Desjardin’s book isn’t history, but historiography. He looks not only at what happened, but how the history of the battle developed. Almost while the battle was raging, participants started to shape the coming narrative. General Sickles, who either saved or almost lost the battle, was wounded and evacuated to Washington, where he spoke at length to his political allies and Lincoln. Thus, the conscious shaping of the historical record began. Those who fought in the battle came to realize that this was more than a battle. In time, they elevated it to the turning point of the war, even though the war continued for another two years.

The need for the rebels to justify their actions, the desire to remember beloved leaders, the importance of New York and Richmond as media centers, the desire for reconciliation and even our modern needs for heroes of a certain flavor have all contributed to shaping the narrative and promoting myths. The basic unknowability of what actually happened can be demonstrated by the varied accounts compiled immediately after the battle. It was only with time and the development of a larger conceptual framework that veterans’ memories settled into the familiar patterns. That some of these patterns are false does not stop them being repeated and even amplified. The movie Gettysburg is a good example. It repeats many of the myths and even creates new ones. As they say, if the myth conflicts with the facts, print the myth. For anyone serious about history, this is a fascinating work. ( )