Last year I picked up a number of books on the Civil War in general and the battle of Gettysburg in particular. I've been interested in the Civil War since I was one of only people to pick the Confederate side in a little game we played in Jr High school. Everyone knew the Union won, but I wanted a challenge!
Anyway, I'd never really done a ton of serious reading on the war, so I decided to rectify that.
The Sears campaign study was one of the books I picked up on Gettysburg, but I've read the rest of them, so I was saving this one, potentially saving the best for last.
I wasn't disappointed. I knew what to expect after reading Sears book about Antietam, and I was also eager to compare it to the Trudeau book I read on Gettysburg last year.
It compared very favorably. Both books carry much of the same content, but the Sears book seems to be a little less of a blow by blow account of the action and more of an overview, particularly with the first day's fighting. Sears takes more of an analytical approach going in depth into the mind and character of Lee and Meade. In particular, he gives Meade more credit than some narratives do, contrasting him with previous Commanders of the Army of the Potomac. He also lays much of the reason for the Confederate defeat squarely at the feet of Lee, and makesa good case for doing so. Sure, Jeb Stuart was off galavanting around the Union army instead of gathering intelligence, but Lee had sanctioned the mission to an extent. Sure Ewell failed to grasp the importance of following up the confederates day one gains by taking Culp's Hill , but Lee's orders gave Ewell considerable discretion on the matter. Lee's hands off approach to his generals and refusal to alter his battle plans on day 2 and 3 reflected a certain disdain for the Army of the Potomac and overestimation of his own capacity. Sears also makes the case that Lee's strained relationship with Longstreet in particular (refusing to listen to Longstreet's alternatives) largely contributed to the dreadful fate of Pickett's charge on Day Three. He also deflects some blame from Longstreet, noting that although he disagreed with attacks planned on days 2 and 3, he committed his forces as ordered and still nearly won the day, particular on day 2.
All in all, this a great work of Civil War History and should be on an buff's book shelf. If you've never read much about the battle, read Shaara's semi-fictional account "The Killer Angels" first then supplement it with reading Sears' study to get the whole picture.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
