Talk:J. E. B. Stuart
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the J. E. B. Stuart article.|
|J. E. B. Stuart is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources
in relation to this article:
This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
The incident w/the hornets: Fact or fiction?
- It is a story told by his older brother, William, and is cited in a number of biographies. I'll reword it. Hal Jespersen 16:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Stuart's stinging rebuke from Lee. I would like to know what your source is for this. I have read many books, articles on both Stuart and Lee and besides The Killer Angels (a work of fiction) and the movie Gettysburg (a work of fiction) have found no mention of Lee's stinging rebuke on the Second Day.
I am not going to edit the page. But I would just like to know the source. If there is no source or the source is the Killer Angels, I think that comment should be removed from the Stuart bio. Clg621 14:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree this is an overstatement. Of course, due to Lee's normal civility, a reproach that would otherwise seem mild could be interpreted by an intimate such Stuart as an implied stinging rebuke. (That sort of interaction would not work well in a movie without embellishment.) I will work on this tonight unless someone else jumps in. The entire article needs a rework. It's pretty obvious that References other than Eicher were used, for example. Hal Jespersen 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless we know for sure (have scholarship) that Lee rebuked Stuart, I don't think that the Stuart bio should suggest Lee did so. The other thing I would like you to look at (I won't edit since my knowledge does not equal yours) is the Peach Orchard comment. Lee wouldn't attack at all? Really? Did Lee ever make that statement? I do believe the Gettysburg part of Stuart's bio needs to remain fair to Stuart. Clg621 15:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll reword it. The Peach Orchard sentence says it "is unlikely Lee would have attacked on July 2 in the way he did ...", not "at all." Hal Jespersen 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The Peach Orchard sentence says it "is unlikely Lee would have attacked on July 2 in the way he did ...", not "at all." Is that "rebuke" of my faulty memory really necessary. The problem is not my post here on Talk but that the Stuart bio seems to hold Stuart personally responsible for the failed attack on July 2. From now on, I will be exacting in my posts so you won't have to waste your time correcting me. Clg621 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not intend to offend. I interpreted your question literally ("Lee wouldn't attack at all? Really? Did Lee ever make that statement?"), as is easy to do in communications of this type. By the way, there is a more complete discussion of Lee's plan in Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day#Lee's plan and movement to battle. Hal Jespersen 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I have updated the article. See what you think. This article still needs a lot of work. Considerably more can be said about his Civil War career and it all needs a thorough dose of in-line citations. Hal Jespersen 01:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit that added the nicknames "Flower of Cavaliers, Knight of the Golden Spurs." If you are going to add something to the info box it needs to be in the body of the article and should be represented by the information gathered from the References. According to the Eicher reference, Stuart had two nicknames: Jeb and Beauty. Since the latter is so obscure, no one thought to add it. However, as a more general point, for American Civil War biographies, we use nicknames that are not simply general descriptions, but ones that could reasonably be assumed to be used by his contemporaries in addressing the person. So Henry Heth was Harry, James Longstreet was Pete, William T. Sherman was Cump, Ulysses S. Grant was Sam, J.E.B. Stuart was Jeb. (It is actually possible to imagine one of the other generals calling him Beauty to his face, but no one ever called out, "Hey! Flower of Cavaliers!") I imagine that the article on Abraham Lincoln has a longer list of what they call nicknames -- such as the Great Emancipator -- but I have not been involved in arguing this point over there. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Cause of death
This article says he was shot with a pistol from 30 feet away; the page for Yellow Tavern says he was shot by a former sharpshooter from a great distance.
- I have corrected the account in Battle of Yellow Tavern. (That article is rather pathetically short, which I will correct one of these days.) Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Moved here from article:
- According to Marina Margaret Heiss, "Jeb" would have been considered an ENTP, or Extraverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving. He shared the same personality type as other famous people like Alexander the Great, Sir Walter Raleigh, and President John Adams. It is suggested that he also shared personality traits with some fictional characters such as Bugs Bunny, Wile E. Coyote, and Garfield the cat.
Number of siblings
"He was the eighth of eleven children and the oldest of the five sons to survive past early age."
This is impossible. If he was the eighth of eleven children, and he was the oldest of all the sons, the maximum number of sons his parents could have had would have been four. So something in this sentence is incorrect. Anyone have a source that they can use to verify the correct information? Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your change from oldest to youngest is correct--a conceptual "typo." The footnote there currently is the source you seek. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments on the recent reversions regarding Mosby and Nesbitt: I posted a comment last month that said in effect, "Do a proper citation or remove the material," and a month later, I removed it. I am always willing to help format a Reference entry, but can't help when an editor fails to provide page numbers for a book I don't own. But the broader problem is that there are already five historians quoted to represent the balanced POV controversy about Stuart. The opinion of Nesbitt seems to be similar to the one presented by Longacre (a more accomplished author), so I don't see much value in squeezing in another. A second point, about Mosby. It is true that he offered a vigorous defense, which is interesting, but the lack of citation killed this assertion, too. I'll add one. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
regarding Mrs General Stuart
the article indicates "Flora wore the black of mourning for the remainder of her life, and never remarried. She lived in Saltville, Virginia, for 15 years after the war, where she opened and taught at a school in a log cabin. She worked from 1880 to 1898 as principal of the Virginia Female Institute in Staunton, Virginia, a position for which Robert E. Lee had recommended her."
General Lee died in 1870 and Mrs. Stuart predecessor as principal held the job between 1848-1880. Is it accurate to say General Lee recommended Mrs Stuart for the position?
- I made a change to the article which clarifies that Lee's recommendation was ten years before Mrs. Stuart's eventual appointment, thus occurring before Lee's death. Citation: Wert, p. 368. I added a footnote that Lee was president of the Board of Visitors of the school during the time he was president of Washington College, 1865–1870, and had sent two daughters to the school for their educations. Good question; the disparity between the date of Lee's death and the date of Mrs. Stuart's appointment certainly raises the question you posed but Wert's book, in the references, provides the answer. Donner60 (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I can appreciate the morale value, but what is the military purpose of such a maneuvre? A clarification would be nice. //erik.bramsen.copenhagen
- As explained in the article, he was sent out to find the right flank of the Union Army, but he continued in a full circle. The full circle had no military value beyond the public relations advantage mentioned. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I found this while looking for a better copy of a couple of the images in the article. It's... rather racist, but it might be illustratively so? http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.10902/