For me you really have to split hairs as to which was better. They were both excellent. I think if you held it to a vote of average civil war buffs it would be Forrest just because Stuart often times gets thrown under the bus for Gettysburg (something I fully reject).

Also Stuart has a hard time shaking the image that he was simply a conventional 19th century cavalry officer because of the nature of his operations. For the most part he acted in unison with the army of Northern Virginia and Lee used him in very conventional roles: Cavalry screens and flank gaurd etc. While Forrest also conducted such operations he was afforded a little more freedom in the west to act on his own.

Lueitenant Dunbar,,haso behowdioctobe...aka Dances with wolves.

It21rocks, you are very much on the right track about Stuart's constraints placed upon him by Lee. The times Stuart acted independently he showed himself to be an exceptional officer and one who was just a bit ahead of his time in his thinking in the use of cavalry. As I've mentioned before, he is mentioned by name in Sir Arthur Fremantle's book as the only American CW General who understood the tactics of fire and shock. That had to take more than someone who was just a conventional 19th century officer.

Let's not forget Gen. Stuart's flawless handling of General Jackson's Corps at Chancellorsville after Gen. Jackson's wounding.

Duane A. Brinson Lahaina, Hi.
U.S.M.C. 1985-1989

"Get there first with the most."
Those are the oft quoted, and miss quoted*, words of Nathan Bedford Forrest. It appears that the man would agree with the kiss principle of keeping things simple.

* I don't believe Forrest would have ever used words like "firstest" and "mostest."

13 July 1821...General Nathan Bedford Forrest born...Happy belated birthday General....

Duane A. Brinson Lahaina, Hi.
U.S.M.C. 1985-1989

quote:

Originally posted by Proudformermarine:
Let's not forget Gen. Stuart's flawless handling of General Jackson's Corps at Chancellorsville after Gen. Jackson's wounding.

Duane A. Brinson Lahaina, Hi.
U.S.M.C. 1985-1989

Absolutely true. Stuart had a great range of talents but was simply fighting in a different theater than Forrest and so had different tasks. Also important is that he had a Cavalry force of very mixed quality. Wade Hampton and the Lee boys were great subordinates with great troops, but the rest were unremarkable at best. Forrest was ably served by brave and intelligent subordinates like Joe Wheeler, and his cavalrymen were more consistently reliable against greater odds.

What Civil War cavalry officer's tactics that was used during his campaigns and battles is studied and taught to the cadets attending West Point?????

Gen Nathan Bedford Forrest.

SignalSgtWilliams, so are JEB Stuart's. In the past I have talked with instructors from West Point at Gettysburg, when I portrayed the general. Groups will come over from the Point to go over the battlefield and study the battle and tactics.

quote:

Originally posted by s******_mech:
"Get there first with the most."
Those are the oft quoted, and miss quoted*, words of Nathan Bedford Forrest. It appears that the man would agree with the kiss principle of keeping things simple.

* I don't believe Forrest would have ever used words like "firstest" and "mostest."

In the book;,First with the most: By Robert Selph Henry, He states that Forrest Did say,to the effect . If you get ther first with the most, You in all probability will emerge the victor. You are correct. He did not say firstes wif the mostes. General Forrest was a man of little schooling but not a ignorent man. At the time of his enlistment as a private in CPT.Josiah White's Tennessee mounted Rangers, He was a succesful business man Of fourty years old and purported to have amassed a fortune of over a MILLION dollers, (not bad for an Illiterate),Keep going Gentlemen. This is very informative.

I didn't get to finish my last posting as I had to take my grandson to school. Back now. Sir Arthur James fremantle said, "JEB Stuart was the only American civil war general who understood the value of the fire and shock methods."
I don't dispute Forrest's abilities, in fact they were exceptional and he deserves the credit and more that he gets, but, Stuart was also a commander who knew the value of terrain and how to use it. Too many people believe the myth of the empty headed flamboyant cavalry commander. Its a shame that this has overshadowed his outstanding abilities as an overall commander.
His rides around the Union army and into Union territory are dimissed as fluff. Just grand stand plays for self glory. That is very far from the truth. Stuart did not disobey Lee's orders, he only used that leeway of the commander in the field at that time and moment to make his decision. He gained invaluable information on the units and positions of MacClellan's army when he rode around it in 1862.
In 1863, very few if any of the talking heads, only the unbiased historians, include the fact that when Stuart first started his ride he found a third of the Union Army in his way. Should he have gone back and told Lee, or used his authority and continue the mission as per ordered? He went on. It took him an extra 24 hours to go around and then go north to continue his orginial line of movement.
When the battle of Gettysburg first started Stuart was exactly where he was supposed to be. Another thing modern historians do, is put their foot clear up to their knees into their collective mouths and criticize Stuart for his slow return to Gettysburg. They have no idea what it takes to move cavalry through enemy territory or how cavalry moves. They cope out and say the wagons slowed him down. THAT"S BS!
Cavalry does not move in the galloping charge that they're so used to seeing in the Hollywood tradition. Walking horses and men, when they dismount every three to four hours walk about the same speed as horses pulling wagons. They also oconviently forget that most of these wagons contained MUCH needed medical supplies and ended up carrying the CSA wounded from Gettysburg. In addition, they have no idea how many horses are needed for campaigning for cavalry. Stuart alone needed 500 hundred to six hundred re-mounts EVERY week. Horses and mules were as valuable as a fifty gallon barrel of crude is now! An army then could not move without them.
The myth that just gets me is Stuart left no cavalry to guard and screen the Army. BULL! He did over 2500 troops were left with the army. Why LEE didn't use them is his fault NOT Stuart's.
One thing Stuart did not do. He NEVER shirked his responsibilities. He took the blame at least twice for sub-ordinates who quite literally caused Stuart harm while he was living. The real coward and villian of Brady Station got away with his situation because he had too many political friends in Congress. Brig Gen. Beverly Robertson. His incopentence and withdrawing in the face of the Federal advance almost cost the CSA the Battle at Brandy Station. It WAS a CSA VICTORY. They cost the Union twice as many men and held the field as the Northern troops fled back across the river.
Robertson buried his mistakes and blamed Stuart. It cost Stuart his third star and command of Jackson's old corps.
I invite anyone to pick a copy of Mark Nesbith's "Saber and Scapegoat, The Stuart Geyysburg Controversy." Its very enlightniong reading. If it doesn't convince you, at least it will broaden your knowledge about the 1863 campaigns.

quote:

The myth that just gets me is Stuart left no cavalry to guard and screen the Army. BULL! He did over 2500 troops were left with the army. Why LEE didn't use them is his fault NOT Stuart's.

They were also the worst cavalry in the whole of the Confederate armies. I don't think Lee or any subordinate of his could have used them effectively, considering that after returning from the Northern Campaign (Gettysburg), they all claimed a "Loss" of their rifles. That Stuart could use them at all says a lot about his ability as commander and leader. The half of his cavalry force that was effective: The Lee boys and Wade Hampton, was outstanding. The other half was terrible (the kind of men that throw away their weapons on the march).

As for personalities, it is true that people tend to forget as much as they'd like to replace the real men with charactures. I remember when Gods and Generals came out; all of the shrieking movie censors/opinion-makers that masquerade as critics were in a fit. Stonewall Jackson was portrayed as a human being and not as a quirky psycho that got lucky in battle every now and then. What can you say? The new Court History of the Civil War is simplistic. The way they have it is so worthless but I see it in everything from military publications to far left book reviews: Thomas is the only solid-minded general of the war, Jackson was terrible and only won against political hacks (which should, I would think, cast doubt on the Lincoln government.....not to mention raise questions about the merit of Hannibal and most great generals who outclassed their foes), Lee was bloodthirsty and confused, Hancock was profane and lost his nerve from Gettysburg 'PTSD,' and so on and so on.
Every one of those points (and the rest of their official truths) would have been torn to shred with real evidence (not sophistry) and have gotten you laughed at fifty years ago. Now it is almost a rule that you accept them all.

Thrust, slow down. They were not the worst. There were elements of all units that were just as bad. If you would slow down here and really think about some things.
First, the duties of screening and scouting for the army is not that ardous a job. If even the worst of the cavalry was left, they could perform those duties as they had been prforming them all along.
Second, if Lee had any heart burn with the troops Stuart had left behind he would have let him know it. Lee and Stuart had an exceptionally close relationship.
Third, the Lee boys although very good soldiers were not good strategic soldiers in their thinking and actions. They eventually did become better leaders and served well.
Fourth, Stuart was a realist in the fact he had already had three very close brushes with death and knew he needed to train someone to be ready to take his place. The man he wanted to be his second in command and eventual replacement was Wade Hampton. Hampton was one of those rare breed that took on the leadership mantle with exceptional aplomb. He had one flaw that used to bug Stuart. That being he couldn't keep himself out of the fray. He was recovering from wounds quite alot.
Fifth, If you were a commander who had a fast hit and strike, fire and shock mission, you would want those troops that you could trust the most going with you. Stuart didn't screw over the Army of Northern Virginia. He took the men he knew that would keep up and fight and go when he needed them.
Sixth, there were commanders that spring, infantry, that were not following Lee's orders and some not even attending the staff meetings. The whole campaign got off to a botched start because Ewell moved his corps to a different area to camp and didn't tell Lee or Stuart.
So when Stuart started his march, he found not Ewell's CSA infantry, but two corps of the Army of the Potomac!
I can be very sympathic with people, especially Southern people in their feelings. I'm not re-writing history. I don't have an axe to grind or point to make in the classic sense. All I try to do is get the maximum information out and let people think about it and question things so it can become clearer in their minds. YES, there is too much guff and absolute BS being put out and it is an uphill battle. But,sometimes, you have to put personal feelings and methods that you feel are tried and true aside and consider all the facts. Slow down, read and think about things. I see many things alot clearer after my own command experiences while on active duty. There some areas of command and strategy I have questions about, still, so I go back to the books and do more reading. I have a table and over a dozen books and papers that are maps, photos and reference material I use in my studies. I also have walked alot of the ground it actually happened on. I also have ridden in CW gear and in varying degrees of weather.
My God partner, I've been studying this since 1969 and been a re-enactor/living historian/lecturer/black powder shooter and served 20 years active duty! The CW, I feel I've only scratched the surface! Those people with hard fast inflexible views, just make fools of themselves when they think they know it all!
I'm not pointing any fingers, but this is a field of study that is endless and that is my point.

Darryl. That was very well put. I want to make a small point that I made on another thread in this forum. IF the General's of Civil war era had been put in places of command according to thier knowledge, ability and experiance. a lot of them would have been shoveling Horse S--- in a stable instead of leading troops. BUT,such is the brotherhood of the W.P.P.A.. It has been the bane of good Officers since the start of recorded history, Politic's has put men in places of command that should have been Clerk/typest's. Remember. Gentlemen. No man or General is Infalible. (SIC)

Chuck you are so right in the observation. It was a shame that so many had to pay for that ignorance. But I wonder how much has that changed? It has to a certain degreee, but it was very disheartening to see that some things along that line in the military haven't changed.
My son Matt who is a YN1 told me quite awhile back, "Dad, now I understand about some of the things I used to hear you complain about, concerning the service."
Human nature is going to always be around, and its a GD shame that many times the worst of it stays so long at the top.

I don't know what you're talking about or what you think I'm talking about Mr Jpope. Stuart was the best and I'll always say that no matter how many books the propaganda ministry cranks out trying to diminish him. Still, his lesser three commanders at the time - Robertson, Jenkins, and Jones - had the most undisciplined and unreliable troops.

Thrust my friend. I think both you and jpope took offence without fully reading each others post's. YOU are BOTH correct. J.E.B. sorted out the "CHAFF" and left them with LEE. They ,IN my opinion were not the worst but not at the top of anyones list either. Darryl, You were correct. Stuart picked the troops that he knew he could count on . The others,for what ever reason were left with LEE.The fact that lee didn't use them in the prescribed manner is not to be blamed on GEN. J.E.B.. Gentlemen sheath the sabors and move on. You two have been amoung the ones that I count on for your knowledgeof thr civil war

You both are right and I have no real heartburn with what Thrust says. My explanation is from a great deal of years of doing Stuart and fielding many not so intelligent questions about his actions.I have always thought that Stuart was one of the best Cavalry commanders ever produced. But I feel that way about John Buford and some others.
My rather long posts above are just not for Thrust and I'm sorry I seemed to take that much exception to his postings. But there will be many other people read these and I hope that between the three of us we can dispel some of the crap about some of the major figures of the Civil War.
Thrust there are those in this world that STILL think Stuart was an empty headed vain glory seeking buffoon, but that is far from the truth. you wouldn't believe some of the BS some people have written and try to convince others its gospel.
My 1850 Staff saber is sheathed and will stay that way until my grandson finds it again. We are cool,.......let's carry on.

Thanks ordmate and Jpope. I'm just an amateur military history enthusiast and don't pretend to be anything more.
What I do know is that the character of Jeb Stuart and Lee still comes through the ages as genuine and certainly not as empty and vainglorious. And as a matter of fact, I would say the same thing about Hancock and his subordinates, or Reynolds. People even forget to give due credit to their own side in haste to make partisan attacks on Lee or Stuart.

Thrust for being an amature you seem to have a grasp of history that I envy. I am also not a historian. What I know about the civil War is exceeded only by what I don't know. I count on people like JPOPE and yourself for good Information. I just thought both of you needed to reread the post's. Hang in there Marine you have a friend here.