if they have Stonewall Jackson still alive at the Gettysburg it will be diferent,just maybe they have a chance than,even we all know that Stonewall Jackson is also good at defense not attacking,....but he was the second best that south havemLee was the first,even now we see he make big mistakes,....
And Jeb Stuart is also to blame,...he fail to do what Lee and the South wannt him to do,...he enjoy to much rididng so far at the north and put his name into the paper,...i think he was to young for this job,...maybe Lee need to send some better Cavalry leader,some one more expirience,...maybe Long Street....

 

[Scott]

There is so much information on Gettysburg out there but I'm sure most of it is only in English. I have looked at reenactor sites and photo albums in Europe and the American West and the American Civil War appears to be very popular. I have seen photos of a Civil War reenactment in Prague! One item I see is the use of the Confederate "Battle Flag" and it's rectangualar variation as a county western or cowboy flag at European "wild west" events. Europeans might have some kind of romantic notion of the Confederacy.

I get into enough debates on Civil War forums about who was right. Some feel that the South should have won because of the bravery and nobility of their Confederate heroes.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Of course it is not only Europeans that may have overly romantic notions about either side of the ACW. As you well know, it is not that hard to start such a debate anywhere in this country.

 

[DCN1898]

There is so much information on Gettysburg out there but I'm sure most of it is only in English. I have looked at reenactor sites and photo albums in Europe and the American West and the American Civil War appears to be very popular. I have seen photos of a Civil War reenactment in Prague! One item I see is the use of the Confederate "Battle Flag" and it's rectangualar variation as a county western or cowboy flag at European "wild west" events. Europeans might have some kind of romantic notion of the Confederacy.

I get into enough debates on Civil War forums about who was right. Some feel that the South should have won because of the bravery and nobility of their Confederate heroes.

I was a Civil War Reenactor in California and went back east for a few big events. However many reenactors you have in one room. You have that many views of the war and a lot of arguing! I believe in General Sherman's quote,“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”
I have read where soldiers of both sides had better feelings toward soldiers of the other side than those of their own side who stayed home.
I was invited to Prague a few years go for a Civil War reenactment but could swing it. It would have been interesting. I went to the 125th Gettysburg reenactment in 1988. There were quite a few reenactors from Berlin. It was fun falling in with them.

 

[Scott]

I wasn't at the 125th Gettysburg reenactment but at the encampment at the Gettysburg National site a week later.

I met some of the Germans "Federals" at the 130th Gettysburg. The Brits I've met tend to do Confederate and do British Napoleonic at home. There's a fellah in New Zealand that used to come to the US to do Confederate. I think he's also a miniature collector or a war gamer.

My "guess" is that folks today see the Confederates as some sort of swashbuckling rebel types, like "I'm a rebel today so I'd have been one then."

The better Confederate reenactment groups I've seen are pretty strict on authenticity and drill and low on being "good ol' boys." There's less chance of good units hurting themselves and hurting me on the other side at events with blank loads and fired ramrods.

To the original point, I've used Wikipedia to find the translations to other languages to some subjects. There may be an entry on Gettysburg or Stuart in Aleš's language that could help him.

 

[Aleš]

well i am an European so i can tell you why i like south more and why probably a lot of other people like south more.
Maybe when we watch a tv Serie North and South,people like south because of their gentleman behaviour,countryside,Patrick Swayze(RIP) playing Orry Maine,beautyfull southern woman,...the way they speak,...haha i always laugh when i hear good old southern talking,....
Later people discover country rock music like Lynyrd Skynyrd,and the falg is very beautyfull,i see a lot of football fans have them,and i bet they do not know nothing about the history,they just know that this falg mean an rebelion,a revolution,...and people in Europe like Revolution,rebelion,...there is always someone rebbeling from someone haha in Europe,....like they also like Che Guevara,...people just like rebelion,revolution,...even that maybe sometimes it is not a good cause,or the new thing maybe bring even more problems,...but it is the spirit of the revolution that it is counts....
For me the South flag is also mean a freedom and a change,so i like this flag....I do not have no political like of this flag,just a freedom,this is what this flag representive to me.
And i also like south because they were outnumbered,poor equipment,...i always cheer for the one that is in lower position,like Britains in Rourkes Drift,Texans at the Alamo,Spartans at the Thermopole,Slovenian in 10 days war against Yugoslavia,Partisans against German forces,....maybe other people think that way too.....
So how is live in the south now?
Is there any bad feelings to the "yankees" or not?

 

[DCN1898]

There weren't many gentleman (North or South,) in Missouri. The South is a pretty civil place to live now. There are A LOT of northerners living in the south now!!! As I said earlier, the south has some of the most friendly people anywhere.
There were a lot of reasons for the American Civil War, but it still boiled down to a rich man's war and a poor man's fight, like most all wars.

 

[Scott]

"There were a lot of reasons for the American Civil War, but it still boiled down to a rich man's war and a poor man's fight, like most all wars."


Right you are. Most of American history is like that. You might like Howard Zinn's Peoples' History of the United States. Zinn has a TV show coming on the History Channel.

I have to speak up for the Southerners of 1860 in that slavery was a way for a man to get rich so that a poor man might fight to protect that way of life that promised social mobility.

I've enjoyed visiting the South. I've even worked in Georgia for a few weeks as a contractor. Sometimes you have to pass the "test of manhood" with Southerners when you meet them. Don't take any bull but smile doing it. You can make a good friend. My father (from South Boston) was stationed in the South during WW II before going to France. He only had funny or positive stories about Southerners. As a Sergeant he had to say "None of yer cheap Rebel s***!" a few times but he repeated that as a funny story.

If Southerners gave me gruff it's usually from tradition not personal. If Southerners give Union reenactors too much trouble we wouldn't come down there for the reenactments and they'd have to buy Union uniforms. Hahhaha!

 

[Spitfrnd]

There weren't many gentleman (North or South,) in Missouri. The South is a pretty civil place to live now. There are A LOT of northerners living in the south now!!! As I said earlier, the south has some of the most friendly people anywhere.
There were a lot of reasons for the American Civil War, but it still boiled down to a rich man's war and a poor man's fight, like most all wars.

One could well say that the South had the last laugh since while the North has been losing industry and population, the South has steadily been gaining both. You are also quite correct that most Southerns are indeed very friendly.

I don't think the concept of "a rich man's war, a poor man's fight" originated with the ACW or is unique to American history. With few exceptions like the citizen soldiers of ancient Greece and the knights of the middle ages, hasn't it always been that way? Of course there have been many rich who fought bravely and well and poor who didn't but most wars involve the masses so there you go.

 

[DCN1898]

I don't think the concept of "a rich man's war, a poor man's fight" originated with the ACW or is unique to American history. With few exceptions like the citizen soldiers of ancient Greece and the knights of the middle ages, hasn't it always been that way? Of course there have been many rich who fought bravely and well and poor who didn't but most wars involve the masses so there you go.[/QUOTE]

I never meant to intimate that a rich man's war quote was unique to the ACW. The first village chieftain in pre-history to send his villagers to fight started the trend. And yes, bravery crosses all lines as does the occasional cowardice.
The bravery, pageantry, brotherhood and sacrifice of all soldiers in all armies is what draws people like us to our interest in history in print, movies, T.V., art, models and toy soldiers. and is grist for many great discussions. IMHO

 

[UKReb]

Lee's confidence in Stuart led him to allow his cavalry leader considerable latitude in carrying out his orders during the Gettysburg campaign. Lee's instructions were more akin to suggestions rather than direct orders and provided no detailed timetable or exact location where to meet Ewell and his Second Corps acting as the ANV vanguard. It gave Stuart permission to raid the Union rear for an unspecified period of time.

The ultimate responsibility for authorising Stuart's raid lay firmly with Lee-and more importantly Lee knew that reflected in his mild disciplinary of Stuart when he finally returned on the night of the second day.

Stuart remains one of the great romantic figures of the Civil War (and not just seen through British eyes). But he was more than just a dashing figure with a large plume in his hat. He was an outstanding cavalry commander and a gifted professional soldier who possessed an unconquerable resolution for the Southern cause. One only has to read of his valiant efforts during the Wilderness campaign especially at Spotsylvania (which currently I am attempting to illustrate in my ACW dios) where he and his vastly outnumbered cavalry regiments held back Grant's 100,000 Union army time and again until Lee's army relieved him and his gray horse-soldiers.

He most definitely deserves to be remembered for these qualities rather than just highlighting his absence at Gettysburg.

Reb

 

[Scott]

I don't think the concept of "a rich man's war, a poor man's fight" originated with the ACW or is unique to American history. With few exceptions like the citizen soldiers of ancient Greece and the knights of the middle ages, hasn't it always been that way? Of course there have been many rich who fought bravely and well and poor who didn't but most wars involve the masses so there you go.

I never meant to intimate that a rich man's war quote was unique to the ACW. The first village chieftain in pre-history to send his villagers to fight started the trend. And yes, bravery crosses all lines as does the occasional cowardice.

The concept is applicable when the poor man really has no stake in the fight.
In cases like the ACW and The ACW, the poor man might believe he does. The Union soldier could believe that stopping the expansion of slavery and saving the Union keeps his freedom to succeed anywhere in the USA by his own labor.[/QUOTE]

The bravery, pageantry, brotherhood and sacrifice of all soldiers in all armies is what draws people like us to our interest in history in print, movies, T.V., art, models and toy soldiers. and is grist for many great discussions. IMHO

Sure IS!

 

[Spitfrnd]

Lee's confidence in Stuart led him to allow his cavalry leader considerable latitude in carrying out his orders during the Gettysburg campaign. Lee's instructions were more akin to suggestions rather than direct orders and provided no detailed timetable or exact location where to meet Ewell and his Second Corps acting as the ANV vanguard. It gave Stuart permission to raid the Union rear for an unspecified period of time.

The ultimate responsibility for authorising Stuart's raid lay firmly with Lee-and more importantly Lee knew that reflected in his mild disciplinary of Stuart when he finally returned on the night of the second day.

Stuart remains one of the great romantic figures of the Civil War (and not just seen through British eyes). But he was more than just a dashing figure with a large plume in his hat. He was an outstanding cavalry commander and a gifted professional soldier who possessed an unconquerable resolution for the Southern cause. One only has to read of his valiant efforts during the Wilderness campaign especially at Spotsylvania (which currently I am attempting to illustrate in my ACW dios) where he and his vastly outnumbered cavalry regiments held back Grant's 100,000 Union army time and again until Lee's army relieved him and his gray horse-soldiers.

He most definitely deserves to be remembered for these qualities rather than just highlighting his absence at Gettysburg.

Reb

Great points to remember Bob.

 

[Spitfrnd]

The concept is applicable when the poor man really has no stake in the fight.
In cases like the ACW and The ACW, the poor man might believe he does. The Union soldier could believe that stopping the expansion of slavery and saving the Union keeps his freedom to succeed anywhere in the USA by his own labor.

I am not so sure that the stake is the key but if it is than the ACW does not qualify. By that standard, the Confederate soldier had an even bigger stake in retaining a more local state government versus the prospect of control by a distant Federal one. If the Union masses had a stake, it was likely the greater national security provided by preserving a union. In either case, the numbers in the ranks came more from the poor. I do much agree though that "the bravery, pageantry, brotherhood and sacrifice of all soldiers in all armies" is well worthy of remembering in all manner of fashions.