They Met at Gettysburg (Stackpole)

Rating:
Summary: A Study in Command.
Review: As Civil War histories go, this book is unusual. One could expect from the title a blow by blow account of the battle of Gettysburg. Instead, what is offered is a study in leadership contrasts between Robert E. Lee and George Meade. Lee is presented as perhaps America's greatest general fighting his worst battle. Meade is portrayed as an uninspired mediocrity that benefited greatly from his corps commanders and fortuitous circumstances.

Much of the familiar litany of Gettysburg lore is mentioned, but not re-hashed in great detail. J.E.B. Stuart's failure to provide timely reconnaissance, James Longstreet's lack of enthusiasm for Lee's offensive strategy and tactics, Richard Ewell's failure to secure the high ground on Cemetery Hill and Culps Hill are briefly examined. In addition, the inability of either Ewell or A. P. Hill to replace Stonewall Jackson as an effective corps commander is discussed. These facts provide the framework that gave Lee the impetus to strike "those people" (as he called the Union Army) in his own way. The ghost of Stonewall Jackson, who crossed over the river at Chancellorsville, haunts the scene. The pairing of Lee and Jackson caused some of the most spectacular victories of the Confederate Army, and Stonewall's loss was still keenly felt. One can only imagine what Jackson would have done with Lee's order to attack Little Round Top, or the Union center along Cemetery Ridge.

While Lee aggressively yearned to strike the enemy, Meade hesitated. At one point, Meade gave serious consideration to a retreat. Finally, he let his corps commanders vote the idea down. After the failure of Pickett's charge, Meade failed to take the initiative to counterattack Lee and deliver the fatal blow that could have ended the war.

The material is presented objectively, without particular bias. The book openly admires Robert E. Lee, but so do many. The brutal fact that Gettysburg may very well be Lee's worst fought battle is not glossed over. The failure of some of Lee's lieutenants to show their best effort is not used as an excuse to cover "Marse Robert's" errors. The reader doesn't hang on every word, but reading of the various commanders' abilities and limitations is informative. In addition, there is an abundance of illustrations and detailed maps that assist the reader in following some of the technical details. This Civil War book has value for the serious Civil War buff.

Rating:
Summary: A different read on Gettysburg
Review: Do not buy this book if you wanted a detailed blow by blow description of the battle, see Coddington's work for a great study of the battle. While sections of the book do have detailed analysis and descriptions it's the look at the command structure that sets this book apart.

Stackpole goes to great lengths to show the differences between Meade and Lee and how these differences affected the ebb and flow over the course of the 3 days in question. I've read many books on Gettysburg and there was something about this book that really appealed to me, whether it was the way the author presented the material or his writing style I can't say but I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

Rating:
Summary: A different read on Gettysburg
Review: Do not buy this book if you wanted a detailed blow by blow description of the battle, see Coddington's work for a great study of the battle. While sections of the book do have detailed analysis and descriptions it's the look at the command structure that sets this book apart.

Stackpole goes to great lengths to show the differences between Meade and Lee and how these differences affected the ebb and flow over the course of the 3 days in question. I've read many books on Gettysburg and there was something about this book that really appealed to me, whether it was the way the author presented the material or his writing style I can't say but I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

Rating:
Summary: Lee and Meade - Leadership Styles and Tactical Decisions
Review: For the reader already familiar with a Gettysburg account by a recent historian like Shelby Foote, James McPherson, or Harry Pfanz, I recommend They Met at Gettysburg as a good choice for follow-up reading. Written in 1956 by General Edward J. Stackpole, this moderately sized book offers an interesting analysis of Lee's and Meade's contrasting leadership styles, and explores their tactical decisions.

Stackpole's interest is clearly revealed by chapter titles like Lee versus Meade - A Study in Leadership, Meade Takes Command, Lee Moves in as Meade Hesitates, The Opposing Commanders Review the Situation, and A Lost Opportunity to End the War.

The account of the battle itself is generally satisfactory, but it is not exceptional. Stackpole's concise reporting on Pickett's Charge lacks the emotional impact of Shelby Foote's remarkable narrative. And, there are surprising omissions. For example, while he fully credits General Warren, Meade's Chief Engineer, for plugging the gap when he discovered that Little Round Top had been left unoccupied, there is no reference to the role played by Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine in the actual defense of this little rocky mount.

Stackpole is at his best when discussing communication problems, troop movements, supply problems, and other tactical issues. For example, in examining how J.E.B. Stuart's long absence impacted Lee's situation, he concludes that Lee's detailed, but somewhat unclear directions to Stuart, contributed to this debacle. Also, in Stackpole's view, Lee could have used other readily available cavalry forces to offset Stuart's absence.

Longstreet comes under considerable scrutiny and fares rather poorly, much more so than in the hands of Michael Shaara in The Killer Angels, or in Shelby Foote's account. Stackpole's portrayal of Meade is mixed. While recognizing Meade's difficult situation as a replacement general on the eve of a critical battle, Stackpole largely credits the key tactical decisions over the three days to Meade's capable corps commanders.

On the plus side, They Met at Gettysburg is enhanced by numerous photos, portraits, and maps, but unfortunately some black and white illustrations are rather grainy. (Gettysburg 1863 by Carl Smith is a good source for higher quality illustrations.)

I reviewed the third edition; the dust jacket indicates that my printing is the 40th Anniversary Edition.

Rating:
Summary: Sometimes Excelling, Sometimes Severely Lacking...
Review: Like many other Civil War books focusing of specific battles, They Met at Gettysburg is excellent in some respects, and strongly lacking in others. The book does excel in the aspects of history leading up to the battle of Gettysburg, and as a study of the generals that were a critical part of that battle. What it lacks is an adequate description of the battle itself. The immortal Pickett's Charge does not get nearly the description it warrants, and the heroic defense of Little Round Top by Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and his 20th Maine (which has filled entire books on its own) does not even get a single mention. Thus, this book does have some strong points, and should be read by anyone strongly interested in the leaders at Gettysburg. For a true work about the battle itself, however, look elsewhere.