A look at one of the most important events of the Civil War in an “almost minute-by-minute account of the most famous infantry charge in history (William C. Davis, Civil War author and distinguished scholar). The Battle of Gettysburg was the turning point of the Civil War, producing over 57,000 dead and wounded in a battle that would stand as the Confederacy’s high watermark. On the third day … watermark. On the third day of fierce fighting, Robert E. Lee’s attempt to invade the North came to a head in Pickett’s Charge. The infantry assault consisted of nine brigades of soldiers in a line that stretched for over a mile, and would result in a horrific slaughter with casualties of over fifty percent for the Confederates. It was a devastating blow to Southern morale.
Pickett’s Charge is a detailed analysis of one of the most iconic and defining events in American history, presenting a much-needed fresh look—including unvarnished truths and ugly realities—about an unforgettable story. With the luxury of hindsight, historians have long denounced the folly of Lee’s attack, but this work reveals the tactical brilliance of a master plan that went awry.
Special emphasis is placed on the common soldiers on both sides, especially the non-Virginia attackers outside of Pickett’s Virginia Division. These fighters’ moments of cowardice, failure, and triumph are explored using their own words
Without romance and glorification, the complexities and contradictions of the dramatic story of Pickett’s Charge have been revealed in full to reveal this most pivotal moment in the nation’s life, as “a popular historian deconstructs ‘the greatest assault of the greatest battle of America’s greatest war’” (Kirkus Review).
more
This book has the feel of several journal articles strung together into a book. The outline of the thesis is repeated in nearly every chapter with near the same wording. The thesis is interesting and the author marshals a good deal of evidence and provides clear analysis. A buffs delight!
A lot of words that repeat the same unproven premise. The author makes the case that Lee had a three-pronged attack (artillery, infantry and calvary) in mind when he ordered the attack on the Union’s center. However, he can’t back it up with the actual events, because his premise is all wrong.
He claims that Stuart was ordered to attack the Union’s rear while the infantry attacked the Union’s front. Then he doesn’t defend his assertion with anything factual. Did he read Lee’s mind because the events DO NOT bear out his ridiculous claims? I won’t go into his other assertion regarding the lack of infantry reinforcements during the charge being critical in its failure. It’s just all wrong.
It’s not a particularly good read either. He clearly used his Word software to cut and paste the same phrases repeatedly throughout the book. Instead of being a scholarly tome, he tries to beat the reader over the head with his “alternative reality”.
Not worth the read.
Rather opinionated, just not p to the level I would have expected.
The Author said that he was going to enlighten the reader, who may have been misled by the “lost cause myth) by relying heavily on he writing of the participants, and that he would show that Gettysburg and Pickett’s Charge in particular, was a masterful plan by Lee and that it should and would have carried the day if his subordinates had performed as they were supposed to..
Well, he lists lots (and lots) of the participants, and he quotes many of them…all saying the same thing, i.e., “we’d a whupped them if we’d a been supported.” Or “they’d a whupped us if they’d a been supported.” However, I was not convinced that the author really made his case.
Finally, I was disappointed that he failed to detail Stuart’s failure to attack the Union center from the rear with anything like the attention he gave to the artillery and supporting infantry (or lack thereof) in the frontal attack. He mentions that Stuart was prevented from attacking Meade’s rear by Custer’s 6th Cavalry but providers no details.
All in all, i was disappointed in Pickett’s Chage. Hardly the best account I’ve read (there are some really good ones out there).
A great look at the controversial assault from several perspectives of the war and the campaign. Provides a solid analysis of Lee from his decision making and plan through the execution as well as factors within and beyond his control.
Gave a different point of view about the Battle of Gettysburg than I’ve read before, and I’m a student of the Civil War.
Excellent read and quite accurate without being overbearing and technical!! It reads well for both Civil War aficionados and military history buffs !!! Author is very good writer and one can follow his narrative well! He shows definitively that Pickett’s Charge was the pivotal crucial moment both for the campaign and the outcome of the Civil War! It all boiled down to the Pickett- Trimble-Kemper charge and the success for the Confederacy that would have resulted had Gettysburg battle been a success and it very nearly was!!! Great book!!! Pastor Eli Salinas
Intriguing hypothesis with insights into how technology rendered principles of Napoleonic warfare obsolete. Ultimately it was the attrition of Confederate leaders that undid a well conceived plan.
Conflict in battle requires a point of view for understanding (from the top) or sensing (from the field soldier up) the course of action and the ultimate narrative describing the outcome. Gettysburg has received substantial attention from historians and novelists. My sense is that the narrative was mired in detail without a strong flow to the overall action.
Lots of great info about the civil war. Even if you have not visited Gettysburg this book puts you right on the battlefield
Ugh! This could kill the passion in all but the most durable and die hard history buffs.
A great discussion concerning the bloodiest battle of the Civil War.
This is a 40 page thesis dragged out to a full length book. Must have been 300 references to how important the battle was + that historian has it wrong, that this battle was strategic genius that just failed in execution. Got it. Can’t read a full book that repeats that theme 2-3 times on every page. Had to stop. That and the painful display of historical documentation (I get it, you read 60-60 letters of soldiers who were there) and use of first, middle, last name for every soldier source just gets tedious and adds nothing to thesis or – importantly – the narrative. Very important, and original thesis drowned in too much historical noise