What do you think?
Rate this book
Gettysburg: The Last Invasion
From the acclaimed Civil War historian, a brilliant 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 the greatest battle of the Civil War, and one of the greatest in human history.
Of the half-dozen full-length histories of the battle of Gettysburg written over the last century, none 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. Allen C. Guelzo shows us the face, the sights, and the sounds of nineteenth-century the lay of the land, the fences and the stone walls, the gunpowder clouds that hampered movement and vision; the armies that caroused, foraged, kidnapped, sang, and were so filthy they could be smelled before they could be seen; the head-swimming difficulties of marshaling massive numbers of poorly trained soldiers, plus thousands of animals and wagons, with no better means of communication than those of Caesar and Alexander.
What emerges is an untold story, from the trapped and terrified civilians in Gettysburg’s cellars to the insolent attitude of artillerymen, from the taste of gunpowder cartridges torn with the teeth to the sounds of marching columns, their tin cups clanking like an anvil chorus. Guelzo depicts the battle with unprecedented clarity, evoking a world where disoriented soldiers and officers wheel nearly blindly through woods and fields toward their clash, even as poetry and hymns spring to their minds with ease in the midst of carnage. Rebel soldiers look to march on Philadelphia and even New York, while the Union struggles to repel what will be the final invasion of the North. One hundred and fifty years later, the cornerstone battle of the Civil War comes vividly to life as a national epic, inspiring both horror and admiration.
Of the half-dozen full-length histories of the battle of Gettysburg written over the last century, none 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. Allen C. Guelzo shows us the face, the sights, and the sounds of nineteenth-century the lay of the land, the fences and the stone walls, the gunpowder clouds that hampered movement and vision; the armies that caroused, foraged, kidnapped, sang, and were so filthy they could be smelled before they could be seen; the head-swimming difficulties of marshaling massive numbers of poorly trained soldiers, plus thousands of animals and wagons, with no better means of communication than those of Caesar and Alexander.
What emerges is an untold story, from the trapped and terrified civilians in Gettysburg’s cellars to the insolent attitude of artillerymen, from the taste of gunpowder cartridges torn with the teeth to the sounds of marching columns, their tin cups clanking like an anvil chorus. Guelzo depicts the battle with unprecedented clarity, evoking a world where disoriented soldiers and officers wheel nearly blindly through woods and fields toward their clash, even as poetry and hymns spring to their minds with ease in the midst of carnage. Rebel soldiers look to march on Philadelphia and even New York, while the Union struggles to repel what will be the final invasion of the North. One hundred and fifty years later, the cornerstone battle of the Civil War comes vividly to life as a national epic, inspiring both horror and admiration.
656 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2013
About the author
Allen C. Guelzo
54 books245 followersAllen Carl Guelzo (born 1953) is the Henry R. Luce III Professor of the Civil War Era at Gettysburg College, where he serves as Director of the Civil War Era Studies Program.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 374 reviews
December 5, 2020
“From the vantage point of the watcher on South Mountain, Gettysburg lay at the north edge of the horizon, although a good brass naval telescope could bring it pretty easily into view. But on that late June afternoon, the watcher’s attention would be captured, not by James Gettys’ distant town, or by the newly cut mounds of grass and hay, or by the fields of full-grown wheat and the knee-high cornstalks, spread out like yellow aprons on the plain below. Instead, if the watcher looked to the west in the oncoming twilight, the darkening shadows over the Cumberland Valley quickly became pinpricked with a carpet of fire lights. Or, if the watcher looked east, what caught the eye was an interminably long snake of traffic…all stopping and starting, and stopping again, and then sluggishly moving again, and all of it headed north, toward Gettysburg. The watcher was beholding something never seen before from this spot, and never seen again – two great armies, bound for the greatest and most violent collision the North American continent had ever seen…”
- Allen C. Guelzo, Gettysburg: The Last Invasion
Gettysburg is the most famous battle in American history. Occurring over three days in July 1863, it was a seesaw affair in which the fate of a nation continually rested on a wobbling flank, a rugged hillside, a gap in a line. It was a battle that took ordinary local geographic features and made them immortal: the Peach Orchard; Devil’s Den; Little Round Top. When it was over, nothing had been decided. The Confederate Army of Robert E. Lee escaped. The Union Army of George Meade let them. And the war went on for two more years, bloodier by far than anything either side had ever seen.
The battle, though, has significance beyond its enormous cost. After Gettysburg, Lee’s Army never took an offensive posture. After Gettysburg, Lee no longer wore invincibility as a cloak. And after Gettysburg, Ulysses Grant took command. Grant was a great man and a great general; a man of iron will and tenacity. When Grant came east, the Confederacy was doomed.
As befitting its stature, Gettysburg has been well covered in previous books. If you look it up on Amazon, you get 7,600 listings. When I first saw Allen Guelzo’s Gettysburg: The Last Invasion, I wondered at the point of yet another volume on the three-day battle in and around a small Pennsylvania crossroads town.
The point, of course, is it was published around the 150th anniversary of the battle. The reason I read it? Well, I’m a sucker.
The verdict: Not only is this the best book on Gettysburg I’ve read, it might be my favorite Civil War book ever.
Beyond the crackling prose, the deep research, and the annotated endnotes, what makes this stand out is Guelzo’s idiosyncrasies.
Gettysburg: The Last Invasion is filled with digressions, analogies to famous European battles I’d barely heard of, and quirky little sub-theses such as Guelzo’s contention that the Civil War was demonstrably not a modern war. His focus is different than any author I’ve read. Lee disappears almost completely for long stretches at a time (arguably, as he did during the battle). Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain’s famous charge is mildly disparaged (in favor of the posthumous Strong Vincent, who led the Union contingent up Little Round Top). J.E.B. Stuart is mostly forgiven, since Guelzo believes that Civil War cavalry on both sides were badly misused, and seldom utilized for intelligence gathering (Stuart has been condemned for riding around the Union Army during Lee’s invasion, leaving Lee without “eyes”, and therefore knowledge of the Union Army’s position).
I don’t agree with all of Guelzo’s positions. The more I think about it, the less I agree with them. But they got me thinking about the Civil War in a whole new light.
The key to Guelzo’s success is that he really has taken a ground level view. (Of course, the ground level can be foggy; as he reminds the reader time and again, Civil War gun-smoke was so thick that soldiers often shot at each other’s feet). He teaches in Gettysburg, so he’s lived with the terrain all his life. Thus, he has an incredibly good grasp of the topography, and how that effected 19th century armies (who knew how much was riding on Pennsylvania’s small-holdings, each one surrounded by stone fences that played hell on infantry formations?).
Guelzo also has keen interest in what it meant to be a common soldier. To be sure, every book worth its salt is going to quote from the letters and diaries of ordinary soldiers. After all, in Guelzo’s words, the men who fought the Civil War were “hyperliterate.” Guelzo does much more than that. He digs deep into the primary sources and discovers passages of such startling detail that they make other Civil War entries mundane. Guelzo notes that many soldiers, in their writing, tended towards vague hyperbole in their descriptions. (The event being so enormous as to be almost beyond words). To counteract that, he has found writings that hone in on the ghastliness of battle, passages that resemble the famously uncensored remembrances of Ambrose Bierce:
Not all the details involve detached limbs, however. One of the fascinating tidbits that Guelzo unearths is the way that the opposing armies could smell each other long before they actually came into sight.
The thing I most appreciated about Guelzo’s Gettysburg was its attention to 19th century tactics. This is glossed over in most books I’ve read. Oh, to be sure, any author will tell you that this battalion moved here, or that brigade went there. There might even be maps, which clarify but also simplify.
Here, Guelzo explains what it takes to get men hither and yon. It is no simple feat to move 60,000 to 90,000 men from one place to another, when the only thing connecting those two places is a dirt road. (And that road is blocked by an obstinate cow). He details the painstaking and lengthy process of maneuvering men into position; of getting them into different formations; and what those formations mean. It took a lot of time, which explains why the fierce fighting on Gettysburg’s second day didn't begin till late afternoon.
Guelzo defines all his terms, often with reference to the aforementioned European battles. For instance, he describes the differences between a “line of battle” and a “column,” and the advantages or disadvantages of each. This is probably obvious to a West Point graduate or anyone who’s read Hardee’s Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics, but it’s excellent information for Civil War buffs who also have other things going on in their lives. He also explained the mechanics of an en echelon attack so well that I was able to demonstrate it at a barbeque last weekend, shortly before everybody inexplicably left.
As I mentioned above, Guelzo is always wandering off into side conversations. Some of these are just gems. I loved his discussion on the poor marksmanship exhibited by Civil War soldiers, since it finally answers the question most of us probably have about these battles, to wit: how could anyone survive the combination of Napoleonic tactics with rifled muskets? Guelzo explains why:
Loving this book does not put me in agreement with Guelzo’s conclusions. For instance, on the issue of General Stuart’s cavalry, he tends to contradict himself. On the one hand, he states that Lee knew the position of Meade’s army, and thus didn't need Stuart’s reconnaissance; however, on the other hand, he notes that if General Harry Heth had a cavalry screen, he would’ve been able to correctly ascertain the strength of Union General John Buford’s cavalry on the first day of Gettysburg, perhaps leading to an early Confederate victory.
I had other disagreements that I greatly want to mention but – out of consideration for you – will abstain from doing. Suffice to say, I greatly want someone else to read this book, meet me at a bar, drink ten beers, and then discuss. I mean, I haven’t even gotten to the politics of the Army of the Potomac, or Guelzo’s insightful treatment of the blundering Dan Sickles.
I can’t recommend this book enough to Civil War enthusiasts. Get this book. Read it. Meet me at the local watering hole. The first domestic light beer is on me. Bring your strongly held opinions of Oliver Otis Howard and be ready to debate James Longstreet’s legacy.
- Allen C. Guelzo, Gettysburg: The Last Invasion
Gettysburg is the most famous battle in American history. Occurring over three days in July 1863, it was a seesaw affair in which the fate of a nation continually rested on a wobbling flank, a rugged hillside, a gap in a line. It was a battle that took ordinary local geographic features and made them immortal: the Peach Orchard; Devil’s Den; Little Round Top. When it was over, nothing had been decided. The Confederate Army of Robert E. Lee escaped. The Union Army of George Meade let them. And the war went on for two more years, bloodier by far than anything either side had ever seen.
The battle, though, has significance beyond its enormous cost. After Gettysburg, Lee’s Army never took an offensive posture. After Gettysburg, Lee no longer wore invincibility as a cloak. And after Gettysburg, Ulysses Grant took command. Grant was a great man and a great general; a man of iron will and tenacity. When Grant came east, the Confederacy was doomed.
As befitting its stature, Gettysburg has been well covered in previous books. If you look it up on Amazon, you get 7,600 listings. When I first saw Allen Guelzo’s Gettysburg: The Last Invasion, I wondered at the point of yet another volume on the three-day battle in and around a small Pennsylvania crossroads town.
The point, of course, is it was published around the 150th anniversary of the battle. The reason I read it? Well, I’m a sucker.
The verdict: Not only is this the best book on Gettysburg I’ve read, it might be my favorite Civil War book ever.
Beyond the crackling prose, the deep research, and the annotated endnotes, what makes this stand out is Guelzo’s idiosyncrasies.
Gettysburg: The Last Invasion is filled with digressions, analogies to famous European battles I’d barely heard of, and quirky little sub-theses such as Guelzo’s contention that the Civil War was demonstrably not a modern war. His focus is different than any author I’ve read. Lee disappears almost completely for long stretches at a time (arguably, as he did during the battle). Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain’s famous charge is mildly disparaged (in favor of the posthumous Strong Vincent, who led the Union contingent up Little Round Top). J.E.B. Stuart is mostly forgiven, since Guelzo believes that Civil War cavalry on both sides were badly misused, and seldom utilized for intelligence gathering (Stuart has been condemned for riding around the Union Army during Lee’s invasion, leaving Lee without “eyes”, and therefore knowledge of the Union Army’s position).
I don’t agree with all of Guelzo’s positions. The more I think about it, the less I agree with them. But they got me thinking about the Civil War in a whole new light.
The key to Guelzo’s success is that he really has taken a ground level view. (Of course, the ground level can be foggy; as he reminds the reader time and again, Civil War gun-smoke was so thick that soldiers often shot at each other’s feet). He teaches in Gettysburg, so he’s lived with the terrain all his life. Thus, he has an incredibly good grasp of the topography, and how that effected 19th century armies (who knew how much was riding on Pennsylvania’s small-holdings, each one surrounded by stone fences that played hell on infantry formations?).
Guelzo also has keen interest in what it meant to be a common soldier. To be sure, every book worth its salt is going to quote from the letters and diaries of ordinary soldiers. After all, in Guelzo’s words, the men who fought the Civil War were “hyperliterate.” Guelzo does much more than that. He digs deep into the primary sources and discovers passages of such startling detail that they make other Civil War entries mundane. Guelzo notes that many soldiers, in their writing, tended towards vague hyperbole in their descriptions. (The event being so enormous as to be almost beyond words). To counteract that, he has found writings that hone in on the ghastliness of battle, passages that resemble the famously uncensored remembrances of Ambrose Bierce:
In Pickett’s division, the major of the 8th Virginia saw a shell take “off the head of Sergt. Morris of my brother tom’s Co. & plaistered his brains over my hat.” Another shell wounded the colonel of the 53rd Virginia, William Aylett, and the colonel of the 3rd Virginia was struck by a “handful of earth mixed with blood and brains” which had, a moment before, belonged to “two poor fellows,” and seriously wounded the sergeant major of the neighboring 7th Virginia. That sergeant major, David Johnston, survived fractured ribs, a “badly contused” left lung, and paralysis down his left side, and years later described Pickett’s division as sort of a grotesque shooting gallery in which “at almost every moment muskets, swords, haversacks, human flesh and bones flying and dangling in the air or bouncing above the earth, which now trembled as if shaken by an earthquake.” The incessant discharging, blasting, cracking, and pounding created its own miniature weather system, and a soldier of the 16th Mississippi was amazed to see that “birds, attempting to fly, tumbled and fell to the ground.”
Not all the details involve detached limbs, however. One of the fascinating tidbits that Guelzo unearths is the way that the opposing armies could smell each other long before they actually came into sight.
The thing I most appreciated about Guelzo’s Gettysburg was its attention to 19th century tactics. This is glossed over in most books I’ve read. Oh, to be sure, any author will tell you that this battalion moved here, or that brigade went there. There might even be maps, which clarify but also simplify.
Here, Guelzo explains what it takes to get men hither and yon. It is no simple feat to move 60,000 to 90,000 men from one place to another, when the only thing connecting those two places is a dirt road. (And that road is blocked by an obstinate cow). He details the painstaking and lengthy process of maneuvering men into position; of getting them into different formations; and what those formations mean. It took a lot of time, which explains why the fierce fighting on Gettysburg’s second day didn't begin till late afternoon.
Guelzo defines all his terms, often with reference to the aforementioned European battles. For instance, he describes the differences between a “line of battle” and a “column,” and the advantages or disadvantages of each. This is probably obvious to a West Point graduate or anyone who’s read Hardee’s Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics, but it’s excellent information for Civil War buffs who also have other things going on in their lives. He also explained the mechanics of an en echelon attack so well that I was able to demonstrate it at a barbeque last weekend, shortly before everybody inexplicably left.
As I mentioned above, Guelzo is always wandering off into side conversations. Some of these are just gems. I loved his discussion on the poor marksmanship exhibited by Civil War soldiers, since it finally answers the question most of us probably have about these battles, to wit: how could anyone survive the combination of Napoleonic tactics with rifled muskets? Guelzo explains why:
[T]he staggering mortality inflicted by Civil War combat remained more a product of the sheer volume of fire delivered in motionless line-to-line slugfests, rather than any extraordinary lethality in the weapons technology. None of the rifle’s much-vaunted improvements was sufficient to trump the volunteer soldier’s mediocre training, his amateur officers, the cumbersome nine-step loading sequence, or the inevitable palls of powder smoke. “What precision of aim or direction can be expected,” asked one British officer, when “one man is priming; another coming to the present; a third taking, what is called, aim; a fourth ramming down his cartridge,” and all the while “the whole body are closely enveloped in smoke, and the enemy totally invisible.” The answer, of course, was not much. At the battle of Stone’s River, six months before Gettysburg, Union major general William Rosecrans worked out a general estimate of how many shots needed to be fired to inflict one hit on the enemy, and came up with the astounding calculation that 20,000 rounds of artillery fired during the battle managed to hit exactly 728 men; even more amazing, his troops fired off 2 million cartridges and inflicted 13,832 hits on the rebels, all of which meant that it required 27 cannon shots to inflict 1 artillery hit and 145 rifle shots to score 1 infantry hit.
Loving this book does not put me in agreement with Guelzo’s conclusions. For instance, on the issue of General Stuart’s cavalry, he tends to contradict himself. On the one hand, he states that Lee knew the position of Meade’s army, and thus didn't need Stuart’s reconnaissance; however, on the other hand, he notes that if General Harry Heth had a cavalry screen, he would’ve been able to correctly ascertain the strength of Union General John Buford’s cavalry on the first day of Gettysburg, perhaps leading to an early Confederate victory.
I had other disagreements that I greatly want to mention but – out of consideration for you – will abstain from doing. Suffice to say, I greatly want someone else to read this book, meet me at a bar, drink ten beers, and then discuss. I mean, I haven’t even gotten to the politics of the Army of the Potomac, or Guelzo’s insightful treatment of the blundering Dan Sickles.
I can’t recommend this book enough to Civil War enthusiasts. Get this book. Read it. Meet me at the local watering hole. The first domestic light beer is on me. Bring your strongly held opinions of Oliver Otis Howard and be ready to debate James Longstreet’s legacy.
November 22, 2023
I have read little on the US Civil War despite visiting Appomattox and Arlington some years ago. I have also had this on my shelves for sometime having bought it following many positive reviews on GR. So, did I enjoy it and did I learn from it? Yes, in short. What follows is a little more detail explaining why I enjoyed this.
Allen Guelzo is clearly an accomplished writer and a man who understands not just the Civil War but also the America of the mid nineteenth century. The book is a heavyweight and is, to my novice mind, very comprehensive and yet pretty easy to understand; granted the sheer number of units involved at army and through to Brigade level does need some digestion but stick with it as these are key to the battle's events. That said, I was able to clearly understand the specific leadup to Lee's and Meade's positioning by the Potomac and the towns and roads surrounding this part of Pennsylvania, and from here the actual events and decisions made that brought these two armies to clash at Gettysburg. He [Mr Guelzo] is also very interesting on the commanders from Army (Lee and Meade) to corps, division and to brigade, and sometimes to individual regiments and battalions. as such we learn much about those officers' backgrounds, friends, personalities, political standing (e.g., Union abolitionist or not), through to their conduct and behaviours in the days leading up to the battle and then during and after.
The troop movements, timings and inter-command discussions/orders and conditions leading to charges, retreats and success and failure are all well described for the three days of fighting. As such, this reader became familiar with Culp's Hill, The Peach Orchard, Sherfy's Farm, The Wheatfield, Devil's Den, Little Round Top, and Cemetery Ridge amongst much else.
I was also much interested in Mr Guelzo's understanding and insight into areas such as medicine/casualty management (or lack of), communications, the terrain and geographical layout and the descriptions of units, equipment, weapons and tactics - none of this is super geeky, it is just very well described and adds a great deal to the overall account. For example, using many first hand accounts, after action reports and unit diaries the tension, sheer difficulty in assaulting or defending various sectors is clear, as is the difficulty of seeing anything after a few minutes and few rounds of musket/rifle or artillery fire owing to the smoke that these armaments discharged. Thus the accounts have much atmosphere that shows clearly why troops fought, stood firm, took cover and also ran, but more often clashed not once, but twice and sometimes more to try and achieve their aims. I was also fascinated by the information on how few artillery and infantry fired rounds actually hit their target. Much like WWI, the junior officer (so here up to and including Major) casualty rates were appalling. Non-commissioned officer ranks and other ranks/private soldiers also suffered terribly but this was a battle of loss regardless of rank. Indeed, even those commanding regiments and brigades, again like WWI, saw some heavy casualties and serious losses in command capability.
The days immediately following 1st-3rd July are also very well described. Again, Mr Guelzo offers points and counter-points to the commanders' conduct and rationale as to why units and responses were conducted as they were. There is also some excellent discussion on the aftermath, notably for me, the immediate enquiries after the battle (weeks and months) and also the setting the record (a few years to some decades after the battle) by the surviving commanders and junior officers who were at the battle (and one interesting case of a man who suggested he was but wasn't - an early Walter Mitty/Stolen Valour example). This aspect saw those officers use their friendship circles and rivalries through enquiries, books, newspapers and indeed political lobbying to save face or create or destroy a reputation for posterity.
Overall, this is a very good book and one I would recommend to readers who have some basic familiarity with military formational structure and enjoy well-written history based on first-hand and other sources. There are a good number of black and white plates and many line drawn maps to help the reader. My copy was a 1st edition hardback published in 2013 by Alfred A. Knopf.
Allen Guelzo is clearly an accomplished writer and a man who understands not just the Civil War but also the America of the mid nineteenth century. The book is a heavyweight and is, to my novice mind, very comprehensive and yet pretty easy to understand; granted the sheer number of units involved at army and through to Brigade level does need some digestion but stick with it as these are key to the battle's events. That said, I was able to clearly understand the specific leadup to Lee's and Meade's positioning by the Potomac and the towns and roads surrounding this part of Pennsylvania, and from here the actual events and decisions made that brought these two armies to clash at Gettysburg. He [Mr Guelzo] is also very interesting on the commanders from Army (Lee and Meade) to corps, division and to brigade, and sometimes to individual regiments and battalions. as such we learn much about those officers' backgrounds, friends, personalities, political standing (e.g., Union abolitionist or not), through to their conduct and behaviours in the days leading up to the battle and then during and after.
The troop movements, timings and inter-command discussions/orders and conditions leading to charges, retreats and success and failure are all well described for the three days of fighting. As such, this reader became familiar with Culp's Hill, The Peach Orchard, Sherfy's Farm, The Wheatfield, Devil's Den, Little Round Top, and Cemetery Ridge amongst much else.
I was also much interested in Mr Guelzo's understanding and insight into areas such as medicine/casualty management (or lack of), communications, the terrain and geographical layout and the descriptions of units, equipment, weapons and tactics - none of this is super geeky, it is just very well described and adds a great deal to the overall account. For example, using many first hand accounts, after action reports and unit diaries the tension, sheer difficulty in assaulting or defending various sectors is clear, as is the difficulty of seeing anything after a few minutes and few rounds of musket/rifle or artillery fire owing to the smoke that these armaments discharged. Thus the accounts have much atmosphere that shows clearly why troops fought, stood firm, took cover and also ran, but more often clashed not once, but twice and sometimes more to try and achieve their aims. I was also fascinated by the information on how few artillery and infantry fired rounds actually hit their target. Much like WWI, the junior officer (so here up to and including Major) casualty rates were appalling. Non-commissioned officer ranks and other ranks/private soldiers also suffered terribly but this was a battle of loss regardless of rank. Indeed, even those commanding regiments and brigades, again like WWI, saw some heavy casualties and serious losses in command capability.
The days immediately following 1st-3rd July are also very well described. Again, Mr Guelzo offers points and counter-points to the commanders' conduct and rationale as to why units and responses were conducted as they were. There is also some excellent discussion on the aftermath, notably for me, the immediate enquiries after the battle (weeks and months) and also the setting the record (a few years to some decades after the battle) by the surviving commanders and junior officers who were at the battle (and one interesting case of a man who suggested he was but wasn't - an early Walter Mitty/Stolen Valour example). This aspect saw those officers use their friendship circles and rivalries through enquiries, books, newspapers and indeed political lobbying to save face or create or destroy a reputation for posterity.
Overall, this is a very good book and one I would recommend to readers who have some basic familiarity with military formational structure and enjoy well-written history based on first-hand and other sources. There are a good number of black and white plates and many line drawn maps to help the reader. My copy was a 1st edition hardback published in 2013 by Alfred A. Knopf.
July 4, 2020
I think it would be difficult if not impossible to find a book about Gettysburg that was more thoroughly researched and coupled with thought provoking analysis than what Allen Guelzo has presented us with in this book. I cannot say that I am a Civil War buff but I have done a fair amount of reading about that war and this battle. What amazed me was Guelzo's analysis. Things I thought I knew I no longer feel confident in repeating as fact. Joshua Chamberlain not a hero at Little Roundtop? Pickett's Charge not an insane suicide mission? The victory more a demonstration of lucky breaks than any superior strategy or soldiering or leadership. Yes, these are just some of the things this author opines and then backs up.
At 482 pages of text and 117 pages of notes this is not a quick read and maybe not for a reader with only casual interest in this battle. The author lays out in detail every significant and some not so significant events that occurred during this battle. However, he not only details what happened among the competing armies he also informs us of how all this affected the civilians of this little town and what they did and how they coped with two gigantic armies slugging it out in the town's backyard. While I enjoy learning about the tactics and strategies of a battle I really enjoy learning how the average soldier endures these contests. This book supplies both elements to an extent not to be expected or rivaled in any other treatment of this battle. The author then ends his book with an analysis of Lincoln's inspiration and motivation for his Gettysburg Address that completes the telling of this story in a most fitting fashion. I highly recommend this book to readers for whom the Civil War is a passion but then you probably already know about this book. I wish I had learned about it sooner.
At 482 pages of text and 117 pages of notes this is not a quick read and maybe not for a reader with only casual interest in this battle. The author lays out in detail every significant and some not so significant events that occurred during this battle. However, he not only details what happened among the competing armies he also informs us of how all this affected the civilians of this little town and what they did and how they coped with two gigantic armies slugging it out in the town's backyard. While I enjoy learning about the tactics and strategies of a battle I really enjoy learning how the average soldier endures these contests. This book supplies both elements to an extent not to be expected or rivaled in any other treatment of this battle. The author then ends his book with an analysis of Lincoln's inspiration and motivation for his Gettysburg Address that completes the telling of this story in a most fitting fashion. I highly recommend this book to readers for whom the Civil War is a passion but then you probably already know about this book. I wish I had learned about it sooner.
April 29, 2024
A twenty hour audiobook covering all aspects of the biggest, bloodiest battle of the American Civil War. The first thing that stuck me was the number of names involved: a seemingly endless list of military figures from both sides. Throughout the book, these names are dropped in at a rapid rate, usually without helpful reference as to which side each is fighting for fighting for. For me, this was partially remedied by undertaking background research and copious note-taking. A further challenge was to understand the lie of the land and attempt to follow the meticulously detailed troop movements, and this time, I tracked down an animated online battle map, which became my go-to point of reference. Yes, this isn’t an easy audiobook to follow unless you do some preparation or are already intimately familiar with the detail of the two armies and the battle itself.
Fortunately, I’d already gone quite a bit of reading around the wider context of the civil war, and that helped at least in terms of understanding the bigger picture. This battle took place in a small Pennsylvanian town and lasted for three days (1st – 3rd July 1863). As well as offering up a very detailed account of how the battle played out, the author also provides pen pictures of many of the senior officers. Guelzo also details many smaller stories of unbelievable bravery, sacrifice, and – more often that I’d imagined – compassion towards ‘the enemy’. The nitty gritty elements covered include a harrowing insight as to the survival rates (usually very low) for various types of injury and the fact that amputations for what might now be considered fairly minor wounds were routine – this in a bid to ward off infection and, ultimately, gangrene. Amazingly (to me at least), it appears that only one civilian was killed (by means of a stray bullet), and only a further handful were injured. Amongst the armies, the killed, wounded, and missing is commonly agreed to have been more than twenty thousand on each side.
Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate States Army had moved north to obtain desperately needed supplies and had hoped that a successful outcome in a battle with the Union army at Gettysburg would force the Lincoln administration to negotiate for peace. But after three days of fighting, Lee was forced to withdraw his troops back across the Potomac River into Virginia. Major General George Meade, Commander of the Army of the Potomac, chose not to pursue Lee’s forces, and his reputation was forever stained by questions over this decision. In fact, the book details recriminations on both sides following the battle with politicians and many senior soldiers pointing the finger of blame for the lack of clear success on either side at numerous individuals. The author pores over the decisions made at some length, and his conclusion could be summed up as: Meade was lucky, and Lee made too many mistakes. Overall, it seems that this battle was certainly a turning point in favour of the Union, but given the war was continued for a further two years, it certainly wasn’t a knockout blow.
In summary, I believe that this book provides a comprehensive account of the battle of Gettysburg and the major figures involved. For some it might be a little too detailed in terms of the strategies adopted and the minutiae of resultant troop movements but it certainly did leave me with a very clear picture of the sheer brutality of the battle and of what it must have been like for soldiers who were engaged in the fighting. Because I chose the audio version, the lack of visual aids forced me to undertake some additional research, but, in truth, this simply accentuated the experience for me.
Fortunately, I’d already gone quite a bit of reading around the wider context of the civil war, and that helped at least in terms of understanding the bigger picture. This battle took place in a small Pennsylvanian town and lasted for three days (1st – 3rd July 1863). As well as offering up a very detailed account of how the battle played out, the author also provides pen pictures of many of the senior officers. Guelzo also details many smaller stories of unbelievable bravery, sacrifice, and – more often that I’d imagined – compassion towards ‘the enemy’. The nitty gritty elements covered include a harrowing insight as to the survival rates (usually very low) for various types of injury and the fact that amputations for what might now be considered fairly minor wounds were routine – this in a bid to ward off infection and, ultimately, gangrene. Amazingly (to me at least), it appears that only one civilian was killed (by means of a stray bullet), and only a further handful were injured. Amongst the armies, the killed, wounded, and missing is commonly agreed to have been more than twenty thousand on each side.
Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate States Army had moved north to obtain desperately needed supplies and had hoped that a successful outcome in a battle with the Union army at Gettysburg would force the Lincoln administration to negotiate for peace. But after three days of fighting, Lee was forced to withdraw his troops back across the Potomac River into Virginia. Major General George Meade, Commander of the Army of the Potomac, chose not to pursue Lee’s forces, and his reputation was forever stained by questions over this decision. In fact, the book details recriminations on both sides following the battle with politicians and many senior soldiers pointing the finger of blame for the lack of clear success on either side at numerous individuals. The author pores over the decisions made at some length, and his conclusion could be summed up as: Meade was lucky, and Lee made too many mistakes. Overall, it seems that this battle was certainly a turning point in favour of the Union, but given the war was continued for a further two years, it certainly wasn’t a knockout blow.
In summary, I believe that this book provides a comprehensive account of the battle of Gettysburg and the major figures involved. For some it might be a little too detailed in terms of the strategies adopted and the minutiae of resultant troop movements but it certainly did leave me with a very clear picture of the sheer brutality of the battle and of what it must have been like for soldiers who were engaged in the fighting. Because I chose the audio version, the lack of visual aids forced me to undertake some additional research, but, in truth, this simply accentuated the experience for me.
March 20, 2021
This just may be the best book about Gettysburg I’ve ever read. Guelzo’s account is extremely readable and very entertaining. Guelzo’s analysis is a little different than what has been rehashed for that past 150 years. Guelzo challenges and debunks common beliefs such as Little Round Top was the lynchpin of the Union Line and that it was Richard Ewell’s fault that the Confederates didn’t take Cemetery Hill the first day or that Lee had no intelligence due to Jeb Stuart's ride, or Hancock organized the defense on Cemetery Hill the afternoon of the first day, etc. A fresh, critical reassessment of the performance of the participants is offered. I thought that John Reynolds, Abner Doubleday and Oliver Howard were finally given their due for their heroic efforts during the battle. Others do not fair so well.
This book doesn’t merely rehash the battle. The author questions every preconceived notion or myth about the battle and it’s participants that has ever been perpetuated. It also compares Civil War tactics and weaponry to those of other landmark battles on the continent of Europe. Some of the feats of bravery and chivalry illustrated in the pages of this book I actually found to be uplifting. In fact, I liked the book so much, I immediately started listening to it a second time. This alone should tell you how good this book is. I’ve read Sears, Catton, Codington, Foote, and I’ve been to the battlefield numerous times and spent 8 hours on tours with professional guides, etc. and I have got to tell you that there is still room for this book.
This book doesn’t merely rehash the battle. The author questions every preconceived notion or myth about the battle and it’s participants that has ever been perpetuated. It also compares Civil War tactics and weaponry to those of other landmark battles on the continent of Europe. Some of the feats of bravery and chivalry illustrated in the pages of this book I actually found to be uplifting. In fact, I liked the book so much, I immediately started listening to it a second time. This alone should tell you how good this book is. I’ve read Sears, Catton, Codington, Foote, and I’ve been to the battlefield numerous times and spent 8 hours on tours with professional guides, etc. and I have got to tell you that there is still room for this book.
July 7, 2021
Allen Guelzo's Gettysburg: The Last Invasion engagingly reconstructs the pivotal battle of the American Civil War. Guelzo's book isn't always a straightforward narrative of tactics and battlefield encounters, though it has plenty of each. He spends a good deal of the book reconstructing how Civil War combat actually worked, dispelling a fair many myths along the way. He's convincing discussing, for instance, how historians overstate the impact of rifled muskets given the horrendously poor marksmanship of the volunteer soldiers, stating that the appalling casualty rates were due to poor management of troops rather than particularly deadly technological advancements. The book ably recaptures the ebb and flow of this familiar battle, restating much of the common wisdom about the battle (poor Confederate coordination, Union luck and determination) with fine character sketches of the protagonists. My one objection is Guelzo hammering George Meade as borderline incompetent, reviving the old charge that he planned to withdraw the Army of the Potomac after July 2 and had to be talked out of it - a canard originated with Meade's enemies that should be treated with suspicion, if at all. On the whole though, an enjoyable book that should appeal both to casual Civil War buffs and those seeking a fresh perspective on that most well-worn battlefield.
June 29, 2023
Gettysburg And The Testing Of American Democracy
The sesquicentennial of the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1 -- July 3, 1863) offers the opportunity to reflect upon the battle and its significance. Although every aspect of the battle has been written about extensively, attempts at understanding continue, as with any historical subject of complexity and moment. Allen Guelzo's new book "Gettysburg: The Last Invasion" (2013) offers a detailed, insightful, and beautifully written history of the Gettysburg campaign that has much to teach both readers new to the battle and readers who have studied it in detail. Guelzo, Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era and Director of Civil War Era Studies at Gettysburg College, has written broadly about the Civil War and about Abraham Lincoln. His writings tend to show an interest in ideas, including broad philosophical and religious questions. (He has also written about the early American theologian, Jonathan Edwards.)
The strength of Guelzo's book lies in its discussion of the political and philosophical importance of the Battle of Gettysburg in the preservation of American democracy. Guelzo also has interesting things to say about the battle itself. The remainder of this review elaborates these matters.
Guelzo understands the Battle of Gettysburg, and Lincoln's subsequent Gettysburg Address, as a testing of democracy first. Guelzo writes: "Gettysburg was almost univocally a battle for the Union, and it was made all the more so by Lincoln's famous address, which contains no allusion to slavery and casts the battle entirely in the context of the preservation of liberal democracy." On the underlying background, Guelzo reminds the reader at the outset that "[t]his is a book about a nineteenth century battle". He places the battle, and the Civil War, in the context of the political and military history of the times, which results in insights often missed. For example, Guelzo qualifies the understanding many readers will bring to the book about the impact of the use of the rifle and the minie ball on battlefield strategy and on tactics. He denies that the Civil War or Gettysburg was an instance of "total" war as that term came to be understood in the twentieth century. He states succinctly that there are "few things more humiliating than the bewildered, small town incompetence with which American soldiers addressed themselves to the task of managing, directing, and commanding the mammoth citizen-armies they had called forth." Guelzo also points to and rejects the tendency of post-Vietnam scholarship to downplay the importance of military history and the story of battles. His book is valuable in its unapologetic endorsement of the study of military campaigns as part of historical understanding.
Especially as it involves the Army of the Potomac, Guelzo's book offers political insights that are easy to overlook. He goes into great detail into the political leanings of the generals in the army's high command and their relationship with McClellan. Many McClellan followers remained among the generals of the Army of the Potomac and they had an uneasy relationship with their republican or abolitionist peers. George Meade, who became the commanding general just three days before the Battle of Gettysburg had a close relationship with McClellan and his military and political inclinations were heavily influenced by those of his predecessor. Guelzo shows, more than other Gettysburg studies that I know, how political considerations heavily influenced the generals in the Army of the Potomac and their approach to the battle.
The book is organized into four large parts which consider, respectively, the beginnings and goals of Lee's Gettysburg campaign and the approach of the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac towards what would become the battle during June, 1863. This is followed by a chapter on the first day of the battle, July 1, 1863, culminating in a discussion of the Confederate Army's failure to attempt to occupy the pivotal sites of Cemetery and Culps Hills. The discussion of the second day focuses on Longstreet's charge and how close it came to success together with the Army of Northern Virginia's attempts to take the hills they might have tried to take the prior day. Guelzo's treatment of the third day centers, as it must of Pickett's fateful charge against the Union center.
Guelzo has read and thought about many sources, primary and secondary, and his book covers the feel of battle from the high levels of command to the foot soldier on the ground. The military movements may not be described in as much detail as in some studies, but they are lucid and easy to follow. Guelzo also makes his account exciting rather than overly technical as he captures both the heroism and the large human suffering and pain occasioned by the battle.
Students of the battle will know of the many questions that surround it, such as the effect of J.E.B. Stuart's absence, whether the decision to refrain from attacking Cemetery and Culps Hills on July 1 was wise, whether Longstreet dragged his feet in implementing orders on July 2 and 3 and several others. Guelzo addresses the questions and issues and sometimes answers them in ways against what is probably the consensus of opinion. He is critical, for example, of Meade's leadership, finding him broadly too defensively minded and concluding that Meade did indeed intend to retreat from Gettysburg the night of July 2 until dissuaded by his Corps commanders. Guelzo also criticizes, in the company of President Lincoln but against considerable modern scholarship, Meade's failure to pursue Lee after the battle and to inflict further damage before Lee's retreat across the Potomac. Guelzo's strictures against General Meade will not convince every reader, but sifting through conflicting opinions is part of the purpose of history.
Students also disagree about whether the Army of Northern Virginia could have won at Gettysburg and if so how close it came to success. Some students believe that the Union position was virtually impregnable. Guelzo argues that it was a mistake for Lee to fight the battle, but having decided to fight, the battle could have been won on several occasions. The missed opportunities include the charge on Cemetery Ridge late on July 2, and the attacks on both Cemetery Hill and Culps Hill late on July 2. Guelzo finds that northern troops seemed always available and willing to take the last heroic step to avoid disaster, while southern leadership was often uncoordinated and did not make the final aggressive. timely push that might have led to victory at critical moments.
The ultimate lesson of the battle, for Guelzo, was that a democracy could have the strength and the will to defend itself and win a war. He writes: "It was not merely that Gettysburg finally delivered a victory, or that it administered a bloody reverse to Southern fortunes at the point and in the place where they might otherwise have scored their greatest triumph, or that it had come at such a stupendous cost in lives. It was that the monumental scale of that bloodletting was its own refutation to the old lie, that a democracy enervates the virtue of its people to the point where they are unwilling to do more than blinkingly look to their personal self-interest." Guelzo teaches a poignant lesson about the strength and fragility of American democracy that is both historically based and of current importance.
Guelzo's study combines attention to fact with historical thinking and with a sense of purpose and meaning. It will be a thoughtful consideration of the Battle of Gettysburg in this sesquicentennial year and beyond.
Robin Friedman
The sesquicentennial of the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1 -- July 3, 1863) offers the opportunity to reflect upon the battle and its significance. Although every aspect of the battle has been written about extensively, attempts at understanding continue, as with any historical subject of complexity and moment. Allen Guelzo's new book "Gettysburg: The Last Invasion" (2013) offers a detailed, insightful, and beautifully written history of the Gettysburg campaign that has much to teach both readers new to the battle and readers who have studied it in detail. Guelzo, Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era and Director of Civil War Era Studies at Gettysburg College, has written broadly about the Civil War and about Abraham Lincoln. His writings tend to show an interest in ideas, including broad philosophical and religious questions. (He has also written about the early American theologian, Jonathan Edwards.)
The strength of Guelzo's book lies in its discussion of the political and philosophical importance of the Battle of Gettysburg in the preservation of American democracy. Guelzo also has interesting things to say about the battle itself. The remainder of this review elaborates these matters.
Guelzo understands the Battle of Gettysburg, and Lincoln's subsequent Gettysburg Address, as a testing of democracy first. Guelzo writes: "Gettysburg was almost univocally a battle for the Union, and it was made all the more so by Lincoln's famous address, which contains no allusion to slavery and casts the battle entirely in the context of the preservation of liberal democracy." On the underlying background, Guelzo reminds the reader at the outset that "[t]his is a book about a nineteenth century battle". He places the battle, and the Civil War, in the context of the political and military history of the times, which results in insights often missed. For example, Guelzo qualifies the understanding many readers will bring to the book about the impact of the use of the rifle and the minie ball on battlefield strategy and on tactics. He denies that the Civil War or Gettysburg was an instance of "total" war as that term came to be understood in the twentieth century. He states succinctly that there are "few things more humiliating than the bewildered, small town incompetence with which American soldiers addressed themselves to the task of managing, directing, and commanding the mammoth citizen-armies they had called forth." Guelzo also points to and rejects the tendency of post-Vietnam scholarship to downplay the importance of military history and the story of battles. His book is valuable in its unapologetic endorsement of the study of military campaigns as part of historical understanding.
Especially as it involves the Army of the Potomac, Guelzo's book offers political insights that are easy to overlook. He goes into great detail into the political leanings of the generals in the army's high command and their relationship with McClellan. Many McClellan followers remained among the generals of the Army of the Potomac and they had an uneasy relationship with their republican or abolitionist peers. George Meade, who became the commanding general just three days before the Battle of Gettysburg had a close relationship with McClellan and his military and political inclinations were heavily influenced by those of his predecessor. Guelzo shows, more than other Gettysburg studies that I know, how political considerations heavily influenced the generals in the Army of the Potomac and their approach to the battle.
The book is organized into four large parts which consider, respectively, the beginnings and goals of Lee's Gettysburg campaign and the approach of the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac towards what would become the battle during June, 1863. This is followed by a chapter on the first day of the battle, July 1, 1863, culminating in a discussion of the Confederate Army's failure to attempt to occupy the pivotal sites of Cemetery and Culps Hills. The discussion of the second day focuses on Longstreet's charge and how close it came to success together with the Army of Northern Virginia's attempts to take the hills they might have tried to take the prior day. Guelzo's treatment of the third day centers, as it must of Pickett's fateful charge against the Union center.
Guelzo has read and thought about many sources, primary and secondary, and his book covers the feel of battle from the high levels of command to the foot soldier on the ground. The military movements may not be described in as much detail as in some studies, but they are lucid and easy to follow. Guelzo also makes his account exciting rather than overly technical as he captures both the heroism and the large human suffering and pain occasioned by the battle.
Students of the battle will know of the many questions that surround it, such as the effect of J.E.B. Stuart's absence, whether the decision to refrain from attacking Cemetery and Culps Hills on July 1 was wise, whether Longstreet dragged his feet in implementing orders on July 2 and 3 and several others. Guelzo addresses the questions and issues and sometimes answers them in ways against what is probably the consensus of opinion. He is critical, for example, of Meade's leadership, finding him broadly too defensively minded and concluding that Meade did indeed intend to retreat from Gettysburg the night of July 2 until dissuaded by his Corps commanders. Guelzo also criticizes, in the company of President Lincoln but against considerable modern scholarship, Meade's failure to pursue Lee after the battle and to inflict further damage before Lee's retreat across the Potomac. Guelzo's strictures against General Meade will not convince every reader, but sifting through conflicting opinions is part of the purpose of history.
Students also disagree about whether the Army of Northern Virginia could have won at Gettysburg and if so how close it came to success. Some students believe that the Union position was virtually impregnable. Guelzo argues that it was a mistake for Lee to fight the battle, but having decided to fight, the battle could have been won on several occasions. The missed opportunities include the charge on Cemetery Ridge late on July 2, and the attacks on both Cemetery Hill and Culps Hill late on July 2. Guelzo finds that northern troops seemed always available and willing to take the last heroic step to avoid disaster, while southern leadership was often uncoordinated and did not make the final aggressive. timely push that might have led to victory at critical moments.
The ultimate lesson of the battle, for Guelzo, was that a democracy could have the strength and the will to defend itself and win a war. He writes: "It was not merely that Gettysburg finally delivered a victory, or that it administered a bloody reverse to Southern fortunes at the point and in the place where they might otherwise have scored their greatest triumph, or that it had come at such a stupendous cost in lives. It was that the monumental scale of that bloodletting was its own refutation to the old lie, that a democracy enervates the virtue of its people to the point where they are unwilling to do more than blinkingly look to their personal self-interest." Guelzo teaches a poignant lesson about the strength and fragility of American democracy that is both historically based and of current importance.
Guelzo's study combines attention to fact with historical thinking and with a sense of purpose and meaning. It will be a thoughtful consideration of the Battle of Gettysburg in this sesquicentennial year and beyond.
Robin Friedman
March 27, 2023
Much of my reading about the Civil War has been from a political perspective, with the war playing out in the background. I tend not to be one for regimental histories and battlefield tactics and troop movements and the like.
But neither, it seems, is Allen Guelzo - which might seem odd, since he went ahead and wrote a book about the Civil War’s most famous battle anyway.
In explaining why he wrote it, he’s almost apologetic. "Books about battles are not in high fashion," he acknowledges. Many historians today want to explore lofty ideas, not tell tales of glory and valor in combat. But "we cannot talk about the Civil War without acknowledging, even grudgingly, that the Civil War era's singular event was a war," he explains. And while some might prefer to focus on the preservation of the Union and emancipation of the slaves, one can’t ignore that it all "hung ineluctably on the results achieved by large numbers of organized citizens attempting to kill one another."
So Guelzo proceeds to tell how this particular gathering of organized citizens attempting to kill one another came about, how it played out, and the lasting impact it had on the wider war, the national psyche, and posterity. And he tells it exceedingly well.
Some familiarity with events that preceded the Battle of Gettysburg is assumed, which allows Guelzo to launch right into his story without bogging the book down with too much background. The story begins with General Lee’s movement into Pennsylvania as he brings the war to the North, causing concern and confusion among local residents, and curiosity among Union forces wondering just where he was headed.
As the battle ultimately gets under way, Guelzo necessarily touches on tactics and troop movements. But his story is not a broad view of generals moving chess pieces around wide-open expanses of rolling countryside, as one might picture the typical Civil War battlefield. Instead, it’s a story of individuals, and the messy reality of fighting a war in an established town, with everything that entailed: Tearing down fences that separated neighbors’ property but got in the way of advancing forces. Destroying crops that were carefully cultivated but would never make it to harvest. Taking shelter in homes, some of them abandoned, but others still occupied by their terrified residents.
The narrative takes you into the battle, experiencing the sights and smells and sounds that the soldiers themselves did. Throughout, there are mini-biographies of names you know, and names you’ve never heard - oftentimes Guelzo will introduce you to an individual, only to leave you shaken and disappointed when they suddenly end up among the fallen.
He also tells of the decision-makers, the decisions they made, and the finger-pointing that came after the battle, along with his own conclusions about who deserves credit, who deserves blame, and how and why things turned out as they did. And he concludes with an eloquent epilogue describing and analyzing Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address that consecrated the land on which the battle was fought.
The book includes many quotes from letters and memoirs written by those who participated in the battle. One Union veteran whom Guelzo quotes perhaps said it best, in describing just what Guelzo himself aimed to accomplish with his book: "The reality of war is largely obscured by descriptions that tell of movements and maneuvers of armies, of the attack and repulse, of the victory and defeat, and then pass on to new operations. All of this leaves out of sight the fellows stretched out with holes through them, or with legs and arms off.”
This isn’t a book about the glory of battle, nor is it about the pity of war. It’s a straightforward, well-crafted, expertly-written story of those who participated in a pivotal battle during a pivotal moment in American history - and the lasting legacy, all these years later, of those who made the ultimate sacrifice and made possible those lofty ideas that other historians focus on today.
But neither, it seems, is Allen Guelzo - which might seem odd, since he went ahead and wrote a book about the Civil War’s most famous battle anyway.
In explaining why he wrote it, he’s almost apologetic. "Books about battles are not in high fashion," he acknowledges. Many historians today want to explore lofty ideas, not tell tales of glory and valor in combat. But "we cannot talk about the Civil War without acknowledging, even grudgingly, that the Civil War era's singular event was a war," he explains. And while some might prefer to focus on the preservation of the Union and emancipation of the slaves, one can’t ignore that it all "hung ineluctably on the results achieved by large numbers of organized citizens attempting to kill one another."
So Guelzo proceeds to tell how this particular gathering of organized citizens attempting to kill one another came about, how it played out, and the lasting impact it had on the wider war, the national psyche, and posterity. And he tells it exceedingly well.
Some familiarity with events that preceded the Battle of Gettysburg is assumed, which allows Guelzo to launch right into his story without bogging the book down with too much background. The story begins with General Lee’s movement into Pennsylvania as he brings the war to the North, causing concern and confusion among local residents, and curiosity among Union forces wondering just where he was headed.
As the battle ultimately gets under way, Guelzo necessarily touches on tactics and troop movements. But his story is not a broad view of generals moving chess pieces around wide-open expanses of rolling countryside, as one might picture the typical Civil War battlefield. Instead, it’s a story of individuals, and the messy reality of fighting a war in an established town, with everything that entailed: Tearing down fences that separated neighbors’ property but got in the way of advancing forces. Destroying crops that were carefully cultivated but would never make it to harvest. Taking shelter in homes, some of them abandoned, but others still occupied by their terrified residents.
The narrative takes you into the battle, experiencing the sights and smells and sounds that the soldiers themselves did. Throughout, there are mini-biographies of names you know, and names you’ve never heard - oftentimes Guelzo will introduce you to an individual, only to leave you shaken and disappointed when they suddenly end up among the fallen.
He also tells of the decision-makers, the decisions they made, and the finger-pointing that came after the battle, along with his own conclusions about who deserves credit, who deserves blame, and how and why things turned out as they did. And he concludes with an eloquent epilogue describing and analyzing Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address that consecrated the land on which the battle was fought.
The book includes many quotes from letters and memoirs written by those who participated in the battle. One Union veteran whom Guelzo quotes perhaps said it best, in describing just what Guelzo himself aimed to accomplish with his book: "The reality of war is largely obscured by descriptions that tell of movements and maneuvers of armies, of the attack and repulse, of the victory and defeat, and then pass on to new operations. All of this leaves out of sight the fellows stretched out with holes through them, or with legs and arms off.”
This isn’t a book about the glory of battle, nor is it about the pity of war. It’s a straightforward, well-crafted, expertly-written story of those who participated in a pivotal battle during a pivotal moment in American history - and the lasting legacy, all these years later, of those who made the ultimate sacrifice and made possible those lofty ideas that other historians focus on today.
October 14, 2013
According to Allen C. Guelzo, as of 2004 6,193 books, articles and pamphlets have been written about the Battle of Gettysburg. Now in the 150th anniversary year of a battle that has been seared into American memory we have another prodigious volume that describes and analyzes the battle, the leading characters, as well as the soldiers who were involved in the fighting. Guelzo’s work GETTYSBURG: THE LAST INVASION may be the best one volume account since that of Bruce Catton’s appeared in 1952. In summarizing the Civil War as “large numbers of organized citizens attempting to kill one another,” he has also captured the essence of Gettysburg which he describes in particular were “conducted with an amateurism of spirit and an innocence of intent which would be touching if that same amateurism had not also contrived to make it so bloody.” (xvi) It seems that every aspect of the battle was discussed, be it, strategy before, during, and after the fighting ended, to the political and military recriminations that appeared soon after. In addition, Guelzo describes the problems that the battle created including damage to the town’s infrastructure, people’s capacity to earn a living, along with the lack of quality medical care for survivors including the issue of how thousands of corpses were to be buried.
At the outset the author puts to rest the idea that the Civil War was a modern total war. Guelzo correctly argues that technology and military strategy had progressed since the Napoleonic Wars but not to the degree that the fighting involved society in its totality. Another point raised at the outset is that Gettysburg does not really touch on the issue of emancipation because as Lincoln said many times it was a war for union. The plight of slaves is mentioned in the context of freed blacks who resided in the battle area who were seized as property by the Confederates, but not as part of the overall concept of emancipation. For Lincoln the preservation of the union was the key to the success of liberal democracy which was not possible without a Union victory. For Guelzo, “Gettysburg would be the place where the armies of the Union would receive their greatest test, and the Union its last invasion.” (xix)
The book is organized into a number of sections. First, themes are laid out in the Acknowledgements and the reader is provided with a glimpse of the arguments that Guezlo employs throughout the book. A background chapter follows and then each of the three days of battle is broken down into larger chapter groupings. The book concludes with a few chapters that discuss responsibility for events, the immense cost in lives and property, and an analysis of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The author employs diaries and letters of all the major participants, including the foot soldiers and officers that provide the reader an intimate look at their state of mind as it related to what was transpiring on the battlefield as well as the decisions that led to the fighting. The topography of the battlefield is not left out as Guelzo describes the importance of hills, ridges, and peaks, how muddy the roads were, as well as the obstacles of fenced in farms presented for the soldiers. For example the discussion of Cemetery Ridge as it related to artillery with its broad flat plateau and uncluttered view of the area provided an elevation that could block attackers from 600 yards away. (124)
Early on Guelzo asks the question of what motivated the ill led, ill equipped, and ill trained soldiers to fight. According to the author, for the most part the Union army fought to save liberal democracy from a conspiracy to replant a European style aristocracy in the United States. They fought in obedience to duty and patriotism not hatred for the Confederacy. The southern cause was not as noble since their soldiers fought for slavery. Their motivation was tied to home and country represented by sectional and personal financial interests, as one out of every three southern soldiers owned at least one slave. They assumed they were god’s aristocrats and had the utmost confidence and adulation in Robert E. Lee and would follow him anywhere.
One of the most interesting aspects of the book is the mini-biographies the author presents for all the major participants in the battle. The reader is privy to the intra-military rivalries that existed on both sides and the major disagreements pertaining to battle strategy. Robert E. Lee is presented as a person who sees slavery as a moral and political evil that would end sometime in the future. He also viewed the southern fire-eaters as a political cancer, but he was a slave owner who felt a strong loyalty to Virginia for personal family reasons. Perhaps the most important conclusion Guezlo comes to deals with what he terms “Lee’s invisibility” during the battle. Lee’s decision to invade the north as a vehicle to stirring up Democratic Party pressure in Congress to foster a negotiated settlement is discussed in detail as is the military planning before the battle. However, Lee was the type of commander who allowed his officers a great deal of leeway in implementing his plans. This could be seen each day and particularly on July 3, 1863 in dealing with George E. Pickett’s charge into the center of Union lines. Lee’s relationship with James Longstreet is reviewed as is Lee’s anger toward J.E.B. Stuart who Lee would later argue might have cost the Confederacy a victory through his actions.
Guelzo reviews the McClellan-Lincoln relationship as it relates to the internal politics of the Union military and how it created a schism between pro and anti-McClellan factions. This schism greatly affected the overall conduct of the war, though to a lesser extent at Gettysburg. Guelzo’s presentation of a George Gordon Meade is extremely important to our story in a number of ways. Meade was a supporter of McClellan and eventually Lincoln would compare his inability to pursue the enemy when victory was at hand as he previously had done with McClellan after Antietam. Meade was placed in a very poor situation as he was made commander of Union forces following the firing of Joseph Hooker on June 28, 1863. Meade did not want the command and was the most surprised man in the army to receive it. Meade favored compromise to end the war and Radical Republicans in Congress saw him as a McClellan Democrat and a supporter of the man who would run against Lincoln for the presidency a year later. Because of good intelligence Meade had a pretty good idea were Lee’s army was located. However, Meade’s situation highlighted a problem for both sides, the poor communication that existed between commanders. For example Meade really did not know exactly where his own army was as the first evidence of the battle trickled in and after General John Reynolds who was in command of half the army at Gettysburg was killed Meade did not know who was in charge. In addition to poor communication Meade was unsure of how many troops were available to him. It was assumed he had about 112,000 men on July 1, but muster reports placed the figure at 95,000 because of how troop strength was determined (it included all soldiers who had non-combat missions, for Lee this was not a problem because he had 10-30,000 slaves for non-combat roles). After Day two of the battle Meade was strongly considering retreat. Though he vehemently denied the charge, why did he call for a war council that night? Most of his generals did not favor pulling back and Meade did not favor the advice he was given and said so, “Have it your way gentlemen, but Gettysburg is no place to fight a battle.” (356) By Day Three Lee had decided to soften up Union forces with a massive artillery barrage, but due to a misjudgment of the strength of Union artillery and Lee’s uncoordinated command style and poor communication when Pickett’s Charge finally occurred it was repelled and created a major Union victory. The question remains how much credit should Meade receive for a victory that seemed to fall into his lap, and why after Lee began retreating didn’t Meade pursue him? Lincoln described McClellan as having a serious “case of the slows,” a description that could also describe Meade.
For the author no detail pertaining to the battle is insignificant. I found his attention to the average foot soldier very insightful as it placed the reader in the middle of the fighting and the deprivations that each combatant had to endure. Discussions of rationing ammunition, the large amount of foraging of the area, the poor medical care, and the emotional ups and downs of battle reflect the torturous situation thousands of young men from all over the country had to endure. The author’s chapter on medical treatment of soldiers after the battle is excellent. At a time when our soldiers are suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I cannot imagine the mental turmoil the survivors of Gettysburg had to cope with when the fighting was finally brought to a close.
Guelzo brings the book to a conclusion by discussing the “blame game” that took place after the battle, and for years following the Civil War. Reputations were on the line and the testimonies of witnesses during Congressional hearings changed over the years and still today historians and partisans argue the same issues. Upon completing such a detailed military history I wondered who the audience for this work would be. I concluded that the time I spent reading the book was well worth it, and though at times the military minutiae was a bit much, Guelzo’s overall approach to his topic and his writing style allows for a broad audience including the general reader and the academic. My plan was to read this book right before visiting the Gettysburg Battlefield National Park, hopefully our representatives in Congress will allow me to do so next week.
At the outset the author puts to rest the idea that the Civil War was a modern total war. Guelzo correctly argues that technology and military strategy had progressed since the Napoleonic Wars but not to the degree that the fighting involved society in its totality. Another point raised at the outset is that Gettysburg does not really touch on the issue of emancipation because as Lincoln said many times it was a war for union. The plight of slaves is mentioned in the context of freed blacks who resided in the battle area who were seized as property by the Confederates, but not as part of the overall concept of emancipation. For Lincoln the preservation of the union was the key to the success of liberal democracy which was not possible without a Union victory. For Guelzo, “Gettysburg would be the place where the armies of the Union would receive their greatest test, and the Union its last invasion.” (xix)
The book is organized into a number of sections. First, themes are laid out in the Acknowledgements and the reader is provided with a glimpse of the arguments that Guezlo employs throughout the book. A background chapter follows and then each of the three days of battle is broken down into larger chapter groupings. The book concludes with a few chapters that discuss responsibility for events, the immense cost in lives and property, and an analysis of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The author employs diaries and letters of all the major participants, including the foot soldiers and officers that provide the reader an intimate look at their state of mind as it related to what was transpiring on the battlefield as well as the decisions that led to the fighting. The topography of the battlefield is not left out as Guelzo describes the importance of hills, ridges, and peaks, how muddy the roads were, as well as the obstacles of fenced in farms presented for the soldiers. For example the discussion of Cemetery Ridge as it related to artillery with its broad flat plateau and uncluttered view of the area provided an elevation that could block attackers from 600 yards away. (124)
Early on Guelzo asks the question of what motivated the ill led, ill equipped, and ill trained soldiers to fight. According to the author, for the most part the Union army fought to save liberal democracy from a conspiracy to replant a European style aristocracy in the United States. They fought in obedience to duty and patriotism not hatred for the Confederacy. The southern cause was not as noble since their soldiers fought for slavery. Their motivation was tied to home and country represented by sectional and personal financial interests, as one out of every three southern soldiers owned at least one slave. They assumed they were god’s aristocrats and had the utmost confidence and adulation in Robert E. Lee and would follow him anywhere.
One of the most interesting aspects of the book is the mini-biographies the author presents for all the major participants in the battle. The reader is privy to the intra-military rivalries that existed on both sides and the major disagreements pertaining to battle strategy. Robert E. Lee is presented as a person who sees slavery as a moral and political evil that would end sometime in the future. He also viewed the southern fire-eaters as a political cancer, but he was a slave owner who felt a strong loyalty to Virginia for personal family reasons. Perhaps the most important conclusion Guezlo comes to deals with what he terms “Lee’s invisibility” during the battle. Lee’s decision to invade the north as a vehicle to stirring up Democratic Party pressure in Congress to foster a negotiated settlement is discussed in detail as is the military planning before the battle. However, Lee was the type of commander who allowed his officers a great deal of leeway in implementing his plans. This could be seen each day and particularly on July 3, 1863 in dealing with George E. Pickett’s charge into the center of Union lines. Lee’s relationship with James Longstreet is reviewed as is Lee’s anger toward J.E.B. Stuart who Lee would later argue might have cost the Confederacy a victory through his actions.
Guelzo reviews the McClellan-Lincoln relationship as it relates to the internal politics of the Union military and how it created a schism between pro and anti-McClellan factions. This schism greatly affected the overall conduct of the war, though to a lesser extent at Gettysburg. Guelzo’s presentation of a George Gordon Meade is extremely important to our story in a number of ways. Meade was a supporter of McClellan and eventually Lincoln would compare his inability to pursue the enemy when victory was at hand as he previously had done with McClellan after Antietam. Meade was placed in a very poor situation as he was made commander of Union forces following the firing of Joseph Hooker on June 28, 1863. Meade did not want the command and was the most surprised man in the army to receive it. Meade favored compromise to end the war and Radical Republicans in Congress saw him as a McClellan Democrat and a supporter of the man who would run against Lincoln for the presidency a year later. Because of good intelligence Meade had a pretty good idea were Lee’s army was located. However, Meade’s situation highlighted a problem for both sides, the poor communication that existed between commanders. For example Meade really did not know exactly where his own army was as the first evidence of the battle trickled in and after General John Reynolds who was in command of half the army at Gettysburg was killed Meade did not know who was in charge. In addition to poor communication Meade was unsure of how many troops were available to him. It was assumed he had about 112,000 men on July 1, but muster reports placed the figure at 95,000 because of how troop strength was determined (it included all soldiers who had non-combat missions, for Lee this was not a problem because he had 10-30,000 slaves for non-combat roles). After Day two of the battle Meade was strongly considering retreat. Though he vehemently denied the charge, why did he call for a war council that night? Most of his generals did not favor pulling back and Meade did not favor the advice he was given and said so, “Have it your way gentlemen, but Gettysburg is no place to fight a battle.” (356) By Day Three Lee had decided to soften up Union forces with a massive artillery barrage, but due to a misjudgment of the strength of Union artillery and Lee’s uncoordinated command style and poor communication when Pickett’s Charge finally occurred it was repelled and created a major Union victory. The question remains how much credit should Meade receive for a victory that seemed to fall into his lap, and why after Lee began retreating didn’t Meade pursue him? Lincoln described McClellan as having a serious “case of the slows,” a description that could also describe Meade.
For the author no detail pertaining to the battle is insignificant. I found his attention to the average foot soldier very insightful as it placed the reader in the middle of the fighting and the deprivations that each combatant had to endure. Discussions of rationing ammunition, the large amount of foraging of the area, the poor medical care, and the emotional ups and downs of battle reflect the torturous situation thousands of young men from all over the country had to endure. The author’s chapter on medical treatment of soldiers after the battle is excellent. At a time when our soldiers are suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I cannot imagine the mental turmoil the survivors of Gettysburg had to cope with when the fighting was finally brought to a close.
Guelzo brings the book to a conclusion by discussing the “blame game” that took place after the battle, and for years following the Civil War. Reputations were on the line and the testimonies of witnesses during Congressional hearings changed over the years and still today historians and partisans argue the same issues. Upon completing such a detailed military history I wondered who the audience for this work would be. I concluded that the time I spent reading the book was well worth it, and though at times the military minutiae was a bit much, Guelzo’s overall approach to his topic and his writing style allows for a broad audience including the general reader and the academic. My plan was to read this book right before visiting the Gettysburg Battlefield National Park, hopefully our representatives in Congress will allow me to do so next week.
June 15, 2013
When I saw that this book came out, I asked: Do we need yet one more book on Gettysburg? From Coddington (a magisterial treatment) on, there have been many fine works on this battle. After a while, I got a sense of deja vu. If you were a Civil War historian, at some point you wrote a book on Gettysburg. Allen Guelzo brings an edginess to his examination of Gettysburg. He questions some of the accepted wisdom about the battle and injects his own perspective (some examples later on).
As a history of the campaign, this is nicely done. The beginning notes the leadership of the two armies--the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. The pathway from the Chancellorsville battlefield to Gettysburg is told well, including the slow but inevitable end of General Joseph Hooker's command of the norther forces--and George Meade's accession to command.
The slow dance between the two armies as Lee's southern army moved toward Maryland and Pennsylvania. The cavalry battle at Brandy Station, where the northern mounted forces fought JEB Stuart's cavalry pretty evenly. The book deals well with familiar events--John Buford's cavalry meeting Henry Heth's division on July 1, the arrival of Reynolds' and Howard's forces on the field, followed by two Confederate corps converging on the battlefield--A. P. Hill's and Richard Ewell's. The weight of southern forces told and the first day ended in a serious Union setback.
And on it goes--through days two and three. Then, the story of the Union's dilatory (in Guelzo's view) pursuit of Lee's retreating forces.
The author takes an edgy tone at a number of points, and this adds a novel element to the work.
Pipe Creek and Meade. The author comes back to the Pipe Creek position time after time, arguing that Meade was rather passive in orientation and far preferred to fight on a ground of his own choosing. Indeed, he was reluctant to fight at Gettysburg and--on the evening of the second day--indicated a willingness to withdraw. Most analysts accept the view that Pipe Creek was a contingent position, depending on how matters unfolded. Guelzo is much more critical of Meade.
JEB Stuart and the rear sweep on the third day. Some, such as Coddington, suggest that Stuart's movement toward the rear of the Union army was a strategic move to link up with the charge on the third day to rout the Union forces. Guelzo dismisses this notion out of hand (and others have suggested, as Coddington, that Lee conceived an envelopment by Stuart).
Meade and political payback. As a Democrat and a McClellan supporter, he used his command status to remove Republicans from command positions (e.g., a steady but Republican general such as Abner Doubleday was demoted during the middle of the battle at Gettysburg). This adds a political component to the author's analysis.
I'm not sure that I am comfortable with all aspects of Guelzo's analysis. But he stakes out positions and makes the reader think. And that can be a very good thing.
As a history of the campaign, this is nicely done. The beginning notes the leadership of the two armies--the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. The pathway from the Chancellorsville battlefield to Gettysburg is told well, including the slow but inevitable end of General Joseph Hooker's command of the norther forces--and George Meade's accession to command.
The slow dance between the two armies as Lee's southern army moved toward Maryland and Pennsylvania. The cavalry battle at Brandy Station, where the northern mounted forces fought JEB Stuart's cavalry pretty evenly. The book deals well with familiar events--John Buford's cavalry meeting Henry Heth's division on July 1, the arrival of Reynolds' and Howard's forces on the field, followed by two Confederate corps converging on the battlefield--A. P. Hill's and Richard Ewell's. The weight of southern forces told and the first day ended in a serious Union setback.
And on it goes--through days two and three. Then, the story of the Union's dilatory (in Guelzo's view) pursuit of Lee's retreating forces.
The author takes an edgy tone at a number of points, and this adds a novel element to the work.
Pipe Creek and Meade. The author comes back to the Pipe Creek position time after time, arguing that Meade was rather passive in orientation and far preferred to fight on a ground of his own choosing. Indeed, he was reluctant to fight at Gettysburg and--on the evening of the second day--indicated a willingness to withdraw. Most analysts accept the view that Pipe Creek was a contingent position, depending on how matters unfolded. Guelzo is much more critical of Meade.
JEB Stuart and the rear sweep on the third day. Some, such as Coddington, suggest that Stuart's movement toward the rear of the Union army was a strategic move to link up with the charge on the third day to rout the Union forces. Guelzo dismisses this notion out of hand (and others have suggested, as Coddington, that Lee conceived an envelopment by Stuart).
Meade and political payback. As a Democrat and a McClellan supporter, he used his command status to remove Republicans from command positions (e.g., a steady but Republican general such as Abner Doubleday was demoted during the middle of the battle at Gettysburg). This adds a political component to the author's analysis.
I'm not sure that I am comfortable with all aspects of Guelzo's analysis. But he stakes out positions and makes the reader think. And that can be a very good thing.
July 13, 2023
The Battle of Gettysburg has been central to my knowledge of the Civil War as long as I’ve been aware of that war. I was five years old when I first toured the battlefield with my family (and have returned to it many times). One of the earliest Civil War books that I read as a kid was the YA novel We Were There at the Battle of Gettysburg. In over five decades of Civil War reading and study, I felt that my knowledge of the battle was comprehensive — so much so that I nearly passed over this book despite its outstanding reviews.
Happily, I did read it. Yes, it contained all that information that I had gathered in a lifetime of reading, from Lee’s planning his Northern invasion to the final, stirring words of the Gettysburg Address. But there was so much more. There was context about 19th century battlefield technology that challenged some of the most basic received wisdom about how the war and battle was fought. (Both the impact of the rifled musket and the uses of cavalry in 19th century America receive attention.) Received wisdom about specific aspects of the battle and the men who fought it was challenged as well. The cherished heroic tale of the 20th Maine on Little Round Top is cast as evolving out of which of the heroes of the battle’s second day survived the war to promote their own story (Joshua Chamberlain rather than Strong Vincent) rather than what was the most significant action of that day’s battle. Gettysburg: The Last Invasion is full of moments like these.
Allen Guelzo manage to write a book that is fresh and at times startling about the most well known battle of America’s most written about war. Guelzo’s take on several of the battle’s events and participants very well may contradict what you think you know, and even if he doesn’t change your mind, he will definitely make you stop and think about it.
Happily, I did read it. Yes, it contained all that information that I had gathered in a lifetime of reading, from Lee’s planning his Northern invasion to the final, stirring words of the Gettysburg Address. But there was so much more. There was context about 19th century battlefield technology that challenged some of the most basic received wisdom about how the war and battle was fought. (Both the impact of the rifled musket and the uses of cavalry in 19th century America receive attention.) Received wisdom about specific aspects of the battle and the men who fought it was challenged as well. The cherished heroic tale of the 20th Maine on Little Round Top is cast as evolving out of which of the heroes of the battle’s second day survived the war to promote their own story (Joshua Chamberlain rather than Strong Vincent) rather than what was the most significant action of that day’s battle. Gettysburg: The Last Invasion is full of moments like these.
Allen Guelzo manage to write a book that is fresh and at times startling about the most well known battle of America’s most written about war. Guelzo’s take on several of the battle’s events and participants very well may contradict what you think you know, and even if he doesn’t change your mind, he will definitely make you stop and think about it.
February 16, 2023
This is an exhaustive blow-by-blow account of both sides of the battle of Gettysburg. It is intensely readable, and Guelzo writes about battle clearly and without romanticization. I admit I had a hard time keeping track of the cast of characters, and I ended up feeling like I should have been taking notes, but that's the result of the vast panorama Guelzo is trying to describe. He introduces people (okay, 99% men) deftly and with a keen eye for hidden agendas and reminded me again that nobody behaves more like a stereotypical middle school full of clique-ish teenage girls than the upper echelons of the 19th century military.
Guelzo is also very good at stopping when he comes to a point on which there's controversy, laying out both sides, and then making his own judgment, and the chapter at the end where he assesses the battle as a whole, both why it went the way it did and its significance in the Civil War, and greater significance in American history thanks in no small part to the Gettysburg Address, is really excellent.
If I hadn't had to give the book back to the library, I probably would have read it again.
Guelzo is also very good at stopping when he comes to a point on which there's controversy, laying out both sides, and then making his own judgment, and the chapter at the end where he assesses the battle as a whole, both why it went the way it did and its significance in the Civil War, and greater significance in American history thanks in no small part to the Gettysburg Address, is really excellent.
If I hadn't had to give the book back to the library, I probably would have read it again.
February 11, 2015
There are a number of good books about the Gettysburg campaign (Shelby Foote's account in the second volume of "The Civil War," Stephen Sears's "Gettysburg," Harry Pfanz's detailed analyses of the first and second days, and the books on Pickett's Charge by Earl Hess, George Stewart, and Carol Reardon) but Guelzo's is remarkably well done. He's read everything (see his prefatory notes on what's not available), writes strongly (see his description of Dan Sickles or of Powell Hill), makes very clear an incredibly tangled three days. He considers issues in passing that are valuable additions to the book: e.g., the actual lethal effects of rifle fire, the work of those who enshrined Lee's reputation after the war, the amateurish nature of many of the movements on the field of battle, the play of strong personalities on the battle, the pro and anti-McClellan factions within the Army of the Potomac, as well as the pro and anti-abolitionist factions. It is both a very useful book and a pleasure to read and consider.
July 19, 2019
I found this book on Battle of Gettysburg very informative and thought provoking. The author is among many who have recently put the Confederate loss at Gettysburg squarly on the shoulders of Robert E Lee. He also makes a good point that Meade really didnt win the battle but reacted well enough to make the right moves. He gives the victory to the individual Union soldiers and Officers, who rose to the occasion. Some came into their own at the right time to make a difference in the battle. The Confederate officers came up short in this battle and did not have any of those moments. Still the Confederacy almost pulled out a victory. James Longstreet after the war took a lot of blame that he lost the battle, when in fact it was Lee's decisions that ended up losing it. The book goes in depth into the campaign and each of the three days. He sets up the events before the battle, and Lee's retreat after. He tells about the horror the civilians had to contend with cleaning up after the battle. He goes over all the controversies and questions that arose from the decisions made, and conduct during and after the battle. This book really helped set the stage for me on a recent trip to Gettysburg to tour the battlefield. These men's stories and the events of that day really come to life when you stand in the place these great events happen. It really brought forth strong emotions of the struggle and horror these men endured.
April 28, 2018
Summary: An account of the three day battle at Gettysburg, the personalities, key turning points, battlefield topography, and movement by movement narratives that both zoom out and come up close in describing the unfolding of the battle.
There are scores of accounts of the confrontation between Union and Confederate forces for a three day battle at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, July 1-3, 1863. Allen C. Guelzo's account, written on the 150th anniversary of the battle has to rank among the best. Guelzo directs the Civil War Era Studies program at Gettysburg College, which means he resides on the site of the battle. I know of no book that reflects such an intimate acquaintance with the topography of Gettysburg, whether it be the two hills that make up Culp's Hill, Sherfy's Peach Orchard, or Little Round Top, or even the locations of fences, that made advances more difficult. At Gettysburg, topography was a critical factor on all three days, and Guelzo helps us see how strategic choices, topography, and leadership in battle all contributed to the outcome.
The book is organized into four parts, one for the decisions and movements leading up to the battle, and one for each day. It's clear that neither Lee nor Meade had "planned" to fight at Gettysburg. Meade had only taken command three days earlier and wanted to gather his army behind Pipe Creek, positioning him between Lee and Washington, a strong position to receive an attack. Lee wanted to scare the North into negotiating, as well as secure much needed supplies for his army. If he could defeat a spread out army in detail, he would take that chance, but without scouting from Stuart's cavalry, absent on a ride around the Union forces, he was guessing.
When lead elements of his forces engaged Union troops under Reynolds and Howard, he thought he had his chance. The Union leaders barely were right that they could get the rest of the army there ahead of the Confederates. On such calculations the battle swayed back and forth all three days. Guelzo traces these through the battle's three days: Howard's decision to leave troops on Cemetery Hill and Ewell's decision not to attack this thinly held position the first night, Longstreet's delayed movements on the second day and Dan Sickle's near fatal advance of his troops to the Peach Orchard, the last minute decisions of Warren and Joshua Chamberlain's stand that held Little Round Top and the near rolling up of the Union position by Barksdale's Mississippians, and the fierce resistance of Alexander Hays troops redeeming their ignominious defeat at Harpers Ferry.
Particularly as I read the second day's account, I found myself on the edge of my seat wondering how the Union managed to hold on. It seemed to me that if Longstreet had attacked a little sooner, and had a bit more support, that the Army of the Potomac could have been shattered. In all this, Meade comes off rather poorly, letting Sickles take a weak position that opened a gap in the rest of his lines, promoting fellow McClellanite John Newton over Abner Doubleday for command of the 1st Division, and preparing for retreat while Winfield Scott Hancock moved troops into gaps, holding Cemetery Ridge and Hill. After they had held the position, according to Guelzo, Meade wanted to retreat and was overruled by his generals.
Then there is the third day and the perennial question of "why Pickett's charge?" Guelzo reminds us of the military precedents for the success of such charges that may have been in Lee's mind. Again we grasp what a near run thing this was as Armistead reaches the high water mark of momentarily seeing no one in front of him, only to fall. Had the artillery barrage been more effective, had Pickett more support, much more support, I would venture, the outcome might have been different.
Beyond understanding the outcome of the battle, Guelzo takes us inside the battle. We hear what soldiers are talking about as they wait to give or receive attacks, we witness the incongruity of fierce fighting and human compassion between opposing soldiers, and the gore of war, as brains spatter, limbs are torn off, and men are eviscerated. We read of the primitive surgeries, piles of limbs stacked up, and no infection measures.
Guelzo also helps us understand the politics in the Army of the Potomac that undermined Lincoln's efforts to defeat Lee. As already noted Meade was a sympathizer with McClellan who wanted a negotiated settlement that likely would have preserved the Confederacy, and he promoted accordingly. Meade was satisfied to drive Lee back across the Potomac when he had an opportunity to defeat him, prolonging the war and the loss of lives (unlike abolitionist John Reynolds, who was spoiling for a fight, and whose aggressive actions precipitated the battle where he would lose his life).
This is a great book to read in conjunction with a battlefield visit. There is something for both Civil War aficionados and those reading their first account of the battle. Most of all, he helps us understand why this battle was "the last invasion" and just what a near run thing it was.
There are scores of accounts of the confrontation between Union and Confederate forces for a three day battle at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, July 1-3, 1863. Allen C. Guelzo's account, written on the 150th anniversary of the battle has to rank among the best. Guelzo directs the Civil War Era Studies program at Gettysburg College, which means he resides on the site of the battle. I know of no book that reflects such an intimate acquaintance with the topography of Gettysburg, whether it be the two hills that make up Culp's Hill, Sherfy's Peach Orchard, or Little Round Top, or even the locations of fences, that made advances more difficult. At Gettysburg, topography was a critical factor on all three days, and Guelzo helps us see how strategic choices, topography, and leadership in battle all contributed to the outcome.
The book is organized into four parts, one for the decisions and movements leading up to the battle, and one for each day. It's clear that neither Lee nor Meade had "planned" to fight at Gettysburg. Meade had only taken command three days earlier and wanted to gather his army behind Pipe Creek, positioning him between Lee and Washington, a strong position to receive an attack. Lee wanted to scare the North into negotiating, as well as secure much needed supplies for his army. If he could defeat a spread out army in detail, he would take that chance, but without scouting from Stuart's cavalry, absent on a ride around the Union forces, he was guessing.
When lead elements of his forces engaged Union troops under Reynolds and Howard, he thought he had his chance. The Union leaders barely were right that they could get the rest of the army there ahead of the Confederates. On such calculations the battle swayed back and forth all three days. Guelzo traces these through the battle's three days: Howard's decision to leave troops on Cemetery Hill and Ewell's decision not to attack this thinly held position the first night, Longstreet's delayed movements on the second day and Dan Sickle's near fatal advance of his troops to the Peach Orchard, the last minute decisions of Warren and Joshua Chamberlain's stand that held Little Round Top and the near rolling up of the Union position by Barksdale's Mississippians, and the fierce resistance of Alexander Hays troops redeeming their ignominious defeat at Harpers Ferry.
Particularly as I read the second day's account, I found myself on the edge of my seat wondering how the Union managed to hold on. It seemed to me that if Longstreet had attacked a little sooner, and had a bit more support, that the Army of the Potomac could have been shattered. In all this, Meade comes off rather poorly, letting Sickles take a weak position that opened a gap in the rest of his lines, promoting fellow McClellanite John Newton over Abner Doubleday for command of the 1st Division, and preparing for retreat while Winfield Scott Hancock moved troops into gaps, holding Cemetery Ridge and Hill. After they had held the position, according to Guelzo, Meade wanted to retreat and was overruled by his generals.
Then there is the third day and the perennial question of "why Pickett's charge?" Guelzo reminds us of the military precedents for the success of such charges that may have been in Lee's mind. Again we grasp what a near run thing this was as Armistead reaches the high water mark of momentarily seeing no one in front of him, only to fall. Had the artillery barrage been more effective, had Pickett more support, much more support, I would venture, the outcome might have been different.
Beyond understanding the outcome of the battle, Guelzo takes us inside the battle. We hear what soldiers are talking about as they wait to give or receive attacks, we witness the incongruity of fierce fighting and human compassion between opposing soldiers, and the gore of war, as brains spatter, limbs are torn off, and men are eviscerated. We read of the primitive surgeries, piles of limbs stacked up, and no infection measures.
Guelzo also helps us understand the politics in the Army of the Potomac that undermined Lincoln's efforts to defeat Lee. As already noted Meade was a sympathizer with McClellan who wanted a negotiated settlement that likely would have preserved the Confederacy, and he promoted accordingly. Meade was satisfied to drive Lee back across the Potomac when he had an opportunity to defeat him, prolonging the war and the loss of lives (unlike abolitionist John Reynolds, who was spoiling for a fight, and whose aggressive actions precipitated the battle where he would lose his life).
This is a great book to read in conjunction with a battlefield visit. There is something for both Civil War aficionados and those reading their first account of the battle. Most of all, he helps us understand why this battle was "the last invasion" and just what a near run thing it was.
November 10, 2017
Having read several books about the battle (Gettysburg is where I went to college), this is perhaps the best. Guelzo, more than others I've read, delves into the political, geographical, tactical and strategic factors in the invasion. He makes a strong case (or suggestion) that Meade intended to withdraw after the second day, only to be overruled by his commanders and that Meade assumed Pickett's charge would be successful so, rather than hailing his troops, he was preparing his reserve artillery to cover the presumed retreat after defeat! Guelzo further suggests that the notorious Gen. Dan Sickles may well have insisted on having his leg amputated (despite a less-serious wound) to deflect criticism of him (and a court-martial) after disobeying orders and subjecting his entire corps to mutilation and near-defeat. (He also argues that Gettysburg was more Lee's defeat than Meade's success.)
Well-worth reading!
Well-worth reading!
November 9, 2015
This was a faboulas book. I will give you all a full review shortly.
Enjoy and Be Blessed.
Diamond
Enjoy and Be Blessed.
Diamond
May 18, 2020
An entertaining stand alone one volume treatment of the Civil War's most consequential battle in the Eastern Theater. The author weaves a brisk narrative featuring many quotes from the soldiers who were there. Although this book was released in 2013, I just now got around to pulling it out from one of my multiple TBR piles. Although the book doesn't focus on several important parts of the battle, including the struggles for Devil's Den and Little Round Top, this book has still earned a place on my shelf alongside other important Gettysburg battle studies.
June 26, 2018
Clear, authoritative, balance and readable, Allen Guelzo has given as a helpful addition to the literature surrounding the last invasion by the South of the Civil War. Guelzo is a natural choice for this task. He is a professor of Civil War Era history at Gettysburg College and his personal knowledge of both the ground and the town help tell the story. This is a comprehensive treatment of the battle that includes a brief summary of both the state of the American Army before the war and the progress of the war before July 1963. All of the principle characters are here: Longstreet, Ewell, Meade, Chamberlain, Crawford, Custer, Picket, J.E.B. Stuart and of course, R.E. Lee. Guelzo goes out of his way to remind us of the crucial moments in the battle. He tells the story of Joshua Chamberlain but also of Pap Greene, Governor Warren and Strong Vincent. He discusses all of the debates, putting them into historical and critical perspective and in this way gives us the view from 3000 feet and the view from The Emmitsburg Road. Whether you know this battle well or have never seriously studied it, Guelzo's book will help. His concluding chapters on who is to blame for the South's loss and the North's win is a great summary. His Epilogue about Lincoln's speech at the dedication of a cemetery the following Fall seem to put the whole war into perspective. Highly recommended.
July 13, 2013
Very detailed, compelling narrative. Like a number of the other reviewers, I have read many books about the Civil War (and Gettysburg in particular) over the years. I can honestly say this is one of the best Civil War histories (or battle histories in general) that I have read - Dr. Guelzo covers all of the familiar ground deftly, but also brings forward lesser known facts and personalities. For example, many readers may already know about Col. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine (I read Michael Shaara's "The Killer Angels" as a kid and was hooked), but this book also brought forth the efforts and sacrifices of other relatively unknown Union officers and regiments who fought and died holding Little Round Top (and whose contributions may well have exceeded Col. Chamberlain's better known exploits).
The author provides vivid descriptions of the sights, sounds, and experiences of the battle. I would have appreciated a few more maps (although the maps are well done and helpful) and an appendix listing the order of battle, but these are very minor quibbles. I would highly recommend this book for anyone with an interest in the Civil War and/or military history.
The author provides vivid descriptions of the sights, sounds, and experiences of the battle. I would have appreciated a few more maps (although the maps are well done and helpful) and an appendix listing the order of battle, but these are very minor quibbles. I would highly recommend this book for anyone with an interest in the Civil War and/or military history.
November 17, 2022
I have to admit I was a little hesitant at first to pick this one up. Did I really need to read another Civil War book, especially one that focuses on a single battle?
The answer of course is that yes, I am always going to dive back into the Civil War no matter what. This is a ver rewarding look at the battle. Plus it gives plenty of historical context involving soldiering in the 19th century to bring the battle to life.
Guelzo does a good job of attempting to answer why Longstreet delayed on the second day and eliminate some of the lost cause scapegoating that took place.
As someone who had to memorize the Gettysburg Address once upon a time (which I did enjoy), I wish I had Guelzo’s epilogue at that time as well. It really hammers home what was at stake during the battle and how close we almost lost our democracy.
The answer of course is that yes, I am always going to dive back into the Civil War no matter what. This is a ver rewarding look at the battle. Plus it gives plenty of historical context involving soldiering in the 19th century to bring the battle to life.
Guelzo does a good job of attempting to answer why Longstreet delayed on the second day and eliminate some of the lost cause scapegoating that took place.
As someone who had to memorize the Gettysburg Address once upon a time (which I did enjoy), I wish I had Guelzo’s epilogue at that time as well. It really hammers home what was at stake during the battle and how close we almost lost our democracy.
June 10, 2013
This book is great for the historian, the 'buff', and the casual reader who wants a better understanding of a pivotal event in American history. Excellently and abundantly sourced, "Gettysburg: The Last Invasion" paints a rich tableau of the town before the battle, the course of events that brought the armies to the quiet crossroads, and manages to explain the strategic and tactical elements of the battle while not neglecting at all the very human elements of the experience of Civil War combat. Particularly interesting is the reminder of the meaning of the war-coming-north for the free black and escaped-slave populations of southern Pennsylvania.
Professor Gulezo writes, at times, lyrically, and always with a distinct voice and point of view. He does not shy away from any of the old arguments about the battle and its aftermath, and adds his own take on all of them (sometimes, indeed, to argue that the controversy really isn't all that important after all), and more than likely his characteristic take on the centrality of slavery to the war and the secession movement will irk many confederate apologists (as his other recent single-volume history of the war, "Fateful Lightning," did). A careful reader will also see explicitly the analytical craft of the historian at work; as a teacher, I reveled in the overt analysis of sources which Guelzo brought into his narrative, and wished all of my students would learn to do likewise.
One can read this book and come away with not only a much greater understanding of the military and human context of a single great battle, but just as importantly a greater understanding of what the war itself meant to people on both sides well beyond the events of four days in June-July of 1863. This is a great addition to any Civil War or American History collection.
Professor Gulezo writes, at times, lyrically, and always with a distinct voice and point of view. He does not shy away from any of the old arguments about the battle and its aftermath, and adds his own take on all of them (sometimes, indeed, to argue that the controversy really isn't all that important after all), and more than likely his characteristic take on the centrality of slavery to the war and the secession movement will irk many confederate apologists (as his other recent single-volume history of the war, "Fateful Lightning," did). A careful reader will also see explicitly the analytical craft of the historian at work; as a teacher, I reveled in the overt analysis of sources which Guelzo brought into his narrative, and wished all of my students would learn to do likewise.
One can read this book and come away with not only a much greater understanding of the military and human context of a single great battle, but just as importantly a greater understanding of what the war itself meant to people on both sides well beyond the events of four days in June-July of 1863. This is a great addition to any Civil War or American History collection.
June 25, 2013
The book is impressive in many ways, including the depth of detail. This was less impressive, however, when I read about the unit that I re-enact, in which the author misnames the officer who was killed (John) instead of his actual name Augustus Van Horn Ellis (no, he never used a nickname). There were some noticeable inconsistencies, such as a digression on how few soldiers were felled by so many bullets, averaging, he says only one or two per volley directed at them, then a few pages later describes a single volley decimating the whole front line of an actual unit. While he mentions certain controversies, he chooses sides on others, without mentioning that there are contrary opinions. I prefer my historians to be more even-handed. Even his characterization of Sickles is over the top "the man who single-handedly almost lost the battle and the war." There are those who feel Sickles admittedly poor decision to move ahead of his assigned position, actually diverted Longstreets troops from a wider circling movement that would have won the battle for the South. Odd insertions of biblical quotations are not explained... are these the thoughts of Lee, or something else? As they say, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but they ought to label them as opinions. Still, I found the book very readable, and good at showing some different views than commonplace or hollywoodized. For instance, the movie Gettysburg gives the impression that General Buford was the one who decided that this was the "good ground" on which to make a stand. In fact, as Cuelzo shows, General Reynolds was the real driving force in that decision, and Buford a newly minted general was basically following his orders. But Reynolds died soon after, so guess who gets to tell the history. For the average reader, I think this is a great book, but the historian may find it less trustworthy.
June 25, 2013
If you are going to visit Gettysburg you need to read this book before you go.
If you read The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara and want to know more, read this book.
Some will be disappointed because Guelzo doesn't give enough attention to some of the favorite subjects of the battle, like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, but he more than makes up for this by telling the stories of people who are less familiar. If not Chamberlain, then who is the hero for Guelzo? First, would be Reynolds who gets credit for forcing the Union to the battlefield. On Little Round Top, the credit, without diminishing Chamberlain, goes to Vincent. On Culp's Hill, Guelzo thinks Greene's stand should be as we'll known as that of the 20th Maine.
He does a good job of addressing the major controversies associated with the battle. Occasionally, he does seem a little too unbiased. I found myself wishing he would take a side but, for some of the issues, Lee vs Longstreet, the shooting might start all over again. With a good bit of background on the squabbles inside the Union, the reader might wonder how the North ever won. The politics of the copperheads impacted the prosecution of the war in ways that resonate today.
I told my wife that the next road trip we will take will be a visit back to Gettysburg. I might need to find something nice to get her to spend three days walking the battlefield with me.
While reading I used the maps at civil war.org to supplement the basic maps in the book.
If you read The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara and want to know more, read this book.
Some will be disappointed because Guelzo doesn't give enough attention to some of the favorite subjects of the battle, like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, but he more than makes up for this by telling the stories of people who are less familiar. If not Chamberlain, then who is the hero for Guelzo? First, would be Reynolds who gets credit for forcing the Union to the battlefield. On Little Round Top, the credit, without diminishing Chamberlain, goes to Vincent. On Culp's Hill, Guelzo thinks Greene's stand should be as we'll known as that of the 20th Maine.
He does a good job of addressing the major controversies associated with the battle. Occasionally, he does seem a little too unbiased. I found myself wishing he would take a side but, for some of the issues, Lee vs Longstreet, the shooting might start all over again. With a good bit of background on the squabbles inside the Union, the reader might wonder how the North ever won. The politics of the copperheads impacted the prosecution of the war in ways that resonate today.
I told my wife that the next road trip we will take will be a visit back to Gettysburg. I might need to find something nice to get her to spend three days walking the battlefield with me.
While reading I used the maps at civil war.org to supplement the basic maps in the book.
June 2, 2013
I have been a Civil War buff for many years having read probably about 200 books on the war in general and another thirty or so on Gettysburg in particular.
I was slightly leery about picking up Dr.Guelzo's book fearing just another rehash of numerous other battle books. Having just finished "Gettysburg: The Last Invasion" I can honestly say - IMHO - this is the best book I've ever read on the subject.
Guelzo masterfully weaves the preparation for the battle with the political backstabbing taking place in the Army of the Potomac. The battle scenes themselves are wonderfully rendered along with personal vignettes about numerous participants - both Union and Confederate - as well as some of Gettyburg's civilians. And the books epilogue deals with Lincoln's immortal Gettysburg Address in a very moving way. The only (very) minor complaint is there could have been more maps.
Edwin Coddington's work has long been considered the "bible" on Gettysburg. Coddington must now make room for this excellent book.
I was slightly leery about picking up Dr.Guelzo's book fearing just another rehash of numerous other battle books. Having just finished "Gettysburg: The Last Invasion" I can honestly say - IMHO - this is the best book I've ever read on the subject.
Guelzo masterfully weaves the preparation for the battle with the political backstabbing taking place in the Army of the Potomac. The battle scenes themselves are wonderfully rendered along with personal vignettes about numerous participants - both Union and Confederate - as well as some of Gettyburg's civilians. And the books epilogue deals with Lincoln's immortal Gettysburg Address in a very moving way. The only (very) minor complaint is there could have been more maps.
Edwin Coddington's work has long been considered the "bible" on Gettysburg. Coddington must now make room for this excellent book.
May 14, 2013
Gettysburg: The Last Invasion by Allen C. Guelzo
This book is so filled with information that it could have ended up being another boring geek read that only appealed to a limited audience.
However, I find that the information is new to me, and so complex in how it is woven together, that I am staying up late to finish the next chapter.
Really a must for any Civil war buff. I bet you will find at least 3 things that you didn't know!
This book is so filled with information that it could have ended up being another boring geek read that only appealed to a limited audience.
However, I find that the information is new to me, and so complex in how it is woven together, that I am staying up late to finish the next chapter.
Really a must for any Civil war buff. I bet you will find at least 3 things that you didn't know!
August 12, 2013
The Battle of Gettysburg was fought during the first three days of July in 1863, and in spite of its importance, might have been just another battle site competing in memory with all the rest but for its reframing in just 272 words by Lincoln at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery at Gettysburg that November. Subsequently, an outpouring of words on Gettysburg has described every aspect of the battle, with Allen Guelzo, Director of Civil War Era Studies at Gettysburg College, adding yet another comprehensive blow-by-blow account to the mix.
I know many potential readers have a knee-jerk reaction to books about battles, a reaction that presumes the story will be of little or no interest to them. But really, there is so much fascinating that you find out and that is relevant to your lives! For example, for those of you who can barely manage to come up with meals to feed 2 or 4 or 6 everyday, what if you had to feel thousands every day? Where would the food come from and what receptacles would you use for cooking? How would they be transported between battlefields?
Or did you ever wonder about the perils of not being able to keep hygienic for so long? There are not just the problems about which you might be aware, like disease and discomfort, but how about the fact that you couldn’t really sneak up on another army because they could smell you coming?!!!
I think I first fell in love with finding out details of military life when I read about the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. I loved learning that rum was added to water to disinfect it [note to self: try that at home]; that sawdust kept on board ships to spread out on decks before battles so no one would slip on blood; and how combatants determined how old their bread was by the stages in the life cycles of the weevils and maggots it contained.
In a similar way, Guelzo fleshes out his story of the Battle of Gettysburg with many interesting explanations such as why there wasn’t more cavalry in use at the time, and why the new sharp-shooting rifles didn’t confer as many advantages as had been hoped. It continues to amaze me too, how difficult it was for the generals to get the under-commanders and troops to do what they were supposed to do (and for that matter, for the presidents of the North and South to get their generals to do what they were supposed to do!). I like that Guelzo adds political context to the problems faced by the armies. I also found very interesting the reactions to the commanders and soldiers to the “diversity” of the troops (by which I mean, for example, Virginians versus Georgians).
With respect to the diversity of Gettysburg's population, i.e., the presence of blacks, both free and slave, Guelzo makes a point of telling their story as well, a story often omitted by chroniclers of the battle. Blacks in southern Pennsylvania (most of whom were free) made a mass exodus from the area, because as the Confederates entered the state, they rounded up as many blacks as they could, including the elderly, the women, and the children, making no distinction between freeborn blacks and runaways. They didn't care what their status was; they intended to sell them as slaves back in the markets in Richmond.
[While some 200,000 African Americans served in the Union Army and Navy during the war, there is no evidence any black soldiers fought at Gettysburg. According to John Heiser, Gettysburg National Military Park historian, "There were no black 'combatants' on either side at Gettysburg, only 'noncombatants' in support roles: ambulance and supply-wagon drivers, hospital attendants, teamsters."]
The invasion and battle make for a compelling story. Still, unless you are very devoted (and readers of Civil War histories do tend to be a very devoted bunch), you probably don’t need to hear a passage from every surviving letter or memoir to testify to the very same emotion or observation over and over. Nor might you want to know every single detail about just one battle of the Civil War. Nevertheless, there is a need for Guelzo’s book, just as there has been a need for the many other books on the very same subject.
Let me explain by way of example.
Because this year marks the 150 anniversary of the battle, there are many “commemorative” magazines out on Gettysburg. One of them, the summer 2013 issue of "The Civil War Monitor" features “Expert Takes on Gettysburg” posing identical questions about the battle to Allen Guelzo, and to Stephen W. Sears, who came out with his book Gettysburg ten years ago, on the 140th anniversary of the fight. Each author is asked the following:
What was Robert E. Lee’s biggest mistake at Gettysburg?
Was was Lee’s best decision?
What was George Meade’s biggest mistake at Gettysburg?
Meade’s best decision?
Whose Gettysburg performance is most overrated?
Who was the battle’s unsung hero?
What’s the biggest myth surrounding Gettysburg?
Did the Battle of Gettysburg mark a turning point in the war?
If you read each author’s answers, you will get an idea about why there can never be enough historical accounts of the same thing. Wait: these two did study the same battle, didn’t they? Only on the subject of Meade do they say anything even resembling agreement. Usually, their answers differ along these lines:
And don’t even ask how many casualties there were at Gettysburg; I have never, ever seen two sources come up with the same number (unless one was citing the other!) [But fyi, there were close to 50,000 on both sides in all, which includes of course wounded, captured and missing as well as dead.]
Evaluation: This is a book probably best suited to aficionados, as the hardcover version is over 650 pages and the unabridged book on CD lasts approximately 22 and one-half hours. For those who like knowing every little detail of Civil War battles, this book, whether in hard copy or audio, will prove entertaining. In addition to information specific to the Civil War, Guelzo adds insights from other military campaigns and on tactics in general. I’ve read that there are a few minor factual errors in this book, but nothing affecting the integrity of the book overall. Guelzo is also not innocent of preferences for some generals and not others, but really, can you find anyone who knows anything at all about the Civil War who doesn’t have an opinion on say, McClellan? [Why, yes, that was me who refused to eat at a restaurant on a Civil War Battleground called McClellan’s Cafe!]
I have a couple of complaints specifically about the audio version. Each of the discs ends quite unexpectedly - one of them even stops mid-sentence, or at least, mid-clause. Also, this is a story that really requires maps, and indeed, the hardcover version by Guelzo has plenty of them. Troop positioning was pivotal before, during, and after the battle. It is a bit frustrating not to have the maps on hand while listening. On the positive side, the narrator Robertson Dean performs admirably with respect to most of the very tricky pronunciations of names of officers and places, but he does say "Gett-is-burg" instead of "Gett-ees-burg" which is how the natives pronounce it.
I know many potential readers have a knee-jerk reaction to books about battles, a reaction that presumes the story will be of little or no interest to them. But really, there is so much fascinating that you find out and that is relevant to your lives! For example, for those of you who can barely manage to come up with meals to feed 2 or 4 or 6 everyday, what if you had to feel thousands every day? Where would the food come from and what receptacles would you use for cooking? How would they be transported between battlefields?
Or did you ever wonder about the perils of not being able to keep hygienic for so long? There are not just the problems about which you might be aware, like disease and discomfort, but how about the fact that you couldn’t really sneak up on another army because they could smell you coming?!!!
I think I first fell in love with finding out details of military life when I read about the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. I loved learning that rum was added to water to disinfect it [note to self: try that at home]; that sawdust kept on board ships to spread out on decks before battles so no one would slip on blood; and how combatants determined how old their bread was by the stages in the life cycles of the weevils and maggots it contained.
In a similar way, Guelzo fleshes out his story of the Battle of Gettysburg with many interesting explanations such as why there wasn’t more cavalry in use at the time, and why the new sharp-shooting rifles didn’t confer as many advantages as had been hoped. It continues to amaze me too, how difficult it was for the generals to get the under-commanders and troops to do what they were supposed to do (and for that matter, for the presidents of the North and South to get their generals to do what they were supposed to do!). I like that Guelzo adds political context to the problems faced by the armies. I also found very interesting the reactions to the commanders and soldiers to the “diversity” of the troops (by which I mean, for example, Virginians versus Georgians).
With respect to the diversity of Gettysburg's population, i.e., the presence of blacks, both free and slave, Guelzo makes a point of telling their story as well, a story often omitted by chroniclers of the battle. Blacks in southern Pennsylvania (most of whom were free) made a mass exodus from the area, because as the Confederates entered the state, they rounded up as many blacks as they could, including the elderly, the women, and the children, making no distinction between freeborn blacks and runaways. They didn't care what their status was; they intended to sell them as slaves back in the markets in Richmond.
[While some 200,000 African Americans served in the Union Army and Navy during the war, there is no evidence any black soldiers fought at Gettysburg. According to John Heiser, Gettysburg National Military Park historian, "There were no black 'combatants' on either side at Gettysburg, only 'noncombatants' in support roles: ambulance and supply-wagon drivers, hospital attendants, teamsters."]
The invasion and battle make for a compelling story. Still, unless you are very devoted (and readers of Civil War histories do tend to be a very devoted bunch), you probably don’t need to hear a passage from every surviving letter or memoir to testify to the very same emotion or observation over and over. Nor might you want to know every single detail about just one battle of the Civil War. Nevertheless, there is a need for Guelzo’s book, just as there has been a need for the many other books on the very same subject.
Let me explain by way of example.
Because this year marks the 150 anniversary of the battle, there are many “commemorative” magazines out on Gettysburg. One of them, the summer 2013 issue of "The Civil War Monitor" features “Expert Takes on Gettysburg” posing identical questions about the battle to Allen Guelzo, and to Stephen W. Sears, who came out with his book Gettysburg ten years ago, on the 140th anniversary of the fight. Each author is asked the following:
What was Robert E. Lee’s biggest mistake at Gettysburg?
Was was Lee’s best decision?
What was George Meade’s biggest mistake at Gettysburg?
Meade’s best decision?
Whose Gettysburg performance is most overrated?
Who was the battle’s unsung hero?
What’s the biggest myth surrounding Gettysburg?
Did the Battle of Gettysburg mark a turning point in the war?
If you read each author’s answers, you will get an idea about why there can never be enough historical accounts of the same thing. Wait: these two did study the same battle, didn’t they? Only on the subject of Meade do they say anything even resembling agreement. Usually, their answers differ along these lines:
What’s the biggest myth surrounding Gettysburg?
Guelzo: “That Meade won the Battle of Gettysburg. Lee lost it and lost it big!”
Sears: “That Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg. Au contraire, Meade won Gettysburg.”
And don’t even ask how many casualties there were at Gettysburg; I have never, ever seen two sources come up with the same number (unless one was citing the other!) [But fyi, there were close to 50,000 on both sides in all, which includes of course wounded, captured and missing as well as dead.]
Evaluation: This is a book probably best suited to aficionados, as the hardcover version is over 650 pages and the unabridged book on CD lasts approximately 22 and one-half hours. For those who like knowing every little detail of Civil War battles, this book, whether in hard copy or audio, will prove entertaining. In addition to information specific to the Civil War, Guelzo adds insights from other military campaigns and on tactics in general. I’ve read that there are a few minor factual errors in this book, but nothing affecting the integrity of the book overall. Guelzo is also not innocent of preferences for some generals and not others, but really, can you find anyone who knows anything at all about the Civil War who doesn’t have an opinion on say, McClellan? [Why, yes, that was me who refused to eat at a restaurant on a Civil War Battleground called McClellan’s Cafe!]
I have a couple of complaints specifically about the audio version. Each of the discs ends quite unexpectedly - one of them even stops mid-sentence, or at least, mid-clause. Also, this is a story that really requires maps, and indeed, the hardcover version by Guelzo has plenty of them. Troop positioning was pivotal before, during, and after the battle. It is a bit frustrating not to have the maps on hand while listening. On the positive side, the narrator Robertson Dean performs admirably with respect to most of the very tricky pronunciations of names of officers and places, but he does say "Gett-is-burg" instead of "Gett-ees-burg" which is how the natives pronounce it.
April 25, 2018
Four-score and seven hours ago I started this massive book, and I'm already done. That's testimony to Guelzo's skill. His command of the details is incredible, of course, but it's his insightful asides, his beautiful and often biblical turns of phrase (Lee wanted to "turn and rend" the Union army), and his mature assessments of long ago controversies that make me value him as a writer.
September 6, 2024
I’ve been to Gettysburg a few times and have always loved learning and reading about the Civil War’s bloodiest battle.
This book brings that history to life with a masterful retelling—gripping, detailed, and yet entirely accessible. Dr. Guelzo’s style made this one a great read.
This book brings that history to life with a masterful retelling—gripping, detailed, and yet entirely accessible. Dr. Guelzo’s style made this one a great read.
January 28, 2014
Originally finished on June 3, 2013.
I have read and enjoyed a number of the historical fiction accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg, but there is nothing like a well-written narrative account to truly give the reader the full experience of the event. This is one of those books.
Guelzo gives us the usual background information on events preceding the war, but also discusses the politics of being in the Union or Confederate Army Leadership. Virginia rules in the South. There's a pecking order in the North which still has an umbilical cord to McClellan. This is very helpful information in understanding events as they unfold, and why certain decisions are made by different generals during the battle.
The books relis on many, many accounts left behind by participants and eye witnesses to the fighting - more than 100 pages. But yet the story flows and keeps the reader engaged. The quotes are expertly woven into to the author's writing, where one enhances the other. The average reader who has an interest in the Civil War and this battle could easily read and enjoy this book.
The author obviously has his own opinions on who is accountable for the successes and failures of the day, but he writes it in such a way that allows the reader to also draw some of his own conclusions. But, as with any historical narrative, the author's own bias can never really be discounted.
Overall I LOVED this book. It really filled in gaps in my own Gettysburg knowledge. It didn't ignore the "popular" Gettysburg stories, but gave a more balanced account of the various points of fighting and their significance in the overall picture of things, not pushing the "romantic" favorites, but standing on the true deeds of men who did not always live to tell the stories of the day. I appreciate that perspective in trying to teach my own children about the past. The best stories are sometimes the ones you have to dig deeper to find. And the author did dig deep.
Highly recommend for non fiction lovers - especially those who enjoy history and the Civil War. I recommend it for everyone, because history is important, and this book will expand even the most average American's knowledge of this pivotal battle and the Civil War in general.
Edited on Jan. 2, 2014 - I reread this book over Christmas, listening to about 1/3 while traveling and reading the rest. And I wanted to add a few things to this review.
Since the first time I read this, I have read a number of other books on Gettysburg. So upfront, I have a much better picture of the battle, which helped me to decided if i agreed with his presentation of the battle and events. So this is what I liked about the book:
- Loved the language, the way he presents the battle details.
-He chooses to talk about the popular pieces of the battle (ie Little Round Top), but give a complete picture of the action there (not just the 20th Maine).
-He adds little pieces to the narrative that help the reader feel like he is there. ie - Longstreet and Lee walking the line, Gibbon inviting Meade to eat the tough rooster.
-He has a complete post battle analysis and critique on both sides.
Things I didn't like:
- He got hung up on critiquing Meade too heavily, even taking it beyond the battle and into the last days of the war.
- I didn't agree with some of his conclusions about the battle - thought he got a little too hung up on Pickett's/Pettigrew's charge and didn't give enough credit to the actions of Day 1. There was more, but that is just one example.
- I didn't like the addition of the Gettysburg address chapter at the end. While Lincoln was pushing to make the war about slavery at this point and definitely was pushing his political agenda at that point, I'm not sure that I see the battle itself as being about "all men being created equal." And I definitely don't agree that democracy was in peril if the South had succeeded in their efforts to form their own nation.
I do think it is a great addition to the body of work on Gettysburg that's out there and recommend it to people interested in the battle.
As I mentioned, I did the audio book version for part of my read. At the end of the audio book is an interview with the author. This is a great add on to the end of the book. Guelzo talks about why he got so in depth on Meade and also shares other books to read if you are a student of the battle.
I have read and enjoyed a number of the historical fiction accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg, but there is nothing like a well-written narrative account to truly give the reader the full experience of the event. This is one of those books.
Guelzo gives us the usual background information on events preceding the war, but also discusses the politics of being in the Union or Confederate Army Leadership. Virginia rules in the South. There's a pecking order in the North which still has an umbilical cord to McClellan. This is very helpful information in understanding events as they unfold, and why certain decisions are made by different generals during the battle.
The books relis on many, many accounts left behind by participants and eye witnesses to the fighting - more than 100 pages. But yet the story flows and keeps the reader engaged. The quotes are expertly woven into to the author's writing, where one enhances the other. The average reader who has an interest in the Civil War and this battle could easily read and enjoy this book.
The author obviously has his own opinions on who is accountable for the successes and failures of the day, but he writes it in such a way that allows the reader to also draw some of his own conclusions. But, as with any historical narrative, the author's own bias can never really be discounted.
Overall I LOVED this book. It really filled in gaps in my own Gettysburg knowledge. It didn't ignore the "popular" Gettysburg stories, but gave a more balanced account of the various points of fighting and their significance in the overall picture of things, not pushing the "romantic" favorites, but standing on the true deeds of men who did not always live to tell the stories of the day. I appreciate that perspective in trying to teach my own children about the past. The best stories are sometimes the ones you have to dig deeper to find. And the author did dig deep.
Highly recommend for non fiction lovers - especially those who enjoy history and the Civil War. I recommend it for everyone, because history is important, and this book will expand even the most average American's knowledge of this pivotal battle and the Civil War in general.
Edited on Jan. 2, 2014 - I reread this book over Christmas, listening to about 1/3 while traveling and reading the rest. And I wanted to add a few things to this review.
Since the first time I read this, I have read a number of other books on Gettysburg. So upfront, I have a much better picture of the battle, which helped me to decided if i agreed with his presentation of the battle and events. So this is what I liked about the book:
- Loved the language, the way he presents the battle details.
-He chooses to talk about the popular pieces of the battle (ie Little Round Top), but give a complete picture of the action there (not just the 20th Maine).
-He adds little pieces to the narrative that help the reader feel like he is there. ie - Longstreet and Lee walking the line, Gibbon inviting Meade to eat the tough rooster.
-He has a complete post battle analysis and critique on both sides.
Things I didn't like:
- He got hung up on critiquing Meade too heavily, even taking it beyond the battle and into the last days of the war.
- I didn't agree with some of his conclusions about the battle - thought he got a little too hung up on Pickett's/Pettigrew's charge and didn't give enough credit to the actions of Day 1. There was more, but that is just one example.
- I didn't like the addition of the Gettysburg address chapter at the end. While Lincoln was pushing to make the war about slavery at this point and definitely was pushing his political agenda at that point, I'm not sure that I see the battle itself as being about "all men being created equal." And I definitely don't agree that democracy was in peril if the South had succeeded in their efforts to form their own nation.
I do think it is a great addition to the body of work on Gettysburg that's out there and recommend it to people interested in the battle.
As I mentioned, I did the audio book version for part of my read. At the end of the audio book is an interview with the author. This is a great add on to the end of the book. Guelzo talks about why he got so in depth on Meade and also shares other books to read if you are a student of the battle.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 374 reviews