New-York tribune., 1917-10-27
Mosby
One of the Cavalry Heroes oI
the Confederacy

THE MEMOIRS or COLONEL JOHN q MosBf
Tditod by Charles W Russell Oct pp. Xxi.
it Little. Brown Co.
John s. Mosby was one Of the out
standing figures Of the Civil War. In
his own field-that Of detached cav
airy leader. operating in the rear OF
the enemy and on his lines of com
unication-Mosby had no equal. lie
has been enormously classed as a mere
guerilla. But he was not in any sense
a guerilla-what is known in Euro
mean warfare as "franc-tireur." lie
was a regularly commissioned officer IN
the Confederate army, and his r1en
were ali regularly enlisted soldiers. lie
fought fairly and recognized the rules
of war. He was courteous, hlgh-
minded man, with keen feeling Tor
the romance and adventure Of war. j.
f. B. Stuart was his idol and his model,
and Stuart was, beyond most men, the
embodiment of gallantry and chlvalry.
History has long ago relieved Mosby
Of the stigma OF bushwhacking. But
il was on the mistaken theory tnat ne
was a bushwhacker that Secretary
Stanton issued an order excluding MIN
from the terms Of the parole granted
to the Army Of Northern Virginia when
1t surrendered.
Mosby's success as a leader OF parti-
sans-that is, of detached troops, with
out any base of operations, gathering
III the rear Of the Federal armies for
an attack and then dispensing
phenomenal. The story OF his military
accomplishments, of his many daring
adventures and thrilling experiences Is
told in the dry pages of the Official
reports of the war. In this narrative
IL is retold connectedly and concisely
by the protagonist himself, and In a
manner which agreeably emphasizes
Mosby's unusual simplicity and lnde-
pendence Of character.
II is an intensely interesting and
dramatic record, though already famil-
lar TO Civil War students. What are
even more interesting, from the ms
torical point of view, are the authors
occasional ventures into military criti-
cism. Mosby had ideas Of his own.
He strongly condemns Joseph +. john
stons strategy in the first Manassas
campaign, and contends that Johnston s
feebleness alone prevented the South
from gathering the fruits Of its first
great victory.
In discussing the Gettysburg cam
paign he valiantly defends Stuart from
the insinuations in Lees report that
Stuarts absence from the main body
Of the army was responsible for the
failure of Lees plans. Mosby goes
further than most Southern writers IN
charging that Lees first report on the
Gettysburg campaign was written for
him by Colonel Marshall, of his staff
and that sit is really lawyers brlei
and shows the skill Of the advocate IN
the art of suppression and suggestion
He says that in order to make Stuart
a scapegoat the writer of the report
invented the incident of a spy bring,
ing news Of Hooker's advance toward
Frederick to Lee, when the latter was III
Chambersburg on the night of June 2S
and of Lees being obliged TO alter his
whole scheme of operations because OF
that disconcerting news. The intima'
ton Is that Stuart's absence on his
raid behind the Federal lines left Lee
without adequate means or obtaining
information of Hooker's movements.
Mosby argues conclusively that Lees
operations were not affected injuriously
by the non availability of Stuart's cav
airy command for scouting purposes
And that is the judgment to-day Of al
impartial critics. Lee effected his con-
centration for battle before Meade ef'
fected his. He certainly was not ham
pered TO any material extent in con.
centration by Stuart's absence. He may
have meant to fight at Cashtown in
stead of Gettysburg. But il he wa:
compelled to fight against his will al
Gettysburg, that was clearly the fault
Of Heth and Hill, not of Stuart.
Colonel Mosby's long chapter on the
Gettysburg campaign shows much acu'
men. 1t Is brilliant piece Of analysis
Less can be said OF his judgment, quot
ed in the introduction BY Mr.. Russell
that "McClellan was the ablest genera
on the Federal side" "1f Grant hsC
commanded during the first years OF