Gettysburg : A Novel of the Civil War | Newt Gingrich, William Forstchen

Gettysburg : A Novel of the Civil War | Newt Gingrich, William Forstchen | Excellent Historical Novel

books:

Gettysburg : A Nov...

	Gettysburg : A Novel of the Civil War Newt Gingrich, William Forstchen, 2004 - 480 pages average customer review:based on 131 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

A Well Conceived Masterpiece of Alternate History

I just finished reading all three books in the series. They are all very good, but the first one is the best because it is the most plausible. Lee's Maryland/Pennsylvania campaign begins as normal, with Stuart out of control, Ewell dragging is feet, AP Hill sick with syphilis and the methodical Longstreet preaching on the pulpit of "defensive" warfare. Heth's men go to Gettysburg to get some shoes, Buford's men block them, Reynolds and O.O Howard's corps come, get routed by Hill and Ewell's corps. The Union saves the ridges along Culp's Hill on the night of July 2nd, and anchors a very strong position. So far so good, right? However, this is where EVERYTHING changes, when the authors theorize that something called "Lee's Epiphany" takes place, where Lee comes to the realization that to attack the hills and ridges south of Gettysburg would be an exercise in futility and he would be better suited to do what he does best: maneuver around an inexperienced Union general who is hopelessly outclassed.

Gettysburg is a book of curious "what ifs" that does not depend on improbable situations, introduction of future technology or privileged information (i.e., Lee's plans unexpectedly falling into the hands of the Union early in the Antietam campaign). Lee's sudden realization that he could out maneuver Meade; a former corp commander who was new to field army command, didn't know the components of his army all too well and was not well liked by his corp commanders; is a scenario that should of really happened instead of the self immolation of Pickett's Charge on July 4th.

Gingrich and Forstchen have clearly done their research. They have studied the character, personality and past actions of all the main characters and have accurately postulated the likely decisions that these leaders would make in critical, but fictitious, situations. Some of the thoughts and situations Gingrich and Forstchen have the major characters go through are: What would Meade do if he was cut off from Washington? How would Meade perform if he had to make a large number of strategic, campaign wide decisions in a chess-like battle of maneuver instead of a few "no brainer" tactical decisions that he made in the historical Gettysburg? Could Longsteet find the offensive aggressiveness to imitate Jackson? What would a Union "Pickett's Charge" be like? What would Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton do if they couldn't communicate with Meade? These questions along with many more are asked and answered in a tightly woven yarn in breathtaking and lurid detail.

PLEASE do not avoid getting this book because of the political views of the author. This may or may not be well known, but Gingrich has a PhD in History from Tulane University. At least in this book (and the other two books in the series), Gingrich is a historian first and never does any of his politics seep into the pages. If you are an avid fan of Civil War history, but avoid this book because of your prejudices against Newt the politician, without knowing Newt the historian, it will definitely be your loss.

for more information click here

Excellent Historical Novel

Great research into the subject. Great imagination! Very enjoyable use of the concept of "active history".

Lee wins at Gettysburg, and other things they conspired to keep from you in High School history class

The former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has teamed with a history professor William Forstchen to craft an alternative fictional view of the Civil War. After they lay out the historically accurate first day events at Gettysburg, they slip into a hypothetical view. This is what could have happened if Lee had listened to those near him, who knew that fighting an offensive battle on ground chosen by the Union was a losing proposition.

In this version, Lee sends Ewell, Pickett, and Longstreet on a vast flanking march into northern Maryland on day 2 of the Gettysburg campaign. In reality Lee sent Pickett into the center of the heavily defended Union lines where his corps was anihilated. Only one man survived Pickett's charge and reached the Union lines.

The rebels are then able to control several Maryland towns including Emmittsburg, Tawneytown, and the railhead at Westminster, and to capture huge quantities of badly needed Union supplies. Longstreet then turns the tables on history, by setting up a defensible position along a Maryland creek.

As the rebels are now behind the Union lines and between the Army of the Potomac and its capital, Mead is determined to attack, at any cost, in spite of overwhelming odds and poor fighting ground. Mead is routed, Lee outflanks the retreat and the Army of the Potomac appears doomed.

Of course, Lincoln won't give up so easily. Remnants of the Army of the Potomac escape across the Susquehanna, regroup under new commanders, and Lincoln summons US Grant to the Eastern front (but that is volume 2 of this trilogy).

Like me, Newt Gingrich is from central Pennsylvania; although he later moved to Georgia and achieved some notoriety there and in DC. The Speaker is familiar with Gettysburg and the role of the Pennsylvanians who fought there, including Generals Reynolds and Mead. Gingrich clearly thinks that the rebel leadership was superior in character, integrity, and intellect to that on the side of the Union, and he might be right about that.

General Sickles is given an interesting treatment; he is the New York politician who became a Union general, although better known as the congressman who got away with murder. Sickles shot a friend, another prominent Washingtonian named Key, a descendant of the famous lawyer-songwriter, who was having an affair with Sickles' wife.

Ultimately Sickles was found innocent by reasons of insanity, reunited with his wife, and got with his military and political careers. Gingrich paints Sickles very sympathetically, with Sickles showing much better judgement than Mead and likely poised for a bigger role with the new Army of the Potomac. Clearly Gingrich likes to see politicians do well in other areas of endeavor and he is sensitive to those with marital strife.

This book is for Civil War fanatics and not necessarily for the general public, but it is a fascinating view of how our history and country could have changed so completely if one decision made late at night by an exhausted and sick man had been reversed. In 2006, there could be several nations between Canada and Mexico, speaking various languages, and the Europeans could be living under repressive dictatorships and monarchies.

for more information click here

An Interesting Premise ...

... but the way the story unfolds after the divergence from the historical decision is a little too obvious. Anyone with a knowledge of the historic three-day battle at Gettysburg will immediately notice the parallels with Pickett's Charge. While overall an entertaining novel, the historic "irony" was a little too much for this Son of Pennsylvania ... Read Coddington's "A Study in Command" on Gettysburg ... history makes for a better read.

Somewhat stilted, and repeats as fact a "chesnut" stereotype that undercuts the book's whole premise

I'll cut straight to the chase on the "chesnut" stereotype. (And, are there that many Newt fans who think he's the next Bruce Catton? Or Lost Cause fans who can't accept that you can't stereotype Longstreet?)

On page 11, the authors have Lee saying to himself: "Then there was Longstreet. ... Sold, methodical, reliable, but everyone knew that he could be too methodical, slow, and firm of opinion."

Fact: Lee did, in 1862, call Longstreet "slow."

The complete fact: In the same breath, he called Jackson "slower yet."

Longstreet was the only top general in the Army of Northern Virginia who was not a Virginian. So, when the myth of the "Lost Cause" arose, especially as abated by Douglas Southall Freeman, Longstreet became the ideal scapegoat.

As Longstreet later showed at Chickamauga, he definitely was not slow.

Now, how does the stereotypical view of Longstreet undercut this book's premise? Well, if Longstreet really were THAT slow, or methodical to the point of sluggardness, would Lee have ever considered such a flanking movement as the authors have him propose?

Oops....

Otherwise, the particular counterfactual premise is relatively sound, but the authors' acceptance of legend as fact, and the illogical using of it, combined with the stiltedness I noted, get this book marked down a couple of stars.

for more information click here