The first book I read by Mr. Holton was a similar book, just about U. S. Grant. I liked that one a lot (I have a review here also), so much so that I went ahead and got this one too. I figured that I'd give both sides a fair chance...

Well, I was not disappointed in the least. The style is the same as the Grant volume, and the format is the same. None the less, it reads very well and is very informative, although not as entertaining as I would have liked, thus the 4 stars. One thing for sure, you'll get to know Lee very well reading this book. And there are many lessons to be had from the reading, possibly one on every page, if you feel so inclined.

As with the Grant volume, Mr. Holton takes one area of leadership and reports how Lee acted in regards to that item (Patriot Voice, Duty are 2 examples). Each discussion is contained on one page! A very good use of words by the writer makes this work. Then it's on to the next, then the next, the next, and so on. One can read one page and think about it, or take a couple of hours and polish off the whole book!! I perferred the slower method.

However you choose to read this bbok, make sure that you do read it, and the Grant volume also. You'll get a good look at 2 very important military minds of our short history. You'll also learn some important lessons on how to deal with people and situations, in both business and personal life. Well done Mr. Holton. Thank you!

i bought this book for a $... at another retailer one day not thinking too much about it. read it and thought it was one of the better books i picked up in a while. quality ideas to follow and good reasons to self-reflect on your own management styles

"Leadership Lessons of Robert E. Lee" is a well written, thought provoking book. Lee was a man of outstanding character and moral values. Any manager can learn a tremendous amout from reading and placing the principles contained in this wonderful book into his daily life. An excellant book that I most highly recommend to any one who manages or leads people

The portable cards which constitute this 'book' are well-designed. They will assist any student who is taking undergraduate organic chemistry course prepare for revisions. Although that they lacked details in some respects, their coverage did embrace wide areas.
They are particularly useful in learning about the various nomenclature, as well as the physical and chemical properties of a functional group in a given homologous series.
"OrgoCards" impressed me with the way it handled those nucleophilic substitution reactions that members of Carbonyl group undergo. Despite its haphazard lessons on Acylation, its efforts on Alcohols, Aldehydes, Ketones, Esters, and Carboxylic acids are quite commendable.
This "OrgoCards: Organic Chemistry Review" should be seen either as a textbook complement, or a notebook alternative. I will suggest that you consider buying it if your lecturer is the type that is not enthusiastic about giving class-notes.

These Orgocards were extremely useful not only while studying for my organic chemistry course but especially for the MCAT.

I tried making my own flashcards but I found them immediately obsolete after I got Orgocards which contain the critical information in a very understandable and easy to read format. They were also really a critical part of my studying for the bio section of the MCAT since a lot of the detailed info from o-chem had become a bit fuzzy by that point.

A definite must buy.

I used it for studying the o-chem portion of the MCAT this summer. These cards are fantastic, full of details and great summaries and figures. It is too bad that it was not available a year ago when I was studying for the course. Highly recommended!

Robert E. Lee's daughters are the subject of this beautiful and poignant book. So touching is the correspondence between the General, his wife and daughters that you feel like an interloper. The lost art of letter writing as praticed by the Lee family gives a vivid picture of Antebellum, Civil War, and Recontruction-era social history.

The Lee Girls by biographer Mary P. Coulling is the informed and informative story of Confederate General Robert E. Lee's four daughters: Mary Custis Lee; Eleanor Agnes Lee; Mildred Childe Lee; and Anne Carter Lee. Diaries, letters, paintings, and other contemporary records were utilized as primary source materials upon which to base an bibliographically historically accurate narrative of these women's lives through girlhood, the horror of war, and the era of reconciliation and rebuilding. A truly excellent and well balanced chronicle, The Lee Girls is a welcome and highly recommended addition to American Regional History, Civil War Studies, and Reconstruction Era Studies collections and supplemental reading lists.

Enjoyed the time frame of the book. It was not just the girls during the civil war period but also gave attention to the sons as well. The black and white photos were a plus but I wish the author had featured photos of the two surviving daughters in later life. This is an excellent well researched book into the lives of four charming girls of American history.

I have always liked this book and have given a couple out to pastors who are friends. If you are a pastor or church leaders and don't know what to do to make your church more inviting, you will want this book. It has 44 practical ideas that all churches need to look at. You won't implement them all but all of them make improvements to the quality of your ministry.

I've been able to use many of the ideas Schaller presents here quite successfully in my parish. Another book that I'd recommend as a companion to this one is Entertaining Angels: Hospitality Programs for the Caring Church by Elizabeth Rankin Geitz. It contains a great 6-session workshop to introduce the biblical reasons for church growth as well as the practical tools to do it. Geitz's book is a great companion to Schaller's, giving more ideas than any one church can use.

FIRST. The book is great in presenting a variety of good ideas that many times are forgotten by congregations as time goes by, and these ideas hold the key for the initial and continuous growth of a congregation. Is a book that applies to any faith or Christian denomination. SECOND. This book presents more than wonderful ideas. Brings the concept of status quo. Are we really interested in growing? Do we really mean this? Or do we say this but are really happy and confortable the way things are. THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING POINT, A POSSIBLE REALITY. Something to think about. THIRD. Finally, the book presents suggestions in what to do next. One thing is to identify ideas, but selling those to a group, happy in the status of current affairs is difficult. What to do, so that ideas will not be simply set aside again. In summary: Great book, don't think twice, buy one for you, your pastor and the management group. We need to take literally and seriously the Great Commission of the Lord (Matt 28:19-20).

I found this book to be one of the best books about command decisions and relationships between Politicians and generals during the Civil War I have ever read. It covers the battles and the leaders of the Confederacy, both great and flawed. I found it hard to believe that some Southern leaders/generals fought harder against their own side in stupid little infights and disputes. The book goes a long way in explaining Lee's strategy and that of Davis and how they were different and the results of that difference. This book concentrates on the Eastern Theatre, the author's other book 'Jefferson Davis and his Generals' covers the Western Theatre of operations and is brillant in its examination of this area. Both books are well worth reading.

It was ok but if your doing a report then it could get a little boring but it is great information!

In 2000 Gerard Houarner and artist GAK published a small chapbook called Dead Cat Bounce. It was the story of, well, a dead cat. It went on to become a finalist for Bram Stoker award.

Two years later, out comes this book, Dead Cats Bouncing, from Bedlam Press, an anthology edited by the creators, Gerard Houarner and GAK.

With a contents pages that reads like a who's who of the small press horror scene, we're treated to 15 new Dead Cat stories, plus the original, by authors like Jack Ketchum, Ed Lee, Charlee Jacob, Yvonne Navarro, and Brian Keene. The styles of the stories range wildly from the original short-burst sentence style of the first Dead Cat, to more traditional flowing prose, all the way to sing-songy rhythms like John Skipp's contribution "Soul Maggot Jamboree".

And accompanying the great stories are the pencilled drawings of GAK, an artist with a definite Gahan Wilson influence, with a terrific eye for the smaller details--and he draws a hell of a dead cat.

Dead Cats Bouncing is one surprise after another. For example, I did something I don't normally do when reading an Ed Lee story: I laughed.

Or there's the entertaining way Paul Di Filippo wrote his story, "Mehitabel in Hell".

This is a book for the kid in every adult, for the person who's seen what else is on the shelves and just wants something unexpected.

Call it a book of bedtime stories for the already-damaged child.

Call it whatever you want, just grab it quick before Gerard and GAK do it again with another Dead Cat book, or better yet, Dead Cat the Animated Series. And then it'll be Dead Cat stuffed toys for everyone.

When I purchased Dead Cats Bouncing, I wasn't sure what to expect from the onslaught of talented, if somewhat depraved, mentalities communing inside this work. I somewhat expected a book of horrific tale exclaiming the high points of depravity, reflecting what I had tasted before from the likes of Edward Lee and Jack Ketchum in the past. So, it came as quite a surprise to find that this weren't horror stories at all but were instead demented children's tales about a cat that had returned to the land of the living with a belly full of love/or hate-depending on whose recount of the experience you read. Better yet, all of these are numbered and signed by all the contributing authors, something I missed out on when reading the books description, including the likes of: Gerard Houarner, Charlee Jacob, Jack Ketchum, Edward Lee, Tom Piccirilli, Linda Addison, John Skipp, Yvonne Navarro, Terry McGarry, Paul Di Filippo, Charlee Jacob, David Niall Wilson, Gene O'Neil, Brain Keene, Mick Farren, and Gak.

The premise of these tale, forged by Gak and Houarner as they sought and almost captured a Stoker Award, focuses on the exploits of Dead Cat, who was a sacrifice to the goddess Bastet and finds that being in the land of the dead is quite boring. There are no happy hunting grounds filled with birds or mice, no naps and dreams of bliss, or any of the other things that a cat needs to enjoy themselves when finding oneself outside the land of the livelihood. In fact, all Bastet tells him to do is, "eat sand." So, what's a cat to do when confronted with a dilemma like this? Why, return to the land of the living without becoming alive, of course! Most of these portraits of the Dead Cat's "life" are written in choppy sentences, focusing themselves from the thoughts of Dead Cat himself and not in the narration aspect of storytelling, with a few of the writers deviating from that course. At first I found this practice somewhat questionable, but I soon overcame this initial hesitation and found the style enjoyable and, in many instances, funny. This came as quite a surprise, too, because I never thought of many of these writers in the comedic sense before reading DCB.

This isn't to say that the book is a challenging read, because that is far from the case. I found myself finishing it within an hour, covering the two-hundred plus pages of large print in what amounted to no time at all and longing for more. Still, the captivating prospects of a cat that evades death for no other reason than boredom is something worthwhile and deserving of a look, especially if you want to see writers in a different light. Recommended for the oddities, young and old (with attention paid to the profane, of course)!

This book is a collection of Gallagher's essays published elsewhere. In this format however, they take on an added dimension and explaination of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and its commander, Robert E Lee.
Gallagher begins by examining Lee's Maryland campaign, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg and the army's campaigns in 1864. His conclusions on the Battle of Gettysburg and its effects on the Confederate home front are particularly interesting. He concludes that the battle was not the overwhelming defeat to the Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederate home front that it would later be portayed as by historians. He makes the argument that the loss of Vicksburg was seen as a vastly bigger loss and Gettysburg was more seen as a small defeat or even a victory because of Meade's failure to chase the Confederates in retreat.
Gallagher also includes an interesting essay evaluating the claims of some historians that Lee was not fighting a modern war with modern tactics and if he had done so, the Confederacy would have been better off. He ably demonstrates that indeed Lee did understand the difference in technology such as the minie ball and its impact on strategy and tactics.
However, the best essay is Gallagher's essay on the Lost Cause "myth". Gallagher explains that many of the claims that were later associated only with Lost Cause historians such as Jubal Early or Douglass Southall Freeman, were actually developed during the war and immediately following the war prior to any claims made by Early and others. Thus some of the "myths" such as the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Union as part of the central cause of the Confederacy's defeat, is actually true. He draws the wonderful and correct conclusion that to dismiss the Lost Cause myths in their entirety does a major disservice to the historical profession and that discussing those Lost Cause claims that do have a basis in fact is not in fact giving any legitimacy to any neo-Confederate point of view concerning the centrality of slavery to the origin of the Civil War.
The one quibble, and the reason I gave this book four stars instead of five concerns Gallagher's essay "Fighting the Battles of Second Fredericksburg and Salem Church." I really couldn't find a point as to why this essay was included in the book, unless it was to demonstrate a hard and fast friendship link between Early and Lee that Gallagher does build upon in his essay on the Lost Cause. However, I still think the essay about Fredericksburg really doesn't belong in this format.

With the skill of a surgeon, Gary W. Gallagher dissects the myths and legends surrounding Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia, past and current, to reveal a fascinating new look at the "marble man". Positioning himself squarely between the Lost Cause proponents and the current pack of revisionists, Gallagher relies on primary sources (newspapers, diaries and letters of civilians and soldiers, official correspondence) and careful, well-reasoned analysis to discover the real truth surrounding Robert E. Lee, and in the process lands an effective blow worthy of the general himself upon both sides. Gallagher's claims that Robert E. Lee was indeed an able proponent of modern warfare (though I would dispute the term modern) and also a capable administrator fully capable of being as strict or lenient with his subordinates as the case required breathes new life into the continuing quest to discover this fascinating man and effectively destroys the myths held by both sides (ironically enough, both sides often seem to wind up arguing both sides of the same coin) that Lee was first of all a member of the landed Virginia gentry far too short-sighted and stuck in the past for command of the Confederacy's main eastern army as well as being far too gentlemanly to deal strictly with subordinates. In fact, Gallagher presents Lee, through his own words and letters, as a man fully aware of the forces arrayed against him and as one who from the beginning knew full well that the Confederacy needed to marshall all of its resources in order to win the war and gain independence and that tough decisions and hard sacrifices would be required, and that a strong government would be required to take charge in order to ensure this was done and coordinate everyone's effort. Also, the idea that Lee "bled" his army to death (the fact that Lee's army at the beginning of the 1864 Overland Campaign was basically the same size as it ever was seems to have escaped the notice of many) also comes across as rather weak thanks to Gallagher's fine research. The weakest argument Gallagher refutes is that Lee's myth was wholly created after the war, and he does this by proving most emphatically that Lee and his army were indeed the primary source Confederates looked to for hope as well as the national symbol of the Confederacy (much like Washington's Continentals) worldwide. The fact that the main part of Grant's thrust against the South hit here against Lee proves this as well. However, do not mistake Gallagher as a Lost Cause proponent in disguise; though he defends the points Lost Cause proponents make that are actually rooted in fact, he spares them not his swift, sharp sword in pointing out the concerted effort to preserve and protect the memory of the Confederate armies, and Lee in particular, by shaping history through their own eyes. Also, he cuts like a knife through as many of their arguments as those of the revisionists, who, in their zeal to cut through the myth of the Lost Cause (and rightfully so, since we must be as objective as possible) often go too far and wind up rejecting legitimate conclusions and research in favor of their own modern myth. In conclusion, Gallagher, the good professor has taught us all a valuable lesson; look not through the lens of your own eyes to view history, but search ever more diligently for the real facts and take nothing for granted. Though I'm sure we all carry our own biases (I fully admit my admiration for Lee, and I fail to see how anyone can remain truly and completely aloof), we can all separate ourselves, at least partially, from our opinions in order to get at the facts and reach reasonable conclusions, as Gallagher has so beautifully done. Good job, Professor Gallagher.

This was a fun and quick read. I had trouble putting it down. Some of the scene descriptions are excellent. If you like this type of book, you will enjoy it. I was suprised by a large number of typos in the book.

This book is great. Superb character build-ups and a who-done-it suspense that urges you to stay up until 3-4 a.m. to finish it! I am definitely an Edward Lee fan now!

This exciting mystery will keep you wondering until the very end. Well researched and carefully thought out, this is a fast paced thriller. So many mysteries dwell on technicalities and drone on, this one is nonstop from start to finish. Highly recommended. Fans of Lee and Steffen should check out Joe Lansdale, Richard Laymon, and Heywood Steele.

Longacre is very impressed with the "style" of Stuart. This has caused him to ignore his short commings as a commander. The book is less a study of the actions and TO&E that went into the war, than a isn't J.E.B. great book. His short commings are glossed, the 7 Days, over or not covered at all, Ox Hill.

He falls into the trap of the early CSA were just better and ignores the problems the Union had with building a Cavalry. He did an excellent job of covering this in his last book. Then, he falls into the better equipment trap w/o looking at how the war shifted tatics and the why ANoV failed to adapt.

This is not a bad book but a disapointment after his excellent "Lincoln's Cavalrymen".

Lee's Cavalrymen: A History Of The Mounted Forces Of The Army Of Northern Virginia is an exhaustively researched, superbly presented, "reader friendly" study of the southern calvary troops active in the American Civil War, as well as a welcome and complementary volume to Lincoln's Cavalrymen which presented an intense scrutiny of the cavalry units of the North. Drawing upon the results of an extensive study of newspaper archives, calvary-specific dispatches, letters, diaries, and memoirs of cavalrymen, and more, civil war historian Edward G. Longacre effectively utilizes these core source materials to produce his erudite and fascinating discourse, which is very highly recommended reading for Civil War buffs, students, and researchers.

An excellent overall study of the cavalry of the Army of Northern Virginia. Told generally in a narrative style, the book provides a solid discussion of and evidence for Confederate cavalry dominance in the earlier part of the war. Specific actions are covered--just about all of them, in fact, which means there isn't necessarily room for a lot of detail about every event. Longacre also includes material on the training and daily life of the cavalry. Disadvantages in weaponry and materiel, as compared to the Federals, also get plenty of time.

Longacre gives a balanced picture of Stuart; it's hard to see how a historian of ANV cavalry could avoid writing about their commander for most of their existence, and Longacre offers both praise and criticism, as well as a couple of insightful points. He's not at all a Stuart partisan; in fact, one gets the feeling he would probably rank Hampton first in tactics.

This book offers a sensible account of the Confederate cavalry at (and not at) Gettysburg, and represents a modification of Longacre's view in his earlier book on the subject. In the earlier book Longacre seemed to accept the viewpoint that Stuart "should have" been present, whereas now, perhaps influenced by *Saber and Scapegoat* (which appears in his bibliography), he takes a more positive view.

Longacre is more original, and perhaps more questionable, when he analyzes the tactics of mounted charges. He claims that ANV troopers wanted to fight mounted, but with revolvers and other firearms rather than sabers, and I wish he had provided more supporting quotes, because I've read plenty of primary sources (Gilmor) where sabers are used with glee. His assertion that sabers were really more effective than firearms at close quarters is interesting, and he goes on to state that mounted charges really were of little use, being more or less outdated and causing high casualties. But did mounted fighting, which took place until the end of the war, actually result in more casualties than attrition, disease among horses and men, or the kind of dismounted fighting cavalrymen sometimes did in the West, where they were ordered to charge breastworks? (history of the 7th TN Cav). I wanted to see more analysis, more numbers and more quotes.

Certainly a complete and interesting account, as far as I know the only such work, and required reading for anyone interested in the topic.

This is a serviceable account of the 1862 Peninsular campaign. Despite all the huge amont of literature on the Civil War (a lot of it redundant), there is surprisingly little on this pivotal aspect of the conflict. Mr. Dowdey writes in the talkative style of the old school historian. The supposed strength of this book is its attention to geographical detail. At times I found that the authors attention to roads and trails did not match the attention that should have been payed to the battles described. Like most Civil War historians Dowdey does not get into much detail about the tactics employed by either side. We never learn in what formations (or lack thereof) any of the troops were fighting in. The battles themselves are frequently described in rather muddled fashion. Dowdey frequently digresses in his descriptions, which further confuses the narrative flow. As a Southener Dowdey pays most attention to Southern activities. Thus we get all sorts of mini-bios on Confederate generals, but little on their Union counterparts. The chronology of events is also a bit confused. What Dowdey does well is provide a good overall description of the campaign, and he provides good insight into MacClellan's vague plans for his capture of Richmond. Dowdey is a bit hard on Joe Johnston's style of command before Lee takes over. Also the book points out well the complete lack of staff work on the part of Civil War armies in this period. European observers oftern laughed at the slip-shod attempts to provide this esstential service. None of the so-called great Civil War commanders ever appreciated this vital aspect of command. Hence the reason why armies often blundered into each other, and why the battles of the 7 Days lacked any decisive results. Dowdey's work is perhaps a bit dated, but is well written, and worth a casual read.

Clifford Dowdey's work, "The Seven Days: The Emergence of Lee," is a well-written, detailed and informative record of the series of clashes between Union and Confederate forces known as the Seven Days Battles that occurred near the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia in late June 1862.

Dowdey describes, in rich detail, the initial Union planning and preparations for the amphibious landing on the York Peninsula (between the James and York Rivers). He details the Union Army of the Potomac's successful landing on the York Peninsula in May 1862 and its methodical advance up the peninsula towards Richmond led by its commanding officer, Major General George B. McClellan. The Confederate forces, commanded by General Joseph E. Johnston, are seen by Dowdey as ill-led as they continually retreated in successive fashion towards the outskirts of the Confederate capital and prepared themselves for a siege. Finally, with the Union Army divided north and south of the Chickahominy River, Dowdey chronicles Johnston's decision to turn on the Union forces at Seven Pines on May 31, only to fight an inconclusive battle. Johnston himself was wounded in the late hours of the battle, and his replacement was General Robert E. Lee, until that moment the military advisor to Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Upon assuming command, Lee immediately devised a series of offensive strikes against the still-divided Union forces, but Dowdey argues that Lee's ultimate failure to crush the Union Army was due to a combination of many factors. Poor Confederate staff planning was in clear evidence from the beginning to the end of the Seven Days Battles. General Lee failed time and again to assume direct operational control of ever-changing battle situations where his subordinates failed to drive forward against the enemy (for example, "Stonewall" Jackson's failure to push forward his drive on the Confederate northern and left flank at the Battle of Mechaniscville). Lee was also hampered by the uneven quality of his subordinate commanders, particularly the deaf and old Theophilus Holmes, the inept Benjamin Huger and the mentally exhausted Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson (who suffered, according to Dowdey, from stress fatigue). Last, but certainly not least, the surprisingly well disciplined, hard-fighting and well-led (at the brigade, divisional and corps levels) Union troops frustrated Lee's strategic and tactical battle plans at virtually every turn.

Dowdey's work provides wonderfully detailed descriptions of all of the major battles: Seven Pines, Fair Oaks Station, Mechanicsville, Gaines's Mill, Savage's Station and Malvern Hill. In addition, he also aids the reader by providing a series of detailed maps and descriptions of the complex web of major and minor roads and country lanes that were fundamental to the movement of the armies - Union and Confederate - during the Seven Days Battles. I found, however, one very annoying aspect about the work. I strongly disagreed with Dowdey's one-sided and dismissive view of Confederate General Joseph Johnston as a defeatist general who possessed no redeeming personal or military abilities. Johnston was clearly one of the most effective of all the Confederate generals, one whose primary concern was the care and welfare of the men under his command. He never took unnecessary risks in battle, for he knew that the Confederacy had a limited pool of available manpower with which to fight the Union.

Despite this one point of disagreement, I found Dowdey's work to be an excellent study of the Seven Days Battles. His insistence on "visual history" - that a historian must visit the battlefield that he is studying in order to more effectively understand the movements of the opposing armies, thereby aiding him in writing a work that the reader will follow clearly - is very much in evidence in this book.

A wonderful break from the usual, with Dowdey displaying an absolute mastery of the material. McClellan (heroically) dominates the early parts, with Johnston and Magruder as fools and Lincoln and Stanton as MacBeth's witches. The author's appreciation of the North's and South's politics is outstanding and adds a livid dimension to this oft-told tale. His single failure is in the matter of comparative (numerical) strengths. Don't miss it.