Stuart and Pelham
In his charming biography of John Pelham, Charles Milham comments on his joining forces with Stuart that it 'promised little." He makes it clear that he is referring to the inauguration of the Stuart Horse Artillery, but as much might have been said about the relationship between the the two men.
Stuart's biographers have tended to give the impression that Stuart discerned talent and a kindred spirit in the yaung artillerist and made a point of pressing for his transfer. Pelham's, oddly, have been more circumspect. Milham stated only that Stuart 'must have been acquainted with his reputation for courage, gallantry and leadership." John Esten Cooke said that Pelham "speedily" attracted the attention of the higher generals of the army....Once associated with the command of...Stuart, he secured the warm regard and unlimited confidence of that General. " Compare this with his description of Stuart's procurement of William Farley, of whom he wrote that Stuart "took violent possession." In fact, the alignment seems to have been almost serendipidous, at least inso far as Stuart was concerned. Pelham's part reflects interestingly on his character.
Stuart's letters in the fall of 1861 suggest a man not in a receptive frame of mind. He had encountered opposition to the formation of a battery of horse artillery. He had counted on John Esten Cooke and had proposed him, as former sergeant and "Chief of Piece" in the Richroond Howitzers, as its commander. Cooke's only contribution seems to have been advertising for recruits. In Richmond he did little, infuriating Stuart with his dilentantism. At the same time, Stuart was considering James Breathed of Maryland for the command. Breathed was a physician in civilian life, but he made an impression on Stuart, who sought to advance him. The avenue he chose was the new battery, but as a lieutenant only. Advised of Pelham's interest, Stuart gave what probably was the least compliment he would ever give him: " ...next to Rosser probably no graduate [of West Point] would do better. " He wrote this on November 24, 1861; on November 29th, Johnston ordered Pelham and his battery to report to the cavalry. Bingham Duncan stated that the action was taken "on Stuart's recommendation. " The inclusion of a trained and equipped cadre may have been an added inducement.
Of some curiosity is the question of who first mentioned horse artillery to Pelham and who told Stuart of his interest. Stuart had known of Pelham, to some degree, before the appointment. Milham speculated that Belle Boyd, the Confederate spy, had acted as a social intermediary. Constance Cary's claims for his popular reputation at this time suggest a faulty memory. However, he had "attracted the attention of the higher generals of the army." Pelham himself wrote of receiving compliments from general officers at First Manassas, and oral tradition names Joseph E. Johnston as one of these. Stuart would naturally regard Jolmston as an ally, especially if the horse battery was opposed by Jefferson Davis. Probably Johnston, and Pelham himself, were the active agents in the transfer, which Stuart simply accepted as the best that could be arranged.
The nature and development of Stuart's attachment to Pelham have received little examination. Stuart seemed delighted with the choice of the battery's name, the Stuart Horse Artillery. If that choice were the Captain's, it was a gracious diplomatic gesture.
The first battle of the Stuart Horse Artillery was on May 5, 1862 at Williamsburg. On that occasion. Pelham engaged his guns without orders. Stuart felt no misgiving by the initiative shown by Pelham and, in private correspondence, was jubilant over it. He was impressed by the coolness shown by his battery coomander. Pelham's naive charm and youthful good looks have been remarked upon almost equally with his daring, courage and deadly skill, and Stuart was susceptible to good looks and charm. Seven months' association and one battle seem to have resolved whatever reservations Stuart may have had."
It's impossible to state with certainty when Pelham became part of cavalry headquarters. He was included in some of their social activities. Stuart enjoyed the company of his artillery chief and did take him about from purely friendly motives, but hardly to the pathological extent that some have implied. Each carried on some social life quite exclusive of the other. Probably after Sharpsburg did Pelham become part of Stuart's military family. Blackford wrote that Pelham "always lived at head-quarters as a staff officer, as the General would not agree for him to do otherwise, for he loved him dearly."
What is overlooked is that, by its nature, the relationship depended more on Pelham than on Stuart. Douglas S. Freeman gave a hint of the problem when he observed that they were as close "as a Major could be with a Major General to whom he was responsible. " The burden of maintaining that delicate balance falls chiefly on the junior officer. The commander is permitted certain freedoms and, provided personal feelings are not damaged, more opportunity to make redress. The junior officer can never remind the senior of their relative positions, or the foundation of the relationship is destroyed. Pelham never seems to have made this error. Even more remarkable, he maintained his position as obvious favorite without sacrificing the affection and camaraderie of other officers, both in the line and on the staff.
Although much evidence exists of Stuart's affection, there is little to tell of Pelham's feelings. Cooke wrote that "their fortunes seem united, like their hearts" and quoted Pelham as saying "there never was another man like Stuart. " Channing Price thought Pelham "not very demonstrative" and West Point classmate Adelbert Ames recalled that "there was a reserve about him." Pelham may have occasionally suffered from a surfeit of popularity. He is several times mentioned riding alone, a welcome respite from the claustrophobic environment in which he lived. One friend remembered that Pelham had not joined much in staff society, although he was present on certain occasions. Sometimes he may have shared Cooke's attitude towards Stuart, "something too much of that. " He probably did not like prolonged or public annoyance or teasing, which Stuart was prone to practice. Of much interest are Stuart's words upon hearing of Pelham's death:
"Poor boy, he was angry with me once." Unfortunately, Cooke does not explain further, not even if it was over a personal or military matter. It is interesting that Stuart would allude to the incident, whatever it was, at such a time.
One can conclude that Pelham found a relatively comfortable billet and accommodated himself to the inconveniences. Although he did not handle glorification or even normal social situations with the same poise as Stuart, he was friendly and undoubtedly grateful for the appreciation. Contrary to popular images, their actions and general behavior suggest that in many respects the artillerist possessed greater self-assurance and a better self-image than the cavalryman.
Pelham never expressed discontent with his lot. Upon his death his father wrote Stuart thanking him for his "kind and disinterested" friendship, not "exploitive" or "possessive."
Stuart had found a subordinate whom he could trust implicitly, who would act upon his own initiative and whose understanding of a situation complemented his commander's. For his part, Pelham had found a commander who did not interfere, supported his actions, and promoted his interests. Thomason wrote, "There was love and mutual admiration between the two of them, and no abler combination, sabre and light artillery, has ever been arrayed for battle." Socially, Pelham was glad to let Stuart take the lead. Whether Pelham would have been comfortable had he realized the extent of Stuart's admiration is doubtful. Stuart did create an atmosphere, teasing and public praise aside, where Pelham could work and live comfortably.
Milham is correct in asserting that without the mutual bond -- military and personal -- between Stuart and Pelham the story would be less compelling. What can be deduced from the evidence is more touching than any fiction, and as exciting and humanly engrossing a story as history offers.
This article first appeared in Volume 6, No. 5 of The Cannoneer.
Sources:
Charles G. Milham, Gallant Pelham: American Extraordinary.
John Esten Cooke, Wearing of the Gray.
W. W. Blackford, War Years With Jeb Stuart.
Douglas Southall Freeman, Lee's Lieutenants, Vol. 2.
Emory Thomas, Bold Dragoon: The Life of J.E.B. Stuart.
John W. Thomason, Jr., Jeb Stuart.
Bingham Duncan, ed. , Letters of General J .E.B. Stuart to His Wife 1861,
Atlanta, Ga., 1943.
