When a number of Southern historians and former Confederate generals examined the Gettysburg campaign to determine why the seemingly invincible Army of Northern Virginia commanded by Gen. Robert E. Lee suffered its first significant military defeat, most of the blame centered on Lee’s flamboyant chief of cavalry, Maj. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart. In the opening weeks of the campaign, Stuart allowed himself to be detached from the remainder of the Confederate army and Lee stumbled into the ensuing battle without the benefit of the “eyes and … ears of his army.” In Plenty of Blame to Go Around, Eric J. Wittenberg and J. David Petruzzi thoroughly investigate Stuart’s role and conclude that no single person should be made “to shoulder the blame for the crippling Southern loss at Gettysburg.”

Both Wittenberg and Petruzzi are emerging Civil War cavalry historians, specializing in Eastern Theater cavalry operations. Wittenberg’s first book, Gettysburg’s Forgotten Cavalry Actions, won the prestigious 1998 Bachelder-Coddington Literary Award. Petruzzi is the author of numerous magazine articles on mounted operations and is editor of the popular [Brig. Gen. John] “Buford’s Boys” web site. Both are frequent visitors to the Gettysburg battlefield.

Plenty of Blame to Go Around is actually two books in one. The first section examines Stuart’s controversial ride; the second part addresses the subsequent historical controversy as Stuart’s detractors and his defenders attempted to affix blame for Lee’s failure in the Gettysburg campaign. At the onset of the campaign, Stuart requested permission to leave sufficient cavalry with Lee and then to move the remainder of his force to “attain the enemy’s rear, passing between his main body and Washington … and to join our army north of the Potomac.” Lee unwisely acquiesced and moved his army north with the expectation that if the Union Army moved, Stuart would return to army headquarters to operate in the traditional reconnaissance role.

Contrary to the allegation by Michael Shaara in The Killer Angels that Stuart was “joy-riding” in Maryland and Pennsylvania, Wittenberg and Petruzzi assert that Stuart actually dispatched a courier to Lee, informing him that the federal army was moving north. That report never reached army headquarters, nor did it appear in the official records of the War of the Rebellion. Complicating further communications between Lee and Stuart, however, was the disposition of the Army of the Potomac, which moved north and severed Stuart’s communications with his commander.

Moreover, the Confederate cavalry force became hotly engaged even before it crossed the Potomac River. On more than one occasion Stuart’s mission was compromised and Stuart himself was nearly captured. By the time Stuart joined the Army of Northern Virginia on July 2, 1863, his march had consumed eight days, covered nearly 200 miles and included four sizeable skirmishes and two pitched battles. The Battle of Gettysburg had concluded its second day when Stuart’s cavalry reached Lee and the mounted force was completely exhausted.

The most significant question that the authors explore is what impact, if any, Stuart’s absence from the Army of Northern Virginia had upon the outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg. Here, Wittenberg and Petruzzi’s analysis breaks down. Lee certainly was looking for a battle of decision to destroy the Army of the Potomac. Whether that battle occurred at Gettysburg or some other location is irrelevant. Wittenberg and Petruzzi conclude that there is nothing in the historical record to suggest Lee would have acted differently if Stuart’s horsemen had been present. Perhaps, but Lee certainly would have had a clearer picture of the disposition of the enemy’s forces and could have deployed his own army accordingly.

Recriminations against Stuart began as soon as the campaign ended, and it is here that Wittenberg and Petruzzi make their greatest contribution by tracing the evolution of the historiography surrounding Stuart’s controversial role in the Gettysburg campaign. Using contemporary accounts by veterans and correspondents, coupled with a plethora of books written by historians over the next hundred-plus years, the authors argue persuasively that no individual was solely responsible for the Southern defeat at Gettysburg.

As the title suggests, Wittenberg and Petruzzi believe there was plenty of blame to go around for Lee’s failed invasion. None of the senior commanders of the Army of Northern Virginia performed to expectation, including its commanding general, who repeatedly issued discretionary orders to subordinate commanders who required more definitive direction. It is in this context that Stuart’s role must be considered, even though the cavalry leader had performed exemplarily in the army’s previous campaigns. Stuart was certainly operating within the letter of Lee’s order, but he failed to prioritize his tasks properly. Keeping Lee informed was a far more critical mission than the disruption of the Army of the Potomac’s rear area.

To their credit Wittenberg and Petruzzi examine the performance of Union cavalry in impeding Stuart’s advance into Pennsylvania. Vigorous opposition by little known cavalry leaders repeatedly cost Stuart valuable hours and kept him far behind schedule in his efforts to join Lee’s army at Gettysburg. According to the authors, “the plucky Federal cavalry deserve much of the credit for the delays that befell Stuart’s expedition.”

Another interesting feature of Plenty of Blame to Go Around is the book’s appendices. Collectively, they contain a detailed order of battle for each of Stuart’s cavalry engagements, as well as Stuart’s self-serving official report of the Gettysburg campaign. Many readers will also enjoy the final appendix, in which Wittenberg and Petruzzi outline a driving tour of Jeb Stuart’s ride to Gettysburg. In addition, current photographs and excellent maps greatly enhance the text.

Tom Perry is pleased to announce publication of Stuart’s Birthplace: The History of the Laurel Hill Farm. The book is available beginning on February 6, 2007, J. E. B. Stuart’s 174th Birthday.

Perry Comments: “In 1986 Professor Emory Thomas published his biography of J. E. B. Stuart Bold Dragoon, the first biography in nearly thirty years since Burke Davis’s The Last Cavalier. After reading this book I remembered how prominent Stuart’s place in our nation’s history really was and all the famous people and events he touched in his short thirty-one years. I spent the next few years reading about him and then about 1988 I decided that something should be done to save part of the Laurel Hill property and with that I began researching Stuart and his family for the next twenty years.

This new book, my third relating to Stuart and/or the Civil War is full of new information. For the first time the life along with the personal and financial problems of Archibald Stuart, General Stuart’s father, are examined in detail. This book is based on first hand accounts from manuscript collections all over the country especially the university libraries in Virginia and North Carolina. A chapter on Stuart’s wife Flora, who survived him by fifty-nine years, and her descendants down to 2006 is presented for the first time.

The three chapters on “Jeb” Stuart are full of lots of new information. Specifically, I focused on his deep religious faith and sobriety, which is far from the image of the romantic cavalier he cultivated. Stuart joined the temperance movement founded churches and even bought his soldiers copies of the scriptures. For the first time Stuart’s seven year career in the United States Army is covered relying on information gleaned from the National Archives. Areas overlooked in his career during the War Between The States such as his role at the Battle of Chancellorsville, where he replaced the wounded “Stonewall” Jackson leading an entire corps of infantry. His role in the largest cavalry battle in the Western Hemisphere at Brandy Station in June 1863 and the way he gave Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia time to escape after the Battle of Gettysburg and the postwar controversy about his role in that battle are covered. Finally, Stuart’s last days on earth culminating with his mortal wounding and death on May 12, 1864, after the Battle of Yellow Tavern, just north of Richmond is covered.

There is an entire chapter about the preservation of the site beginning in the 1960s up through 2006. The many people who assisted in saving part of the Stuart’s Birthplace are covered especially those in before the forming of the J. E. B. Stuart Birthplace Preservation Trust, Inc. and the early days of the organization we started in 1990.

This book will show why Laurel Hill is Patrick County’s most historic site and that J. E. B. Stuart thought of Ararat, Virginia, as home as do I. The many histories of Laurel Hill from the Native-Americans, African-Americans, Antebellum Farm Life and the Stuart Family’s role in our history along with the regular people of Patrick County I hope will give people a reason to visit Laurel Hill and learn more about it.”

This book tells the story of the farm in Ararat, Virginia, that was the birthplace and boyhood home of Patrick County’s most famous son James Ewell Brown “Jeb” Stuart and the many other people who lived there. In 255 pages the story of Stuart’s family from their arrival in North America in 1733 through 2006 is told with a seven page bibliography and index.

Laurel Hill’s history begins with prehistoric times including information on the Native-Americans, the American Revolution, Antebellum Farm Life and the life of J. E. B. Stuart, who served in the U. S. Army and fought against it in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia as commander of Robert E. Lee’s cavalry in the Civil War. The life of the African-American Slaves beginning in 1780 through 1859 (nearly 50 souls) is covered in detail gathering information from original sources in the Patrick and Henry County courthouses.

The book reveals the lives of the women of Laurel Hill such as Elizabeth Perkins Letcher Hairston, who saw her husband, William Letcher, killed by Pro-British Tories in the American Revolution and then married George Hairston of Henry County. The book tells of Elizabeth and William Letcher’s daughter, Bethenia, who married into the Pannill Family and was grandmother to J. E. B. Stuart. The book tells of the life of Stuart’s mother Elizabeth Letcher Pannill Stuart and J. E. B. Stuart’s widow Flora Cooke Stuart along with information about the Stuart children and their father, Patrick County Attorney and politician Archibald Stuart.

Laurel Hill Farm after the Stuart’s sold it in 1859 is covered pointing out the history of the Patrick County’s most historic community of Ararat with stories of Revered Robert Childress “The Man Who Moved A Mountain” and the midwife made famous by the cabin along the Blue Ridge Parkway, Orleana Puckett. The book concludes with a chapter on Perry’s personal work to preserve the site along with the preservation interest of the Brown, Dellenback and Mitchell families of Ararat, Virginia.

The book may be ordered at http://www.freestateofpatrick.com/book.htm or by check payable to Tom Perry P. O. Box 50 Ararat, VA 24053. The cost is $25 plus $5 tax and shipping.
One dollar from the sale of each of Perry’s books will go to the preservation efforts at Stuart’s Birthplace in Ararat, Virginia, owned by the J. E. B. Stuart Birthplace www.jebstuart.org

Places to hear Tom Perry speak on his new book

Stuart’s Birthplace: The History of the Laurel Hill Farm

May 1, Stuart’s Birthplace, 5 p.m until…, Ararat, Virginia.

May 10, Reynolds Homestead, 11 a.m. Book Discussion, Critz, Virginia.

Biographical Information on Tom Perry can be found at http://www.freestateofpatrick.com/tomscorner.htm

Historian Thomas D. Perry is the Founder of the J. E. B. Stuart Birthplace and hold a BA in History from Virginia Tech (83) He is the author of Ascent To Glory: The Genealogy of J. E. B. Stuart ($20) and The Free State of Patrick: Patrick County Virginia in the Civil War ($30). Stuart’s Birthplace: The History of the Laurel Hill Farm ($30) are available on Perry’s website or by sending check payable to Tom Perry P O Box 50 Ararat VA 24053.

Perry speaks all over the country on topics related to J. E. B. Stuart, the Civil War and Patrick County history. You can see the latest events by visiting the following webpage http://www.freestateofpatrick.com/coe.htm. Perry will speak to any church, civic or school group in Patrick County free of charge. He was the recipient of the George Waller Sons of the American Revolution Citizen of the Year in 2004 for Patrick and Henry Counties and the North Carolina Society of Historians Award for a magazine article on J. E. B. Stuart’s North Carolina Connections in 2005. In 2006, the J. E. B. Stuart Birthplace honored the Perry Family for its work in preserving Stuart’s Birthplace. Tom produces a monthly email newsletter about Patrick County History from The Free State Of Patrick Internet History Group, which has nearly 400 members.

Contact Information
Tom Perry
P. O. Box 50 Ararat, VA 24053
276-692-5300
freestateofpatrick@yahoo.com

Table of Contents For Stuart’s Birthplace: The History of the Laurel Hill Farm

Foreword “Home”
Part One Journeys To Eden
Chapter 1 The Hollow: Ararat Virginia Before The Stuarts
Chapter 2 The Immigrant: Archibald Stuart (ca1697-1761)
Chapter 3 The Major: Alexander Stuart (1733-1823)
Chapter 4 The Judge: Alexander Stuart (1770-1832)
Chapter 5 The Patriot: William Letcher (1750-1780)
Chapter 6 The Daughter: Bethenia Letcher Pannill (1780-1845)

Part Two Laurel Hill
Chapter 7 The Father: Archibald Stuart (1795-1855)
Chapter 8 The Mother: Elizabeth Letcher Pannill Stuart (1801-1884)
Chapter 9 The Stuarts and Mount Airy: Connections To Surry County NC
Chapter 10 The Children of Archibald and Elizabeth Stuart: J. E. B. Stuart’s Siblings

Part Three Stuart of Laurel Hill
Chapter 11 Son of Southwest Virginia: James Ewell Brown Stuart (1833-1850)
Chapter 12 Soldier of the United States: James Ewell Brown Stuart (1850-1861)
Chapter 13 Soldier of the Confederate States: James Ewell Brown Stuart (1861-1864)

Part Four Preservation
Chapter 14 The Wife: Flora Cooke Stuart (1836-1923) and her children
Chapter 15 Laurel Hill and Ararat Virginia After The Stuart Family
Chapter 16 A Personal Preservation

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, contends that nearly 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom’s entertainment programming have been available on YouTube and that these clips have been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

Viacom, an entertainment giant that owns Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks and a number of cable channels, said it has also asked the court for an injunction to halt the alleged copyright infringement.

“YouTube appropriates the value of creative content on a massive scale for YouTube’s benefit without payment or license,” Viacom said in its complaint. “YouTube’s brazen disregard of the intellectual-property laws fundamentally threatens not just plaintiffs but the economic underpinnings of one of the most important sectors of the United States economy.”

The lawsuit represents a serious escalation in the conflict with YouTube, and it is also the most significant legal challenge over intellectual-property rights to video sharing’s No. 1 site. But some industry observers doubt that this will embolden other entertainment companies to mount their own court challenges.

Google downplayed the legal challenge and extolled the benefits to content creators that it sees in YouTube.

“We have not received the lawsuit but are confident that YouTube has respected the legal rights of copyright holders and believe the courts will agree,” Google said in a statement. “YouTube is great for users and offers real opportunities to rights holders: the opportunity to interact with users; to promote their content to a young and growing audience; and to tap into the online-advertising market. We will certainly not let this suit become a distraction to the continuing growth and strong performance of YouTube and its ability to attract more users (and) more traffic, and (to) build a stronger community.”

Google, which acquired YouTube last October for $1.65 billion, recognized the possibility that the video site would one day be forced to wage lengthy court battles. The company has reportedly set aside a sum of money to fund legal costs.

Meanwhile, Google has successfully negotiated licensing deals with many entertainment companies, including Warner Music Group, CBS and most recently, the BBC.

Some advocacy groups suggested that the “fair use” doctrine of copyright law, which allows the noncommercial reproduction of works for purposes like criticism, comment, news reporting and research, should protect YouTube users that post short clips or mainstream-media works.

“Simply (defining material as) ‘unauthorized’ does not make its use illegal,” Gigi Sohn, president of the advocacy group Public Knowledge, said in a statement.

“I don’t think this is the start of a whole series of litigation,” said Edward Naughton, intellectual-property partner at Holland & Knight. “I think this is Viacom and Google in a negotiation that hasn’t gone so smoothly, so it has gone to litigation…Viacom is just really turning up the heat.”

Although legitimate copyright concerns come into play, Viacom’s action is “probably about a large company that would prefer the old status quo, where they had most of the control (over their content distribution), and they didn’t cede it to companies like YouTube and Google,” said Jeffrey Lindgren, an intellectual-property lawyer at Morgan Miller Blair in San Francisco.

“I would expect some (suits from other companies to) follow,” he added, “but I don’t know (that) this is really going to lead to the onslaught that is the end of Google and YouTube.”

Viacom isn’t the only entertainment conglomerate yet to partner with the Google division. Some executives have been very critical of YouTube’s practices, including Jeff Zucker, the CEO of NBC.

An NBC Universal representative declined to comment Tuesday on whether the company has plans for litigation against YouTube similar to that of Viacom. Twentieth Century Fox Film spokesman Chris Alexander, meanwhile, said the Viacom complaint is far more sweeping than any action his company has pursued against the video-sharing site.

Earlier this year, the News Corp. unit subpoenaed YouTube for the identities of two users who had allegedly posted as-yet-unaired episodes of the popular show 24 because it was “interested in protecting full episodes of our series that we have yet to monetize,” he said.

“We take protection of our copyrights very seriously, and we look at them on a case-by-case basis,” Alexander said, but he added that he was unaware of any companywide policy governing clips, as opposed to entire episodes, posted to video-sharing sites.

Viacom last month caused a stir by demanding that YouTube remove 100,000 infringing clips. Some observers shrugged, calling it a negotiating tactic by Viacom and predicted that the two would eventually become partners.

Nonetheless, Viacom says in its complaint that YouTube failed to prevent its users from posting pirated material to the site. San Bruno, Calif.-based YouTube will remove clips that feature unauthorized material only after it receives a takedown notice from the copyright holder, Viacom said.

This, many entertainment executives say, is unfair. YouTube’s policy, which the company says complies with copyright law, forces many of the biggest studios to devote time and money toward policing someone else’s site. Often, no sooner than a company asks YouTube to take down a clip, users post a new version of the same clip.

“YouTube has deliberately chosen not to take reasonable precautions to deter the rampant infringement on its site,” Viacom said in its complaint. “Because YouTube directly profits from the availability of popular infringing works on its site, it has decided to shift the burden entirely onto copyright owners to monitor the YouTube site on a daily or hourly basis to detect infringing videos.

A source inside Viacom said the company would likely have not filed suit, had it not repeatedly found clips that it had already asked to be taken down.

“More and more of the company’s resources are going to this,” the source said. “The company basically is paying for an entire new department to watch YouTube.”

Google lawyers said they are relying on a 1998 law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to shield them from liability. One provision of that statute generally says companies are off the hook if they remove copyrighted content promptly when it is brought to their attention.

Internet services may only benefit from that so-called “safe harbor” if they also meet a four-pronged test. Those conditions include not being “aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent” and not receiving “financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.”

Viacom in its complaint argues Google and YouTube do not qualify for that relief, but Glenn Brown, an in-house product counsel for the merged companies, said he was confident their actions were on solid legal ground. “We meet those requirements and go above and beyond them in helping content providers identify copyright infringements,” he said in a telephone interview Tuesday afternoon.

YouTube was also expected late last year to release a technology that would automatically weed out copyright content from the site. NBC’s Zucker and others in Hollywood have accused the company of dragging its feet. Viacom said that only when an agreement is reached will YouTube begin safeguarding an entertainment company’s copyright property.

“YouTube has deliberately withheld the application of available copyright protection measures in order to coerce rights holders to grant it licenses on favorable terms,” according to the complaint.