Gettysburg : the last invasion

by Allen C. Guelzo

Ebook, 2013

Rating

(64 ratings; 4.2)

Library's rating

Library's review

Gettysburg is plastered with virtual and real monuments. It might well be the battle most written about. A book length narrative history of the battle will uncover little that hasn't been stated before. It is a question of emphasis, of presenting a different angle, although the battle of Gettysburg

has been covered from all angles. Guelzo's well written account offers a Northern perspective on the battle. The Southerners from Lee down bungle the battle: too little, too late, without attention or care. In my view of Guelzo's presentation, Gettysburg was a battle for the Northerners to win or lose.

For Guelzo, chief culprit and bungler is George Gordon Meade, reluctant and indecisive commander saved from defeat by his enterprising even insubordinate subordinates Reynolds and Sickles. Reynolds forced Meade into concentrating at Gettysburg. Sickles on the second day both saved and imperiled Meade's army. His uncoordinated forward position allowed for a defense in depth. The Southerners managed to gain some territory and destroyed the III corps but they couldn't break Meade's line. Guelzo is firmly in the Sickles camp (while acknowledging that general's whacko personality and actions). His account downplays Little Round Top and the actions around the 20th Maine which has been lionized in books and films. Given the lack of Southern reserves, even a short term occupation of the Round Tops would have mattered little against a Federal army determined to fight.

Overall, a good, readable account that achieves a fine mix between tactical play by play and insider tales. Readers should be aware, though, that the author only presents his view of the battle and that there are many, many other opinions.

Show Less

User reviews

LibraryThing member wildbill

This is a very good book that provides fresh information and insights on a subject that has been written about a great deal. The author is a skilled writer who brings a sense of immediacy and literary craftsmanship that provide the reader with an entertaining and informative experience. I started

with the audio edition of the book which I listened to twice. I then bought a print edition which has copious maps, illustrations and photos. The print edition also has an extensive index and notes which made me glad that I bought it. The audio edition ends with a short interview of the writer which was very enjoyable.
The hallmark of the book is new information and a fresh outlook on all aspects of the most written about battle of the Civil War. The biographical information on the participants is a good example. I had never heard that the Union general Dan Sickles was one of the first persons to be acquitted of murder on a defense of temporary insanity. George Pickett is portrayed by the author as a male version of a dumb blonde whose main virtue was being a Virginian. There is a lot of detail on the politics of both armies. Lee's army had a bias for Virginian officers and the split between the McClellan advocates and the Republican generals was still affecting promotions at this time. In his interview the author comments on Meade's bias in favor of McClellan's attitude against abolitionists.
There is extensive coverage of the historiography of the battle particularly the Southern libels of Longstreet as the man who lost the battle. The author points out that the legend of the 20th Maine was greatly aided by Joshua Chamberlain who lived until 1906 and wrote more than a few articles about the fight on Little Round Top. He neglected to mention the actions of the three other regiments that were there on the Union side.
The author makes very intelligent use of comparisons between the Civil War battles and battles in contemporary European wars. He uses these comparisons to make a point not just show off. I especially enjoyed the author's analysis of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. He uses comparisons with some of Lincoln's prior speeches and Lincoln's emphasis in all of his speeches on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
This book was just published this year and I would not be surprised if it is a candidate for the Pulitzer Prize. It has the combination of excellent scholarship and stellar writing I have found in other Pulitzer winners. I liked the book a lot and I heartily recommend it particularly for anyone interested in the Civil War.

Show Less

11 more

LibraryThing member RobertP

Best history of the battle that I have read.

LibraryThing member Your_local_coyote

I agree with many others that it was a good read, well researched, and certainly very informative. The author does a good job weighing different aspects of the historical record. I especially enjoyed his take on the political ambitions of the Union generals. Given the many supporters of McClellan

it is even more amazing that the North survived the battle. It helps explain more about why Meade was so slow in following up on the victory. It also provides a more complete understanding of Lee's invasion plans and how they failed.

Show Less

LibraryThing member annbury

A readable and solid history of the battle. Guelzo believes that Lee had defeated the Union for two days running, but offers no explanation for the disastrous third day charge. In addition, Guelzo slights Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine, because in his view Chamberlain lived a long time and

was better able to take credit for the win than other more deserving people.

Show Less

LibraryThing member cindyb29

This is an excellent book about the battle of Gettysburg. I learned new things we never heard from the rangers. It's full of detail about all 3 days as well as prior to the battle. It was so good that after returning it to the library, we bought the book so we can use it as a reference on our next

trip to G'burg.

Show Less

LibraryThing member DeaconBernie

Rigorous and detailed study of the Battle at Gettysburg June 30 - July 3, 1863. The author has managed to tell his tale with great detail without overburdening the reader with excessive details. While one might hope that the maps could have better supported the narrative, the narrative is usually

sufficiently detailed to properly place the reader in the local picture. As in any large scale engagement, the whole is made up of a host of local events, battles, advances, retreats, and utter confusion. The reader should at least be able to realize that while reading the narrative in one's easy chair, with controlled temperature and reasonable silence, that the enormity of the whole battle would strain the capacity of any one general to grasp the full picture. I have long thought that Lee was a victim of is own success, that so many times the Union troops had broke and run when pressed harshly, that this battle would end the same way. It's clear the great Lee failed to account for the fact that no two similar events are never identical. But, I guess, that only makes Lee human like the rest of us.

Show Less

LibraryThing member jerry-book

This book attacks some of the myths surrounding the battle. Did Jeb Stuart lose the battle by going on his jaunt around the Union Army and losing touch with Lee? Was Longstreet too slow to attack on Day 2? Was Pickett's charge a crazy move by Lee unwarranted by the battle logistics? Why did Meade

fail to counterattack and destroy the Broken Confederate Army? Did Ewell fail as the new commander of Stonewall Jackson's men? Why did Lee underestimate the Union Army? Was Gettysburg the turning point in the War? The author provides credible answers for all of the above questions.

Show Less

LibraryThing member coachtim30

Very detailed, but readable look at the Battle of Gettysburg

LibraryThing member anthonywillard

Caveat: : This is very much a Northern perspective on the battle. The detailed analyses and accounts are heavily weighted toward the Union forces. The author is skillful with analysis, background, personalities, the big picture. Not so much with battle accounts, which can be spotty and confusing,

with much emphasis on dramatic gestures and less on specific tactics. I feel this book is somewhat overrated, but it is a lively read and does cover the events in an imaginative way. You can skip the clumsy commentary on the Gettysburg address in the Epilogue.

Show Less

LibraryThing member Stbalbach

Highly readable yet detailed history of the events leading up to the battle and its aftermath. Guelzo assumes the reader is not conversant with 19th century warfare, and he describes what it's like. How bodies disappear from the line, like magic, raining down body parts. The effects of so much

firepower on the wildlife. Flocks of birds dropped out of the sky. There was so much smoke that "aiming" was merely pointing in the general direction of the enemy. In some battles they looked for feet underneath the smoke cloud and shot at them, mere yards away. It took on average over 300 musket shots to kill a person, most shots wildly missed.

I learned that Little Round Top (and the Maine regiment's famous charge there) was not so important as is often portrayed. It was more of a remote outpost and not the key to breaking the line. That Confederate commanders made a number of serious mistakes of failed initiative, while Union forces fought tenaciously. Among the Confederates there was no fundamental "cause" to invade the north, it was purely Lee's grand political strategy to force peace negotiations, but it lacked significance with the troops who ultimately didn't have the same righteous spirit Unionists had defending their home ground.

Show Less

LibraryThing member Schmerguls

5733. Gettysburg The Last Invasion, by Allen C. Guelzo (read 5 Feb 2021) This book, published in 2013, tells all you will ever want to know about the battle. In fact it is maybe excessively detailed. It is not till page 154 that the battle starts. The text of the book is 482 pages, then there are

119 pages of source notes and a 49 page index but, sadly, no bibliography as such. He has little good to say about either Robert E. Lee or George Meade. It is hard for me to understand why Lee ordered Pickett's charge--a measured march directly at the Federal line. And while the battle was a great victory for the Union the failure to seek to destroy the defeated rebel army is clearly inexcusable. The war might have ended many months sooner if Lee's army had not been allowed to return to Virginia practically unmolested. There are great stretches of good reading in the book and it tells all you want to know about the battle of Gettysburg, one of the greatest and most decisive battles of history. If the battle had been lost the subsequent history of the world would have been so different.

Show Less

LibraryThing member markm2315

An excellent history of the battle of Gettysburg. Does a good job with most necessary background information. Seemed very good on the effect of the various commanders' political associations. Also good on the various arguments in the years after the war and how opinions have changed. Covered some

things in welcome detail, e.g. the kidnapping of free Blacks in Pennsylvania by Lee's advancing army and the myth of their restraint from pilferage, that I have seen ignored elsewhere. Had an interesting comment about an impromptu speech that Lincoln gave prior to writing the Gettysburg address that contained several of the same thematic elements. I always have to remind myself about the regimental system of the time, so if they say the 2nd Delaware Cavalry, I know about how big a unit that was and who would have been commanding it - I recommend the Wikipedia page entitled "Infantry in the American Civil War".

Show Less

Fewer

Genres

Description

From the acclaimed Civil War historian, a new history--the most intimate and richly readable account we have had--of the climactic three-day battle of Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863), which draws the reader into the heat, smoke, and grime of Gettysburg alongside the ordinary soldier, and depicts the combination of personalities and circumstances that produced one of the greatest battles in human history. No previous book on Gettysburg dives down so closely to the experience of the individual soldier, or looks so closely at the sway of politics over military decisions, or places the battle so firmly in the context of nineteenth-century military practice.--From publisher description.