Customer Reviews

Saber & Scapegoat

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

It's about time someone has taken the initiative to defend Stuart's rightful actions during the Gettysburg Campaign. Nesbitt's book explains fully what I have known all along. Lee had cavalry with him and failed to use them. That is Lee's fault. End of story. These people that feel the need to keep the blame from Lee and continually find "scapegoats" need to get over it. This was an excellent book that I will recommend to anyone who wants the real truth of the battle of Gettysburg.

The facts are there - most only care to repeat what was said of Stuart. Why would such an exemplary soldier screw up suddenly ? He didn't screw up but followed orders. The facts are there if anyone wants to check them LIKE NESBITT DID !

Nebitt's SABER AND SCAPEGOAT redefines the depths to which an author bent on historical advocacy is willing to stoop. Nesbitt's attempt to explain why "Jeb" Stuart should not be blamed for any part of the Confederate failure in the 1863 Pennsylvania campaign could not pass History 101, let alone be considered as serious military prose. The author's incredibly narrow criteria that employs only selective use of some portions of certain documents, while ignoring vital evidence such as the historical context in which ALL of the orders were written, Lee's important restraining orders, Stuart's own actions at Haymarket, Dover and elsewhere throughout the ill-fated eight day "raid" that show he was following an agenda all his own, and much much more, reduce this work to a poorly organized, intellectually shabby exercise. With such a spotty and incomplete use of all the available evidence, Nesbitt's work should be viewed with greatest amount of caution and skepticism possible.

Having read and studied the author's book carefully, the most accurate way I know how to describe it is simply as "factually challenged history." That there are many omitted facts from Nesbitt's book one wonders why the attempt was made in the first place. If someone is looking for a well reasoned treatise on the Lee-Stuart issues at play in the Gettysburg campaign, they need look elsewhere.

Author Nesbitt appears to have taken up the cause so energetically fought by Stuart friend and appologist, Col. John Mosby in the last decades of the partisan's life. Like Mosby's defense (Stuart's Cavalry in the Gettysburg Campaign), this study suffers from poor organization which leads to a sense of confusion. Perhaps the author felt he had such a plethera of points of contention that he had difficulty in maintaining his direction. The author's main points center on the ambiguity of the evidence supporting the charges brought against Stuart by men such as Lee's aids, Marshal, Long, and Taylor. He correctly points out the inconsistencies of some points and challenges the logic of others. The bulk of his defense is based on supposition, a point he makes in regard to the charges of Stuart's failure to follow orders, but forgets when shifting the blame to others. The one redeeming value of this study, as alluded to above, is that the attacks on Stuart's conduct during his ride to Gettysburg are difficult to defend and are generally brought by persons with an agenda of their own. The great weakness, also alluded to above, is that the defense of Stuart is also based on similarly difficult to defend arguments by men, read Mosby, that likewise had an agenda. Given Lee's loosely constructed orders and Stuart's penchant for glory hunting, especially after the generally defensive role played by the cavalry through the battles in the Aldie-Middleburg-Upperville area, it is impossible to conclusively determine where the bulk of the guilt lies in the mismanagement of the Confederate cavalry at Gettysburg. As the author has demonstrated, as it has been before, the lack of clarity of evidence on both sides of the debate makes it possible to read into the argument whatever one likes. For bringing the issue to the forefront once again, the author should be commended. Likewise, he should be applauded for taking a stand on one of the greates controversies to come out of the American Civil War-a move that ensures that one side or the other will not concur with his conclusions.