I have just recently gotten back into Civil War History after about a 5 year lapse. I read Foote's Fredericksburg to Meridian (Part II of his massive trilogy) in August. In that book, I learned about the Battles of Chancellorsville and Gettysburg - as well as others. In looking for books on Chancellorsville, I came across this one by Stephen Sears. I bought it along with Gettysburg as well as his others on Antietam and the Peninsula Campaign. I also read the reviews on Chancellorsville and I saw some that indicated this book was a defense of General Hooker.

After reading this book in a mere two weeks, I did not find it to be a defense of Hooker but more of a realistic approach to what Hooker did after he took over for Burnside. Hooker did many great things during his time as head of the Army before the Battle of Chancellorsville. However, Mr. Sears did not leave out his shortcomings during the actual battle. He points out that his decision to abandon Hazel Grove was one of the biggest mistakes of the battle. He also points out that Hooker's decision to retreat was a mistake since Lee had sent some of his army facing Hooker to take on the VI Corps at Fredericksburg. Lastly, Mr. Sears tells of Hooker's mistake in not turing over command of the Army to General Couch after his being wounded. I did not find this book to be an argument in favor of Hooker and against the generals under him.

There is no doubt that the generals under Hooker, at least a couple of them (Generals Howard and Stoneman)failed Hooker. This is made very clear in the book. But Mr. Sears does not excuse Hooker for these failures totally. The failure of the XI Corps was not totally of Hooker's doing but more because of Howard. This comes through loud and clear in the book.

This is a very good book. It is easy to read and understand. It is easy to get bogged down in the names of the generals and whether they are confederate or union but Mr. Sears made this easy for he put the names of the units behind them so if you know what states were fighting for the Union and what states were Confederate, then it is not difficult. The pace of the book is very good. I did not find any part of the book borning or tedious. I now have a much better understanding of the battle. In fact, I have already begun Mr. Sears' book on Gettysburg and am already 50 pages into it and am liking it very much.

I am looking forward to finishing Gettysburg and then moving on to the other books I have that Mr. Sears wrote. I highly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in the Civil War and specifically the eastern theater.

This is the first book I have read that covers the battle. I did notice one reviewer not believing in the author's laying the blame for the Northern defeat in the commanders as opposed to General Hooker himself. It is hard for me to believe this after reading the book. The author gives highly introspective technical reasons for making this
conclusion. The only slightly negative to me about the book was the description of the positioning of the troops during the battle itself (with the names of the officers) which tended to bog me down. Nonetheless the description of the logistics of these battles like the signaling and communication problems the north had and life among the troops on both sides was outstanding.

None of Lee's battles has generated the mythology of Chancellorsville. Gettysburg, for all the analysis, for all the questions, for all the "would have one the war" cannot compare to Chancellorsville. This battle even influences the mythology of Gettysburg by maintaining that if Jackson had not been killed, he would have won that battle. Rightfully regarded as Lee's greatest victory, clocked in the emotion of Jackson's death the battle has few books and none this good.
Sears is one of our best authors with impressive knowledge of the Eastern Theater and the ability to tell a great story. Once more, he brings all of that to the table producing a battle history that is informative, detailed and fun to read. This is one of his best books and one of the lest known.
After Fredericksburg and the Mud March, Union moral was at an all time low. Badly used, deprived of the popular McClellan the army was rift with problems and crying for leadership. "Fighting" Joe Hooker, who had intrigued against Burnside, is given his chance at beating "Bobby" Lee. This is the story of how Hooker rebuilds the army and leads it to the worst defeat it will suffer. Lee and Jackson outnumbered and out of position decide on a plan born of desperation and pull it off.
How that happened, largely due to multiple failures of the Union generals is the story. Sears presents the full picture from Stoneman's failed cavalry raid to Slocum's cautious attacks at Fredericksburg. This is much more than Jackson's march and flank attack and the book details these failures in very readable detail.
If you are looking for two excellent battle books, read this first and Gettysburg second.

This book is another one in the series of Civil War battle books that Sears has been putting out. I suppose for readers learning about the battles for the first time the author does a thorough if far from consise job of describing the battle. Sears attempts to add something new by straining to shift the blame for the Union disaster off of Hooker's shoulders but without success. He also tries to argue that this battle was essentially a draw while ignoring the fact that the campaign was an enormous missed opportunity, wasted thousands of lives and caused deep morale and command issues. Of course Lee had command issues of his own which became vividly apparent at Gettysburg. While trying to shift the blame from Hooker to his generals like Howard, Stoneman and Shedgwick the authors ignores the important point the Hooker was responsible for giving these weak leaders important commands and underutilizing his best generals, Meade, Hancock and Reynolds. Anyone who has read Battles and Leaders or any of the personal memoirs or Freeman will find these books kind of disposable.

Mr. Sears has definitely written another masterpiece. "Chancellorsville" begins with the revolt of the generals in the Union's Army of the Potomac in the aftermath of the Union disaster at Fredericksburg. With Gen. Burnside losing popularity, Lincoln replaced him with Gen. "Fighting Joe" Hooker. Hooker reorganized the command structure of the Army of the Potomac and made several reforms that proved beneficial to the foot soldiers. These included the organization of the Calvary Corps, several health related reforms, visiting reforms that helped stopped desertion, the elimination of Grand Divisions, the removal of weak or incompetent officers, and the bad reform of dividing artillery. All the while, Hooker was making a grand plan to whip Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. On the Southern side, Lee embarassed the Union at the battle of Fredericksburg. Gen. Longstreet, however, saw that the army needed supplies and set out with Hood and Pickett's divisions to besiege Suffolk in order to get these supplies on Apr. 4. On Apr. 27, Hooker's plan rolled into action as the Fifth, Eleventh, and Twelth Corps began their long turning movement and the majority of the calvary began its deep south raid. The plan continued on Apr. 28 and 29 with the long turning movement continued, the Second and Third Corps begining a small turning movement, and the Sixth and First Corps seizing a bridgehead on the Rppahannock. Leaving Early's division to guard Marye's Heights, Lee and Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson moved with the rest of the army to intercept the Union's Fifth, Twelth, Eleventh, and Second Corps on May 1. Mr. Sears excelently describes the confused fighting on May 1 as the two armies stumbled upon each other in the Wilderness. During the night, Lee and Jackson met to discuss the situation. Jackson volunteered to make a twelve-mile march around the Union army to attack its exposed left flank with the Rodes, Colston, and A.P. Hill's divisions on May 2. Throughout May 2, Hooker gathered all but the Sixth Corps to meet any attack while Jackson made his march. At 5:30 pm, Jackson's troops charged out from the woods and threw the 11th Corps into disorder. However, that night Jackson was severely wounded by friendly fire and A.P. Hill was hit by canister shortly after taking charge. Wisely, Hill sought out Jeb Stuart to take command. May 3 became the decisive day of the battle as Jeb Stuart rutlessly attacked the Union army in order to reunite his force with the main army and succeded. Sedgwick's Sixth Corps also attacked and captured Marye's Heights and entered the Wilderness. Quick action by McClaw's division saved Lee from a rear assault. On May 4, Lee shifted the bulk of his army to attacked and destroy the Sixth Corps but failed. In the end, Hooker lost his nerve and retreated back across the Rapidan, his plan in shambles. All of these actions are vividly depicted by Sears as if you're actually there. All in all, this is the book to get if you want to learn more about the Hooker era in the Army of the Potomac.

Steven Sears' book is a well detailed account of the events surrounding the Union and Confederacy in early 1863, culminating in the battle of Chancellorsville in May of that same year.

Most historians would argue that until Ulysses S. Grant came from out West in 1864 to prod George Meade, the Army of the Potomac was led by a series of promising but ultimately inept battlefield generals. Following the infamous "Mud March" in January of '63 president Lincoln, despite reservations, replaced the incompetent Ambrose Burnside with Joseph Hooker. Inadvertently nicknamed "Fighting Joe" by a reporter, Sears points out that there could not have been a more appropriate nickname for the general. Sears details how Hooker set about to restore the morale that had been sorely lacking in the Union Army following the defeat at Fredricksburg in the previous December. Within a couple months of his appointment, Hooker had cut desertion rates dramatically and inspired a sense of pride that was long missing in the Army of the Potomac.

With most of Longstreet's Corps detached from the Army of Northern Virginia and a number of Union regiment's service set to expire within weeks, Hooker decided to begin his offensive in early May. Sears argues that Hooker made one of the most successful feats of the War, when he managed to cross his army of over 100,000 men over the Rappahannock and maneuver into the rear of the Lee's army without a shot being fired. Despite the promising start for Hooker, what followed as Sears points out was some less then stellar decisions made on the Union side, some bad luck, and a series of bold moves by Robert E. Lee. The battle would end with yet another Union offensive on Richmond being halted in it's tracks by Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.

Most emphatically, Sears dispels the notion that the battle was lost mainly because Hooker "lost his nerve". Sears rightfully points out that the battle was lost mainly because of the actions of 3 Union generals, Sedgwick, Stoneman and Howard, a concussion that knocked Hooker out of commission during crucial moments of the 2nd day's battle and most importantly the daring actions of Robert E. Lee. Sears points out that Lee simply "outgeneraled" Hooker and in that respect he wasn't alone.

The book argues that the outcome of the battle wasn't the resounding Confederate victory that some would lead us to believe. The disparity in casualties wasn't vast, with the Confederates actually suffering more dead, and Lee losing perhaps his best lieutenant in Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. The Union army while certainly on the losing end wasn't necessarily demoralized like in their previous battle.

Overall, I would consider this the definitive book on the Chancellorsville campaign and would recommend it to all Civil War buffs out there.

Steven Sears' book is a well detailed account of the events surrounding the Union and Confederacy in early 1863, culminating in the battle of Chancellorsville in May of that same year.

Most historians would argue that until Ulysses S. Grant came from out West in 1864 to prod George Meade, the Army of the Potomac was led by a series of promising but ultimately inept battlefield generals. Following the infamous "Mud March" in January of '63 president Lincoln, despite some reservations, replaced the incompetent Ambrose Burnside with Joseph Hooker. Nicknamed "Fighting Joe" inadvertently by a reporter, Sears points out that there could not have been a more appropriate nickname for the general. Sears details how Hooker set about to restore the morale that had been sorely lacking following the defeat at Fredricksburg in the previous December. Within a couple months of his appointment, Hooker had cut desertion rates dramatically and inspired a sense of pride that was long missing in the Army of the Potomac.

With most of Longstreet's Corps detached from the Army of Northern Virginia and a number of Union regiment's service set to expire within weeks, Hooker decided to begin his offensive in early May. Sears argues that Hooker made one of the most successful feats of the War, when he managed to cross his army of over 100,000 men over the Rappahannock and maneuver into the rear of the Lee's army without a shot being fired. Despite the promising start for Hooker, what followed as Sears points out, was a series of bold moves by Robert E. Lee, some less then stellar decisions made on the Union side and ultimately some bad luck. The battle would end with yet another Union offensive on Richmond being halted in it's tracks by Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.

Most emphatically, Sears dispels the notion that the battle was lost mainly because Hooker "lost his nerve". Sears rightfully points out that the battle was lost mainly because of the actions of 3 Union generals, Sedgwick, Stoneman and Howard, the concussion that knocked Hooker out of commission during crucial moments of the 2nd day's battle and most importantly the daring actions of Robert E. Lee.

The book argues that the outcome of the battle wasn't the resounding Confederate victory that some would lead us to believe. The disparity in casualties wasn't vast, with the Confederates actually suffering more dead, and Lee losing perhaps his best lieutenant in Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. The Union army while certainly on the losing end wasn't necessarily demoralized like in their previous battle.

Overall, I would consider this the definitive book on the Chancellorsville campaign and would recommend it to all Civil War buffs out there.

Steven Sears' book is a well detailed account of the events surrounding the Union and Confederacy in early 1863, culminating in the battle of Chancellorsville in May of that same year.

Most historians would argue that until Ulysses S. Grant came from out West in 1864 to prod George Meade, the Army of the Potomac was led by a series of promising but ultimately inept battlefield generals. Following the infamous "Mud March" in January of '63 president Lincoln, despite some reservations, replaced the incompetent Ambrose Burnside with Joseph Hooker. Nicknamed "Fighting Joe" inadvertently by a reporter, Sears points out that there could not have been a more appropriate nickname for the general. Sears details how Hooker set about to restore the morale that had been sorely lacking following the defeat at Fredricksburg in the previous December. Within a couple months of his appointment, Hooker had cut desertion rates dramatically and inspired a sense of pride that was sorely lacking from the Union Army.

With most of Longstreet's Corps detached from the Army of Northern Virginia and a number of Union regiment's service set to expire within weeks, Hooker decided to begin his offensive in early May. Sears argues that Hooker made one of the most successful feats of the War, when he managed to cross his army of over 100,000 men over the Rappahannock and maneuver into the rear of the Lee's army without a shot being fired. What followed Sears points out, was a series of bold moves by Robert E. Lee, some less then stellar decisions on the Union side and ultimately some bad luck.

Most emphatically, Sears dispels the notion that the battle was lost mainly because Hooker "lost his nerve". Sears rightfully points out that the battle was lost mainly because of the actions of 3 Union generals, Sedgwick, Stoneman and Howard, the concussion that knocked Hooker out of commission during crucial moments of the 2nd days battle and finally the daring actions of Robert E. Lee.

The book argues that the outcome of the battle wasn't the resounding Confederate victory that some would lead us to believe. The disparity in casualties wasn't vast, with the Confederates actually suffering more dead, and Lee losing perhaps his best lieutenant in Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. The Union army while certainly on the losing end wasn't necessarily demoralized like in their previous battle.

Overall, I would consider this the definitive book on the Chancellorsville campaign.

This battle, and Sears writing on it lets the Civil War expand beyond the usual books about the more popular battles. I have read all of Sears books and enjoyed this one very much. Chancellorsville was where Jackson hit his highest high, and lowest low.

It is not easy to imagine a more definitive work replacing Sears' book at some future time, unless some surprisingly useful material comes to light or an author articulates some unexpectedly fresh theme.



The debate with this book is not the comprehensive nature, the sources, the accuracy, or the writing itself. Clearly Mr. Sears did extensive research and was most impressive in his incorporation of the reports and memoirs of the participants, many of which had to be quite obscure. Instead, the argument would have to focus on perceived bias or Sears' emphasis and conclusions, and whether those undermine the book. If you think Joseph Hooker was a drunken hack or that Robert E. Lee was the finest general in the history of man, you probably won't enjoy this volume.



People with more expertise than I have can debate the finer points. I particularly liked that Sears pulled no punches in pointing out mistakes in planning, execution, strategy, character and so on. Quite a few people come in for some smacks that seem well deserved (e.g., Howard, Stoneman, and Sedgwick). I liked the praise for Hooker in getting the army organized and ready, and in conceiving a plan that probably should have led to victory. That praise added to the credibility when Sears contrasted the early promise with Hooker's subsequent failures and the end result.



Sears also gives a balanced view of General Lee, complimenting him appropriately for many things, while also emphasizing the tremendous luck that assisted the Rebels greatly. The luck was also sometimes not random luck, as with the weather, but in reality incompetence of his foes and however you want to categorize the faulty communication system of the Union. General Lee comes across as fearless, bold, and creative, but not as some superstar towering over everyone else. His actual role is somewhat de-emphasized, given that he had direct command of the right half of the Rebels when Jackson split for the flanking operation. The whole story of Jackson's move, attack, and wounding easily is one of the highlights.



The Union's communication problems were one of the details that had a fresh perspective for this reader. I hadn't realized they were so significant. Such analysis as this, and there are many other examples, lifts the book above the battle chronology and troop movements.



In fact, someone already familiar with the battle itself might even consider reading only the first third or half of the book and the analysis at the end, including the appendices. The scene setting from Fredericksburg through the ascension of Hooker and his revival of the army, and the preparation to launch battle is highly interesting. My readings of Chancellorsville had always been in other books such as biographies or those with a broader perspective of the whole war or the eastern theater. Sears didn't waste the opportunity to expand on nearly every topic and add his own.



A nice little touch occurred at the end with a brief segment on why "The Red Badge of Courage" almost certainly was based on Chancellorsville.



The maps were all very useful and timely. I wouldn't have minded another 3-4 at key points.

It is not easy to imagine a more definitive work replacing Sears' book at some future time, unless some surprisingly useful material comes to light or an author articulates some unexpectedly fresh theme.

The debate with this book is not the comprehensive nature, the sources, the accuracy, or the writing itself. Clearly Mr. Sears did extensive research and was most impressive in his incorporation of the reports and memoirs of the participants, many of which had to be quite obscure. Instead, the argument would have to focus on perceived bias or Sears' emphasis and conclusions, and whether those undermine the book. If you think Joseph Hooker was a drunken hack or that Robert E. Lee was the finest general in the history of man, you probably won't enjoy this volume.

People with more expertise than I have can debate the finer points. I particularly liked that Sears pulled no punches in pointing out mistakes in planning, execution, strategy, character and so on. Quite a few people come in for some smacks that seem well deserved (e.g., Howard, Stoneman, and Sedgwick). I liked the praise for Hooker in getting the army organized and ready, and in conceiving a plan that probably should have led to victory. That praise added to the credibility when Sears contrasted the early promise with Hooker's subsequent failures and the end result.

Sears also gives a balanced view of General Lee, complimenting him appropriately for many things, while also emphasizing the tremendous luck that assisted the Rebels greatly. The luck was also sometimes not random luck, as with the weather, but in reality incompetence of his foes and however you want to categorize the faulty communication system of the Union. General Lee comes across as fearless, bold, and creative, but not as some superstar towering over everyone else. His actual role is somewhat de-emphasized, given that he had direct command of the right half of the Rebels when Jackson split for the flanking operation. The whole story of Jackson's move, attack, and wounding easily is one of the highlights.

The Union's communication problems were one of the details that had a fresh perspective for this reader. I hadn't realized they were so significant. Such analysis as this, and there are many other examples, lifts the book above the battle chronology and troop movements.

In fact, someone already familiar with the battle itself might even consider reading only the first third or half of the book and the analysis at the end, including the appendices. The scene setting from Fredericksburg through the ascension of Hooker and his revival of the army, and the preparation to launch battle is highly interesting. My readings of Chancellorsville had always been in other books such as biographies or those with a broader perspective of the whole war or the eastern theater. Sears didn't waste the opportunity to expand on nearly every topic and add his own.

A nice little touch occurred at the end with a brief segment on why "The Red Badge of Courage" almost certainly was based on Chancellorsville.

The maps were all very useful and timely. I wouldn't have minded another 3-4 at key points.

I have read all of Stephen Sears' books, including his biography on George McClellan. "Chancellorsville," in my opinion, is his best work to date, including his latest book on Gettysburg. Many who read Sears beleive that "Landscape Turned Red" to be his best work. I disagree. Once Sears got away from writing about battles and campaigns involving McClellan he has really become a better writer and historian (although he never claimed to be a historian). Since the publishing of John Bigelow's classic book on the campaign there had not been a definitive study done on Chancellorsville. Ernest Furguson did indeed produce an excellent book on the battle, but for my money Sears is better written and more detailed. This is a battle that screams for more detailed maps, and here Sears falls short. But, unless you want to pay $200 for Bigelow's book and his maps, the current edtion of maps on the battle will have to do. It is one of the most interesting campaigns and battles of the war, but I will not write a synopsis here, that can easily be found else where. Safe to say if you read Stephen Sears excellent account of General Robert E. Lee's greatest victory you will not be disappointed.

I have read all of Stephen Sears' books, including his biography on George McClellan. "Chancellorsville," in my opinion, is his best work to date, including his latest book on Gettysburg. Many who read Sears beleive that "Landscape Turned Red" to be his best work. I disagree. Once Sears got away from writing about battles and campaigns involving McClellan he has really become a better writer and historian (although he never claimed to be a historian). Since the publishing of John Bigelow's classic book on the campaign there had not been a definitive study done on Chancellorsville. Ernest Furguson did indeed produce an excellent book on the battle, but for my money Sears is better written and more detailed. This is a battle that screams for more detailed maps, and here Sears falls short. But, unless you want to pay $200 for Bigelow's book and his maps, the current edtion of maps on the battle will have to do. It is one of the most interesting campaigns and battles of the war, but I will not write a synopsis here, that can easily be found else where. Safe to say if you read Stephen Sears excellent account of General Robert E. Lee's greatest victory you will not be disappointed.

Stephen Sears' "Chancellorsville" is one of the best written books on this epic Civil War battle.

This volume begins with "the revolt of the generals," when two Union generals (Newton and Cochrane) represented to President Lincoln the dissatisfaction of many senior officers with the leadership of Ambrose Burnside after the disastrous Union defeat at Fredericksburg.

There follows a discussion of "Fighting Joe" Hooker's accession to command of the Army of the Potomac and his efforts to enhance the flagging esprit of that body. Little things such as corps badges and enhanced nutrition made a difference. So, too, his "can do" attitude (although many who had known him from the "Old Army" doubted his fitness for command).

The book also examines Robert E. Lee's challenges. To increase his supplies, he had to detach two of the divisions of General James Longstreet's First Corps to forage on the Peninsula, leaving him somewhat shorthanded.

Under these circumstances, one would have thought that Hooker's effort to defeat Lee would have had good chances of success (with Lee being, as it were, "shorthanded"). Hooker began his famous flanking movement, with "Uncle John" Sedgwick trying to hold the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in place.

There follows a very well orchestrated discussion of Hooker's initial success, his flagging confidence in his own plan, the 11th Corps' poor dispositions, the extraordinarily successful and daring flank attack by Stonewall Jackson on the luckless "Flying Dutchmen," the accidental shooting of Stonewall Jackson by his own men, the role of JEB Stuart in assuming command of Jackson's Second Corps, and the sullen withdrawal of the Army of the Potomac the next day (even though some of its hardest hitting troops, the 5th Corps of Meade and the 1st Corps of Reynolds, were in position to make it hot for the Confederate Army).

The aftereffects of the battle are ably discussed. And the next step, toward the battle of Gettysburg, ensued, with the weakened Union commander, Joe Hooker, leading an army, a number of whose generals had lost faith in him. But Gettysburg is another battle for another day (and Sears' book on that battle is worth reading in its own right).

All in all, one of the best works on Chancellorsville. Sears writes well and this volume is to be commended for those interested in Civil War battles.

For a complete study to the Chancellorsville battle, this is a very informative book with a lot of details. I came away with a better understanding of the events that led up to and including the battles of Chancellorsville. Stephens Sears did a brillant job in his research for this book and it is very nicely written. Highly recommend this book as a civil war study.