To the Gates of Richmond: The Peninsula Campaign

Robert E. Lee's overly ambitious tactics, poorly drafted orders, and the Army of Northern Virginia's sloppy execution of his battle plans, are highlighted in Stephen W. Sears's history of the Peninsula Campaign in "To the Gates of Richmond." The problems which plagued Lee's army are compared with the arrogant bombasts and cowering timidity of "the young Napoleon," Gen. George B. McClellan. The author recounts McClellan's masterful strategy of making an amphibious landing on the lower Virginia peninsula, slowly and seemingly inexoribly advancing up that peninsula until his army was close enough to Richmond to hear the church bells and shows how Lee's ambitious and aggressive attacks caused McClellan to lose all nerve and to "snatch show more defeat from the jaws of victory. Relying on personal accounts of both common soldiers and ranking officers, Sears illustrates the hapless incompetence of both armies in this early campaign, the largest in terms of numbers of troops that would occur during the Civil War. History tells us that the Army of Northern Virginia and its legendary campaign would learn from their mistakes and improve, while McClellan would not and would be cast aside by Lincoln and history. Sears is a gifted author and this is an excellent and balanced account of an important seminal campaign of the American Civil War. show less

Yes, i like it. Yes, it is a well paced narrative of the story of McClellan's failed foray down to Richmond in 1862. Well told, generally fair. But.... and this will be a general comment because it does sort of drive me crazy in countless civil war books, but this books sort of epitomizes the bias of extolling Lee at the expense of all else. Throughout the Peninsula campaign, Lee barely triumphs- often due to McClellan's cautious bungling and misjudgments. But... it is never Lee's fault that things go wrong... it is always his people who don't write his orders down correctly or commanders practically willfully misreading his supposed intent. Never is it Lee... bungling. And yet... for McClellan and well, for everyone else (south show more included) they are simply "wrong" (or - though the author doesn't use these words: stupid, lazy, cowardly, slow, etc). As i mention this courses though these civil war histories - even supposedly objective (non south leaning, like this one) is suffused with this Lee worship. But when he isn't clear with orders and doesn't have the alignment right and the battle fails... isn't that his fault (as it would be if it were McClellan or anyone else)? show less