Three Days at Gettysburg: Essays on Confederate and Union Leadership

by Gallagher (Editor)

No Civil War military campaign has inspired as much controversy about leadership as has Gettysburg. Because it was a defining event for both the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia, the debates began almost immediately after the battle, and they continue today. Three Days at Gettysburg contains essays from noted Civil War historians on leadership during the battle. The contributors to this volume believe there is room for scholarship that revisits the sources on which earlier accounts have been based and challenges prevailing interpretations of key officers’ performances. They have trained their investigative lens on some obvious and some relatively neglected figures, with an eye toward illuminating not only what happened at Gettysburg but also the nature of command at different levels. The contributors to this volume believe there is room for scholarship that revisits the sources on which earlier accounts have been based and challenges prevailing interpretations of key officers’ performances. They have trained their investigative lens on some obvious and some relatively neglected figures, with an eye toward illuminating not only what happened at Gettysburg but also the nature of the command at different levels.

Genres: Civil War, American Civil War, Civil War Eastern Theater, History, Nonfiction, Gettysburg Campaign

392 pages, Hardcover

First published May 18, 1999

Reviews

[Spectre · Rating 5 out of 5]

As an "armchair" civil war enthusiast, I always look forward to Gallagher's collections of essays with bonafide historians covering controversial civil war issues in depth. From the contributions of Generals Buford and Heth to the decision by General Meade not to counter-attack after General Picket's failed charge, this book lived up to my high expectations. I particularly enjoyed the concluding essays that focused on the roles of northern and southern artillery and their impact on the outcome of the battle. It seemed to me that General Robert E. Lee's loss of key leaders (General Jackson, etc) and subsequent reorganization of the Army of Northern Virginia required a significant change in his leadership style (much closer supervision) which he was slow to recognize and implement.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book. There are 13 essays, several of which examine each day at Gettysburg. One characteristic here is a raising of questions about standard views of what transpired at Gettysburg. The editor, Gary Gallagher, has gathered together a thought provoking set of essays. I'm certainly not in agreement with all arguments raised, but I did start thinking about some of the received wisdom about the battle. And that is a pretty good accomplishment for a book.

Let's take a look at one example from each day. One part of the standard interpretation of Gettysburg is that A. P. Hill and Richard Ewell failed miserably as corps commanders on July 1. Gallagher's essay asks us to reconsider. And, against heavy odds, by the time that I finished his essay, I wondered if too many observers have been far too hard on these two generals.

On Day 2, one of the essays explores Dan Sickles, commander of the Union Thirds Corps, and his decision to advance his troops. Most criticize this movement, arguing that it stretched his lines far too thinly to repel the attack by Longstreet's troops and still cover Little Round Top. I am not convinced by William Robertson's argument that, in the end, Sickles' movement may actually have assisted the Union defensive posture. Still, even though I am not convinced, the essay did cause me to rethink some of my own view.

The example from Day Tree, Peter Carmichael's essay on the failure of the Confederate artillery barrage preceding Pickett's charge, is instructive. He points out how poorly Lee and Longstreet attended after placement of artillery. He also notes the continuing incompetence of Confederate artillery commander, William Pendleton. The end result was a barrage that did not accomplish its goals and left the Union forces on Cemetery Ridge largely unaffected by the cannonade. In contrast, we learn more of Longstreet's artillery commander, the youthful E. Porter Alexander, and his quality work that day.

So, a thought-provolking book that raises all manner of issues that get the reader to think differently about issues at Gettysburg.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fine series of essays - following the usual format from Professor Gallagher - on how the leadership at various levels and of various units functioned - or didn't - at the Battle of Gettysburg, divided by the three days of battle. My personal favorites were the ones on James Longstreet, both pro and anti, and those on the problems faced by the leaders of the artillery in the two armies, Pendleton and Hunt, in either supporting or repulsing Pickett's Charge. While I always enjoy Gallagher's method of essay-centered books on various aspects, battles and campaigns of the Civil War, one should remember that these aren't the first books one should read on those topics. For example, your knowledge of Gettysburg would be enhanced if first one read one of the many fine narratives of the battle, such as those by by Coddington or Guelzo. Then turn to Gallagher for additional information.

[Josh Liller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surely the longest Gallagher essay books at over 300 pages, but also probably the best. This book as 13 essays about the battle of Gettysburg, with a focus on leaders and leadership.

This is a bit of an odd compilation in one regard: it combines the essays from the previously published The First Day at Gettysburg: Essays on Confederate and Union Leadership and The Second Day at Gettysburg: Essays on Confederate and Union Leadership with four new essays about the third day of the battle. It does not include the essays found in The Third Day at Gettysburg and Beyond. No explanation for this is given in either book, although the latter book is not solely about leadership issues.

The essays in this book:

-Robert E. Lee on July 1 (mostly critical)

-AP Hill and Richard Ewell on July 1

-Oliver Otis Howard on July 1 (mostly favorable)

-poor performances by Confederate brigade commanders Joe Davis (Heth's division) and Alfred Iverson and Edward O'Neal (Rodes' division) on July 1

-Lee on July 2

-Sickles on July 2

-Longstreet on July 2 (one of the most blistering criticisms of a Civil War general I have ever read)

-Henry Slocum on July 1 & 2 (somewhat negative)

-John Caldwell's division (Hancock's corps) on July 2 and the difficulty of division command during difficult combat conditions

-Meade on July 3 (positive)

-Longstreet on July 3, and the postbattle and postwar defense of his actions by non-LostCausian Virginias (mostly from Pickett's division)

-failure of Confederate artillery on July 3, especially critical of William Pendleton

-Henry Hunt and Union artillery on July 3

I found all of the essays interesting. My favorites were probably the ones that go most counter to common thought on the battle: those on Howard and Lee.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good series of essays on leadership, or the lack thereof, at Gettysburg. I particularly liked the essay on Meade to which Guelzo did not advert in the main part of his text tearing down Meade.

Reread March 2016. I did not remember the following articles which were more important than the prior mentioned article:

Robert K. Krick, "If Longstreet... Says So, it is Most likely Not True," James Longstreet and the Second Day at Gettysburg." This article is in the best tradition of Freeman praising Lee and the Lost Cause, damning Longstreet at every turn. I checked to see if the polemics are still going on. -- Wert has written on Longstreet, taking the exactly opposite point of view. I side with Wert.

Peter S. Carmichael, "Every Map of the Field Cries Out about it", The Failure of Confederate ARtillery at Pickett's Charge." This is more damning than Glenn Tucker in High Tide at Gettysburg who revised my views of Lee, having been weaned on Freeman. Lee had allowed Pendleton to have his head and did not supervise artillery as he should. The possibilities of enfilade were good if Ewell had brought his batteries to bear.

Gary M. Kross, "I Do Not believe That Pickett's Division Would have Reached Our Line,", Henry J. Hunt and the Union Artillery on July 3,1863." This is the artillery on the other side. Both of these articles take up the technical tactics that should have been. And both take up the issues of leadership, failed and successful. Hunt had a terrible problem with Hancock who had the weakness of his strength, arrogating to himself the handling of artillery, which should have been more centralized. Ammunition would not have been wasted.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wonderful collection of essays that cover the three days at Gettysburg! The writers in this volume are some of the best historians we have today writing about the most famous battle during the Civil War. The essays are well written and very insightful. The essays give credit to the Union officers and soldiers for their victory. Meade, Howard, Hancock, Greene and many others deserve praise for their actions during those three July days. Too many people seem to think "Well, the South made mistakes, therefore, that is why the North won." The Union troops deserve credit for their victory. Lee deserves criticism for his leadership. He wanted to win a battle on northern soil, but the problem was Gettysburg was a battle that was not brought on his terms, and he attacked a strong enemy position on their home soil. A great read!

[Melissa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this for my senior seminar on Gettysburg at UCLA prior to our two week trip to Gettysburg, Richmond,VA, Washington DC, and Harpers Ferry in July and August 2001. It's an excellent book that was made even more amazing when we spent 3-4 days at Gettysburg with Professor Gallagher. He brought the battle to life for us in a once-in-a-lifetime experience I will never forget. If you are interested in the Civil War and particularly the Battle of Gettysburg, I highly recommend this book.

[Gerald Hickman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good for the student of history. Helps to clear up many of my misconceptions about the Battle of Gettysburg.

[Garry · Rating 5 out of 5]

7/10/2016