STUART'S CAVALRY IN THE GETTYSBURG CAMPAIGN.
A Reply to the Letter of Col. John S. Mosby, Published in the Richmond, Va., Times-Dispatch, January 30, 1910.
By Col. T. M. R. TALCOTT, Major and Aide de Camp to General R. E. Lee, 1862 and 1863, and later Colonel, First Regiment Engineer Troops, A. N. V.
Editor of The Times-Dispatch:
The avowed purpose of Colonel Mosby's book was to prove that General Stuart was not in any way responsible for the failure of the Gettysburg Campaign, and to do this it was necessary that he should prove that the movements of General Stuart were in accordance with his instructions.
General Lee states, in his official reports of the Gettysburg Campaign, that he was embarrassed by the unexpected absence of the cavalry under General Stuart, from which it is inferred that Stuart did not act in accordance with General Lee's instructions to him: and to meet this difficulty Colonel Mosby denies the authenticity of the reports, and holds them up to ridicule as the productions of a staff officer, to which General Lee affixed his signature without reading or having them read to him.
After all of his contention that General Stuart "obeyed orders," Colonel Mosby, in assailing the accuracy of General Lee's reports, practically gives up his case when he says in his publication in your issue of January 30th:
"There is not a word in the instructions to Stuart, although the report says so, about his being left to guard the passes of the mountain, or harass and impede the enemy, should he attempt to cross the Potomac, for the plain reason that he was expected to cross in advance of the enemy and move on into Pennsylvania with Ewell." (Italics mine.)
