Gettysburg: The Tide Turns: An Oral History

by Bruce Chadwick

The definitive oral history of the battle that turned the tide of the Civil War that combines vivid first-hand accounts with rich historical narrative.

In late June of 1863, one month after his victory over Union forces at Chancellorsville, Virginia, General Robert E. Lee, head of the Army of Northern Virginia, invaded the North. He would cross the Potomac River and head towards Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with the goal of seizing the trains which would then take his army into Philadelphia and perhaps even New York City. He hoped that these victories would force U.S. President Abraham Lincoln to surrender.

As he pushed north, Lee was operating without his cavalry leader, J.E.B. Stuart, whom he had allowed to go on a useless scouting mission. At the same time, the Union army, now led by little known commander George Meade was tracking Lee and his men.

Both sides clashed at Gettysburg, a tiny Pennsylvania farm village on July 1 in what would be a three-day battle that would change the course of the war.

The battle would reveal the mettle of the unheralded Meade and would also call into question General Lee’s reputation as a legendary commander when he unleashed the ill planned and ill prepared Pickett’s Charge. The battle proved costly to both sides. Some 50,000 men were killed across the battlefield and the defeated Lee’s army would never again invade the North.

After so much bloodshed, President Lincoln's history-making and eloquent Gettysburg Address came to embody the essence of the war. The address, not even three minutes long, is considered the finest speech ever delivered buy an American President and has been memorized by generations ever since.

Using letters, diaries, journals, newspaper articles, and other written sources, Bruce Chadwick has crafted another masterful oral history. Skillfully combining traditional historic narrative with the in-the-moment ethos of an oral history, The Tide Turns brings this iconic battle to fresh and vivid life.

Genres: Civil War, History, Nonfiction

269 pages, Kindle Edition

Published February 4, 2025

Reviews

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've been fascinated by the Civil War since growing up through the original centennial (1961-65) when it was just everywhere; and I always love a good oral history. But sadly, this doesn't fully qualify as either "good" or an actual oral history by most definitions. Chadwick struggles valiantly to retell the famous battle with the support of numerous quotes from letters, messages, and other sources — but he just didn't have enough to work with to connect what amount to disconnected snippets which sometimes come down to just 5-6 word comments (example: General George Meade: "Come on, gentlemen, come on!") lifted from…well, not fully explained.

What voices he does provide ARE fascinating, and as always it's surprising to see just how articulate and literate even common soldiers were back then — must be because they didn't yet have TV or the internet. But surprisingly, where the book is weakest is with Chadwick's own writing. He breaks the story down day-by-day, but then also location-by-location, so we may (for example) get the story of Seminary Ridge in the afternoon, but then jump back to Little Round Top in the morning. On top of which, he seriously needed a better editor. He is constantly reminding us that Longstreet was "one of Lee's best generals and second-in-command" — we know, we get it! And at one point, he repeats an entire page-long comment on Culp's Hill some 70 pages apart…with oddly (if slightly) different language, so it makes one wonder just where he is quoting from: if this was someone's letter home, shouldn’t the wording be identical each time he quotes it?? And a final example: towards the end, he attributes a long quote to a Union general; but in context it is very clearly written by a Confederate officer.

Also surprisingly, the jacket blurb on Chadwick describes him as the author of over eight works of history, as well as both lecturing on American history and teaching writing in New Jersey — but I just didn't see it here. He's definitely no Shaara, father OR son.

PERSONAL NOTE: The first real "long-distance family vacation" I can remember as a child (however long the then-drive from the Hudson Valley) was a 1962 trip to Gettysburg, where a nine-year-old me and my four-year-old brother scrambled over the battlefield in full — if miniature — Union cavalry uniforms, our plastic swords dragging along behind us. Know there's a photo somewhere...would love to find it :)

[Lydia Shannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

An easy yet informative read using material from people involved in this battle. The primary sources made it more powerful. I would most definitely recommend this book.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting perspective on the battle at Gettysburg with quotes from Confederate and Union participants interspersed throughout the narrative.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are books about battles, and then there are books that ‘become’ battles. Bruce Chadwick’s ‘Gettysburg: The Tide Turns’ belongs squarely in the second category. This is not a conventional military history obsessed with arrows on maps and casualty tables. Nor is it a romanticized epic about gallant generals and noble charges.

Instead, Chadwick gives us something far more unsettling and far more truthful: Gettysburg as it felt—confused, terrifying, improvised, brutal, and human.

Calling this book an “oral history” is not a marketing trick. Chadwick builds his narrative from the ground up using letters, diaries, journals, newspaper accounts, and eyewitness testimonies from soldiers, civilians, officers, surgeons, and observers.

The result is not a single authoritative voice explaining the battle, but a chorus—fragmented, contradictory, frightened, proud, and often wrong in the moment. And that is precisely why it works. History here is not hindsight; it is experience unfolding without knowing the ending.

Gettysburg has been mythologized almost beyond recognition. It is “the turning point,” “the high-water mark of the Confederacy,” the battle sanctified by Lincoln’s immortal address. Chadwick does not deny any of this—but he refuses to let the myth flatten the reality.

Before Gettysburg became a symbol, it was a farm town invaded by armies. Before it became a turning point, it was three days of chaos where nobody—not Lee, not Meade, not the men bleeding into Pennsylvania soil—knew what the tide would do next.
Chadwick begins not with the clash itself, but with momentum. Robert E. Lee, fresh from victory at Chancellorsville, is riding high. His Army of Northern Virginia is confident, battle-hardened, and convinced—perhaps dangerously so—of its own invincibility.

The decision to invade the North is presented not as madness, but as logic shaped by desperation. The Confederacy needs a decisive psychological blow. It needs Northern soil shaken, Northern civilians frightened, Northern politicians forced to reckon with the cost of war.

But from the start, Chadwick plants the seeds of unraveling. Lee is operating blind. J.E.B. Stuart, his eyes and ears, is gone—sent on what Chadwick rightly frames as a disastrous and unnecessary scouting mission. Through soldiers’ letters and officers’ recollections, we feel the unease of marching without intelligence. Rumors replace information. Guesswork replaces strategy. The Confederate army is strong—but it is stumbling forward into uncertainty.

On the Union side, there is no triumphal confidence, only anxiety. George Gordon Meade has just taken command, practically handed the reins mid-gallop. He is unknown, untested at this scale, and acutely aware that Lincoln’s patience with generals has worn dangerously thin. Chadwick’s use of personal correspondence is especially effective here. Meade emerges not as a heroic icon, but as a man under crushing pressure—intelligent, cautious, and painfully aware that one catastrophic mistake could end both the war and his career.

This dual vulnerability—Lee’s overconfidence without intelligence and Meade’s competence without legitimacy—sets the stage. Gettysburg does not begin as a planned showdown. It begins as a collision.

One of the book’s most powerful achievements is its demolition of the idea that Gettysburg was carefully chosen terrain. Through firsthand accounts, Chadwick shows how the battle erupts almost by accident. Troops encounter each other while searching for supplies—shoes, in one of history’s most grim ironies. Shots are fired. Lines form. Reinforcements rush in. Suddenly, a quiet Pennsylvania town becomes a furnace.

The oral-history format shines here. Soldiers describe the shock of first contact, the confusion of orders shouted and misunderstood, the terror of seeing comrades fall within minutes of engagement. There is no grand overview yet—only fragments: smoke choking lungs, screams of the wounded, and officers struggling to impose order on dissolving formations.

The Union forces are pushed back through the town, suffering heavy losses. Chadwick does not soften this. The retreat is chaotic, humiliating, and deadly. Yet even in defeat, there is grit. Accounts from Union soldiers describe falling back not in panic, but in stubborn resistance, buying time with blood.

The Confederates, for their part, feel the intoxicating surge of apparent victory. Voices from Lee’s army speak of confidence bordering on inevitability. Gettysburg, they believe, is going their way. Chadwick allows this belief to stand—ominous in retrospect, but fully believable in the moment.

If the first day is chaos, the second day is desperation sharpened into resolve. The Union army has regrouped along Cemetery Ridge, Little Round Top, and Big Round Top. Geography becomes destiny. Chadwick does an excellent job of making terrain legible without slipping into technical jargon. Through soldiers’ descriptions, we understand why hills matter—not as abstract advantages, but as places where you live or die.

The defense of Little Round Top is one of the most retold episodes in American military history, and Chadwick approaches it carefully. He neither sensationalizes nor diminishes it. Instead, he reconstructs the fight through voices: exhausted soldiers scrambling into position, officers realizing too late how critical the ground is, men firing until their barrels overheat, then fighting with bayonets and stones.

What stands out is not heroism in the cinematic sense, but endurance. Fear is everywhere in these accounts. Courage is not the absence of terror, but the refusal to flee despite it. Chadwick lets soldiers admit their fear without judgment, and in doing so, restores humanity to figures often frozen into marble statues.

Elsewhere—the Wheat Field, Devil’s Den—the fighting is vicious and inconclusive. Positions change hands multiple times. The ground itself becomes soaked, torn, unrecognizable. Chadwick’s narrative here is relentless. There is no pause for reflection, no elevated strategic commentary. You feel the exhaustion accumulating. By the end of the second day, both armies are bleeding, battered, and uncertain.

Lee, crucially, believes the Union line can still be broken.

The third day of Gettysburg is dominated by one phrase: Pickett’s Charge. Chadwick treats it not as legend, but as tragedy.

Through Confederate accounts, we see the doubts that ripple beneath the surface. Officers question the plan. Soldiers sense its madness. Yet obedience, pride, and faith in Lee push them forward. Chadwick’s decision to present these doubts through firsthand testimony is devastating. This is not hindsight condemnation; it is contemporaneous dread.

When the artillery barrage begins, the noise is described as apocalyptic. Men think the world is ending. The earth shakes. Ears bleed. And then, when the barrage lifts, thousands of Confederate soldiers step forward into open ground, marching toward fortified positions under murderous fire.

Chadwick does not romanticize this. He details the courage, yes—but he also details the slaughter. Men fall in waves. Units disintegrate. Officers are killed, wounded, or helplessly watching their commands evaporate. The charge is not glorious; it is annihilating.

Union accounts mirror this horror from the other side—men firing until their shoulders bruise, their rifles foul, their nerves fray. There is no triumph in these voices, only grim necessity. When the smoke clears, the field is littered with bodies. The charge has failed. The Confederate tide has broken.

Here, Chadwick allows the central thesis of the book to crystallize: Gettysburg is not simply a turning point because of strategy or leadership. It is a turning point because something ‘psychological’ shatters. Lee’s aura of invincibility is cracked. The Confederacy’s offensive momentum is gone. The Union realizes it can not only resist Lee, but defeat him decisively.

One of the book’s most harrowing sections deals with the aftermath. The fighting has ended, but the suffering has not. Chadwick turns to civilian accounts—townspeople overwhelmed by the scale of death, makeshift hospitals overflowing, surgeons operating nonstop without anesthesia or adequate supplies.

The numbers—around 50,000 casualties—are staggering, but Chadwick never lets them become abstract. Each letter, each diary entry pulls the number back into flesh. Limbs amputated. Groans filling barns and churches. The stench of decay under summer heat. Gettysburg becomes a landscape of trauma.

This is where the oral-history format reaches its emotional peak. Soldiers write home unsure whether they will survive infection. Civilians describe nightmares that follow them for years. Victory feels hollow when surrounded by such loss.

Lee retreats. His army crosses back into the South. The invasion of the North is over—forever.

Chadwick wisely saves Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address for late in the book. After hundreds of pages of blood and confusion, the speech lands with renewed force. It is short. It is restrained. And in contrast to the carnage described earlier, it feels almost impossibly calm.

By situating the address within the human cost already laid bare, Chadwick allows us to understand why it mattered. Lincoln’s words do not erase the suffering—but they give it meaning. The idea that those who died did not die in vain is not presented as empty rhetoric, but as a fragile act of moral reconstruction.

The book makes clear that the war did not end at Gettysburg. Two more years of killing lay ahead. But something fundamental changed. The Union gained confidence, momentum, and clarity of purpose. Leaders like Ulysses S. Grant would soon reshape the war’s conduct. The balance of belief had shifted.

‘Gettysburg: The Tide Turns’ succeeds because it refuses to simplify. It does not reduce the battle to genius or blunder, hero or villain. Instead, it presents war as a convergence of human decisions, emotions, limitations, and accidents.

Chadwick’s greatest achievement is restoring uncertainty to history. When you read this book, you stop seeing Gettysburg as inevitable. You feel how easily it could have gone another way—and how terrifying that possibility was to those living inside it.

This is a book for readers who want history to feel alive, uncomfortable, and real. It is not a strategist’s manual. It is not a patriotic pageant. It is a human document.

And that, ultimately, is why it endures.

Gettysburg turned the tide not just of a war, but of belief—about leadership, sacrifice, and the terrifying cost of national ideals. Chadwick ensures that we remember that turning not as a date on a timeline, but as voices echoing across a field that would never be the same again.

Popular History at its best!! Most recommended.

[Sandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an easy read but worthwhile for layman and historian alike. For someone who wants to read about Gettysburg but does not want to slog through a 600 page tome, this is a great start.

[Michael Reilly · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is not an oral history. Oral histories are collections of recorded oral statements, usually in interviews, organized with some commentary to tell the history of something. George Plimpton's "Edie: An Amercian Biography" is an early classic example. More recently, Tricia Romano published an excellent oral biography of the Village Voice.

Obviously, there are no recorded oral statements from Gettysburg. Chadwick has a collection of quotes from memoirs, letters, histories, official records. This is a written quotation history of Gettysburg. It does not have the immediacy of real oral history.

It does not do a good job even as a quotation history. There are no sources provided for any of the quotes. Lt. Haskell says that "all thought highly of General Mead". This is a surprising statement. since there were many critics of Meade in the Army. When did Haskell say this? During the battle? a month later? twenty years later in a haze of good feelings? We don't know, because there is no source given. The bibliography lists a history of Gettysburg published in 1960 by a Frank Haskell, presumably a late publication of a book he wrote sometime after the war.

Lee's Lieutenant, General James Longstreet was the most controversial General on the Southern side. Opinion about him and his reputation in the South and North changed dramatically over the years. It is not possible to evaluate statements about him or from him if we don't know when they were made. General Lee is quoted as claiming that Longstreet is "so slow". It matters whether he said that before, during, after or long after the battle.

Many of the quotations are simply place markers followed by several paragraphs of narrative by Chadwick. This is not really what an "oral history" does. In most instance it would be better if the quote was just inserted in the paragraph at the appropriate place.

The quotation structure also disrupts the narrative. If you are not familiar with the battle, it would be very difficult to follow the chronology from this book.

I am also surprised that there is very little use of the voluminous battle orders and reports from the battle that have all been published. They give the best immediate sense of what the participants thought was happening.

There were some interesting quotes. Chadwick's explanation of Lee's grand Plan is well done and the sense of confusion and uncertainty on the battlefield is conveyed.

A short well written history of the Gettysburg would be valuable. This is not it.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although authors have written an incredible number of books on the Battle of Gettysburg, Rutgers University history lecturer Bruce Chadwick has filled what he believes is a missing element in the literature: an oral history. He moves through documents to capture what he considers the most compelling observations on the lead up to the battle in June 1863, the three days of fighting in July, and the aftermath culminating in Lincoln's address in November. This approach will especially appeal to those who are new to studying the battle and want to read an account that is much shorter and simpler than that of Allen Guelzo's, for instance. Readers will learn some great details, such as what Robert E. Lee hoped to accomplish by going to Gettysburg and then Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the ineffective reconnaissance of J.E.B. Stuart prior to the battle, the disagreements between Lee and James Longstreet about whether to fight at Gettysburg or undertake Pickett's Charge on the last day, or the ruse pulled off by Union troops to trick the Confederates into thinking they were running out of artillery fire just prior to the charge.

What I find most fascinating are the accounts of civilians in Gettysburg. Just imagine being in their position. Back in 1861, most of them had probably thought the war would not last until 1863 and even if it did, that there was no chance of the Confederates reaching their town. This town contained about 2,400 people at the time, but these people nevertheless had to cope with two armies both several times that figure coming to their humble residence. Soldiers would take their food, extract milk from their cows, and check their homes to make sure they were not hiding any enemy soldiers. The reflections of Tillie Pierce and Amelia Harmon are especially useful in this respect.

Although I did enjoy reading the book, I think it would have benefited from more extensive written or oral recollections and less of Chadwick's own writing. A style more along the lines of what Garrett Graff authored in his oral history of the 9/11 attacks would have been more satisfying. It also would have been helpful to include more diverse voices, such as nurses or cemetery workers who had to cope with the incredible loss of life. But overall, I believe readers who are fairly new to the Gettysburg conflict would benefit from reading this book.

[Kathleen Pappas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This account of the battle we all have studied and the address we all memorized is an excellent combination of narrative interspersed with primary sources: diaries of combatants, their journals, on-site reports of news media both national and international, and commentary by other historians. Fresh from the victory at Chancellorsville, the respected Gen. Robert E. Lee meets a newly assigned and little known Gen. George Meade in a place neither wanted to battle. Lee's plan to advance north to Harrisburg and then to Philadelphia was challenged by a lack of information from his wandering, scouting cavalry leader, J.E.B. Stuart. Meade's crossing the Potomac north was equally hampered. In the searing heat of early July, the quiet farmland of Gettysburg witnessed brutal combat, with thousands of death and casualties on both sides. The persistent doubts of Gen. James Longstreet including the ill fated July 3 PIckett's Charge plagued Lee while the valiant bravery of Col. Joshua Chamberlain at Little Round Top turned the tide of the battle in the Union's favor. Gen. Meade's leadership of the Army of the Potomac was praised both in press accounts and by colleagues (Gen. Grant). Gen. Lee's northern advance, his last minute plan of Pickett's Charge, and his retreat (but not surrender) to Virginia, diminished his formerly stellar career, which overshadowed his aversion to slavery. In his own words,"In this enlightened age, there are few, I believe, but will acknowledge that slavery, as an institution, is amoral and political evil in any country." A poignant scenario was included in one of the final chapters. One of 2 gravediggers remarked on the persistent rain which accompanied their task only to be responded by the other who said, "This is not a rainstorm. God is crying." I recommend this book for lovers of history, especially those interested in the Civil War.

[Frank Chapman · Rating 1 out of 5]

There are plenty of excellent books on the Battle of Gettysburg. This is not one of them. The multitude of errors I found act to seriously compromise the book's value. To be sure, the author's stated purpose (use actual commentaries from Gettysburg participants) is a worthy objective, but serious Civil War readers will be taken aback by the obvious sloppy comments the author himself uses to tie together the excerpts. Here are a couple of examples:
1. Page 92 contains an excerpt attributed to Gen. Patrick Cleburne, in which he discusses Gen James Longstreet's performance at Gettysburg and after, all the way to Appomattox. I suspect the actual writer of this excerpt was somebody other than Cleburne. Patrick Cleburne was a Confederate general officer with the Army of Tennessee in the Western Theater. He was not at Gettysburg, and in fact was killed at the Battle of Franklin (Tennessee) in late 1864, months before Appomattox
2. Page 103 contains a comment by the author that implies Col. Strong Vincent commanded the 83drd Pennsylvania at Little Round Top. Vincent at one time did command this regiment, but at Gettysburg, he was the commander of the brigade to which the 83rd was attached. A minor point, perhaps, but in my mind is an example of poor research and lack of proofreading.
These are just 2 examples; there is a multitude of additional problems, some minor while others are so serious as to limit this book's usefulness to any reader interested in Gettysburg/
.

[Roger Smitter · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the middle years of the 1700’s, our country showed that we were a country that was new to the world. Much of that came time was something very different in history.

And, in the early years in the remarkable USA showed could point to what “A” country was very different to the rest of the world. However, the USA had problems to have a good country. The reading goes beyond we to many people who have an idea about these brings extra information we have written before

Gettysburg takes us to the 1800’s, where the Black people wore “owned people.” Of course most of us know something about this time. And there is much more to know from our time in high school.

In some places, it will be difficult to explain this book.

[Charles Inglin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good companion piece to any collection of histories of the battle of Gettysburg. The author has collected comments from participants, ranging from Lincoln, Meade, Lee, Longstreet, and Pickett down to junior officers, sergeants and private soldiers, as well as civilians, who witnessed the battle, interspersed in a narrative of events. It's helpful to have a general knowledge of the timeline of events and the geography. A few maps would also have been helpful. But overall an entertaining and informative read. I gained some insights into General Longstreet and General Meade that I didn't have before.

[Daryl Walsh · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was a challenging read because the narrative was apparently composed after the plethora of primary source excerpts were selected. Each excerpt was preceded by commentary that often simply paraphrased the coming excerpt. The connections between excerpts were hard to follow and repeatedly confused the historical context. I am quite surprised that the 40+ questionable assertions and factual errors that I have documented made it past an editor. I plan to send the documentation to Pegasus. How could someone have missed the “Abraham Lincoln in 1869” caption on the first page of illustrations? That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

[Lucas Golden · Rating 2 out of 5]

I would only recommend this book for someone with next to no knowledge on the battle. It is extremely basic in narrative. The quotes are great-but any one who has read on the battle is familiar with them as they are source material used over and over. The narrative of this book shifts all over the place, with factual errors, events randomly being described (Sickles shift to the Emmitsburg road is talked about on the first days action??) and things repeated. Very sloppy. If you are knowledgeable on Gettysburg, stay away.

[Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 rounded up. I appreciate what Chadwick is doing here in collecting primary sources to recreate the story of Gettysburg. That being said, something didn't quite hit for me. It might be that it's choppy. I also would like to contest the term "oral history." It appeared that the vast majority of sources are from diary entries and letters and the like. While still important to telling history, I'm not sure I'd consider this "oral history," per se.

[Patrick J. Baier · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not what I thought

The book was not what I expected. Let's leave it at that.
I think that is what a lot of readets are going to agree..

[Andy Tuite · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little slow to start but the frenzy and destruction of July 3d come across clearly in the latter part. Interesting reading Lincoln’s words in light of current events.