Brigadier General James Monroe Williams

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 13, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Military history: Biography / North America / United States / American Civil War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force Virginia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Civil War / Military history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - American Civil War task force. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

what is also needed are more words about his slave holdings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.38.155.134 (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

well? he defended evil practice, was he also evil?

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.

Anyone willing to cite this thing? Anybody? No. OK. Kresock (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume a citation is possible, but even so, I would not recommend this be included in an article that attempts to be a serious historical biography. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

(this is my first ever posting. please excuse any lapse in posting/questioning etiquette) Elisdad1 (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I thought there were supposed to be advantages in capturing supplies and destroying communications, as well as intelligence gathering. Valetude (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...and he would have found the right flank quicker by going clockwise around the Union army, not anti-clockwise. Valetude (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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/

I'm... very, very unsure about it. If it illustrates a point well, by all means let's use it, but I don't think we should use it frivolously. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any use of it. It's not really about Stuart at all. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intro includes "...on two occasions (during the Peninsula Campaign and the Maryland Campaign) circumnavigated the Union Army of the Potomac..." The second ride around the Army of the Potomac was part of the Gettysburg Campaign, not the Maryland Campaign. This is covered correctly in the main text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.234.20 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Look at the exquisite detail...Jeb Stuart rides again!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.83.113 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a clue how this happened, but the references (all of them) are in the notes section. The vice versa is also true. - Sleyece 15:08:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are laid out correctly...see layout guidelines. These are done correctly.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berean Hunter I see that they are done in according to layout guidelines, thank you for correcting me. My previous edit has been undone - Sleyece 16:40:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we detail his image of cape/etc in the lead, or the body? Also might be worth finding a painting of him with all his gear, though not sure where to stick it. Maybe somewhere on the left, or we can pick one or the other of the gravesite images, or put them side-by-side. Also, is his profile pic the original? There are several versions of the pic in commons, some better quality than others. Cake (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised that this article credits a “resurgence of left wing politics and black nationalism in the US since the election of Barack Obama” for the movement to rename JEB Stuart HS in Fairfax. This needed to be edited! 2600:4040:4932:4800:89B6:82BD:811:3870 (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]