NF Lincoln's Lieutenants: The High Command of the Army of the Potomac

Non-Fiction

chellers

Lt. Colonel
Retired Moderator
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Location
East Texas
lincoln sears cwt.jpg


Stephen W. Sears (Author)
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (January 17, 2017)

The high command of the Army of the Potomac was a changeable, often dysfunctional band of brothers, going through the fires of war under seven commanding generals in three years, until Grant came east in 1864. The men in charge all too frequently appeared to be fighting against the administration in Washington instead of for it, increasingly cast as political pawns facing down a vindictive congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War.

President Lincoln oversaw, argued with, and finally tamed his unruly team of generals as the eastern army was stabilized by an unsung supporting cast of corps, division, and brigade generals. With characteristic style and insight, Stephen Sears brings these courageous, determined officers, who rose through the ranks and led from the front, to life.

About the Author
STEPHEN W. SEARS is the author of many award-winning books on the Civil War, including Gettysburg and Landscape Turned Red. A former editor at American Heritage, he lives in Connecticut.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0618428259/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

Disclaimer: This post is neither a recommendation nor solicitation by CivilWarTalk or Chellers. It is solely for informational purposes.
 
I checked a preview. It's the same old Sears. I am quite annoyed by how he has chopped up accounts and places events out of sequence to fit his narrative...
 
I was in my local B&N and they had a stack of copies so I decided to take a glance. A few observations:

The book includes Pope among those looked at.

1861-1862 covers about 60% of the main text; the other 40% does go through the end of the war.

There are Endnotes.

I decided to check the Lost Order as I know that Sear's interpretation has been a point of contention. As explained in the footnote, he stands by "12 M" as 12 Meridian (noon) and states Lincoln got his copy so late he was probably the one to add the "12 Midnight" notation. I think that's been his argument for a long time.

Checking another hot topic that came to mind: he doesn't quite Horace Porter's dubious claim of paper dog tags at Cold Harbor and his only comment on the number of casualties at Cold Harbor is on the Footnotes where he says to see Rhea's discussion if the topic in his book.
 
There are Endnotes.

I decided to check the Lost Order as I know that Sear's interpretation has been a point of contention. As explained in the footnote, he stands by "12 M" as 12 Meridian (noon) and states Lincoln got his copy so late he was probably the one to add the "12 Midnight" notation. I think that's been his argument for a long time.

Checking another hot topic that came to mind: he doesn't quite Horace Porter's dubious claim of paper dog tags at Cold Harbor and his only comment on the number of casualties at Cold Harbor is on the Footnotes where he says to see Rhea's discussion if the topic in his book.

Just so we're clear, this is the "idnight" Sears claims is a later insertion....

ltrToLincoln.jpg
 
I've got a copy and it's basically a rehashing of his previous arguments.

There are a new interesting new quotes from letters, but the way Sears quotes I find difficult to trust.
 
I was in my local B&N and they had a stack of copies so I decided to take a glance. A few observations:

The book includes Pope among those looked at.

1861-1862 covers about 60% of the main text; the other 40% does go through the end of the war.

There are Endnotes.

I decided to check the Lost Order as I know that Sear's interpretation has been a point of contention. As explained in the footnote, he stands by "12 M" as 12 Meridian (noon) and states Lincoln got his copy so late he was probably the one to add the "12 Midnight" notation. I think that's been his argument for a long time.

Checking another hot topic that came to mind: he doesn't quite Horace Porter's dubious claim of paper dog tags at Cold Harbor and his only comment on the number of casualties at Cold Harbor is on the Footnotes where he says to see Rhea's discussion if the topic in his book.


That's interesting about the Lost Order. Are there any discussions on this elsewhere in the forum? I remember Sears briefly mentioning this in his Antietam book. I'm reading Lincoln's Lieutenants now.
 
I'm reading the book now and it's slow going---way more military detail than I expected, I was looking for a broader picture. I reckon it's thorough but not at all entertaining. And I read for entertainment as well as knowledge. Actually, after having read (and owned) hundreds of books on the war since the 1950s I now look for entertainment before knowledge. Maybe I should dig out my Golden Book on the Civil War. Or my Landmarks.
 
I wonder how it compares to T. Harry Williams' Lincoln and His Generals (1952)?

I still have my old copy from the '70s somewhere around the house.
 
I'm reading the book now and it's slow going---way more military detail than I expected, I was looking for a broader picture. I reckon it's thorough but not at all entertaining. And I read for entertainment as well as knowledge. Actually, after having read (and owned) hundreds of books on the war since the 1950s I now look for entertainment before knowledge. Maybe I should dig out my Golden Book on the Civil War. Or my Landmarks.

A lot of military detail and not enough maps for reference while reading. The book has numerous illustrations, but if it's going to detail campaigns and battles, I'd prefer maps instead.
 
A lot of military detail and not enough maps for reference while reading. The book has numerous illustrations, but if it's going to detail campaigns and battles, I'd prefer maps instead.

I agree, maps are poor.

I read on a Kindle reader and even good maps are reproduced poorly on it so I've taken to having my Ipad at hand with the maps needed. But that can be a pain.
 
Back
Top