Customer Reviews

Chancellorsville

5 star:		(41)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Stephen Sears has earned a reputation as one of the top Civil War authors today and with Chancellorsville he once again shows why with what could be his best book so far. First off, Sears is just a great writer. To many Civil War books are written by authors who know the subject and have done all the right research but simply don't have the writing talents to put the information into a form that is both informative and entertaining. That is not the case with Sears. His writing skills are equel to his research and the result is a book that is both informative and a pleasure to read.

To say this book is about the Battle of Chancellorsville is almost a misnomer. A better description would be that the book is about the Hooker era in the Army of the Potomac. In the book Sears treats us to more than just the Xs and Os of a battle. We hear about Hooker's rebuilding of the Army's moral after the disasterous tenure of Burnside. We learn about army intelligence, how both armies are supplied and how troops passed the winter months. All before we get anywhere close to Chancellorsville. The book does a wonderful job of covering the situation of both the Army of the Potomac and Army of Northern Virginia in the early days of 1863.

As far as the battle goes, the book gives a very complete description. From the opening moves to the death of Jackson, the reader really gets a full and complete picture. This is aided by Sears' inclusion of some very good maps, something that is often missing from Civil War books.

I can think of few Civil War books that I have enjoyed as much as this. The book is 600 pages but Sears is such a good writer that you breeze right through it. Sears has done a lot of good books but for me this could be his best.

Too often, the battle of Chancellorsville has been viewed as merely another of a series of humiliating defeats for the Army of the Potomac at the hands of RE Lee, and that the battle was further evidence of Lee's tactical genius triumphing over the bumbling leadership of his Union counterparts. Certainly Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia came to view it as such, and that misperception in no small measure contributed Lee's defeat two months later at Gettysburg.

What Stephen Sears presents is a considerably different picture, that of a battle which, although a tactical Confederate victory, represented more of a draw in the larger operational sense. Far from being an uncertain leader in the mold of McClellan or Burnside, Joe Hooker is shown by Sears as a leader who has a very clear idea of what his operational objectives, and his battle plan for Chancellorsville cannot fail to impress. Certainly he completely out-generalled Lee, successfully executing an elaborate maneuver which landed the Union army in the rear of the unsuspecting Lee. Lee's unconventional division of his forces is the one element of Chancellorsville that one always hears about, but what is often not emphasized is that Lee was forced to these desperate measures by Hooker's superior maneuvers.

Once Jackson begins his massive flanking maneuver, Sears really hits his stride as a writer. The reader is left awestruck at Jackson's skill as a corps commander. Even though the wisdom of this flanking maneuver certainly is open to debate, nevertheless Jackson was able to move a massive number of men a great number of miles largely undetected, and that is no minor accomplishment. Sears then describes the rout and destruction of the XI Corps that is both vivid and coherent. A scene such as that cannot be easy to describe so as to be followed by the reader, but Sears is more than equal to the challenge.

I remember how Chancellorsville was described in Ken Burns' celebrated (but at times flawed) documentary --- "the defeat was total." Well --- not exactly. Certainly the XI Corps was shattered, but by and large the Army of the Potomac gave as good as it took, and possibly could have taken the day had a counter-offensive been launched. Even with the element of surprise, Jackson's corps did not succeed in shattering Hooker's flank. How it came to be that Hooker, despite a significant advantage in numbers and superior maneuvering, failed to achieve his objectives is where Sears devotes the bulk of his energies and where is book is most valuable.

Some reviewers have faulted Sears for being nothing more than an apologist for Hooker, making excuses for Hooker's numerous blunders. Sears definitely does not have the scorn for Hooker that he has acquired for McClellan. While he obviously feels that Hooker's reputation has suffered unfairly, I don't know if I would call Sears an apologist. He makes it clear where the fault lies at Chancellorsville: Howard's complete negligence in fortifying his positions, even though he had an entire day in which to do it; Stoneman's utter failure to make even a dent in Lee's supply lines, despite having more than adequate strength in numbers; and Sedgwick's timid advance against a thinly defended Confederate position, which if pursued more aggressively would have resulted in yet another threatened flank for Lee. How can one argue with this? Hooker couldn't micromanage everything, and presumably these experienced officers should have known how to do their jobs. As far as Hooker's behavior after his concussion, one cannot blame him one way or the other, because that is the way concussions are --- one is disoriented without totally realizing it.

If Hooker is to be faulted, it is for making his battle plan so elaborate that everything had to work just right for it to be a success. If your gadget has too many moving parts, it is only a matter of time before one of those parts breaks. This was a plan that could have worked magnificently, but was just begging for something to go wrong with it. Sears does not really discuss this flaw in Hooker's strategy. As it turned out, virtually every bad turn of luck came to pass, almost unbelievably so. Lee never fully realized just how much of a role dumb luck played in his victory, and his army would soon pay the price for that.

Sears greatest strengths are in his blow-by-blow descriptions of the scenes of battle, and in his wonderful biographies in miniature of the participants. He is by now well-acquainted with the ranks of the Armies of the Potomac and Northern Virginia, and knows where to look in his primary sources for nuggets worthy of our attention. The reader will never be bored, and oftentimes will find it hard to put the book down --- even though we all know how this battle turned out.

I have but little to add to the other reviews of this book, some of which are very good reads in themselves, but I thought that I'd share one thought about it:

Mr. Sears goes to great pains to vindicate Gen. Hooker's handling of the battle, including taking what I consider to be some unnecessary cheap shots at several of his subordinates (excepting Gen. Howard, about whom little good could be said), but, when finished reading it, I had to ask myself, "well, how then DID Gen. Hooker lose this battle?" I felt that Mr. Sears did little to explain just how the greatly outnumbered Confederate Army of Northern Virginia was able to so badly defeat the Federal Army of the Potomac. I also couldn't help but note how any observer's negative comment about Gen. Hooker (see almost any other history of this battle) was purged from Mr. Sears' account yet any favorable comment from those same sources seemed to be included without reservation.

In the end, yes, Gen. Howard's command was a disaster, and, yes, perhaps Gen. Sedgewick could have moved faster - although I have yet to figure out how Gen. Sedgewick with about 22,000 men was supposed to rescue Gen. Hooker's 80,000 - but the fact of the matter is that, even when subtracting all of Eleventh and Sixth Corps from the totals, Gen. Hooker's main army still greatly outnumbered Gen. Lee's at the point of attack, especially during the days when Gen. Lee denuded his lines in order to deal with Gen. Sedgewick.

When faced with a similar situation a year later in nearly the same spot, Gen. Grant took a tactically defeated army and turned it into a strategic victory of surpassing importance. Why couldn't Gen. Hooker have done the same instead of tamely withdrawing across the river? I'm afraid that Mr. Sears leaves us to our own devices in trying to come to a decision in this matter.

In conclusion, let me say that this is a fine book about the battle and I'm glad that I purchased it, but I would recommend Furgurson's "Chancellorsville: Souls of the Brave" as the better book. I would also recommend the Army's Field Guide to the Fredricksburg/Chancellorsville battles. Indispensable if you plan to walk over the area.

Veteran Civil War historian, Stephen W. Sears has written a thoroughly researched and revisionist study on Robert E. Lee's greatest victory -- The Battle of Chancellorsville.

In describing the battle, Mr. Sears relates, "It was the most complex campaign of the Civil War. It witnessed the most intense and concentrated few hours of fighting of the entire war." Mr. Sears explains: "The intent of this narrative history is to restore campaign and battle of its original colors."

In "Chancellorsville," Mr. Sears relies on journals and letters written during the battle, rather than memoirs written years later, to peel back the layers of romantic history and offer a realistic, detailed, view of the campaign.

As Mr. Sears makes clear in this excellent study, Robert E. Lee's great victory was offset by the tragic loss of arguably the best general on either side -- Stonewall Jackson. For the Confederacy, and its future, Chancellorsville was a "hollow victory."

The author introduces the fresh voices of numerous officers, politicians, and soldiers as he explores original sources. Combining a grasp of the overall picture with an eye for detail. He tells a lot of good stories, and tells them well. Comprehensive, measured, and well balanced, it is a great read.

One of his arguments is that generations of Civil War scholars have misused historical sources to defend General Hooker's reputation.

"Primary sources previously unavailable or unused cast a great deal of new light on this campaign. These sources range from General Hooker's papers to many score letters and diaries of officers and men of both armies," relates the author.

Mr. Sears's narrative spotlights the level of disorganization at the corps level as well as the difficult personal chemistry between Hooker's staff.

When the author makes the statement that "no Union general in any battle in this war was so badly served by his lieutenants" as Hooker, he has the evidence to back it up.

General Warren explained, "Our great weakness, in my opinion, is the incompetence of many of our corps commanders. They don't know how to manage and fight troops."

As in his previous Gettysburg, all this described by Mr. Sears makes his book one of the truly outstanding records of this chapter of the Civil War. All the way through, the author offers incisive details and insights that make "Chancellorsville" a fascinating read.

It seems that Hooker's forces suffered greatly from every misstep, while those of the Confederates had little impact. Numerous communications failures undid General Hooker's complex plans. Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee credited God with their good fortune.

Mr. Sears has a fluid writing style, especially with dense material. Even if you don't read Mr. Sears footnotes, you will sense from his writing that he's done his research.

Mr. Sears deserves praise for recognizing the need to revisit in detail this very familiar chapter in American military history. Few historians write as well as Mr. Sears.

"Chancellorsville" has 20 great maps, a gallery of 64 illustrations and photographs, 49 pages of fascinating appendices, and 50 pages of notes.

I have just recently gotten back into Civil War History after about a 5 year lapse. I read Foote's Fredericksburg to Meridian (Part II of his massive trilogy) in August. In that book, I learned about the Battles of Chancellorsville and Gettysburg - as well as others. In looking for books on Chancellorsville, I came across this one by Stephen Sears. I bought it along with Gettysburg as well as his others on Antietam and the Peninsula Campaign. I also read the reviews on Chancellorsville and I saw some that indicated this book was a defense of General Hooker.

After reading this book in a mere two weeks, I did not find it to be a defense of Hooker but more of a realistic approach to what Hooker did after he took over for Burnside. Hooker did many great things during his time as head of the Army before the Battle of Chancellorsville. However, Mr. Sears did not leave out his shortcomings during the actual battle. He points out that his decision to abandon Hazel Grove was one of the biggest mistakes of the battle. He also points out that Hooker's decision to retreat was a mistake since Lee had sent some of his army facing Hooker to take on the VI Corps at Fredericksburg. Lastly, Mr. Sears tells of Hooker's mistake in not turing over command of the Army to General Couch after his being wounded. I did not find this book to be an argument in favor of Hooker and against the generals under him.

There is no doubt that the generals under Hooker, at least a couple of them (Generals Howard and Stoneman)failed Hooker. This is made very clear in the book. But Mr. Sears does not excuse Hooker for these failures totally. The failure of the XI Corps was not totally of Hooker's doing but more because of Howard. This comes through loud and clear in the book.

This is a very good book. It is easy to read and understand. It is easy to get bogged down in the names of the generals and whether they are confederate or union but Mr. Sears made this easy for he put the names of the units behind them so if you know what states were fighting for the Union and what states were Confederate, then it is not difficult. The pace of the book is very good. I did not find any part of the book borning or tedious. I now have a much better understanding of the battle. In fact, I have already begun Mr. Sears' book on Gettysburg and am already 50 pages into it and am liking it very much.

I am looking forward to finishing Gettysburg and then moving on to the other books I have that Mr. Sears wrote. I highly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in the Civil War and specifically the eastern theater.

"Chancellorsville" is the finest work to date by the author, Stephen Sears. The book is incredibly well researched, covering events before, during and after the battle. Unlike some of Sears' earlier works (e.g., "Landscape Turned Red: The Battle Of Antietam"), I found "Chancellorsville" to be an even-handed, unbiased account of events. The book is an easy read and will be understood even by the novice Civil War buff. If I had to point out one weakness, it would be Sears' lack of details concerning certain parts of the battle. The author certainly did extensive research and possessed the information - it was simply not included in the text. But then I am thinking of the type of detail presented in the masterpieces by John M. Priest on South Mountain and Antietam. Perhaps such detail was not the goal of Sears. In any event, Sears has written an informative and insightful book - an honor and a delight to read.

This is the definitive volume on the Chancellorsville Campaign, bar none! No other book need be written about this campaign, although more would be welcome. Mr. Sears is a great writer, and it shows. The Chancellorsville Campaign is considered by many "Lee's Greatest Victory," and, well, this book is Sears' greatest victory!

As if the terrific writing is not enough, the maps, by George Skoch, are excellent. There is also an abundance of maps, always a plus in my book. Maps are essential to a military history; these maps do not dissapoint.

I found the account of the despise of General Burnside to be great, and the rendering of Stonewall Jackson's ill-timed death moving. If you are a buff of Civil War--or even military--history, this book is essential to your library. If this book does not go down as one of the greatest of Civil War writing, it would be a crying shame. Get this book!

On their own, Sears' one volume books on major Civil War battles in the Eastern theatre are always meticulous, well crafted and interesting. Chancellorsville is no different.

This book differs from predecessors in trying to absolve Hooker of much of the blame, from Stoneman's raid to the 11th Corps on the 2nd, to Hooker's injury on the 3rd and to the 6th Corps entire campaign. Sears does pay lip service to Hooker's clearest mistakes (like abandoning Hazel Run), but he constantly tries to absolve blame or even explain away Hooker's brash General Orders as an attempt to inspire troop confidence.

Most importantly, as is probably the case with all battles that have multiple contemporary accounts, Sears's book and Furgurson's book are very good complements, both in analysis and detailed events of the narratives. For example, Sears' book covers a lot more on the BMI's activities during the battle, while Furgurson's coverage on the 8th Penn. cavalry charge is considerably lengthier than Sears's.

One thing that stands out in my mind is Sears's ability to find strong primary sources, whether they're from Paul Revere's grandson, a future Supreme Court justice, or one touching account about a Georgian sending his wife a letter about their son's death at Chancellorsville and then dying himself at Gettysburg. These obviously give the book a more human touch and make it easier to read.

I'm not sure which book I like more between Furgurson's and Sears's: they're both equal and I think it benefits a reader to read both of them. Regardless, you won't go wrong with any of Sears's books, Chancellorsville included.

Stephen Sears once again shows his great skill in recounting civil war battles. Chancellorsville was indeed a very bloody battle. It was a battle that Union General Hooker was blamed for not winning. Sears research clearly shows that the blame rightly belongs on the shoulders of his subordinates-who did not follow his orders. Besides providing a just defense of Hooker Sears also demonstrates the devastating loss to the south. The accidental shoot of General Stonewall Jackson by his own men. This was the most important event of the battle-the loss of Jackson was described by General Lee as similar to losing an arm. The book reads like a fictional novel and was difficult to put down. If you want a good, fast and factual read of this battle then grab this book.

Sears always offers superior detail on what went on within the Union command structure before and during the subject battle. This works very well in the battle of Chancellorsville as Hooker, unpopular with his generals, catches Lee by surprise and crosses 70k troops the Rappahannock on Lee's west flank with 30K with Sedgwick in his front at Fredericksburg. Wonderfully executed but things unravel and not all due to Hookers personal failures. Sears in detail notes the failure of Stoneman's failed cavalry raid that not only does not cut Lee's communications but he takes himself out of the battle altogether along with any ability to screen the army or provide intelligence. The failed telegraph that continually delays communication to the apprehensive Sedgwick only contributes to his sloth like movements along with Gibbon's confused feel that he is an independent command and does not aid Sedgwick by any means. Sears makes it clear that Hooker wanted to fight defensively to inflict casualties on Lee's army for a change but the Wilderness does not make the best defensive ground as it not only impairs visibility but reduces the Union artillery which is one of Hooker's failings since he pulled General Hunt out overall command of the artillery. Hooker loses the initiative early and combined with Sickles confused perspective, that Lee is in retreat which in reality was only Jackson's flank march, sets up Jackson's crushing flank attack on the west side of Hooker's line held weakly by Howard's 11th corps whose commander is elsewhere on the field. One of the 11ths division heads also ignores pleas to turn the line west in expectation of an attack. Sears aptly puts to rest that Hooker did not so much lose his head in battler but suffered a concussion from a section of exploding pillar. His inability to pass command contributed to the failure of the Union to centralize their command of the field at the time that Jackson's units seemingly were over running the union's south and western line. This is a very good book to read on Chancellorsville because it was probably the most high stakes battle combined with great daring by both sides
while Sears give you insider information on the decision making of not only the Union but of of Lee, Jackson and Esarly alonmg with the Union Command's. Sears also captures Lee's inate ability to intiate the attack with confidence not only in his troops but in his assurance that his opponent lacks the confidence necessary to win battles. Sears in particular captures these traits in Lee but perhaps at Gettysburg there is an exception to the latter, Meade is now in command.