What do you think?
Red-Tape & Pigeon-Hole Generals: Andrew A. Humphreys in the Army of the Potomac
Originally published in 1864, this rollicking story of the way it was in the Army of the Potomac is actually a thinly disguised attack on the character and military ability of Gen. Andrew A. Humphreys. In his masterful commentary, Arner identifies the main players and units and taps primary sources that support the original author's view.
384 pages, Hardcover
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