The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1908-04-03
THE BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG.
Who Was to Blame for the Defeat Of
the Confederate Forces?

In reviewing Col. John S. Mosbys
latest book, "Jeb Stuart's Calvary in
the Gettysburg Campaign" the Wash
ington Post says:
Who was to blame for the defeat at
Gettysburg of the finest army Lee ever
commanded? That has been a moot
ed question among distortions and
soldiers ever since the last echoes of
the civil war died away upon the
heights of Appomatix. The beloved
commander of the Southern armies
himself has shouldered much unan-
swered criticism for the disaster;
whole books have been written plac-
ing the odium of incompetency and
disloyalty upon Longstreet, Lees
greatest corps commander after Stone
wall Jackson, as the guilty party;
staff officers of Lee and students of
military tactics have laid the sad tale
of Gettysburg against the renown of
Jeb Stuart, whose cavalry was not
on the field when the battle began.
Gen. Robert E. Lee himself appears to
have signed report in which he says
the absence of his cavalry caused him
ito stumble into the fight" and rather
intimates that Stuart was dashing
through Maryland to join Ewell's
corps in Pennsylvania without ORDERS
and also that Stuart had not kept
him sufficiently informed of the move
ments of Hooker's army.
Col. Mosby's book, the latest addi
ton to wartime history, is devoted
almost wholly to vindication of Mos
by's brilliant chief, Stuart the Mag
nificent. No man is better fitted for
the task than John S. Mosby, man
as daring as his leader, as bold as an
eagle, and Stuart's righthand man in
nearly all the operations of the cav
airy with the army of Northern Vir-
ginia. He had Stuarts confidence con-
stantly, and it is from his position of
calm assurance of knowledge that Col.
Mosby deals with his subject.
In a thoroughly logical manner with
the methodical precision of a trained
soldier, Col. Mosby attacks his SUBJ
ject, and by personal testimony, by
published reports of other officers,
known historical facts, and irrefutable
arguments he proves that Stuart was
in no way responsible for the result
at Gettysburg. He goes further. He
shows that the cavalry leaders fam
GUS ride through Maryland was abso-
lutely in obedience to the orders of
his chief; that he had kept Lee in
formed of Hooker's crossing the Po-
tomac and advance north until the
Federal army pushed itself between
them and made communication no
longer possible, and the book must
satisfy the most skeptical that Stuart
was accomplishing all the while a
very important work for the army of
Northern Virginia.
As to the report of Gen Lee, which
seems to place some of the blame
upon his cavalry, Col. Mosby has a
theory of his own to account for that.
Col. Lee wrote second report, later,
as theoretically generating Stuart,
IS his previous one had reproached
him by intimation, and Col. Mosby
thinks Lee signed the first report,
which was probably drawn up by one
OF his stan officers, without even see
ing it.
The colonel also has a word-sey-
eral OF them, in fact Ito say upon
whom should be laid the real blame
for Gettysburg. He says that neither
Lee nor Meade cared anything for
that billy little Pennsylvania college
town. 1t was worthless from STRAIT
egic standpoint Neither thought of
giving battle there. But while Lee
lay in Cashtown, ten miles away, setting
himself to strike sudden and ter
rifle blow against Meade, two of his
division commanders, Gems. Heth and
A. P. Hill, took their troops into Get
tysburg to get some shoes. There
they ran into the United States forces,
and, against Lees orders, engaged in
sharp battle. OF course, nothing
was left for Lee and Meade to do but
hurry the rest of their forces to the
support of those already engaged. This
unexpected encounter of Heth's and
Hills troops precipitated the fight be-
fore Lee was ready and smashed his
plans.