The Washington herald., 1908-05-10
COL. JOHN MOSBY DEFENDS GEN. STUART

Confederate officers who have sought
10 account for Gen. Lees failure 70 win
the battle OF Gettysburg have betrayed
the essential weakness Of the Confeder-
ATE Pennsylvania campaign without real
ly excusing Lee at all. Ills, immediate
officers have thrown the blame upon
Longstreet's inadequate support; Long
streets following have attempted 20 put
a share of it upon Stuart, and Stuart's
partisans. in turn, have blamed Ewell, Of
whose whereabouts Stuart was undoubt-
edly ignorant at a crucial moment. But
whose fault was it that the Confederate
commanders were working so much at
cross-purposes? Did not that condition
prove that there was something wanting
in Lees management?
This question is suggested anew by a
book by John S. Mosby, the Confederate
guerrilla chieftain, called 'Stuart's Cav
airy in the Gettysburg Campaign" just
published by A0ffat. Yard & Co. The book
IS mainly devoted to d defense Of Gen. J.
Z. B. Stuarrs part in the Gettysburg
campaign. As a matter Of fact, StuaTts
part in the campaign was small. Per-
haps it might have been greater, but It
was in reality of not much consequence.
lie did not enter the great combat at all
until late, and when he did he was fairly
beaten on the right by Gregg. 1t has
been urged that he should have been on
the final scene Of action much sooner, but
there IS nothing to show that he did not
obey his orders very thoroughly, or that
he could have been earlier on the ground
and at the same time have performed the
service. largely one of gaining informa-
ton as to the situation and purposes Of
the Union army, which Lee wished him
to perform.
All the light that has been thrown upon
the battle Of Gettysburg by Confederate
disclosures and criticisms in the last few
years has not weakened or qualified the
judgment Of the Count Of Paris in his
History of the Civil War" that the
campaign failed because Lee was too long
in establishing concert of action among
his generals that there was lack of posi-
tive decision regarding the early Confed-
crate movements Of Gettysburg. and that
- - - ~1tASA4h was III 6GuUldl ulid-
tory and indecisive. Lee might have won.
says the Count Of Paris, IF the move
ments of his army had been better man
aged; If II had not been developed on too
long line. and If all his lieutenants had
carried out his Instructions with their
wOnted zeal" And one reason why Long
street, for instance, was wanting in zeal
was that he was working on a plan which
was not only against his convictions, but
which was really the wrong plan, his own
being the right one.
Col. Mosbyis book suffers in interest
from being too labored and documentary
in defense of Stuart. The world at large
has little interest in the Stuart -EweI
controversy. Gettysburg remains peren-
nially interesting. but only in its broader
aspects. The Mosby book, no doubt, would
be more interesting If there were in it
more Of Mosby and less Of Stuart Yet
the portion which is more personal and
less controversial is rather good. The de-
scription Of "Jeb" Stuart is appealing.
In aspect Stuart was a typical Scot. He
would have looked well in kilt. bonnet,
and elaymore.
Noble in figure. very blue-eyed. with a
blond and bushy beard. and a cast OF
countenance decidedly Scottish, Stuart
appearance confirmed the story that he