This book is a complete waste. The central thesis is a
joke. The South spilled a lot of blood trying to save their
new nation and to say they lacked nationalism is bad. There was
problems with State's Rights issues among the various Governors
of the States (esp. Georgia, N. Carolina) but among the soldiers
it wasn't that bad.

The author's continued comparison of the South's
military tactic's to those of German and French General's
who served under Napolean is just annoying since the books
written by these Generals were either not yet published in
English or published at all and I doubt that many confederates
spent much time reading them the works in French or German.

This book is just another reason why many people think
history is boring. If you want a good read, pick up a Civil
War book by James McPherson, Shelby Foote, Douglas Southall
Freeman, or Bruce Catton.

The thesis of this book is that the South lost the War because of insufficient nationalism. To call this argument preposterous is to be kind. Out of a white population of nine million the South lost a quarter of a million dead and many times that number in wounded. The South kept fighting until every Southern city was controlled by the Union. A small agrarian nation, the South fought a large, industrialized nascent world power. Unbelievably the South came close to winning this unequal contest. To contend that the South failed because of lack of will is ahistoric and a contemptible insult to the brave rebels who fell under the stars and bars. A better judge of Southern will during that war was General Grant who, while attacking the Southern cause, admitted that never had men fought harder for a cause than the Southerners.

Every time I look at this book I cringe. These "scholars" simply ignore the battles themselves. The battles deteriorated southern will, not the other way around!! This book is horrible and I am cringing as I write.