1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Very Good Arguement for Stuart!, July 14, 2007
This review is from: Saber & Scapegoat: J. E. B. Stuart and the Gettysburg Controversy (Paperback)
I enjoyed the book and I think Nesbitt makes a great arguement for Stuart.
I have met Mark Nesbitt and I think he is a fine historian. I did not give the book 5 stars for a couple of reasons. I thought some of the information became redundant he seemed to repeat himself to a certain degree. Also I wish Nesbitt had provided more detailed maps and more maps in general!
Modern day photos of the battle areas being discussed would have been a nice bonus!
Overall a great book!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An excellent study, August 5, 2003
By A Customer
This review is from: Saber & Scapegoat: J. E. B. Stuart and the Gettysburg Controversy (Paperback)
This book takes one of the most controversial actions in the greatest campaign of the Civil War and re-examines the original documents related to the controversy, at least insofar as they can be found. The thoughtful, reasoned analysis of Stuart's actions, his basis for them, and their ultimate effects on the outcome of the campaign, combine to produce a fresh book on the Gettysburg campaign.
Certainly it will not settle the controversy fully, but it is a welcome addition to the canon of literature on Gettysburg.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Saber and Scapegoat, September 24, 2002
This review is from: Saber & Scapegoat: J. E. B. Stuart and the Gettysburg Controversy (Paperback)
This is a book that I've somewhat dreaded reviewing. It's a little hard to know how to rate it, and it's hard to review it without going off onto my own interpretation of the topic. (Despite the temptation, I'm going to try and avoid doing that.)
Nesbitt's essential thesis is that the blame laid by some upon General Stuart for the defeat at Gettysburg is unfair. I agree with him. However, I'm not sure I don't think he's right for the wrong reasons.
Nesbitt proposes several beliefs: Stuart's absence brought on the battle; no cavalry was left to Lee; Stuart was "late" for the battle; Stuart wasn't following orders; Stuart was joyriding; and offers to prove them false one by one. He is more successful with some of these proofs than others. He spends much of the narrative on Stuart's orders. I'm not sure this was the best strategy. The orders were confusingly written, we may not have them all, and after the war they were variously interpreted. Harping on the orders and on Lee's aide, Marshall's, possible postwar dishonesty concerning them tends, I think, to weaken Nesbitt's thesis by taking time and attention away from the real weak points in the "Stuart was to blame" argument. He gets caught up in the morass and makes some confusing and contradictory statements himself. In his discussion of the orders he does establish to my satisfaction that Stuart was not outright disobeying, though other readers have disagreed.
Nesbitt is perhaps on better ground with his discussion of postwar events -- the canonization of Lee as part of Lost Cause ideology and the fact that Stuart, being dead and not having been a favorite of some major hagiographers, made an ideal victim. Mosby's refreshingly lucid comments serve Nesbitt well here.
Time is also given to an analysis of the cavalry's role during the battle and retreat. Nesbitt points out, very cogently, that Stuart left men behind watching the Federal army who were supposed to stay in contact with Lee, but he fails to explain why these men did not, apparently, do their duty. This would be a useful thing to know, as would the reason why much of the cavalry Lee did have was off with the Second Corps, thus out of touch with Lee--but not at Stuart's bidding. Also, though the accidental nature of Gettysburg and the fact that it wasn't seen as a "high-water mark" till after the war do receive mention, Nesbitt's argument might have been stronger, I think, had he focused more on those factors.
Some rather unusual photos grace this volume, including one in which Mosby looks startlingly like actor Kyle MacLachlan.
This book will be required reading for anyone interested in the subject, but I'm afraid it may intensify controversy rather than clarifying discussion.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
