Pickett's Charge: A Microhistory of the Final Attack at Gettysburg, July 3, 1863 (review)

Book Reviews217 rninimizes slavery as a cause of the Civil War, James G. Randall is quoted in part as follows: "If one word or phrase were selected to account for the war, that word would not be slavery, or economic grievance, or state rights, or diverse civilizations. It would have to be such a word as fanaticism (on both sides), misunderstanding, misrepresentation, or perhaps politics." In other words, thewar was the product of "a blundering generation." There is a strong inference that wiser and more restrained men might have avoided the conflict. Conversely, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., takes the position that, given the issues of that day (including slavery), violence was inevitable. "To reject the moral actuality of the Civil War is to foreclose the possibility of an adequate account of its causes. . . . Nothing exists in history to assure us that the great moral dilemmas can be resolved without pain." Mr. Stampp is to be commendedforhis skill as an editor. His choiceofselections reprinted in this source book is generally good. Some which might well have been included were omitted. One wonders why Thomas R. Dew and William Lloyd Garrison were not quoted in the chapter on "The Right and Wrong of Slavery." But no anthology of reasonable length could include all the pertinent references. All in all, this is a remarkably useful volume. W. A. Mabry Randolph-Macon College Pickett's Charge: A Microhistory of the Final Attack at Gettysburg, July 3, 1863. By George R. Stewart. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1959. Pp. xn, 354. $5.00.) t? George R. Stewart, his new book, Pickett's Charge, serves as more than just an account of the immortal assault of 3 July 1863. He states that he "approach [ed] the charge ... as a microcosm," and believes that by this technique "we may be able to see the war as clearly by looking minutely and carefully at a period of a few hours as by looking extensively and dimly throughout four years." And, he goes on, "may it not supply more than a mere vignette of military history? Much of human nature, good and bad, displays itself on a batdefield. In a sense, even, the charge may stand for all human life. Some time in the years, if not daily, must not each of us hear the command to rise and go forward, and cross the field, and go up against the guns?" Stewart feels that if "the Civil War furnishes the great dramatic episode of the history of the United States, and [if] Gettysburg provides the climax of the war, then the climax of the climax, the central moment of our history, must be Pickett's Charge." While military historians may contest the statement as to the decisiveness of Pickett's attack in the big picture of the war, few will challenge the view that Stewart's book is an impressive and valuable contribution to the groaning shelf of works on Gettysburg. So thoroughly has the author combed the primary sources andsecondary studies, Union and Confederate alike, and so carefully has he reconstructed the story of the great onslaught, that it appears unlikely that there will be need for another such volume within the next genera- tion. The book is nicely balanced between the Blue side and the Gray, and covers just the fifteen hours surrounding the attack itself. Very few pertinent documents and printed sources have been overlooked by the author, as the unusually full but uncritical bibliography attests. While the footnotes are unfortunately in the back of the book, they are varied and ample. A number of the appendices are useful, especially those dealing with such topics as, "Confederate Losses," "Fire-Power and Losses," and the nature and value of the batüefield today. The Index is fairly adequate. Helpful to the reader is the generous inclusion of a number of maps and terrain photographs . Thepace of the narrative, though shifting back and forth from Federal to Confederate lines, and although usually dealing with but a comparatively few minutes of time at a span, is swift and sure. Most satisfying is the author's blending of critiques on strategy and tactics with accounts of personal incidents . Less convincing, however...