Rating: 
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003)
623 pgs
Last year I had the opportunity to speak at a church located near the battlefield at Gettysburg. I had never had the opportunity to visit the site and had always wanted to. While there I picked up this book and was inspired to read about the epic battle that turned the tide of the Civil War. I have read a great deal on the Civil War but I had never read an in depth study focusing entirely on this battle. Because of the length and historic complexity of this volume, I’ll not try and summarize or necessarily critique the book in detail.
While touring the battlefield, I was struck by several things. For one, everywhere there are tour groups. Clearly 152 years after the battle, it still captures peoples’ interest and imagination. I was also struck by how many people came in period costume, both gray and blue. There were numerous readings, speeches, and services being conducted. I suppose what most impressed me was the sense of the courage that was required to have fought on that landscape. Standing atop Little Round Top and Cemetery Ridge, I could not help but imagine what it was like to see 13,000 soldiers charging across the open fields during Pickett’s famous charge. To know that, for three days in a hot July, the fate of the United States hung in the balance in that relatively obscure town in Pennsylvania, compelled me to want to read this book.
I must add a quick preamble. There are those who are repulsed at battles and death, especially for a cause today viewed by many as unjust. I have had people criticize me for drawing leadership principles from Southern generals such as Lee and Jackson. However, one reason that so many books on leadership reference military exploits is because there is perhaps no greater field in which to exercise leadership than among people who may have to lay down their lives as a consequence of what their leaders do. The stakes are never higher than in the heat of a battle. It is when death is on the line that the mettle of leaders is clearly revealed. I would also add that great leadership can be exercised even when for a less than noble or misguided cause. It would seem foolish to discount the leadership brilliance of people like Robert E. Lee and Jackson simply because they fought on the losing side of history.
I enjoyed Sears’s style for the most part. At times the narrative grew somewhat tedious as he described the various brigades and corps commanders. For a thorough history, it is important to set the stage and to describe the main players. However, this part seemed to be a bit tedious. I far preferred it when he introduced us to officers and soldiers as their role was described in the actual battle. For the most part, Sears used the accepted style of military narrators in describing in vivid imagery the enormous import of the three days’ events. I suppose Winston Churchill is one of my favorite writers of military history and few can match his use of the English language. Nevertheless, Sears does a good job of describing the various events and introducing the reader to the wide array of characters involved in this epic battle.
Part of the allure of the Civil War is the cultured, gentlemanly manner in which people spoke and described the barbaric events that were occurring. Phrases such as, “Only battle could satisfy an objective so grand” (16). They “were compelled to make a retreat more rapidly than was consistent with dignity and comfort” (98), “The slaughter was mutual and assured’ (210); “. . . caused much strong language” (247). At times the gentlemanly way in which events are described shields the reader form the stark horror of the actual events being depicted.
I must confess that in other books I have read, particularly focusing on Robert E. Lee, the role of subordinates such as General Longstreet always seemed tarnished. Longstreet clearly did not endorse Pickett’s charge. As a result, he has been castigated by many who believe his reluctance may have cost Lee the victory. However, Sears is generally sympathetic to Longstreet. He makes it clear that Lee was not at his best at Gettysburg (237). Sears quotes a subordinate who declared of Longstreet: “I consider him a humbug . . . a man of small capacity, very obstinate, not at all chivalrous, exceedingly conceited, and totally selfish’ (262). Sears also acknowledges that, “James Longstreet could be a remarkably stubborn man” (347). Nevertheless, Sears argues that Longstreet was correct in his assessment that victory could not be won on the decisive day of the battle by a direct frontal assault and that Lee made a series of mistakes that ultimately cost him the battle.
Several things struck me as I read this book. One was the way some leaders valiantly rose to the occasion while others failed miserably. In an amazing contrast you see some men performing heroically and sacrificially while others flee at the first sign of danger. The same battle reveals the heroes and the cowards.
Several people stood out in Sears’ account. On the negative side were people such as General Dan Sickles. Of him Sears commented: “As corps commander Dan Sickles was operating at a level far beyond his talents, and most everyone realized it but Dan Sickles” (35). When he was ultimately wounded, his soldiers concluded that, “The loss of his leg is a great gain to us, whatever it may be to him” (301). Of General Robertson, Sears notes: “General Robertson was an excellent man in camp to train troops . . but in the field, in the presence of the enemy, he lost all self-possession and was perfectly unreliable” (140). Of Colonel Edward O’Neal, Sears notes that his “talents were those of a politician he had been than the warrior he aspired to be . . . he remained safely in the rear rather than personally directing the assault, as was expected of any officer in Robert E. Lee’s army” (197). General William Mahone refused to advance even when his commanding general sent word for him to do so (317). There was general Dick Anderson. When a courier was sent to his post, he found General Anderson “back in the woods, where he found the general’s horse tied to a tree and all his staff lying on the ground (indifferent) as though nothing was going on . . . I am quite certain that Gen’l A. never saw a foot of the ground on which his three brigades fought on 2nd July” (318). John Brockenbrough was to lead the left wing of the assault on July 3. Yet almost immediately his force was routed, leaving the left flank exposed (418). In reading of the shortcomings and skill of officers in both armies could affect the outcome of a battle. Sears makes much of Jeb Stuart’s misguided ride around the rear of the Union army. While he was out of contact with lee, Lee was left in the dark about the enemy’s whereabouts. It is safe to conclude that Lee would have approached Gettysburg much differently if he had been better informed of his enemy’s position and strength.
In contrast are Sears’ descriptions of heroism at Gettysburg. John B. Gordon had said to his men: “I ask you to go no father than I am willing to lead!” (53). During the battle of Gettysburg, it was said that Gordon “was a self-taught soldier with a talent for inspiring his men and personally dominating a battlefield. . . ‘Standing in his stirrups, bareheaded, hat in hand, arms extended, and, in a voice like a trumpet, exhorting his men. It was superb; absolutely thrilling’” (213). (53). It was said of Lee that, “We looked forward to victory under him as confidently as to successive sunrises” (59). Corporal James Kelly pled as he was dying from his wounds in battle, “Colonel, won’t you write to my folks that I died a soldier?” (179).
Of General Meade, Sears writes: ‘There was nothing in his appearance or his bearing . . . that might have made the hearts of the soldiers warm to him, . . nothing of prose, nothing stagy, about him. His mid was evidently absorbed by a hard problem. But this simple, cold, serious soldier with his business-like air did inspire confidence” (243). Colonel Joshua Chamberlain was riding with his two brothers when cannon fire exploded near them. “Boys” he said, “I don’t like this. Another such shot might make it hard for mother” (278). He therefore dispatched his brothers in opposite directions.
During the battle, four brothers from the Thomas family fought for the South. One of their brothers had been killed in battle earlier. At Gettysburg, three more would be killed (290). It was said of William Wofford that he was “a self-made, aggressive officer who on attack made himself highly visible” (302). Isaac Avery led his troops on horseback so he would be more visible to his men. Unfortunately he was also more visible to enemy sharpshooters. As he lay mortally wounded, he asked, “Major; Tell my father I died with my face to the enemy” (336-337).
General Hancock was everywhere in battle cursing and exhorting his men. When the Union cannons unleashed a devastating barrage toward his men, “General Longstreet felt obliged by this counterfire to show himself to his men to reassure them. ‘Longstreet rode slowly and alone immediately in front of our entire line . . . His bearing was to me the grandest moral spectacle of the war. I expected him to fall every instant. Still he moved on, slowly and majestically, with an inspiring confidence, composure, self-possession and repressed power” (404). It was said of Colonel Sherrill that he was “too brave a man to live” (435).
During Pickett’s charge, Lewis Armistead and Dick Garnett fearlessly led their men. Garnett rode on horseback despite the murderous fire fro the enemy. Armistead led twenty feet ahead of the line. Sears notes: “Finally, this leadership was inspired and inspiring. Dick Garnett, mounted and clearly visible to his followers, and Lew Armistead, marching resolutely twenty paces ahead of the line, hat on his upraised sword, were generals that men would follow to the death” (447). When his men began to waiver under the devastating fire of the enemy, Armistead shouted: “Come forward, Virginians! Come on boys, we must give them the cold steel! Who will follow me?” (449). Sears concludes: “It was his example, his coolness, his courage that led that brigade over that field of blood” (415). Reading of such courage and standing on the battlefield still inspires people today.
This particular battle continues to baffle military experts to this day. Should Lee have attacked the entrenched position of the North when he had a smaller force? Without proper intelligence, should Lee have allowed himself to become entangled in a battle he did not wish for? Should he have heeded the concerns of his senior general in Longstreet? Lee had confidence that led him to favor the offensive but this confidence could also lead him to assume he could will his forces to victory even against the odds. Sometimes he was successful. In this instance he was not. There were a number of lost opportunities on both sides that might have turned the tide of the battle. There were moments of failed leadership that cost men their lives. There were moments as well, when ordinary soldiers laid their lives down for their cause.
There certainly are other books on this battle as well as the Civil War as a whole that cover much of the same material. Clearly Sears is an expert on this battle and the people involved. I would encourage those who are interested in leadership to take some time to learn lessons that can be gleaned from America’s deadliest war. I was carrying this book with me into an airport lounge. A man noticed what I was reading and felt compelled to tell me that he had been to Gettysburg a dozen times and that he learned new lessons on each occasion. Certainly there are many leadership insights to be gained from a study of those three days in July 1863.
by Richard Blackaby