Stephen Sears Books:

[Nathan Towne]

Hey everyone,

I just want to put out a quick question to everyone here, as I know that his books are very highly read. I have only read one of them, Chancellorsville, in full and I have long been a big fan. I have read most of it twice, actually and while I do have a few areas of disagreement (he is much too trusting of the voluminous accounts of people who stated later on that they had gone out on the right of the Army on May 2nd due to their suspicions that the Army was being turned deep on its right flank, for instance, in my view), I think that it is a great operational study overall.

I have read bits of To The Gates of Richmond and of The Young Napoleon and while they both have value, I wasn't quite as impressed, overall, especially in his coverage of McClellan, which, as everyone knows, is highly critical and I find to be somewhat superficial that way.

Due to the degree to which his books are widely read, what are your perceptions overall?

 

[67th Tigers]

I doubted Sears from my first read of "Gates."

I knew from reports etc. that there was a telegraphic connection between McClellan during his visit to the Galena, and that reports and orders flowed. Sears claimed there was no such thing. He outright stated, contrary to the primary record, that McClellan was unaware of event.

Hence, on reading that, which was a core part of his case, I knew his arguments were flawed and incorrect.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I think his Gettysburg is the best single-volume treatment of the battle and campaign.

I'm sure there's valid criticism of his opinions of McClellan, but I'd give them a lot more credence if the people who usually posted about them weren't die-hard McClellan apologists (see also criticisms of Grant by Rosecrans apologists).

Much of Sears' work related to McClellan was done in the 1980s so I'd expect it to be a bit obscelent.

 

[121st PA Vols]

Hey everyone,

I just want to put out a quick question to everyone here, as I know that his books are very highly read. I have only read one of them, Chancellorsville, in full and I have long been a big fan. I have read most of it twice, actually and while I do have a few areas of disagreement (he is much too trusting of the voluminous accounts of people who stated later on that they had gone out on the right of the Army on May 2nd due to their suspicions that the Army was being turned deep on its right flank, for instance, in my view), I think that it is a great operational study overall.

I have read bits of To The Gates of Richmond and of The Young Napoleon and while they both have value, I wasn't quite as impressed, overall, especially in his coverage of McClellan, which, as everyone knows, is highly critical and I find to be somewhat superficial that way.

Due to the degree to which his books are widely read, what are your perceptions overall?

I enjoyed Chancellorsville (pub-1996) quite a bit, Landscape Turned Red (1983) about Antietam and Gettysburg (2004), particularly the maps by George Skoch in Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. Sears isn't shy with sketches and photos that I enjoyed more in Gettysburg as they accompanied relevant chapters as opposed to all gathered in one section.

I thought there were a few small errors in Gettysburg but don't want to be too picky as a native and life-long student of the battle. They were all read years ago, the most recent 15 years (Gburg), long enough to hesitate being critical. Each was a good and easy read, well researched.

 

[Belfoured]

I doubted Sears from my first read of "Gates."

I knew from reports etc. that there was a telegraphic connection between McClellan during his visit to the Galena, and that reports and orders flowed. Sears claimed there was no such thing. He outright stated, contrary to the primary record, that McClellan was unaware of event.

Hence, on reading that, which was a core part of his case, I knew his arguments were flawed and incorrect.

and that reports and orders flowed.

Not "during his visit to the Galena" did they "flow". We eagerly wait - yet again - the text of one order from the Galena to anybody at the crossroads or White Oak. Of course, to be fair there wasn't a "telegraphic connection" to the Galena. There was a signal flag "connection", such as it was. Off to the races ....

 

[breckod]

His views on McClellan are a bit much, and I feel the same about his apologism for Joe Hooker in the Chancellorsville book. His Gettysburg book though would probably be my recommended starting point for someone looking to read one book on the battle, it's largely in line with Coddington but is a lot more accessible in terms of the writing.

 

[rpkennedy]

His views on McClellan are a bit much, and I feel the same about his apologism for Joe Hooker in the Chancellorsville book. His Gettysburg book though would probably be my recommended starting point for someone looking to read one book on the battle, it's largely in line with Coddington but is a lot more accessible in terms of the writing.

Agreed. If you're going to read one book on Gettysburg, Sears' is the best single-volume work on the entire battle.

Ryan

 

[Nathan Towne]

Not "during his visit to the Galena" did they "flow". We eagerly wait - yet again - the text of one order from the Galena to anybody at the crossroads or White Oak. Of course, to be fair there wasn't a "telegraphic connection" to the Galena. There was a signal flag "connection", such as it was. Off to the races ....

@Belfoured

In fairness, signal flags are "telegraphic" communication. I understand that you meant the electronic telegraph, though.

His views on McClellan are a bit much, and I feel the same about his apologism for Joe Hooker in the Chancellorsville book. His Gettysburg book though would probably be my recommended starting point for someone looking to read one book on the battle, it's largely in line with Coddington but is a lot more accessible in terms of the writing.

I still need to read some of that book. Coddington is just extraordinary.

 

[67th Tigers]

Not "during his visit to the Galena" did they "flow". We eagerly wait - yet again - the text of one order from the Galena to anybody at the crossroads or White Oak. Of course, to be fair there wasn't a "telegraphic connection" to the Galena. There was a signal flag "connection", such as it was. Off to the races ....

Telegraph means "distant writing," and telegraphs were originally optical. Well done on all the incorrect scare quotes.

Still, don't let little things like the actual meaning of words get in your way...

 

[Saphroneth]

Telegraph means "distant writing," and telegraphs were originally optical.

Thus the dozen-plus places in the world called Telegraph Hill, and why the Beardslee Electric Telegraph was called the Electric Telegraph, and so on and so forth.

Sears saying there was no telegraph communication to a ship should at once raise questions if he obviously meant the Electric Telegraph, because how would such a thing work? If there is any implication of being out of contact then the implication is false, because McClellan was in contact; if Sears would only be satisfied by a ship connected by electric telegraph to the shore, then let's hope the ship doesn't ever have to move or there will be a very loud twang...

 

[Belfoured]

Telegraph means "distant writing," and telegraphs were originally optical. Well done on all the incorrect scare quotes.

Still, don't let little things like the actual meaning of words get in your way...

telegraphs were originally optical

And that had changed by 1862. That's why communications differentiated between "telegraph" and "signal". But you knew that ...

 

[Belfoured]

Thus the dozen-plus places in the world called Telegraph Hill, and why the Beardslee Electric Telegraph was called the Electric Telegraph, and so on and so forth.

Sears saying there was no telegraph communication to a ship should at once raise questions if he obviously meant the Electric Telegraph, because how would such a thing work? If there is any implication of being out of contact then the implication is false, because McClellan was in contact; if Sears would only be satisfied by a ship connected by electric telegraph to the shore, then let's hope the ship doesn't ever have to move or there will be a very loud twang...

Of course, what Sears could have meant was that by being on the Galena McClellan was away from what everybody even in 1862 knew was meant by "telegraph". I missed all of those numerous references in the OR to "telegraph" where the word is preceded by the clarifying term "electronic". Must have caused a great deal of confusion.

 

[Saphroneth]

Of course, what Sears could have meant was that by being on the Galena McClellan was away from what everybody even in 1862 knew was meant by "telegraph". I missed all of those numerous references in the OR to "telegraph" where the word is preceded by the clarifying term "electronic". Must have caused a great deal of confusion.

If Sears really does mean only the electric telegraph when he says that McClellan was "without telegraphic communications" - does that mean anywhere else is IN telegraph contact?

The army was communicating as a matter of course by optical telegaph on June 30, including to Haxalls (station 32) and the Galena (station 31), but if Sears means only the electric telegraph (which is the only version in which what he says is not either incorrect or a lie, being merely misleading) then there doesn't seem to be anywhere that's actually connected - the wagons with the electric telegraph instruments and wires were at Haxall's on the 30th, having been moved there after an attempt to run it across White Oak Swamp during Savage's Station was given up.

Meanwhile, Haxalls and the Galena (as noted) were both in contact by optical telegraph, or "signals" as it's generally referred in the ORs.


Basically, saying McClellan isn't in telegraphic comunications is either a pointless sentence (if he means electric telegraph, because nothing is at this point) or intended to imply that McClellan is unable to be reached in the way that someone distant from the action would be today. If Sears intended to mean that second one, however, it's either a mistake or a lie because McClellan was very much in contact - he could in fact be reached very nearly as quickly as if he were at Malvern Hill, in fact. The signal time from the Malvern Hill station to Galena is no more than about four minutes one-way (at least eleven messages* are sent during the sub-one-hour that McClellan is on the ship, including periods of lull when messages are not being sent) so it's about equivalent to McClellan being less than a mile from the Malvern Hill signals station.

Then when McClellan goes to the Galena the communication time is no different from Haxalls. In both cases it's signals from station 27 (Malvern) to another station within line of sight.




*
1) Signal to report communication open
2 And reply

Pause until there is news to report

3) Signal about advancing enemy river column
4) And reply (how far)
5) Signal about distance of enemy river column
6) And reply (we will go and shell them)

Movement to shelling point (unknown amount of time)

Signals about gunnery:
7) Fire one mile to the right
8) Good shot
9) Fire low and into the woods near the shore
"and so on" (an unknown period of gunnery)

10) First lull in the firing, McClellan inquires about the rest of the fighting
11) And the reply sees him get off the ship

 

[Nathan Towne]

Of course, what Sears could have meant was that by being on the Galena McClellan was away from what everybody even in 1862 knew was meant by "telegraph". I missed all of those numerous references in the OR to "telegraph" where the word is preceded by the clarifying term "electronic". Must have caused a great deal of confusion.

Yes, I certainly understood what you meant and the term was often used in that context. It is often used in that manner in the historiography, as well. However, you will occasionally see officers state that they received "signal telegraph," or something along those lines, which is technically the accurate use of the word.

 

[67th Tigers]

And that had changed by 1862. That's why communications differentiated between "telegraph" and "signal". But you knew that ...

No I didn't, because they hadn't.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

I consider Steve to be a friend--he has always been very supportive of my work and wrote the foreword to my biography of Ulric Dahlgren. He's a gentleman in the truest sense of the word.

I have always admired his easy narrative writing style. It seems effortless to me, and as a writer myself, I can really appreciate that.

On the downside, he always seems to have a theme to his books:

Landscape Turned Red: McClellan bad.

To the Gates of Richmond: McClellan REALLY bad.

Chancellorsville: Hooker good, all other Union officers bad.

Gettysburg: Stuart and Longstreet bad.

I find that trend troubling.

With all of that said, if you appreciate brilliant writing, then his books are can't miss. So long as you go into them understanding that he's got a theme and are willing to overlook that, ever single one of his books has merit and is worthy of reading.

 

[breckod]

The Sears book on Gettysburg is pretty pro-Longstreet to my recollection. In the conclusion, Sears states that Longstreet was the only one of Lee's major subordinates who performed up to expectations and is pretty dismissive of the Lost Cause version of Longstreet.

 

[Sbc]

I consider Steve to be a friend--he has always been very supportive of my work and wrote the foreword to my biography of Ulric Dahlgren. He's a gentleman in the truest sense of the word.

I have always admired his easy narrative writing style. It seems effortless to me, and as a writer myself, I can really appreciate that.

On the downside, he always seems to have a theme to his books:

Landscape Turned Red: McClellan bad.

To the Gates of Richmond: McClellan REALLY bad.

Chancellorsville: Hooker good, all other Union officers bad.

Gettysburg: Stuart and Longstreet bad.

I find that trend troubling.

With all of that said, if you appreciate brilliant writing, then his books are can't miss. So long as you go into them understanding that he's got a theme and are willing to overlook that, ever single one of his books has merit and is worthy of reading.

Everyone has a viewpoint no matter how impartial they try to be(or appear); akin to the observer effect in physics. It's human nature.

 

[Nathan Towne]

The Sears book on Gettysburg is pretty pro-Longstreet to my recollection. In the conclusion, Sears states that Longstreet was the only one of Lee's major subordinates who performed up to expectations and is pretty dismissive of the Lost Cause version of Longstreet.

Hey @breckod,

I recently purchased a copy.

There were certainly potential areas of criticism (McLaws was critical of Longstreet at Gettysburg in his personal letters), but the types of criticisms which I think that you are referring to here (July 2nd daylight attack order, e.t.c.) are just flatly untrue.

 

[breckod]

Hey @breckod,

I recently purchased a copy.

There were certainly potential areas of criticism (McLaws was critical of Longstreet at Gettysburg in his personal letters), but the types of criticisms which I think that you are referring to here (July 2nd daylight attack order, e.t.c.) are just flatly untrue.

Agreed, and McLaws certainly had a number of valid complaints about Longstreet later from Tennessee.