The author's readable style helps a lot. Also, interesting background material and history begin each chapter, and some industrial processes--glass-making, for example--are explained more fully. You won't regret reading this book, but you may be inclined to sell it when you're through.

This book is a must have for every body who is in the architecture field...it's worth every penny..

Simply put, this is one of the best technical textbooks I've ever read. It's basic stuff for someone just starting out in the discipline of architecture, but I'm keeping it as a reference for future professional use. It is clearly written and well illustrated and worth it's high price. I wish Allen would now write a book on Environmental Control Systems--everything in that field is too dry and too technical.

I picked up a copy for two reasons: I enjoy alternate history, and I'm a Chattanooga native. The more I read, the closer it brought me to the actual battlesites-which I haven't visited in over a decade. The characters were well written and seemed alive; I thoroughly enjoyed the details. A Sidewise Award Nominee for 2002. For Civil War fans I also recommend Ward Moore's Bring the Jubilee and Harry Harrison's Stars and Stripes Trilogy.

Somewhat of a historical novel buff, I picked up McIntire's book on a whim. While the subject matter looked promising, I later wondered if I'd picked up some kind of southern "yeah, well if Lee had been at Chattanooga . . ." sour grapes drivel (even being a southerner myself doesn't make me want to read THAT). It didn't take but a few moments - his prologue in fact - to realize that what I was reading was an impartial "what if", one which just happened to pick a Civil War battle as its subject.

And McIntire chooses his battles well. The battle of Chattanooga is widely know for its gaffs and heroics (on both sides) as well as its strategic importance. The North had the opportunity to completely strangle the South, and the South desperately needed to bounce back after devastating losses at Gettysburg and Vicksburg.

As someone who does not read textbook history well, I was pleased to find that McIntire writes both knowledgably and comfortably. The battle scenes are realistic and most characters are developed very well. Simply put, it is a good blend of history and the author's imagination, and that makes for a good read.

Civil War expert Dennis McIntire's Lee At Chattanooga: A Novel Of What Might Have Been is a fascinating "what if" alternate history novel about Robert E. Lee and Braxton Bragg. Lee At Chattanooga is an intriguing and imaginative exploration of the perennial question: what if it had been Lee who was involved in the Chattanooga campaign? A heavily researched and fascinatingly explored scenario unfolds in the resulting intricate chronicle, Lee at Chattanooga. Dennis McIntire's makes his characters come alive and this unusual story unfold with such compelling realism that he has created a work of historical fiction which totally engages the reader from first page to last -- and makes Lee At Chattanooga a "must read" for all dedicated Civil War buffs.

Although it is a 2nd ed., still too many mistakes. Very few explaination. Ridiculously expensive. Not a good buy.

This is a great book and should be widely available as a reference/textbook. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get a copy of the book and the book is ridiculously priced for a student (and therefore is unlikely to be purchased by a library). It's a shame that such a great piece of work isn't more easily purchased online or directly from the publisher. I've tried to buy a second copy of the book after finding the first in a book store and am still waiting for it to arrive after ordering the book two months ago.

I would ask the authors to demand, from the publisher, that this outstanding book be made more accessible.

As for the content of the book, the selection of topics and coverage are no less than outstanding. The authors will discuss a topic and then provide an example to illustrate how the topic is applied. Most, if not all, of the fundamental topics in digital communications are covered. Well documented references are provided if the reader desires more information than what's given in the book.

Used at many universities such as Georgia Tech, and as reference as in Valencia Polytechnic University, this is a must read book for every engineer in the world of communications...later it will serve you as a great reference, a good volume for your library. Wish there were more book like this one!! Adeu!

Fantastic! What a great read from a Bishop who can recognize a man of character and faith. Unlike most Episcopal bishops today who chase after the wind, Bishop Brown has written an interesting short tome on the greatest man produced by the 19th Century. Bishop Brown's intertwining of C.S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, and T.S. Elliot makes it all the more interesting. This book will bless you during devotional time.

A well-researched book on the religious beliefs of Robert E. Lee. A most instructive study on how these beliefs developed and impacted the man. The book is detailed on just what these beliefs were and how they were at the very core of who Robert E. Lee was.

The review written in a vain attempt to slash at the character of such a paragon of virtue is ridiculous and only shows the strength of Lee's character and the weakness of any who would care to even attempt such damage to it. Lee freed all his slaves by 1863 only because that was the time period set within his father-in-law's will, he would have preferred to release them earlier since he viewed slavery as a vile and impractical institution although he was not in favor of complete and immediate abolition, preferring gradual abolition for their "education as a race"-- in other words, to fit them with abilities worthy of employment and adequate pay once freed. The comment about protocol was ridiculous and incomprehensible. Lee specificially told his younger officers, who suggested that he lead the army into what would be a devastating round of "bushwhacking"- guerrilla warfare in the countryside, that he would not because the only honorable thing was to surrender to Grant, and thus saved the country from years of devastating warfare. To say that Lee prolonged the war, then, is pointless, for it was he who surrendered when davis, his superior, would have continued to fight. The quote which suggests bigorty and prejudice of Lee shall not even be repeated here due to the fact that it was a misinterpretation of his meaning. Lee, in fact, showed by personal example the best way to unite the country. He attended an Episcopalian church in which the congregation was white, until one day a black man entered the church and proceeded to the rail to take communion. there was a oause in the church, for no man dared sit beside this "colored" man- except Lee, who immediate took his seat beside the man and showed that he was in no way prejudiced.

I am a student of the civil war, and I've made most of my studies from Actual Memoirs of the event. I figured that I'd rather take the word of the people who were actually there than 3rd person commentary. I've read Grant, Sheridan, J.B. Gordon, E.P. Alexander, and of course, Sam Watkins, Frank Wilkeson, and Berry Benson, to name some of the best. Regrettably, Robert Lee died before he could record his own personal reminiscences. Through my desire to read about him in the same way I'd read about other participants of the war, I found this book-and I figured that Fitzhugh Lee's biography would be as near as I could get to the famed General, for Fitzhugh Lee was not only a Relative of the famed General's, but a General himself in the War of the Rebellion. Half way through the book, I felt thoroughly betrayed. After the first 70 pages, the book becomes the most average of monologues about the movements of troops during the civil war. The only difference between this book and the memoirs of certain other officers engaged in the same battles is the Fitzhugh Starts his recitations with, "General Lee's Order were that...", and has less maps, that usually ease the strain of describing obscure movements.
I will say, though, that the author does spend at least a quarter of the book On the life of R.E. Lee outside of the civil war- the first 70 pages focusing on his Lineage, his training at West point, and his engagements in Mexico, and the Last 20 on his Presidency at Washington-Lee College. Also, sparsely placed throughout the book, Fitzhugh makes use of General Lee's personal correspondance with his wife and family. I would have appreciated seeing more of that, but people 150 years late to the party can't be choosers. Of the Author's style, it is mostly factual, highly romantic(though nothing like Gordon's memoir), and at times he makes allusions and references that let you know he's highly intelligent. This Book doesn't make any in-depth study of General Lee, and mostly considers his character to be untouchable....

As a the great-great-great-great grandson of Robert W. Lee and his slave/mistress Ophelia, I thought this book provided a profound insight into the life of the man who led the Army of Northen Virginia to so many improbable victories.

...read and enjoyed this book. Being the recently acknowledged illegitimate child of General Lee, I agree that it is a worthy book.

I've had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Harsh for several years after taking a class on the Civil War with him at George Mason University.

This book came out of the seperation into three books of a manuscript he wrote on Gen. Lee and the campaign just prior to the Maryland campaign and then the Maryland campaign itself. This book is immensely readable and quite detailed. Dr. Harsh is quite blunt when there is a lack of clear evidence on a subject and the reasons for his judgment are well reasoned and sound. My opinion of Confederate strategy and the role of Jefferson Davis in the formation of that strategy changed a great deal after reading Confederate Tide Rising. While he is not the subject of this book, my view of Gen. Jackson also changed as the result of reading this book. Due to his performance in many of the battles and lead up to the battles discussed in this book, it's obvious to me that Jackson has been overrated by historians and could have been much more criticized by Gen. Lee than he was. That he did not do so postwar and only midly criticized Jackson in the action discussed in this book says a lot about Gen. Lee the man.

There are only a few drawbacks to this book. The first is that Dr. Harsh sometimes I think assumes knowledge of minor engagements and also political developments which were important but not directly germaine to his discussion that the reader may not possess. He would have been better served to not just mention these engagements and political developments and leave the reader wondering but to further discuss these developments and their importance, such as the Trent affair which he mentions twice before discussing what it was.
My second gripe with this book has been noted by a previous reviewer. There is a woeful lack of maps, which I think is simply unforgivable in any military history book. As Dr. Harsh clearly demonstrates, terrain and locations are particularly important in civil war battles and helped determine the tactics and strategy employed by Gen. Lee, Gen. McClellan and Gen. Pope. I have a working knowledge of some of the places discussed in the book because I live near many of them, however many readers in other parts of the country who do not have an extensive knowledge of the Civil War yet, may not. The lack of maps would really hamper their understanding of Dr. Harsh's points.

However, one thing that helps this book despite all that is Dr. Harsh's discussion of several terms and their uses in books on the the Civil War as well as how the Civil War generals themselves would have understood those terms such as strategy and tactics. This sort of a discussion is absent in most works on the war and I believe really hampers the understanding of many who look to gain knowledge on the war.

Overall, this book is essential for any Civil War bookshelf and should be accompanied by Dr. Harsh's other two books, Taken at the Flood and Sounding the Shallows.

An overview of the war to the summer of 62. The ideas presented are well grounded and provoke real thought. Not a book that will sit well with many readers but a worthwhile addition to any Civil War Library. Read this and than read "Taken at the Flood".

Joseph Harsh, the author, analyzes Confederate war strategy from Fort Sumter through the Battle of Second Manassas stating that it was not true that the all the South wanted was "to be left alone." Declaring independence did not guarantee independence, and the author states the South thus "pursued three closely related but distinct war aims: independence, territorial integrity and the union of all the slave states."

The text notes that statistically the South could not win. To overcome the odds, the Confederacy needed to conserve its resources while inflicting unacceptable casualties on the North. The text explains the doctrines of the Swiss military theorist Jomini, the probable basis for Jefferson Davis's doctrine of the "offensive-defense." Davis's doctrine provided a firm strategic framework within which Confederate generals in the field could work. By October 1861, pursuing the offensive-defense considerable progress toward achieving Confederate war aims was made; followed next by reversals of Southern fortunes resulting in part from the failure to continue the policies/strategies that yielded early successes.

On June 1, 1862 Robert E. Lee took command of the Army of Northern Virginia, when Joseph Johnson was wounded. The offensive-defensive policy was already in practice and was not initiated by Lee as some contend. By "late May 1862, the South had nearly lost the war. Lee knew that Jefferson Davis expected him to go on the offensive to save Richmond and to reclaim Virginia. Harsh also notes "Lee chose the offensive because he wanted to win the war, and he thought it offered the only chance. He believed the defensive was the sure path to defeat." His first response was the Seven Days Battle, whose strategy/execution contained errors, but nevertheless relieved the pressure on Richmond.

The author gives an excellent account of the strategic/tactical problems during the Seven Days Campaign and the events leading to the Battle of Second Manassas. Richmond was a major railroad center, banking center, manufacturing center, milling center and its lost would have been serious. It was important that the city is not captured and that Virginia is reclaimed. After the Seven Days Campaign Lee lost the initiative and was in a strategic stalemate that didn't end until Union General McClellan's Army of the Potomac was ordered back to Washington thereby ending the threat to Richmond.

The text gives an excellent account of the development of Lee's field strategies before and throughout the Battle of Second Manassas. The author notes as the battle neared its climax "Lee desperately wanted to finish the task at hand by destroying the army of.... Pope." However a frontal assault was the only option; and Lee couldn't afford the losses a frontal assault would incur. Nonetheless the author notes following the Second Manassas "Through chance, risk and much bloodshed, he and the Army of Northern Virginia were cobbling together the series of rapid victories that might lead to Northern demoralization and Confederate independence." The text ends with the Battle of Second Manassas and closes with six appendixes that discuss strategy questions.

While this an excellent work, my major criticism is an almost total lack of suitable maps. I read the chapters on the Battle of Second Manassas with a copy of Hennessy's book on Second Manassas at hand for its maps. While much can be gained from this book without prior study of the first eighteen months of the Civil War, prior reading of history about the period covered by this book will greatly aid the reader in comprehending Harsh's text.

Prior to reading this collection of short stories by Edward Lee, I had encountered his Grub Girl shorts in the Hot Blood series. I was intrigued, even impressed. However, after finishing this collection I am rather disappointed. I had no problem with the "extreme horror" aspect of Lee's writing - Skip and Spector's two collections of Zombie fare are treasured books in my collection. Rather, many of the stories seemed forced and too many relied upon the same "gross outs" time after time. There is just so much that you can do with the topics of child pornography, dismemberment and a particularly nasty strain of sexuality to keep an otherwise conventional plot of "you picked the wrong guy/girl/child to mess with" interesting. A couple of stories were reasonably good ("The Decortication Technician", Hands) and least one had a modicum of humor ("Secret Service"). As far as satisfying the need for literate grue, this one falls short... back to Poppy Z. Brite, I guess. On a final note, the editors at Obsidian Press REALLY need to pay more attention. There were more spelling errors than in a freshman English paper.

This book is just raw and in your face. It's a Willy Wonka tour of horror, sex, blood, filth, rape, dismemberment, and human depravity.

When you get done with this book you'll probably think, "I can't believe I just read that." As sick as it can be, you'll keep turning the pages wondering what else Lee could possibly do next.

If you like your stories tight, blunt, and graphic, this book is definitely one to have on your shelf.

I am an Edward Lee fan. Although I have only read a few of his novels, his smorgasbord of unsettling violence, intense erotica, and whiplash prose make his writings enormous fun for a dedicated horror fan. The biggest problem facing a reader is how to acquire many of his books and short stories. Nearly all of his mass-market efforts are out of print, many other novels and collections are available only through wallet crushing small press editions, and the subject matter of a majority of his tales virtually insures much of his work will remain in at least partial obscurity. In other words, I am an Ed Lee fan insofar as my meager funds allow. That is why I was very happy to stumble over a copy of "The Ushers," a 1999 collection of Ed's short stories. A reasonable price permitted me to pick this one up, and I am glad I did! My opinion of Lee as a writer shot into the stratosphere after I explored the depths of this impressive anthology. In fact, I simply couldn't put this book down after I started reading it.

Lee is primarily a horror writer, but as "The Ushers" aptly proves, he can write as effectively in other genres as well. For example, "Grub Girl in the Prison of Dead Women" shows the author easily pulling off a plot that is as much science fiction as it is horror. Then there is "The Decortication Technician," a groovy yarn about space exploration and a most unusual discovery found in an abandoned alien spacecraft. Again, this tale is just as effective as a sci-fi story. Another tale dealing with science fiction elements is "Secret Service," a primer about the dangers of protecting a former president suffering from mental decline. After reading the stories in this book, I have few illusions that Ed can write just about anything he wants if he puts his mind to it.

Of course, horror is Lee's forte. "The Ushers" overflows with gruesome tidbits while offering personal revelations about why the author wrote a particular story. Fans of "The Bighead" or "Monstrosity" have recognized Lee's fascination with backwoods folk. Ed's the "redneck" guy, the horror author who frequently inserts rural yokels with a penchant for gory violence into his stories. In a personal note at the end of "The Man Who Loved Clichés," we finally discover why this author relies so heavily on these character types. According to Lee, James Dickey's novel "Deliverance" had a deleterious effect on him, as the book and subsequent film version reminded him of particular "outer elements" he recognized from his youth. Finally discovering the reasons for this author's love of country bumpkins is worth the price of the book alone. His statement that he will continue to write stories about hillbillies is great news for his fans. "Mr. Torso," a Bram Stoker Award nominated story written in 1994 and containing one of these beloved rural types also makes an appearance in this collection.

Do you like reading about sociopaths, psychotics, and serial killers? Pull up a chair and get ready to read some crime thrillers. In "Hands," we get a grim whodunit about a murderer who likes to collect trophies from his victims. This one is a gem of a yarn with a great big twist at the end that's sure to please. "Scriptures" delves into the world of a family plagued by sociopathy and is particularly forbidding in its mix of religion and violence. And don't forget to read "Please Let Me Out," about an aging female lawyer and her seemingly foolproof plan to keep her young boyfriend from straying far from home. Ed Lee definitely has little aversion to writing a thriller once in awhile, although his versions always stray far from the mainstream with politically incorrect dialogue, over the top scenery, and wacky characters.

In my opinion, the absolute best story in the book is the one that describes why Lee writes horror. Split into two separate stories in this collection, Lee describes the horrors of everyday life in vivid detail, the shocking, sad, nauseating inhumanity man shows towards fellow man. The author's fascination with the dark side of reality informs his horror stories, which usually deal with the pettiness of mankind and the resulting disaster that befalls those who are vain, greedy, evil, and self-righteous. Ed Lee argues that there is a relevancy in studying the nether regions of the human spirit, and several of these stories accomplish that quite nicely. This story should have won a Bram Stoker Award.

If I seem overly enthusiastic about "The Ushers," it is because these are entertaining stories from a maturing master in the horror genre. I'm still hoping most of Lee's works will find mass-market release soon, but even if they don't I am more inclined to shell out a few dollars more to get them after reading this collection. Yes, he is that good. Oh, I almost forgot: this book also includes an Ed Lee bibliography stretching back to his first stories and novels. It should go without saying how helpful this is to those fans who wish to obtain more books written by this author.

A pretty good overview of the Conservative movement. I was especially moved by the eloquent pages on Barry Goldwater, the last true Conservative to run for President. Reagan wasn't bad but he never got far enough away from his Holywood socialist roots (and he infected us with the Bush twins - better than Clinton but liberals none the less). Even as he was facing down the Soviets he introduced about as much government intrusion into our lives as Clinton has. But then too many young conservatives today don't even really know what the word means or can explain the roots of the philosophy behind it. This book is a good start but make certain you read some of the classic post-war capitalist writers like Ayn Rand to get a full view of the birth of the American conservative movement.

"The Conservative Revolution" is a fascinating detailed look at the history of the Conservative movement from the end of World War II until the late 1990's. It is a very good history and I learned a great deal that I did not know before (I especially appreciated the background on Robert Taft).

As a Gen-X conservative, though, I feel I probably have a different view about events than Lee Edwards who apparantly is old enough to have witnessed most of this history first hand. For one thing, I find it extremely hard to think of Barry Goldwater as a true conservative, given his pro-choice abortion views and his anti-school prayer stance. Also, as a person who experienced his teen years during the 1980's, I also can't forget that Barry Goldwater loved to run to the microphone to criticize Ronald Reagan any chance he got. To me it is obvious that conservatives of the 1960's were following a complete charlatan, and it is no wonder he went down in landslide defeat.

Which brings us to the point that the book should have had far more information about Ronald Reagan than it did. Ronald Reagan is the true Rock of Gibraltar of the conservative movement and he should be the centerpiece of the book rather than sharing space with Goldwater and Gingrich.

However, I do highly recommend this book simply for the reason that most conservatives do not know the history of the conservative movement and this book is the best I have seen in giving that history.

In "The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America," author Lee Edwards does an excellent job of guiding readers through the growth of the Conservative movement in America. In his book, he not only illustrates the struggles that conservatives have faced as an opposition movement, he has also shown the struggles that continue to exist even after conservatives have succeeded in gaining power. By tying the conservative movement to the careers of four individual politicians, Edwards succeeds in giving a human face to the movement. In the early days of the conservative movement, as personified by Senator Robert Taft, Edwards shows how the movement grew in response to America's increased international prestige following WWII. With the emergence of Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater, Edwards shows how the conservative movement began to gain ground among the American public. The emergence of the conservative movement increases dramatically with the election of President Ronald Reagan and is then capped off with the 1994 election of Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House. Luckily, Edwards does not end there. He is evenhanded in showing the errors made by conservatives as they take control of the branches of government and suggests that this is a struggle that has not yet seen its final chapter.

I know since everyone else gave this book 5 stars and I'm given it 1, I'm going to get a lot of unhelpful votes, but be that as it may, I feel like I should offer my opinion on this book. By the way, this book did not shock or "horrify" me.

The back cover of it sounding pretty good, but upon reading and completing the book I was extremely disappointed. This book is filled with ridiculously trite cliches, and the writing is simply abominable. I think this book is trying to make a hero of the killer, because all the men she kills and tortures are complete and utter slime. I find it interesting that she never once happened to take home a genuinely nice guy, that all the charming men she picks up in the bars all happen to turn out to be scum-of-the-world evil.

Aside from that, we have our usual cast of idiots. The flaky poet type is lampooned, the feminist woman who's the victim of a child molester who is typically paint-by-numbers, another atypical molestation victim who calls out for "Daddy" every two seconds, and a tough, gritty cop. Why is it that every book that has a girl molested by her father must repeat the phrase "Daddy" incessantly? It's a cheap, mawkish, and maudlin way to underscore the idea of innocence lost.

The book tries to put a spin on the tough-as-nails cop by making him gay, but this seems more like an afterthought than anything. And nothing can save the plot, which is predictable.

The writing is the worst part. Not to be mean, because I know writing is difficult, the way this book is put out and paced reminds me of an R. L. Stine book. It's a pretty immature work.

On the upside, the best character is a pimp whose character may throw you a curveball.

My recommendation is to not read this book.

Kathleen, contributing self-help columnist of '90s Woman magazine and admired voice speaking to women everywhere, finds that life hasn't quite been what she expected. Visions of her Uncle Sammy's exploitation of her from the tender age of 9 until she was 18 have taken their toll on her psyche, and the scars, though dulled by coping mechanisms, still nest within her mind. Now, however, she feels that she has purpose, that the mail is some sort of lifeline to the outside and that she is actually accomplishing something, and that her degree in sociology is being put to good use. So, in a sense, she is happy. So what if she has a low self-image, finding herself too overweight to be loved, and so what if she's never truly experienced what she would call being enamored. Her column, it gives her something to be, something meaning, and so she has a reason to want to do something. One day, however, an event changes the way she perceives things, making Kathleen contemplate a route filled with communion with a voice that is, amongst other things, a psychopath. Yes, amongst the other mailings she's received she finds a 6 x 9 manila envelope with a letter asking her if she'd 'like to write my story' and another article, one all too human.

Haled by many to be an American Psycho without the cosmetics of apparel nametags and one that is more direct to the punchline, this book was something I looked forward to and I found intoxicating as I delved deeper and deeper into it. The book, it was exclaimed to be shocking, and some of the use of description, of crafting a character that had motivation and yet went past that to inflict oceans of pain, it was indeed that. Still, after finishing it, I found some problems in the way it had been showcased. While I do agree with the fact that this read is indeed a disturbing reach into a mind where medical utensils touch base with human organs and where revenge is a dish served by vengeful hands, I do not agree with this being another American Psycho. This isn't because I think one book is more valuable than the other, or that I found this to be lacking in some right. Instead, I say this because the work stands on its own and the book understands more of the symptomology of the affliction and not the monster itself. It looks outside the mind of the beast and addresses what the thing with the need to kill means to other people.

In Portrait of the Psychopath as a Young Woman, shock/ rather talented gore creator Edward Lee and storehouse of serial killer expertise Elizabeth Steffen team up and craft a tale of horrific deeds that focus, as the name implies, upon an attract yet insane young woman. Through expert use of description and an impressive knowledge of medical utensils, this rather attractive young woman is given a gift that speaks through tomes of blood and that wants to be heard, that needs to be heard. Still, she isn't the only persona explored within this experience. Enter our other 'main' character, Kathleen, and yet more impressively crafted characterization, her poet boyfriend and his reasons to be, the police officer that seeks to end this, and a drove of other voices that don't just 'appear' and speak. Herein is one of the main reasons I found this adventure into terror interesting because it goes past the gore and the terror and it seeks to make people out of simply notions. This, by and far, goes a long way in the progression of a tale, making people that feel like people and not like hollow things going through the prospective rounds.

Before recommending this, I feel I need to stress that this tale is a graphic piece and not one to be taken lightly. The things that the killer does with medical sheers, needles, bonesaws, and other random articles that sound painful without even being used that are quite terrible and quite wonderful to those looking for more. Here, many people would find themselves disturbed, and rightfully so. This is one of Edward Lee's talents, to make something that seethes and that seeks to maim, and Steffen is worthy of collaboration and her hands on the story can be felt. So, it has a voice and a hammer that impacts the senses. For fans of Edward's work, people looking to see what is lurks in the realms of pain, or someone simply wanting an object lesson into the motivations of a psychopath, this would be something easily recommended and highly praised. Me, I've read many things but few make me cringe and some of this one did just that. Honestly, that is commendable and most deserving of my horror-laden five stars.

Wow! This has to be one of the best horrors I've read for quite a while. Nothing is spared, the killer so chilling and perfect. I liked every character, every change through the chapters, the pace of the plot. Edward Lee took great pains to learn about medical instruments and he must have studied at length on the male human body. I'm still reeling from the impact. Yes, it is very graphic and shocking, but that's the whole reason of reading this type of horror. The only one negative I can comment on is - I'm not sure whether I'll read another Lee book again, it may be disappointing after this wild ride. Utterly brilliant.

Study the Overland/Petersburg campaign and you'll note that Lee whipped Grant three times (the Wilderness, Cold Harbor, and various assaults on Petersburg), fought him to a bloody draw once (Spotsylvania), and only lost when the Army of Northern Virginia was crumbling from starvation and attrition. Stuck in an impossible situation, Lee forced Grant to take nearly a year longer than he had planned to take Richmond, despite Grant having all the advantages (better supplies, far more men, not having Richmond to defend, etc.). I doubt Grant would have done as well in such a position.

Grant was by no means an incompetant general, but his main attribute was tenacity; he won through stubborness more times than anything else. He nearly let the garrison of Ft. Donaldson get away (and would have if anyone had listened to Forrest), he came within a hair's breadth of losing his entire army at Shiloh, he was frustrated time and again at Vicksburg by an inferior general, his plan to defeat Bragg at Chattanooga was convoluted and shouldn't have worked, and Lee out-generaled him on multiple occasions. What made Grant superior to any other Union general (save perhaps Thomas) was his refusal to give up. Grant understood the advantages he worked with and knew how to use them to win. Put him on equal footing with Lee and the story may well have been different.

The oft-repeated view, especially from Confederate defenders, is that Grant won though he was a drunken butcher indifferent to high casualties whose triumph was inevitable because of superior manpower and supplies. John Frederick Charles Fuller, the British Major General, and along with Liddel Hart one of the top military strategists of the 20th century, provides overwhelming evidence to lay this view to rest. Grant practiced maneuver warfare when he could, and his Vicksburg campaign (not just a siege, rather a series of five battles), along with Jackson's valley campaign, are the two greatest campaigns of the war. In his final Overland campaign, Grant could not maneuver much because Lincoln required that he keep substantial forces between Lee's army and Washington. By a thorough analysis of Grant's and Lee's battles throughout the war, Fuller makes the case that Grant was among the best generals ever, and greater than Lee, who was also great but had his limitations (after Order 191 was lost and recovered by McClellan's troops before Antietam, Lee would only issue oral orders, and his subordinates were often confused by them; Grant was known for crystal clear written orders, following the example of Zachary Taylor under whom Grant (and Lee) had served in the Mexican War). Rating Grant so highly will of course be heresy for neo-Confederates, but there is no question Grant has received unfair treatment even among historians. Another Fuller book, "The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant" adds more details to the defense of the claim that Grant was an excellent general. In assessing the relative greatness of Grant and Lee, one should keep in mind their age difference and the difference in upward mobility on the two sides during the war. Lee was 14 years older than Grant, Lee was already a Colonel when the war started and still serving on active duty, whereas Grant had left the army as a captain after the Mexican War. At the start of the war, Winfield Scott, who had served in the War of 1812 and masterminded in the Mexican War the amazing defeat of a country of 20 million people with 12,000 invading troops, was the greatest soldier on either side. However he was old and so fat he could no longer ride a horse; his campaigning days were over. After Scott, Lee was the best soldier on either side at the start of the war--and Lee was offered command of the Union army but turned it down. However Grant rose through the ranks because he learned quickly from his mistakes at Belmont, Forts Henry and Donelson, Shiloh, and Holly Springs. By the end of the war Fuller's analysis shows Grant was clearly the superior general, and not just because he had superior numbers. Even the oft-cited mistake at Cold Harbor, according to Fuller, is exagerrated. Fuller summarizes the overall casualy numbers during the war: the ratio of killed and wounded to total forces engaged for Grant was 10%; for the whole Federal army it was 11%; for the whole Confederate army it was 12%; and for Lee, it was 16%. One must be fair to Lee and not lose sight of the fact that he was an exemplary, even a saintly individual who must always be acknowledged as among the great American generals. But the simplistic, grossly unfair judgment of Ulysses S. Grant is revealed here as a sham which must stop. Under the razor-sharp and penetrating analysis of Fuller, one of the greatest military historians of all time, the conventional, common opinion of Grant is shown to be balderdash. Ulysses S. Grant was one of the greatest generals the U.S. has ever produced. Though written many years ago, Fuller's book is still relevant to this ongoing national discussion, and is a must read for anyone who wants to compare Union and Confederate generalship. Regarding Grant's drinking, Fuller doesn't discuss this, but this too is greatly exaggerated. He was indeed a binge drinker. When I asked the renowned Civil War historian Ed Bearss about this, he said Grant got drunk about four to six times during the war, always when he was away from his wife (she was with or lived near him during some campaigns and he was always lonely without her). Moreover, in the Civil War one could usually tell when battle was near, and there was usually inactivity during the winter months. The circumstances are not comparable to a modern general's always being on call in the nuclear age. Grant's occasional binge drinking never once affected his generalship, in public functions he usually would not drink at all, being a semi-recovered alcoholic except for the occasional binge. The stereotype is that Grant was constantly drunk during the war. This too is an unfair assessment not based on historical fact. Read this book and will see just how wrong the stereotype of Grant's generalship is, and how good a general he was.

I have to disagree totally with the previous reviewer. While the relative merits of both generals have been argued since the conclusion of the war and will be into the future, the interesting point about this book is that General Fuller began with the assumption that Grant was the butcher of legend who bludgeoned with numbers and that Lee was the battlefield genius. His studies lead him to conclude otherwise (in an intersting appendix he shows that througout their respective careers, Lee lost a higher proportion of his men than Grant).

The main point Fuller makes is that Grant was the first general to understand the totality of warfare in the modern age, including the role of political expectations. He also was a superior strategist and campaigner to Lee, although Lee was probably the better battlefield tactitian. Lee had the advantage in the Overland campaign of fighting on the defensive, and Grant was aware of the approaching elections and the need to produce a result, rather than the traditional Army of the Potomac stalemate, or worse. He additionally had responsibilities for overseeing the Western and Valley battlefronts.

The main point to remember when considering the careers of the two men is that, if my memory is correct, of the three armies that surrendered during the War, Grant received two of them.