What do you think?
Red-Tape And Pigeon-Hole Generals: As Seen From The Ranks During A Campaign In The Army Of The Potomac
This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the original. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions that are true to the original work.
324 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1999
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
January 27, 2017
Character assassination?
This book certainly classifies as a primary source. Armstrong's observations about the high command and government are similar in many ways to those of many other contemporary observations I've read. In this way I can't really say this is a unique work, but it's certainly good supportive material to other works I've already read.
There are two reasons why I only gave it 3 stars, however. First of all, Armstrong, in an attempt I suppose to lessen the sting of his more pointed barbs, neglects to mention specific names, and even gave his own regiment a fake designation (calling it the 210th PA- which wasn't enlisted until long after the campaigns covered in the book).
Also, I must admit I took major umbrage to his extremely negative coverage of division commander Andrew Humphreys, since he's always been a favorite of mine. Again, Armstrong never said his name, referring to him as "Old Pidgey", but it's clear who he's talking about. After all, there was only 1 new division that joined the 5th corps during the '62 Maryland campaign, and it was commanded by Humphreys. It also was composed of 2 brigades as Armstrong notes in this work.
So yes, my rating is partially due to disagreeing with the author's low opinion of his division commander- I freely admit as much. That aside, I did get some enjoyment from reading this book, enlisted takes on campaigning and camp life are always good reading, but since Andrew Humphreys wound up becoming one of the top commanders in the AoP by war's end, I gritted my teeth as I read the parts with him in it.
This book certainly classifies as a primary source. Armstrong's observations about the high command and government are similar in many ways to those of many other contemporary observations I've read. In this way I can't really say this is a unique work, but it's certainly good supportive material to other works I've already read.
There are two reasons why I only gave it 3 stars, however. First of all, Armstrong, in an attempt I suppose to lessen the sting of his more pointed barbs, neglects to mention specific names, and even gave his own regiment a fake designation (calling it the 210th PA- which wasn't enlisted until long after the campaigns covered in the book).
Also, I must admit I took major umbrage to his extremely negative coverage of division commander Andrew Humphreys, since he's always been a favorite of mine. Again, Armstrong never said his name, referring to him as "Old Pidgey", but it's clear who he's talking about. After all, there was only 1 new division that joined the 5th corps during the '62 Maryland campaign, and it was commanded by Humphreys. It also was composed of 2 brigades as Armstrong notes in this work.
So yes, my rating is partially due to disagreeing with the author's low opinion of his division commander- I freely admit as much. That aside, I did get some enjoyment from reading this book, enlisted takes on campaigning and camp life are always good reading, but since Andrew Humphreys wound up becoming one of the top commanders in the AoP by war's end, I gritted my teeth as I read the parts with him in it.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review