Halleck originates nothing, anticipates nothing, to assist others takes no responsibility, plans nothing, suggests nothing, is good for nothing Lincolns secretary of the navy Gideon Welless harsh words constitute the stereotype into which Union General in Chief Henry Wager Halleck has been cast by most historians since Appomattox In Halleck Lincolns Chief of Staff, originally published in 1962, Stephen Ambrose challenges the standard interpretation of this controversial figure.Ambrose argues persuasively that Halleck has been greatly underrated as a war theorist because of past writers failure to do justice to his close involvement with three movements basic to the development of the American military establishment the Union high commands applicationand ultimate rejectionof the principles of Baron Henri Jomini the growth of a national, professional army at the expense of the state militia and the beginnings of a modern command system....
|Title||:||Halleck: Lincoln's Chief of Staff|
|Publisher||:||LSU Press Reprint, 1998 edition April 1, 1996|
|Number of Pages||:||248 pages|
|File Size||:||591 KB|
|Status||:||Available For Download|
|Last checked||:||21 Minutes ago!|
Halleck: Lincoln's Chief of Staff Reviews
Written long before Stephen Ambrose achieved fame as a popular historian, this 212-page book focuses on the Civil War years (1861-65) in the life of General Henry Wager Halleck. Ambrose begins the book by declaring that Halleck is "one of the most vilified of all Civil War generals." That said, Ambrose then does an outstanding job of rehabilitating Halleck's reputation. The narrative focuses on Halleck's application of the principles of war advocated by Baron Henri Jomini; Halleck's role in promoting a professional army; and the beginning of a modern military command system. It is an interesting and informative presentation.
Given that the subject has been rarely explored in literature and the note of the author, this book is a disappointment. One reason is that here and there the narration does not benefit from later research. For example, the description of the Battle of the Monacacy and Halleck's role do not agree with subsequent research. Ambrose treats Halleck's actions with praise, glossing over his clear mistakes (such as after Shiloh). Only toward the end of the book is Ambrose critical, almost as an afterthought, and the unpraise all comes together, not in conjunction with the facts.
A Great book which takes you through all of the major battles of the Civil War. He worked through the archaic military system to get the right people in place. More importantly, his unique organizational skills revolutionized how the military functioned on a day today basis regarding command-and-control and supplies. He was extremely hardheaded and tenacious and as a result He did not have a lot of admirers at the time. However he was right 90% of the time. A remarkable person.
Well-written biography and history lesson regarding a controversial, historical figure.
As is the case with most authors, Stephen Ambrose gives much credit to the subject oh his biography. Halleck is credited with a lot more than most authors give him, taking away accomplishments from Grant, Meigs, and Haupt and making him seem a lot less obstructive. Yet I still didn't wind up liking him!
Service excellent, book interesting and full of interesting facts. Nobody beats Stephen Ambrose for excellent and informative booksbooks! A keeper for sure!
Most civil war historians don't like Halleck for his arguments with Grant, but this book looks at Halleck in a new light. You might change your mind about him, maybe...
This is early Ambrose it's not as good as some of his later writing it definitely has the feel like it was a dissertation that then got expanded upon to make a book it's good if you want to know about Halleck