Gettysburg

Stephen Sears has written some of the best accounts of major Civil War battles going--Antietam (Landscape Turned Red) and Chancellorsville (Chancellorsville). And he may well have written the best rendering of the Gettysburg battle--including the gold standard of such histories, Edwin Coddington's The Gettysburg Campaign. Coddington's work is almost forty years old now, and Sears can take advantage of additional material available since then. He does so nicely. The tale begins with the aftermath of Chancellorsville, the defeat of the Army of the Potomac, largely the result of General Joseph Hooker's loss of resolve and injury in battle. It takes the reader through the march of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia north to Pennsylvania and the subsequent pursuit by Hooker's army; the meeting engagement precipitated by General John Buford's interposition between Hill's Corps and Ewell's Corps and Gettysburg; the rapid gathering of both armies; the bloody three day conflict, culminating with the perhaps inappropriately termed Pickett's Charge; Lee's subsequent retreat with Meade's army nipping at his heels. In the process of explaining the complexities of this campaign, great detail is provided, even more so than the estimable recent volume by Trudeau. Indeed, if one were to purchase only one book on Gettysburg, this volume might well be it. Special mention for the readability of this book (Sears writes very well), the nicely done maps (that illustrate very well the geography of battle), the standard set of relevant photos. In the final analysis, then, this is a genuine 5-star book and ought to be in the personal libraries of those interested in the Civil War.

The contemporary Civil War historian is truly limited with respect to new revalations concerning most of the major struggles...it becomes the author's challenge then to present a fresh perspective while covering the "same old ground". The 1863 battle at Gettysburg meets or exceeds this challenge...no other ACW struggle has been covered as completely or as comprehensively as Gettysburg. So why does the renowned Stephen Sears offer us another one volume narrative on something that has been covered completely before? It's because Sears can WRITE and he surely realizes (and thus the general reading public must also realize) that under his talented pen, he can still offer much to the literary cache that is Gettysburg and provide a useful and meaningful new study for modern readers. Sears's approach is refreshing in that he does not try for revisionist history...he uses his abundant talents to tell the story honestly and comprehensively and in the process, he gives yet another keen perspective to this battle that should be read by all ACW and Gettysburg readers. Starting with R.E. Lee's decision to invade the North in light of his recent victory at Chancellorsville (another excellent Sears study by the way...) and the seemingly imminent Confederate defeat at Vicksburg, Sears recounts the details and tactics that led to the battles at Brandy Station and Winchester and the invasion details that almost led to the Confederate taking of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Sears gives a clear account of these sometime complex manueuvers and expertly sets the stage for the ensuing three days battle. Troop movement and high level military strategy abound as the battle begins on July 1st...beginning with judicious biographies of the key 1st day players (John Buford, John Reynolds, Henry Heth and Richard Ewell...), Sears lays out the results and discusses the "might have beens" had certain key elements moved differently. The Federal attainment of the high ground south of town clearly gives the Union the advantage and Sears shows how all parties more or less come to this same conclusion. The second day struggles are shown to be an offspring to the strong disagreement in the Sr. level of the Confederate leadership as James Longstreet and Lee vehemently disagree on that day's battle strategy...Longstreet proves to be right, of course, and this assertion no doubt enhanced his career as far as history is concerned. Sears maintains that had Longstreet's plan been enacted, this would have been a very different battle. Regardless, Sears is deft at descrbing the action that actually took place as he gives glowing accounts of the battle action at the Rose Farm (and villifies Dan Sickles in the process), the Wheatfield, Devils Den and of course Little Round Top where any Joshua Chamberlain fan will be impressed with Sears coverage. The expert analysis is continued with the third day events as Pickett's Charge is described in as clear and concise terms as I've ever read. The two da

There are two Civil War writers who concentrate on the Eastern Theater of the war, and are prominent enough to garner attention outside their field. One is Stephen W. Sears, the other is Noah Andre Trudeau. Sears has concentrated on the first half of the war, mostly writing about the campaigns of George McClellan, while Trudeau has worked in the last half of the war, making a name for himself as the best-known chronicler of Grant's Overland Campaign in 1864. Last year, Trudeau presented us with Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage, a long and very good account of the battle and its consequences. It seems these two historians have met in the middle of the war, because we are now presented with Stephen W. Sears' simply titled Gettysburg.Sears is a different writer than Trudeau, and he presents the battle in a different fashion, the book in a different manner. While Trudeau's book is long and dense (no illustrations, ca. 600 pages of text), Sears' book is considerably shorter, and more accessible. It has illustrations, either photographs of the participants or artwork done by participants or witnesses. Since they take up space on the page, and I would judge the font to be a point or two larger, my guess is this book is a good 25% shorter than Trudeau's. That makes it more accessible (as does the inclusion of illustrations, one shortcoming of Trudeau's book) and easier to read. It's not, however, a book for beginners.Sears is of course interested in the battle and why it came out the way it did, not just recounting what happened during the fighting. He echoes many of Trudeau's judgements, differs with some others, but makes some of his own. Most of his verdict on the battle and the performance of the generals involved is nothing new to Civil War buffs, and won't make fans of R.E. Lee happy. Each of the generals who were active on the battlefield gets some treatment of his effect on the battle.One illuminating section was on the Military Intelligence branch Hooker had set up, which Meade kept, called the Bureau of Military Information. The officers in charge of this kept track of intelligence, assimilated, evaluated, and sorted it, and presented it to Meade regularly during the campaign. Lee had no such organization, and of course Stuart, who performed some of the duties involved, was away riding around the Union army. This provided Meade with a considerable advantage: he knew which Confederate troops were on the battlefield, and was aware he would be facing an attack led by Pickett's division on the third day, because the B.M.I. hadn't interrogated any prisoners from that division yet. Lee, by contrast, fought the battle under the impression that only part of the Union army was on the battlefield, because the Confederates didn't do the same thing.In direct comparison with Trudeau, Sears is perhaps a bit of a better writer, but Trudeau provides more detail. Sears' narrative is sorted conventionally, with the fighting on a particular part of the battlefiel