In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

book reviews255 novel, The Killer Angeh (1975), and the film Gettysburg (1993), based on Shaara's work, faithfully reproduced the depiction of Stuart as the Confederate who contributed die most to Southern defeat. Between 1863 and 1993, Stuart has had his defenders. But now Mark Nesbitt attempts absolute exoneration in Saber and Scapegoat: J.E.B. Stuart and the Gettysburg Controversy. Stuart was following Lee's orders or at least attempting to foUow them. He was not "skylarking" on a frivolous quest for greater fame. Stuart did assign sufficient cavalry to ride north with Lee and perform reconnaissance for the army. He did not leave Lee helpless to blunder into a battle Lee did not want. Stuart was not "late" for die battle at Gettysburg. The several charges leveled against Stuart, Nesbitt asserts, "are patently false." Within the limits he estabUshes for the controversy, Nesbitt proves his case. Stuart did none of those misdeeds his accusers have alleged he did. If die questions at issue concern wrongful or extraneous acts Stuart committed before he arrived on the field atGettysburg, then Nesbitt establishes Stuart's innocence once and for all time. But as ever, the questions any historian asks of the past in large measure determine the answers to those questions. So die crucial matter in Saber and Scapegoat is not Nesbitt's answers but his questions. He asks if Stuart did anything wrong and proves he did not. But what about other questions that Nesbitt did not ask much less attempt to answer? If Stuart did nothing wrong during the Gettysburg campaign, what did he do that was right? What contributions did Stuart make toward Confederate victory at Gettysburg? How did Stuart help Lee in Pennsylvania? What about that third day of the battle and Stuart's actions then? Nesbitt offers a summary of the action in which Stuart launched a mounted attack against David M. Gregg's division of Federal cavalry. But what about the fact of a drawn battle when Stuart supposedly outnumbered his enemies by a two-to-one margin? Nesbitt absolves Stuart from sins ofcommission. Questions continue regarding Stuart's omissions, however. Emory M. Thomas University ofGeorgia Holding the Line: The Third Tennessee Infantry, 1861-1864. By Flavel C. Barber. Edited by Robert H. Ferrell. (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1994. Pp. viii, 281. $35.00.) Flavel ClinganBarber(1830-1864) was educated atGiles CoUegeinTennessee. By i860 he was teaching at Bryson, Tennessee, near Pulaski. In May 1861 he enlisted in the Confederate army and assisted in raising the 3d Tennessee Infantry. Serving first in southern Kentucky, he was sent in early 1862 to Fort Donelson, built by Confederates to hold the Tennessee River line. Barber was 256CIVIL WAR HISTORY stunned when his superiors unconditionaUy surrendered that fort and its army, and while many Confederates successfully escaped, Barber was captured and sent to Camp Chase near Columbus, Ohio. Soon he was transferred toJohnson's Island near Sandusky, where he remained until exchanged in late 1862. He traveled to the Vicksburg area, where he fought in the campaign to hold thatlast Confederate outpost on the Mississippi. Next he moved eastto participate in the campaign to stop Sherman's advance toward Atlanta. He was wounded on May 14, 1864, and died the next morning. During these adventures from 1861 to 1864, Barber maintained ajournai, and four volumes are now located in the Indiana University library. One volume, from the period oflate August through early December 1862, is missing, creating the only gap in his account. The meat ofthejournal Ues in Barber's accounts of the struggle to hold Donelson, the defeat of Sherman at Chickasaw Bayou near Vicksburg, and bis experience as a prisoner of war. We have thousands of battlefield descriptions, but it is Barber's prison experiences that are especially illuminating in contrast to all of the horror stories about Civil War prison Ufe. At Johnson's Island Barber complained mat Ufe was monotonous but described his day as one with breakfast soon after 7 a.m., roU call at 8 a.m., newspaper reading from 9 to 12 noon. After dinner at noon a "siesta" followed as prisoners "lay about in the shade." At 5...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 255-256
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.