Pickett's Charge: A New Look at Gettysburg's Final Attack

by Phillip Thomas Tucker

*Main Selection of the History Book Club*

The Battle of Gettysburg, the Civil War’s turning point, produced over 57,000 casualties, the largest number from the entire war that was itself America’s bloodiest conflict. 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, consisting of nine brigades of soldiers in a line that stretched for over a mile, resulted in casualties of over 50 percent for the Confederates and a huge psychological blow to Southern morale.

Pickett’s Charge is a detailed analysis of one of the most iconic and defining events in American history. This book presents a much-needed fresh look, including the unvarnished truths and ugly realities, about the 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 These fighters’ moments of cowardice, failure, and triumph are explored using their own words from primary and unpublished sources. 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.

Skyhorse Publishing, as well as our Arcade imprint, are proud to publish a broad range of books for readers interested in history--books about World War II, the Third Reich, Hitler and his henchmen, the JFK assassination, conspiracies, the American Civil War, the American Revolution, gladiators, Vikings, ancient Rome, medieval times, the old West, and much more. While not every title we publish becomes a New York Times bestseller or a national bestseller, we are committed to books on subjects that are sometimes overlooked and to authors whose work might not otherwise find a home.

Genres: History, Civil War, American Civil War, Nonfiction, American History, Military Fiction, Historical

472 pages, Hardcover

Published August 16, 2016

About the author

Phillip Thomas Tucker, Ph.D. has been recognized today as "the Stephen King of History," and the most groundbreaking historian in America, because of his great productivity of high-quality books (more than 185 books of history) in many field of history, including the American Revolution, Women's History, Civil War History, African American History, etc.
A winner of national and state book awards, Tucker has recently optioned out three books--Cathy Williams, Anne Bonny, and Mia Leimberg--for Hollywood films.
No American historian has authored more history books than Dr. Tucker. America's most prolific and innovative of historians has won international acclaim for breaking much new ground in history by authoring more than 180 history books of unique distinction. In total, he is the author of more than 225 works in history, including both books and scholarly articles.
Significantly, the vast majority of these groundbreaking books have a distinctive "New Look" focus, including five volumes of the Harriet Tubman Series and Haitian Revolutionary Women Series. An award-winning scholar of highly-original and uniquely human history, he has most often explored the remarkable lives of forgotten men and women in powerful historical narratives long ignored by other historians.
Most important, Dr. Tucker has emerged as one of America's leading Revolutionary War historians. He has authored groundbreaking Revolutionary war books, including "How the Irish Won the American Revolution"; "George Washington's Surprise Attack": "Saving Washington's Army"; "Brothers in Liberty"; "Kings Mountain"; "Alexander Hamilton's Revolution"; "Alexander Hamilton and the Battle of Yorktown"; "Captain Alexander Hamilton and His Forgotten Contributions at the Decisive Battle of Trenton"; and others no less distinguished.
The author has also written four books about female Buffalo Soldier Cathy Williams. In addition, he has completed groundbreaking New Look Glory 54th Massachusetts Regimental Series of four volumes. This important series has focused on the heroic story of the first black regiment from the North during the Civil War.
Throughout his distinguished career, Dr. Tucker has revealed some of the most overlooked chapters of America's hidden history to present new insights and fresh perspectives. The author's books have most often broken historical boundaries, while going well beyond traditional history in bold "New Look" narratives.
As America's leading myth-busting historian with three degrees in American history, including a Ph.D. from prestigious St. Louis University where he graduated summa cum laude, America's most prolific author has mined American history's obscure depths to present unique historical narratives long unexplored and forgotten. Tucker has long focused on illuminating the previously untold stories of forgotten women (black and white), who have been long overlooked. By revealing their distinguished hidden history that had been previously lost to the American public, the author has paid long-overdue tributes to these remarkable women of great courage and outstanding character. Ahead of their time, these dynamic women defied the odds in carving out their own unique destines with their hard work, enduring faith, and perseverance.
Dr. Tucker has authored groundbreaking books in many fields of study: African American, Women's, Irish, American Revolutionary War, Buffalo Soldiers, Civil War, Tuskegee Airmen, Little Bighorn, Caribbean, Private, Spanish American War, Second World War, George Armstrong Custer, and Southern history. He has long focused on telling the forgotten stories of lost souls, outcasts, renegades, misfits, rebels, deserters (like Buffalo Soldier David Fagen), iconoclasts, refugees, nonconformists, and outliers, whose unique lives deserve attention at this late day.
The author's award-winning books have often focused on iconic turning point moments in American

Reviews

[Sweetwilliam · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a detailed account of Pickett/Pettigrew’s Charge on the third day of Gettysburg. The author argues that the charge was in fact a good plan and would have worked if executed properly. This is contrary to modern doctrine that suggests Lee’s plan was folly. This book contains copious detail on one specific event on the third day of Gettysburg. It is an outstanding read but can be a bit repetitive. It could be an even better book with some additional editing.

I try not to be overly influenced by the last history book that I’ve read on the subject but the author, Phillip Thomas Tucker, makes a compelling argument. According to Tucker, Lee’s plan was reminiscent of Napoleon’s plan at Austerlitz. Lee had intended for a combined attack of artillery, infantry, and cavalry at Meade’s weakest point (the Union right-center). It was meant to be a coordinated assault of infantry and flying artillery to Meade’s front while cavalry enveloped the rear. Tucker referred to the assault as “masterful” and it almost worked. The attackers actually drove a 100 yard wedge at the point of attack. The problem was that it wasn’t properly supported.

What happened? According to Tucker there were several problems. If you believe in the old axiom that there are no bad soldiers, only bad Generals, than it can be summarized as follows: Lee had heart problems and he couldn’t be as hands on by this time of the war. He made the sin of delegating too much to Longstreet who didn’t believe in the plan. Of course, Longstreet and Hill weren’t talking so they didn’t coordinate and confer to protect the flanks and deploy additional infantry to exploit the breach. The chief of artillery, Pendleton was incompetent and Alexander had no experience with flying artillery. Confederate guns fired too fast and the caissons were sent to the rear and couldn’t be relocated. Therefore, what little artillery was sent forward was too little and there wasn’t enough ammunition. Pickett never crossed Emittsburg Road and hid behind the Codori barn drinking. He should have been leading from a position more forward due to the immense importance of the assault. Stuart was not able to strike the Union rear. Tucker credits the boy-General, George Armstrong Custer and his Michigan Cavalry Brigade who defeated Stuart, preventing the infusion of 6,000 additional troops from striking the Union rear.

During my lifetime, Lee’s plan has been presented as a massed frontal attack requiring little imagination. As a result of this book, I am more appreciative of the nuances of the plan. However, I am aware that there were lots of good plans. Bruce Catton says Fredericksburg was a good plan and so was Chancellorsville. Good plans require timely execution and the entire Army of Northern VA from Lee on down were negligent. If Stonewall Jackson had been alive things may have been different.

I also had some other thoughts. Why didn’t Lee use Stuart to follow up the breakthrough from the front? They could have wreaked havoc by running Stuart’s 6,000 cavalry through the breach. They could have brought horse artillery to enfilade the Union flanks. They could have supported the breakthrough with cannon and carbine. This was the plan that the British had at the Somme which never materialized. It may have worked here.

I’m not completely sold on all facets of Tucker’s argument but I had a great time reading the book. On vacation, poolside, It had prompted several interesting discussions. I found myself defending Tucker’s thesis to several armchair historians like myself who have been brought up to believe that Lee’s plan was folly. I also learned that there were six rifled Parrotts of Battery D, 5th US Artillery, on Little Round Top, enfilading The Rebels. I will have to talk with my Gettysburg park guide who told me that there wasn’t room to deploy a battery on the summit.

One bit of caution: the author can be repetitive and at times and tries to compress far too many factoids into a sentence or paragraph (very similar to my reviews). This is particularly true in the early chapters and I believe it gets better as the book evolves. Maybe I was just getting more used to Tucker’s style? By the end of the book I was more appreciative of his prose. Still, I am convinced that the book could probably use some additional editing. The book also is in dire need of a chapter to explain what happened to the cavalry attack. The author summed it up in a single paragraph. I also thought the epilogue was insufficient.

The book contains detail after detail about the individuals that died as a result of this futile charge. Tucker provides names, ethnicities, previous occupations, hometowns, schools that they graduated from, kin, how they died, letters they had written and even how their families mourned for them after. The attack pitted Irish immigrants on both sides and every other ethnicity. It seems like the South had an advantage in quality leadership because of the proximity of VMI. There also seems to be a rift between the Virginia planter and men of lesser status from other states. All-in-all, there were men from six states that made the charge. There were even Latinos, a few women, and blacks. All this personal data had the impact of making the raw casualty figures come to life. These were living, breathing, thinking people that would be missed. They suffered greatly before, during, and after the attack. Pickett suffered 500 casualties during the artillery duel before the attack! Many died in Union hospitals and prisons after. This was a real tragedy.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has real virtues. Among these--the extraordinarily rich depiction of the views and feelings of soldiers on both sides. This adds a great deal of context to this sanguinary struggle on the third day at Gettysburg.

The author argues that General Robert E. Lee put together a brilliant attack plan on Day Three of Gettysburg--and that it was thwarted by his subordinates, such as George Pickett, James Longstreet, and A. P. Hill. Fair enough. There was surely blame to go around (including General Ewell who is not mentioned much here--but is noted in other analyses of the problems on Day Three). The three aspects of his plan: a massive assault on Meade's center on Cemetery Ridge, an attack by JEB Stuart on the Union rear, and a great bombardment from Confederate cannon. One note here: Some other scholars have also noted a demonstration by Ewell.

The basic model that the author uses is Napoleon at Austerlitz. Frankly, I think that Napoleon's strategy at Austerlitz was nuts. He assumed that Marshall Davout would make a long march and fall upon the Austrian/Russian forces at the key moment. In the friction of war, such an assumption is dangerous. He assumed that by giving up the Pratzen Heights, the allies against him would denude it of troops at a key moment. Note: As I understand it, Russian General Katuzov wanted to maintain strength on that position. If he had been supported, this could have been a disaster. Giving up the heights strikes me as "dopey." Let that go, but the author valorizes Napoleon's perspective--which, to me, is a dangerous set of assumptions on Napoleon's part.

What do we know? Confederate cannon had defective ammunition. The odds of a successful bombardment were open to question. Stuart was lethargic that day. He was held in check by a smaller Union force of cavalry. The friction of war: Assuming a great result from the artillery and cavalry cannot be assumed.

The assault on the Federal position, in fact, was a close thing, as the author notes.

One other factor: This is hardly a unique thesis. Carhart (in a 2006 book) has raised a similar point--but so, too, have Coddington and Sears, although in not as much detail as Carhart and Tucker. The point made by the author is hardly "revolutionary." Other have raised similar issues.

In the end, a wonderful contribution by using details from troops on both sides. On the other hand, not a unique perspective. And the continuing reflections on Austerlitz strike me as problematic.

[Justin · Rating 2 out of 5]

The strengths of this book -- detailed research, engaging narrative, specific use of military history -- are too often overshadowed by some major flaws. The opening 40 or 50 pages is wildly repetitive and written with a defensive tone, enough so that I nearly put down the book and did skim for a bit. The repetitiveness continues, sometimes in minor ways such as repeating phrases or quotations, but the tone mostly soften as Tucker gets into the details.

His major point works: Lee's plan was not ridiculous folly. His bigger argument is against a strawman that makes the case less compelling: that almost all historians believe Lee's attack was idiocy and doomed from the start. I think a much more nuanced view is common these days (and maybe always has been, given that the charge nearly worked). In his stridency, Tucker neglects some arguable flaws in the plan -- including the lack of enough ammunition and of cooperative subordinates as well as the logistical challenge of coordinating the multi-pronged approach (I'd have enjoyed details on why Stuart's end of things failed).

There's a more interesting book to be written here (which, to be fair, isn't the one he sets out to write but these are ideas he should engage with) about the changing perceptions of Pickett's Charge. Tucker ties it to the rise of the Lost Cause mythology, but nowhere shows a shift in thinking. His opinion too often comes across as: a bunch of people who were there thought it would work (while ignoring those who doubted) and must therefore have accurately estimated the effect the remaining troops would have had. It's a limited, but compelling view, but Tucker doesn't show how or why that view changed (and then specifically rebut the new view, which would be more complex and interesting than just shouting down a strawman).

There's plenty of good here, especially if you can push through the introductory material. Some better editing and a more complex approach to the debate would have improved it greatly.

[Jordan Crump · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is just a mess of a book. Considerable repetition of ideas, a lot of hopping backward and forward, with many spurious claims and egregious assumptions that Tucker just doesn’t support with solid evidence or reasoning. I only got through 108 pages before calling it quits. Here are some specific examples of my issues with this book:

My first warning was on the second page of the introduction, where Tucker asserts that, “Pickett’s Charge…effectively sealed slavery’s fate.” Then later in the introduction he says that, “Lee’s decision to unleash his attack at Gettysburg was his only realistic one because this was the Confederacy’s last chance to win the war in one decisive stroke.” Both of these statements assume a lot, and ignore the contingent nature of history and war. These wide and sweeping claims made me think about Gallagher’s well-stated point about the trap of “Appomattox Syndrome,” or the tendency to view every event in the war through the lens of Lee’s ultimate surrender at Appomattox. I reject Tucker’s assertion here that Pickett’s Charge sealed slavery’s fate or that it was Lee’s last chance to win the war, or that it was Lee’s only realistic choice (hello, tactical disengagement). Still, I decided to give the author the benefit of the doubt and persist in reading to give him a chance to convince me. That led to discovering more problems.

Tucker takes for granted that a successful Pickett’s Charge would have resulted in a decisive victory. This assumption seems to ignore the previous 2 years of the war which showed that a decisive victory in the Napoleonic tradition was often sought for but always out of reach for commanders on both sides. If Lee breaks Meade’s center on the third day, Meade’s VI Corps, held in reserve on the south flank, is still between Lee and D.C. Meade can simply retreat and force another battle later. I just don’t see this one attack being the final straw that would cause millions of Union men to give up the fight, and unfortunately Tucker doesn’t address this.

Something else I disagreed with—the topic of increased lethality related to innovations in military technology is lightly dismissed by Tucker with an argument about Gettysburg being closer to Waterloo than the Somme. It’s a throw-away comment with no real support or further examination on how the chronological closeness of one versus the other had any real bearing on the battle. The fact is that all three battles were different from one another in incredibly meaningful ways.

Then on page 23 we see Tucker present Jomini as the ideal model off of which to base an attack in the Civil War, and later in the book he argues that Lee’s plan for Pickett’s Charge was perfectly Jominian. On this latter point I fully agree–but unlike Tucker I do not see this as supporting Lee’s decision for the assault.

Jomini’s focus on decisive battle, the “art of making war upon the map,” may have worked for armies of Napoleonic size but was wholly inadequate for armies of millions (see WW1 and commanders frustrated by lack of a decisive battle). The Civil War had greater numbers of soldiers mobilized than ever had been during the Napoleonic wars. Jominian theory emphasized quick victory by massing overwhelming force at the right point at the right time–something which Tucker does acknowledge. But this approach didn’t take into account the increasingly industrialized nature of war and changing weapons technology–which were enough to render Jomini’s theory on decisive battle obsolete in most senses—Lee did not recognize this. Additionally, Jominian-inspired plans were often concerned with how to do something, not with the question of whether something should be done. To contrast, Clausewitz, a contemporary of Jomini, believed that war was never final—that a military victory did not necessarily translate into winning the political objective. The campaigns of the Civil War up to the Battle of Gettysburg, and for two years after, seem to support Clausewitz more than Jomini. In which case Lee’s planned assault on the third day was not, as Tucker argues, a crowning example of Lee’s battle genius; rather, it was a prime example of Lee’s shortcomings in clinging to an outdated theory of war. Tucker’s book doesn’t rebut or even address this.

Given the above, and Tucker’s early dismissal of the weapons technology, I’m somewhat baffled by his fair assessment of Napoleonic flying artillery being rendered ineffective by rifled muskets on the one hand (p. 57) and yet his praising of Lee for forming his assault plans to include flying artillery use in contravention of modern theory and tactical evolution on the other. Tucker defends Lee’s decision because of the rolling folds in ground to protect artillery from small arms (which Lee didn’t know about anyway) and because the Union defenders at the copse of trees possessed smooth bores and not rifled muskets (which Lee couldn’t have known beforehand). Furthermore, Alexander, the officer Lee would depend upon to lead the artillery in the assault, lacked the experience to conduct the flying artillery on the scale that Lee envisioned—it had never been done or practiced by the Confederate artillerists. Yes, Lee’s plan was Jominian through-and-through, but it didn’t take into account realities on the ground or the inexperience of all his artillerists in this type of assault. He was concerned with how to orchestrate the assault—not with whether it should be done. And here is my main departure from Tucker on this topic. Lee’s plan was good in Jomini’s theory, but the reality of what he had and could accomplish made it bad in reality. It was a blunder. Tucker was unable to convince me otherwise.

Where I had to set down the book was when Tucker included a section on Black Confederates. At that point I did some research on the author and discovered his 2018 book on the topic, which Kevin M. Levin thoroughly rebutted in 2018 prior to the release of his own book “Searching for Black Confederates: The Civil War’s Most Persistent Myth”. Some of Levin’s criticism of Tucker revolve around an insufficient bibliography and reliance on unproven or debunked sources. Levin’s own book puts the Black Confederate myth into its correct historical context, and seriously raises doubts in my mind as to the quality of Tucker’s scholarship in general, who by comparison comes across as a lazy historian.

I cannot recommend this book to anyone, and will not be reading any more of Tucker’s work.

[Mrs. Varela · Rating 4 out of 5]

Philip Thomas Tucker introduces a different perspective on a pivotal time in American history. In his book Pickett's Charge: A New Look at Gettysburg 's Final Attack he gives readers a detailed account of the last battle at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863. The book opens with a timeline leading up to Pickett's Charge and how General Pickett short two of his usual five brigades came to lead the charge. Incidentally, a key point is that the Pickett men were "fresh and ready for battle...It was also a small division inexperienced in combat. " Yet the were determined group of soldiers.

For this book the author's "main focus is on hidden history and forgotten or overlooked truths." As I read this book I realized that that it is not only about the battle, but also about the men who fought it under the lead of Generals Robert E. Lee, George Edward Pickett, James Longstreet, J. Johnson Pettigrew, George Meade among many others mentioned throughout the book.

The original intention of General Robert E. Lee who led the Confederate soldiers at Gettysburg was to defeat General George Meade and the Union soldiers and march on to Washington, D.C. with their heads held high. Marching orders had been set in place, but differences of opinion, disagreements between key leaders, miscommunication and miscalculations caused an irrevocable change of events.

In both the Confederate and Union armies many of the soldiers engaged in battle were mere boys serving alongside men of varying ages. Their cultural backgrounds such as, English, German, Hispanic and free slaves made no difference to their common causes. These men had a diverse group of occupations from doctors, lawyers, pharmacists to blacksmiths, shoemakers, farmers, students and ministers. The author writes of brothers serving and dying side by side as well as fathers and sons. He tells of one father who left his dying son with a canteen of water then returned to battle possibly more to avenge his son's death than to fulfill his duty of honor.

At times the general morale among soldiers wavered between fear and hopelessness to thoughts of victory. For the most part their true desire was to return home to their mothers, wives, children and varying occupations. Sadly, the battle at Gettysburg is said to have had the most casualties of the American Civil War.

With the details he provides, the author firmly believes that "historians overlooked exactly how close Pickett's Charge came to succeeding ." The author does not appear to choose sides, he simply shares a descriptive point of view according to his research. This book has encouraged me indulge in reading more history books and would be a good read for history buffs.

[Scott Hall · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's an interesting concept- taking a famous folly and explaining that it was actually a sound plan, that could and almost did work and change the course of the Civil War. Letters and personal accounts are used to give a close-in perspective on the event. And the book does accomplish its purpose- showing elements of Lee's plan that don't make it to most interpretations, and showing how close the charge came to actual success.

But, oh man, the repetition. The artillery bombardment went on too long, meaning there wasn't ammunition for artillery to come along as flying artillery. And so the charging army took a look of enfilading fire, because they didn't have flying artillery covering their flanks. And when they got up to the ridge, they were undermanned, because of losses taken because they didn't have flying artillery. And Lee's plan included flying artillery. Which didn't happen, leading to damage taken on the flank. And it's really too bad flying artillery didn't accompany the army.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Pickett's Charge: A New Look at Gettysburg's Final Attack" is a riveting exploration of one of the Civil War's defining moments. Dr. Phillip Thomas Tucker's meticulous research and insightful analysis provide readers with a fresh perspective on the Battle of Gettysburg, particularly focusing on the infamous third day and General Lee's ambitious assault.

Tucker's narrative challenges conventional wisdom, arguing that Lee's plan was not the fatal blunder it is often portrayed as. Instead, he highlights the strategic nuances and tactical brilliance behind the Confederate assault, shedding light on the complexities of battlefield command and the challenges faced by Lee and his generals.

One of the book's strengths lies in its attention to detail. Tucker draws upon a wealth of primary sources, including letters, diaries, and firsthand accounts, to reconstruct the events of Pickett's Charge with remarkable clarity. Readers are transported into the chaos of the battlefield, experiencing the tension and drama of the moment firsthand.

While Tucker's admiration for General Lee's strategy is evident, he doesn't hesitate to critique the shortcomings of Confederate leadership. He examines the failures in execution and coordination that ultimately led to the charge's failure, offering valuable insights into the dynamics of command and decision-making during wartime.

Despite its exhaustive detail, "Pickett's Charge" remains accessible and engaging throughout. Tucker's prose is both scholarly and compelling, making even the most complex military maneuvers understandable to readers of all backgrounds. Whether you're a seasoned Civil War historian or a casual enthusiast, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of America's most defining conflict. Highly recommended for its thorough research, insightful analysis, and fresh perspective on a pivotal moment in history.

[Larry · Rating 1 out of 5]

If this was the only book you read on the subject you would be woefully uniformed. Nothing wrong with writing a book with a contrarian view but this is the work of a fabulist who ignores the obvious. In addition, the book is really in need of an editor -- repetitious, wrong first names, dubious citing of statistics. The author piles through enough personal recollections to make his point but it's a classic study of the trees while not realizing you're lost in a forest.

[Don · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wordy and repetitive

The author tells us 40 times that Lee aimed at Meade's weak right- center line, and that's just in the first chapter. He calls Lewis Armistead "Louis" by mistake. Says artillery fire slowed to "consume" ammunition rather than to conserve it. The book obviously required much research: it deserved proofreading too.

[Michael Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s hard to believe that not everything has already been said about the climactic Pickett’s Charge on the final day of the Battle of Gettysburg in numerous books, films and documentaries, but Professor Tucker has indeed said more, quite a bit more in fact, in this brilliant and obviously painstakingly researched addition to our current knowledge on the topic.

Instead of relying on what he believes are biased histories which lean toward the “lost cause” sympathies which were promoted in the years after the war, Tucker relies heavily on primary source material, especially the letters and correspondences written by the participants themselves.

Just as in the professor’s Gettysburg’s Most Hellish Battleground: The Devil’s Den, July 2, 1863 which went into great detail about the “Texian” troops in Lee’s army and their fighting prowess, once again Tucker introduces us to an underreported group of troops, this time the numerous Irish warriors who fought on both sides of the conflict.

He describes in rigorous detail the heroics of the 69th Pennsylvania—often involved in horrific hand to hand combat—who were instrumental in eventually turning back the attack on Cemetery Ridge at the area known as the “copse of trees,” even when other Union troops had turned and run. In many cases, the men of the 69th were actually fighting their own former Irish countrymen as Tucker points out that Lee had an estimated 40,000 Irishmen in his ranks.

Overall then, this book is highly recommended for any Civil War enthusiast, and especially for those who thought they already knew the entire story of Pickett’s Charge, and for those who prefer a more intimate examination of hostilities rather than simply a sweeping historical analysis.

[Cynthia Pruner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pickett’s Charge: A New Look at Gettysburg’s Final Attack by Phillip Thomas Tucker is an extremely interesting read about the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg. Tucker begins by trying to dispel the history lessons, that aren’t even taught anymore, that Pickett’s Charge was a lesson in futility instead of an incredibly close win for the Confederacy. He has thoroughly researched and cited his information to back up his premise. He cites actual letters, journals and “after-action” reports from both sides, to give a broader array of viewpoints encompassing the foot soldier, up to the command staff. It’s not a quick and easy read – but it is fascinating. You can see what is actually happening on that fateful last day. As with his other books, he gives backgrounds of certain soldiers, especially Irishmen through personal letters home and letters of their loved ones. The detail of the battle plan and how it was carried out is excruciatingly spot on. There is no sugar coating of his opinions. Tucker describes what the battle plan was supposed to be, and then what happened. Anyone who has studied the Civil War battles in detail will know that this attempt at invasion of the North was not a half-assed plan but was exceptionally detailed to try to win the war. Personal feelings and lack of communication and teamwork failed, not the battle plan. Pickett’s Charge is a very compelling argument for the near success of this battle and details how consistent kinks compounded on each other led to the near total destruction of the Confederate Army in one day. As with anything, this book can be used as a useful tool for anyone studying the Battle of Gettysburg. As a history buff – I highly recommend this one!

[Michelle Strozzi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Verified Purchase
I am thoroughly enjoying Phillip Thomas Tucker's work and will keep him as a go to author for history. I feel like his writing is much more entertaining and easier to read than most other history books. Most of us don't typically read non-fiction history pieces for entertainment but for those who want to have some knowledge regarding U.S. History or for students that have required history research, this is a good choice.
Pickett's Charge: A New Look At Gettysburg Final Attack really is a new look. Similar to Death at the Little Bighorn, Pickett's Charge has more of a story telling style that makes it easier to stay focused on the information. One feels more involved when history is told with some energy and detail. Phillip Tucker's detailed writing with descriptions of the places, people, and military strategies can make reader feel like they are there, watching history unfold. The true story is told instead of simply glorifying these people. We get a better look at who they were as individuals and what their purpose or goals were. I found it very interesting that many of the strategies were strongly based on Napoleon's past victories. Napolean was a huge influence on many of these men.
I actually haven't read much about Gettysburg since highschool so I don't remember many details. I think that Tucker's writing would have been better retained for myself and my classmates in highschool. I will also recommend this author for current students as well as my daughter who will soon be entering highschool. I think she too will enjoy his writing a bit more than the typical history textbook.

[Jessi Bone · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Dr. Phillip Thomas Tucker's latest book he takes us back to another battle of the American Civil war and the last charge at Gettysburg. Picket's Last Charge which was completely inappropriately labeled charged not at all chosen by Picket but came out of the mind of Lee and his love of Napoleon. Lee had a precise plan to take back the high ground from Union Soldiers which would have occurred only if all of the Southerners and leaders would work as one solid unit which would never occur. The cemetery hill was unfortunately properly named as the lives of many were lost in one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War.
“But the Only hell on earth was experienced by more than 6500 Southerners, who were killed, wounded, or permanently crippled on July 3, causing endless suffering to grieve families, widows, and orphans across the South. Quite simply, there was no glory to the victims of Pickett's Charge.“
I have read many of Dr. Tucker's books and I find he through research that he tackles from both sides of history not just form the side of the victor. You will find this to be a wonderful resource for anyone who has an interest in Civil War History even a student. I find his book very refreshing and I always find I learn something new even over topics that I have studied many times. This book is well worth the time to read and learn from. If you're taken back by the five hundred and twenty pages don't you will find you have found yourself so immersed that you will be at the notes page before you know it.

[George Shuman · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Pickett's Charge: A New Look at Gettysburg's Final Attack” by Civil War expert Phillip Thomas Tucker, is just an amazing work. Right from the start, this extensive look at history’s Pickett’s Charge presents a fresh and believable ‘different’ version of our country’s bloodiest battle ever to have been fought.
In the book, Tucker emphasizes that Pickett’s Charge at the Union forces in Gettysburg was not ill fated from the start. It was not a doomed effort before it was begun, as most historians have branded it.
The book begins with an hour-by-hour timeline of events leading up to Pickett’s Charge. This reader was amazed at the detail Tucker was able to include in such an exhaustive expose on the events as they took place. Many of us view something such as the Gettysburg Battle as a whole and don’t consider the immense planning and coordinating of everything from troops and equipment to battle scenarios that go into such a huge effort. In “Pickett’s Charge” all of this is presented in great detail. As a Civil War buff, I felt that this puts the reader right in the middle of it all.
I would definitely recommend this great book to all Civil War enthusiasts, historians, and high school and above academics. It will shed new light on an old and important story.
I loved this book and would buy it again.

[Jim Reamer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent, deep research

Philip Tucker’s telling of Pickets Charge deserves a careful read. His research includes an amazing amount of personal information about the participants, from privates to generals. He includes maps of the battlefield with troop movements that follow the descriptions included in the text reasonably well.

My issue with this writing is the excessive redundancy. Every individual referenced is described by age, occupation, education, birth state, county, town, and other minutia. This becomes tiresome as the population of the story expands. The authors conclusion concerning the inevitability of a successful Confederate outcome, had it been properly carried out, is repeated constantly without a discussion of the union defense beyond the right center of the Union line. Stuart’s failed attack on the rear of the Union lines is also given short shrift.

Where the book shines, is in its presentation of Lee’s plan of action, it’s implementation, and the discussion of the failures of his subordinates. I can’t comment on its accuracy, but I found it convincing.

Despite the excess wordiness, I found the book extremely satisfying. I would recommend it to anyone interested in the details of the Gettysburg battle.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent, but overly detailed & repetitive:

heavy artillery attack + Picket’s ground troops +
Jen Stuart’s Cavalry attacking Union troops from rear

Artillery (2 hours) used up all munitions, nothing held back for actual attack (Union artillery rationed munitions & was devastating for Southern ground troops’ flanks & final assault. Flying artillery to support ground troops failed.

Jen Stuart was held in check by larger, fresher Union Calvary & never showed & battle goal (copse of trees)

Pickett’s troops actually succeeded initially w 300+ arriving over stone wall at Cemetery Ridge but there was no support from other units (Longstreet?)

Descriptions of battles, conditions, hand-to-hand combat were detailed, gruesome.

Repetition throughout of above, especially the unusually strong fences bordering the final road crossed by Southern troops.

The poor foot soldiers paid the price for a war supporting rich plantation owners needing slaves.

[Brett Brothers · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting perspectives on Pickett’s Charge. Makes some compelling arguments that Lee’s plan was actually a great one but his commanders didn’t execute his plan, especially in relation to flying artillery to protect the flanks, reverse infantry to support the breakthrough, and Stuart’s cavalry stoking behind the Union lines on Cemetery Hill. A few thoughts:

1. There’s no clear cut evidence that Lee intended for Stuart to simultaneously strike the Union rear & this is speculation based on period letters
2. If the Corp commanders are to blame for not executing Lee’s orders due to his hands off approach, should Lee not have them provided the needed guidance to ensure his gamble was executed to his liking?

Overall interesting but some of the grammatical errors also distracted me.

[Ralph · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wanted to like this book, and it does have a lot of good information, including personal accounts by soldiers from the battle. However, the book was filled with "if this had happened." "if this hadden't happen" to seem only to prove the point Lee's plan worked. Except it didn't. A lot didn't go as planned, and that is to be expected.
Reading the book and Tucker's continual glorification of the plan makes me think of two quotes. One by Mike Tyson, "Everyone has a strategy until they get hit in the mouth." Two, "the operation was a success. The patient died, but the operation was a success.
Also, without question, I learned Meade's right center was weak.

[Robert Sperduto · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have been to Gettysburg many times, the latest on horseback riding the Confederate trail. I was very excited to read this book based on this historical ride. I gave this book 3 stars but could have been 2. The first 200 pages were just too boring with too many company names under certain officers that repeated itself throughout the book. The details, eyewitness accounts by soldiers were much improved during the next 100 pages. I could feel myself looking into this battle. Then I needed to push myself thru the last pages again as in the beginning.

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book takes an interesting premise, that Lee's plan for the third day at Gettysburg was not flawed, but genius, and makes a reasonable argument against the weight of historical opinion. Unfortunately, it takes about 100 pages' worth of argument and makes them over 300 pages, as it were. The book is highly repetitive, hammering home the same points, both major and minor, over and over and over. Let's see, Lee's inspiration was Napoleonic? OK, that's interesting the first two or three times it's brought up. Maybe not the sixth or seventh. And in case you didn't know, one gun of Arnold's battery near the Angle remained in action throughout the charge. And in case you don't remember, it's mentioned several times over the course of a few pages. It's a shame, as the book does offer a lot of field-level, first-person insight into the charge, and takes the less-common position of defending not just Lee, but several of his field commanders. But the book also glosses over a major point in its argument, that Stuart was to ride around the Union army and hit the center from the east. It's explained as critical to Lee's three-pronged strategy, but mentioned only a handful of times, with no specific information other than that Stuart didn't make it. The book is riddled with typos, as well. A missed opportunity, overall. Some interesting information lost in a very flawed book.

[Dave MCG · Rating 2 out of 5]

Never finished the book. There is no option for didn't complete in the shelf drop down menu so went with read even though I didn't finish the book. I read some but got very tired very fast of the author repeating over and over "Meade's weak right center" and how Lee was going to exploit it. I'll look for another book to give me a better understanding of day 3 of the Gettysburg battles.

[Mark A · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read. I love history and thought I have read extensively about the Battle of Gettysburg I didn't really look into Pickett's charge, mainly due to the Hollywood version until I read this book and it told me so much I didn't know & how close General Lee & the Confederacy came to winning the war that day.

[Marc Brueggemann · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not an accurate view of what really happened. Too much repetitive words. Not historically accurate at all. Too much Lee worship and bearing the blame on Longstreet. It was Lee's fault that the Confederacy lost at Gettysburg. Nothing else!

[George Poppenwimer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Should have been 4 stars but the author's tedious, repetitive, rambling writing style made it a difficult read. As one example, he would introduce a character. Then late, while describing his actions, he would add in his physical characteristics, apropos of nothing to his action.

[Dmcconkey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting, well documented & researched. Draw back was very repetitious & that made it too wordy, could have made the book shorter & better

[Hunter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Generally well done and making a compelling argument, but just enough points that made me look at it quizically to prevent it from feeling like it fully gets there.

[Michael Deighton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pickett's Charge,an updated look!

A very well researched book that showed how close the Confederate to actually winning the Battle of Gettysburg!
If additional support & more involvement from key officers would have changed the results of this key battle!

[Thomas McConnell · Rating 1 out of 5]

I’m going to start by saying that earlier this year I tried reading Harman’s book about the third day and got turned off immediately. I should’ve done the same with this. Tucker’s approach views Lee’s decision making and battle plan as sound (which, fine) but largely ignores the limitations of a post-Chancellorsville ANV. While other more serious authors will note that Lee’s plan could have succeeded, they point to a lot of factors that in hindsight would keep the ANV from winning. Like Harman, Tucker relies it seems on the writings of Walter Taylor to make his points.

Tucker lays the failure at the feet of Longstreet and Pickett for not being engaged enough during the battle, a lack of support on the flanks by infantry/mobile artillery, improper cannon fuses, and Stuart’s inability to pierce the Union rear. These are valid arguments, but Tucker rarely makes or distinguishes why they are important. In the last few pages, the author departs from these arguments and even notes that the real reason was likely due to Richmond keeping two brigades of Pickett from joining the AVN. This all goes to elevate Lee as a superior Commander and it is others that failed him. We obviously can’t blame Lee for the ineffectiveness of his artillery, his communications to subordinates that aren’t Jackson, or the fact that expecting Stuart to perform a large attack on the Union rear was something that neither side’s cavalry had done in the Eastern theater.

There is plenty of firsthand accounts from soldiers during the battle, but these are largely written by Confederates. We learn almost nothing about the defenders, with the exception of a few notable senior Union officers. The book frequently skips around and returns to points in the battle that were seemingly resolved, which makes it a jarring read. Finally, the text is overly hyperbolic, where the author has Lee immediately taking Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington after the battle.

I trudged through this, but in the end, this is not a serious book about the battle.

[Reuben · Rating 3 out of 5]

a fascinating concept. tucker seeks to pivot the common thinking of Pickett's Charge as inevitably doomed to fail. instead pointing back to the Napoleonic theory it was conceived in. Tucker contends that the charge itself was perfectly conceived and planned by Lee but thoroughly failed by subordinates who were either unprepared for the challenge, too new to corps command, or almost deliberately reluctant.

not without a little irony, the book continually struggles with pacing issues. like its subject, the research and preparation is clearly visible. Tucker has done his homework and done it well. However, the narrative is constantly being undone by repetitive prose and excessive to the point of distracting personal anecdotes of the men who were about to die.

Do not let that disparage these witness accounts. In the same situation, I don’t know if I could leave some of these statements out. These anecdotes are excellent, meaty things but either they were not planned well enough or Tucker's prose isn't strong enough to overcome the constant pause and realignment required of the reader to continue with a steady narrative flow. More likely, there are just too many. It's understandably difficult to edit any of these out as they represent the last moments of undeniably brave men but for the greater good of the narrative it needed to be done. all of them are tragic, but some of these anecdotes will absolutely wreck you with their profound sense of loss (as a new-ish dad, for me the father/son anecdotes struck home the hardest).

something unique to be noted, the examination of the effect of VMI graduates upon the AofNV, specifically Pickett's division. such an influence of drill and discipline contributed to the unit maintaining discipline when other units on the field began to fall apart (specifically those on far north of the charge in Pettigrew's division.)

Overall, I'm very sympathetic as the task at hand is significant and challenging but like its subject, it ultimately falls short of its objective.

[Michelle Strozzi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Verified Purchase
I am thoroughly enjoying Phillip Thomas Tucker's work and will keep him as a go to author for history. I feel like his writing is much more entertaining and easier to read than most other history books. Most of us don't typically read non-fiction history pieces for entertainment but for those who want to have some knowledge regarding U.S. History or for students that have required history research, this is a good choice.
Pickett's Charge: A New Look At Gettysburg Final Attack really is a new look. Similar to Death at the Little Bighorn, Pickett's Charge has more of a story telling style that makes it easier to stay focused on the information. One feels more involved when history is told with some energy and detail. Phillip Tucker's detailed writing with descriptions of the places, people, and military strategies can make reader feel like they are there, watching history unfold. The true story is told instead of simply glorifying these people. We get a better look at who they were as individuals and what their purpose or goals were. I found it very interesting that many of the strategies were strongly based on Napoleon's past victories. Napolean was a huge influence on many of these men.
I actually haven't read much about Gettysburg since highschool so I don't remember many details. I think that Tucker's writing would have been better retained for myself and my classmates in highschool. I will also recommend this author for current students as well as my daughter who will soon be entering highschool. I think she too will enjoy his writing a bit more than the typical history textbook.