Some of you guys may have already read this but I found it extreamly interesting ...
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/american_civil_war/3025486.html

OFC

It is better than the usual beat up of Stuart and this problem.
1. There were more than two sets of orders sent to Stuart concerning the plan and orders to execute it.
2. This controversy did not reach epic proportions until 1882 when Colonel Taylor at dinner party in Pennsylvania decided to castigate Stuart all over again on this issue. It was the time of making Robert E. Lee a demi-god and the beloved cause and who was to blame for the fall was in full swing.
3. The Battle at Brandy Station was a Confederate victory, not a defeat. They held the field, inflicted twice as many casuliites on the Union and forced the Union troops to retreat back across the river. Beverly Robertson was the cause of all the "Defeat" talk of Brandy Station and he is the man who caused it! Only by bluff and bluster and friends in the Confederate congress did he come out on top. Even Lee stated "What do we do with Robertson?"
4. One thing the vaunted 20 and 21st century historians can't understand is the speed of how cavalry moves across country. Ask them and they will say, the cavalry moves fast to get where they're going. Most think, get on the horse and gallop away, they have no real idea what it takes. The wagons that Stuart captured did not slow him down that much, and what these guys also can't get through academic heads is these wagons removed a large percentage of the wounded from Gettysburg and carried much needed medical supplies for Lee's army. Why is this so hard a fact to accept?
5. Stuart was not several days behind schedule. He was right where he was supposed to be on July the first. The Confederate army had moved on to Gettysburg and left Stuart wondering where they were. Also another thing these non military historians can't understand is you just can'say to a division of men, let's go let's gallop to Gettysburg!" You're in "Indian country" you have Vedettes, scouts and patrols out to keep you safe in your movements. What about them? do you wait to see what they have to tell you or wait to account for them and their return or do you just yell "forward ho! and gallop off? Seems like, accouding to them, you just ride off and barge towards where you're ordered to go? Seems like you just gallop off and throw caution to the wind.
6. As for the Cavalry set back at Upperville, come on people, what is with this we win every battle we fight? I remember a couple of years ago some wags on here were saying that the amount of ammunition fired off never decreased, even after the troops had had two or three years of campaigning under their belts. In other words, NO ONE in the army got better at shooting. This is stupid to think that the Federal cavalry was not going to improve. Stuart was aware that it would. He wasn't blind to that fact as many seem to portray him. Again, not getting into a leaders head and understanding him and the type of warfare he fights. I believe Stuart knew things were changing, the Union troops were getting better, their tactics, horses, equipment and above all their leadership. It is not a pipe dream to continue and be upbeat and optimistic about your situation. Morale of his men and the army would have suffered unneedlessly. they knew what wash appening and in a war where direct personal leadership made the difference time after time, it isn't hard to see why these men acted the way they did.
7. As I said this is a better than average write up on the subject. Mr. zimmerman does take into some of the facts that are quite often ignored by 20 th and 21st century historians because most have an axe to grind or opinion to shed instead reporting the truth, whole and unfettered.

Some how JP I KNEW YOU would get a kick out of this :>)

OFC

You were right old bud. I does stir me up.
Years ago my friend who does General Custer, Steve Alexander and I had a very long and I must say productive conversation concerning the two Generals we were portraying. We pooled our knowledge on each man and talked about the idea of getting to the real man, the flesh and blood man, not the man of legend.
That is where you really come into your own when portraying these people. What were they really like? What was or were their movitations that made them do the things they did.
I have heard Stuart called a "Momma's Boy" because of the love for his mother and how he honored her. Wearing a red rose on his coat lapel buttonhole. Some historians believe it goes back to the excess time he spent with his mother as a boy.
I personally have known several momma's boys in my life and Stuart just does not fit the bill. True his mother did spend alot of time with him, but she also taught him to love, understand and respect nature. He knew the plants, trees, insects and animals by the time he was eleven. He also knew how to ride from the time he was a toddler. He had many brothers and sisters, brothers all older with whom he had to learn to hold his own with. A Momma's boy, I don't think so.
It has also been said numerous times he had to big an ego. I don't find a whole lot of this to be true. although it was not uncommon for important people in the 18th century to be that way. Many places, at that time, it was an accepted trait of behavior. What did one have to keep their name in front of others than to be in the newspapers? This is something modern historians get off track on, there was no CNN or CBS or FOX news network to turn on and see instantly.
Stuart knew he was not immortal, he had started training others and looking at other officers to take his place if he were wounded or killed. He was hit twice in battle and had one near miss before Yellow Tavern. He had no illusions about living out the war, surviving.
As for not seeing the rise and improvemment of the Union cavalry, he knew that it would. It takes two years to make a good cavalryman. Besides the Union cavalry was hamstrung by infantry commanders who did not know the true striking power it could have if handled by the right leaders. That became true after 1863 when the Confederates starting running into the renewed and rebuilt Federal mounted troops. They gave as good as they got.
As I've said before, the Civil War was a war where personal leadership could make or break a battle or skrimish. Having a positive attitude doesn't mean you are glossing things over and are ignoring the inevitable. ..and this is something historians love to hurt Stuart on is apparent lack of real concern about how the war was progressing. That is bull.
I feel as do others that the continuation of this farce concerning Stuart and Getttysburg is just a continued bout of laziness on the part of people who are too damn lazy to get to the real truth about the man and his conflict. Excuse me guys, as I don't mean ANY of you. Its the talking heads with all the alphabet soup letters after their names who perpetuate this "tale."
It only takes the reading of two books to make a person start to think that maybe, just maybe there is more to this than we were lead to believe. Believe me, there is and it makes for some VERY interesting reading.