Book SummaryGettysburg, by Stephen W. Sears

1-Page Summary1-Page Book Summary of Gettysburg

Strategic and tactical choices that influenced the unfolding and specific occurrences of the Battle of Gettysburg.

The Confederacy redirected its strategic emphasis from the western theater to the eastern one.

With the onset of spring in 1863, the narrative highlights the strategic dilemmas faced by the Confederacy, particularly regarding the impact of Vicksburg's surrender on subsequent military decisions. Sears describes the competing arguments for a western versus an eastern strategy.

The choice to push forward into Northern territory was shaped by the intent to counterbalance losses in the Western theater with a significant victory in the Eastern theater, a strategic move in response to the developments occurring in the vicinity of the Mississippi River.

As 1863 drew to a close, it was increasingly clear that the solidity of the Confederate position was waning. General U.S. Grant's strategic movements around Vicksburg caused the Confederate forces in the west to be spread thinly. The imminent surrender of Vicksburg prompted key figures of the Confederacy, such as President Jefferson Davis and his competent Secretary of War James A. Seddon, to convene in Richmond to plan their next moves in the war. Some individuals, Seddon among them, proposed reinforcing the western front by sending more forces to control the situation. Lee believed that such a strategy would not succeed and might risk the security of the positions in the East, thus putting Virginia at risk. He argued that Virginia's strategic situation was more precarious than that of the Mississippi because of the expected advance of Union forces along the Rappahannock.

Sears suggests that Lee, recognizing he could not affect the outcome at Vicksburg because of time and distance limitations, proposed a bold plan in the Eastern theater to offset the expected loss in the West. Lee's strategy to advance into Northern territory was less about forcing Grant's surrender in Vicksburg and more about achieving a major victory that would boost the morale of the South, weaken the determination of the North, possibly invigorate the peace advocates in the Northern states, and could lead to the involvement of European countries. Sears contends that the plan aimed to counterbalance a substantial defeat in the Western theater by securing a victory of greater consequence on eastern soil.

General Lee's decision to adopt an offensive strategy in the Eastern theater and the subsequent agreement by Seddon and Davis.

Lee consistently understood the Confederacy's manpower constraints and advocated for a bold strategy that focused on dictating the course of combat by engaging the enemy actively. Maintaining a defensive stance along the Rappahannock River was improbable to result in a decisive triumph and carried the potential of culminating in another intense but indecisive battle. He believed that the position along the Rappahannock River was not advantageous for battle, particularly given the numerical inferiority of the Confederate forces. During their winter encampment, he observed that his troops often encountered a lack of provisions, which he understood would be aggravated by remaining stationary.

Sears implies that by advancing north, Lee broadened his strategic possibilities. The strategy was designed to draw the Army of the Potomac out of its strong defensive position and thwart its plans for a forceful summer offensive in Virginia. The Southern troops' advance into a region rich in resources would help to ease their supply challenges. He was convinced that a successful invasion of Northern territory, climaxing with a decisive triumph that might shatter Northern resolve, could lead to peace talks, thus providing the Southern states a chance to prevail. Davis and Seddon agreed that Lee's strategy offered the best opportunity for the Confederacy at this critical juncture.

Lee's decision

Sears explores the strategic and tactical goals of the Confederate forces, scrutinizing the core reasons that drove Lee's tactical decisions in Pennsylvania.

Lee's foray was intended to disrupt Northern military plans, secure supplies for his soldiers, and diminish the resolve of the Northern states.

Sears emphasizes that Lee's primary goal in advancing into Pennsylvania was not just to obtain provisions for his undernourished soldiers. The northern push was driven by objectives that went beyond merely surviving on enemy soil. The writer maintains that the Confederacy's continued existence depended on Lee's conviction that initiating attacks and pushing the conflict into Northern territory was essential.

Sears highlights...

Gettysburg Summary The critical standoffs and clashes unfolded over a period spanning three days.

The battle that commenced on the first day did so unexpectedly.

In his narrative, Sears offers a detailed and unbiased analysis of the first day's battle at Gettysburg, identifying the elements that culminated in a Confederate triumph and a Union loss.

Buford's strategic engagement with the opposition westward of Gettysburg allowed the Union infantry ample opportunity to arrive at the battlefield in time.

Sears emphasizes the critical role of Brig. During the initial phase of the Battle of Gettysburg, General John Buford played a crucial role. On July 1, Buford and his cavalry were the first to confront the advancing Confederate troops. Buford deployed his two brigades west of the town, recognizing the strategic advantage of dominating the adjacent roads and high ground, aiming to delay the Confederate troops until the Union infantry arrived to engage in the battle.

Sears credits Buford with strategically setting up a staggered defense, skillfully arranging his troops and artillery to significantly hinder the opposition's progress and increase their casualties. Persuaded by the comprehensive intelligence Buford provided regarding the opposition's capabilities and...

Gettysburg Summary The decision-making structures and chains of command within the armies of both the North and the South.

The Union's command faced a critical juncture.

Sears, in recounting the Federal army's high-command struggles leading up to and during the battle, offers perceptive assessments of the leadership skills of Joe Hooker, John Reynolds, and George Meade, and analyzes Lincoln's role as commander-in-chief.

Following the battle at Chancellorsville, Hooker faced challenges due to disunity among his subordinate officers.

Following the disastrous defeat at Fredericksburg, General Joe Hooker took command of the disheartened Union forces. Upon assuming command, he effectively revitalized the morale of his soldiers, which had suffered under the leadership of Ambrose E. Burnside. He reorganized the army and in the initial days of May at Chancellorsville, he was on the brink of a significant victory by outflanking the opposing Southern commander with more advantageous strategic placement.

The defeat at Chancellorsville was the pivotal element that shaped the fate of General Hooker. Hooker compounded the humiliation of his loss by publicly chastising three of his corps commanders, alleging that Howard's leadership of the Eleventh Corps faltered during Jackson's attack, casting...