Lincoln's Lieutenants explores the rocky history of the high command of the Army of the Potomac, from the first shot at Fort Sumter to Lee's surrender at the Appomattox Courthouse. What starts out as a slightly intimidating, 800 page tome quickly becomes a thrilling read, well-written and researched to provide any history buff a truly fascinating account of the personalities behind the Army of the Potomac.

The Army of the Potomac guarded Washington D.C., fought at the bloody battlefields of Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, First and Second Bull Run, and finally, Petersburg. They faced Confederate General Robert E. Lee almost from first to last and were led by famous generals like McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, Meade, and Grant. Sears searched archives from Massachusetts to Wisconsin, the National Archives to the Library of Congress and uses first-hand accounts, diaries, and letters to give the reader an in-depth, on-the-scenes view of events and people. Sears does an excellent job of allowing the words of soldiers, generals, and Lincoln to draw readers in, showing the personalities behind the names history still remembers.

I was amazed to learn how much fighting was done among the Cabinet, Senate, and generals. Nearly all the Potomac's generals found themselves at odds with President Lincoln on how their campaigns should be fought. How they managed to fight a war with all of the in-fighting, back-stabbing, favoritism, and egos dominating every decision is still unclear by the end of the book. Personalities, politics, and patrons played as much (often more) of a role in who led men into battle as experience and ability. So many of the lower commanding officers had neither experience nor ability in leading men into battle, so many wrong decisions were made or opportunities lost, that it left me wondering how this army ever managed anything. Grant finally comes east and, for the first time in the war, has each of the Union armies working together (sort of), as well as being the first Potomac general to have a lasting, good working relationship with Lincoln. I found it helpful that whenever Sears described a battle decision one of the generals made, he would usually add what was happening on the other side and if the decision was actually a good one or not. For example, every time McClellan claimed the Confederates had 200,000 men against his army, Sears would provide the actual numbers and some explanation for why McClellan thought the way he did. It was also rather frightening to discover how personal egos and fears often played such a large role in causing troops to fail being sent to support what could have otherwise been a winning strategy.

The one complaint I had with this book was Sears' tendency towards repetition. I appreciated how, after going through the details of a particular campaign, Sears would provide a summary of the events to help the reader get things set in their minds. However, Sears tended to give multiple summaries of the same event, or repeat more times than necessary who had fallen in each battle and who had taken over their command. That detracted a bit from the flow and was, for me, annoying,

Overall, Lincoln's Lieutenants was a fascinating book, focusing more on the men in command than just the events they commanded. History buffs will appreciate the details and the voices of the men allowed to shine through, often providing well timed ironic and humorous moments. While Lieutenants might be intimidating for those only casually interested in the topic, anyone looking for a well-researched study on the Army of the Potomac will find a treasure in Stephen Sears' newest Lincoln's Lieutenants.

I must preface this review by saying that I received a review copy of this book from NetGalley.

Stephen W. Sears is one of a rare breed of historian who can weave deep analysis with compelling narrative, with a long career with many highlights including <i>Landscape Turned Red</i>, on the Battle of Antietam, which in the opinion of this reviewer is one of the best battle narratives ever written. He’s written extensively on the Army of the Potomac and its campaigns, which puts him in an ideal position for being authoritative in <i>Lincoln’s Lieutenants: The High Command of the Army of the Potomac</i>, the volume under review.
Between 1942 and 1944, Douglas Southall Freeman published a three volume history and analysis of the command of the Army of Northern Virginia—<i>Lee’s Lieutenants</i>—which, despite the writer’s allegiance to Lost Cause mythology, represented a towering achievement. There have been some Union-oriented responses, most notably by <i>Lincoln and His Generals</i> by T. Harry Williams, which mostly looked at command relationships and outlined work yet to be done. More recently, works have filled in parts of the picture, such as Stephen Taaffe’s <i>Commanding the Army of the Potomac</i>, which provides personal histories of many members of the high command of that army. However, works on the subject are not nearly as all-encompassing as Freeman’s. <i>Lincoln’s Lieutenants</i> is finally a complete answer. Sears has been writing for fifty years, has covered the entire war from a multitude of angles and the nearly 900 pages (text ends at page 766, much of the rest are copious notes) of Lincoln’s Lieutenants represents a condensation of Sear’s career and a wide selection of additional works.
The Army of the Potomac was the main Union army in the Eastern Theater of the war and was the focus of the most political and media attention. The East had the capitol cities of both belligerents, and was naturally the most attention-grabbing. That the South’s most well-known commander was centered there only made it more important. Sears looks at the history of that army through the lens of its general officers, with especial focus on higher levels—division, corps, and army commanders—from the genesis of the army, as the Army of Virginia in 1861, through the Grand Review after the surrender of the South’s principal armies.
You should not go into this work expecting battle narrative—no drums and trumpets—or, as John Keegan termed it: pornography of violence. Sears does discuss battles, but in the context of the interaction within, and effect on, the general officers of that army. And his sources reflect his focus: primary sources from those officers who wrote after the war, correspondence, the Official Records, and so on. There isn’t much of a view from below, because this is a work aimed from above.
In Sears’ narrative, the chief Union field army was the inevitable site of meddling. Politics consumed the army and its commanders. For much of the war, these officers were perhaps more paranoid about enemies in Washington City as they were about Bobby Lee. Sears argues, however, that while politics never ended in the army, it did transform. Originally a bastion of the Democratic Party, it slowly transformed into a force which not only answered to Abraham Lincoln, but which viewed itself as Lincon’s own. This was accomplished over time as political appointees and Old Army elites, jealous of their prerogatives and positions, were replaced by new officers who earned their positions by virtue of their abilities, often paid for in their own blood. The army moved from a force which represented a threat to Lincoln to being a major instrument of his reelection.
From a perspective of over half a century of scholarship, Sears is very understanding of mistakes made. While many historians are harsh toward, for instance, Ambrose Burnside or Joe Hooker, Sears has the long view of human limitations and is quite understanding of failure. Being reasonable does not mean Sears restrains himself from pointing out serious errors: Burnside and Hooker did fail. He also shows compassion for the failures of common soldiers even when their officers have good reputations: for instance, the collapse of Second Corps in late 1864 and 1865. Used as the Army of the Potomac’s shock troops for battle after battle, their veteran units were reduced to skeletons, and fresh regiments were shattered in their first engagements. For instance, the 36th Wisconsin—which joined the army in the summer of 1864, led by a hero of Gettysburg, Frank Haskell and the ranks filled about evenly with fresh recruits and reenlisted veterans—was first bloodied at Cold Harbor. They took 400 casualties in an afternoon; their colonel killed, more than half their number removed from the ranks, and yet they dug in within a rock’s throw of rebel lines. They then remained in contact with the enemy for nine more months. Their experience was normal. Is it any wonder that Second Corps collapsed? Sears thinks that the collapse was reasonable, and he’s right.
The book has a large number of maps and illustrations. Maps are a common problem in books: they aren’t enough, and many are simply not functional. But at no point in <i>Lincoln’s Lieutenants</i> did I find myself needful of a better map. They are, however, not always well placed. There were occasions when the maps or illustrations were not situated at their most relevant location. This was compounded in the advance copy I was provided with by the lack of a listing of illustrations. In some cases, I found myself paging back and forth looking for context or for a map I wanted to reference. Additionally, the copy lacks an index. Hopefully, this deficiency will be corrected.
<i>Lincoln’s Lieutenants</i> is a magisterial work. In the opinion of this reviewer, it is the best work on the command of an army in the Civil War; it eclipses Freeman in historical merit and skilled prose, and is more complete than any work between the two. Sears’ newest volume should be on your bookshelf.