I felt that this book was well worth the time that it took toread. Groden and Livingstone wrote in-depth all of the inaccuracies ofthe Warren's Report and other conflicting evidence that our government states as being the truth. The only negative thing that I can say about this book is that it can be a bit confusing and takes quite a bit of time to read. I am sure that I will be re-reading it again to pick up on parts that never did sink in. Others have put this book down by saying that Groden made all of the evidence fit his "theory" of a conspiracy. A theory is a speculation just like how the Warren's Report is a theory, its not true fact and most of use would agree with that.

Overall, very good book, worth the time to read. Remember, keep an open mind.

This was the book that introduced me to the mysteries surrounding the JFK Assassination. Recently, I revisited this book and read it again. I am glad I did.

I found this book to be an interesting read. I also found it to be very direct and to the point about what the authors think happened. I appreciated how they lined the information out step by step by step to back up their beliefs.

I was particularly interested in the unusual deaths of those people who are associated with the JFK murder. The large number of deaths in the unusual manners indicate a conspiracy if nothing else does. I like that this was covered in this book because many books tend to miss this point.

There are many conspiracy theories out there. I found that this one had proof and evidence that seemed to back up what might have happened. This is a good book and can be a good introduction to the JFK mystery.

This book took me by surprise after reading the 26 volumes of the Warren Report. This book shows you a concise, detailed account of all the evidence ignored by the Warren Commision and the House Select Committee on Assassinations. I highly recommend this book to anybody who believes that JFK's Assassination issue is closed.

Mr Hallsey is too generous is his review of this book. McKenzie would have us believe this is a serious treatment of a serious issue. Wrong! McKenzie fails miserably to support his assertions with probably this and probably that chapter after chapter. To re-examine Lee's career, we really do not need a play-by-play of every battle. A direct approach to Lee's faults and detailed evidence of such would have served the purpose. Instead the reader is given a flimsy statement and referred to footnotes. One footnote citation is not even listed with the footnotes - I had to check the bibliography to find the full title of that reference. Lee's victories at Second Manassas and Chancellorsville are taken from him by this faux historian while he fawns over the immortal Jackson. Historical context is ignored or twisted in McKenzie's stories of Confederate Command failures and the retention of Lee in command over his own proposed resignations. Additionally, the book has inexcusable typos - the aftermath of the Seven Days left the armies EAST of Richmond, not west. The publisher, Hippocrene Books, should be ashamed of itself to put out this shoddy product at such an outrageous price.

Comical is the best word to describe John D. McKenzie's book Uncertain Glory. It should be considered a work of creative fiction and not a serious history book. The research is shallow, the review is cursory and assumptions are never fully developed. The accuracy in the book is also in question since on page 254 Mr. McKenzie has the battle of the crater taking place on "July 30, 1964." This book could have been a remarkable treatise had any serious time been spend exploring artillery placement, troop deployment and southern economic conditions. It would have also been useful to use the opinions of modern military experts to bolster his position. Having studied the Civil War seriously for many years, I find the book to be bankrupt of any serious historical fact (that has not already been discussed) is not worth serious academic consideration.

Southern historians, the author feels, have had it all their way, denigrating Union leadership and enshrining Lee in a mythos of superb generalship he doesn't deserve.
In this trenchant analysis of the Confederate defeat, McKenzie's criticisms of Southern arrogance, disorganization, corruption, military errors, and dubious ideology are difficult to refute, but considering the 5:2 manpower and 10:1 industrial advantages of the North, his belief that a defensive strategy and greater Southern dedication might have prevailed is less persuasive.
With bibliography, a good index, and wonderfully clear action-maps which lack only scale to be perfect, McKenzie's work is recommended as a highly readable, if tendentious catalyst for further discussion.

(The "score" rating is an ineradicable feature of the page. This reviewer does not willingly "score" books.)

When I brought this book, I expect to read about the modern pro and con of actions of Robert E. Lee. Instead, what I got was a superifical biography on Lee and some summary judgement of his actions based on the author's say so. So where is that debate of Lee's critics?? Many people like to dismissed Lee's critics as revisionists but they got it backward. While Lee was alive, he was soundly critized in many circles by veterans of Confederacy and by his foes. It was only after Lee's death did this mythology of Lee's greatness took on a godly scale as the reconstruction period was ending. This period of Lee's mythology is the true period of revisionism which did not really end until Thomas Connelly came out with the Marble Man which brought Lee back to Earth and where author critized without merit. This book lack any depth and appears to be pretty shallow work. If the author wanted to back up Lee, do with so with evidence and logic. Just saying so don't mean much. This book will probably go back to the used book store soon......

Taylor's book is a satisfactory survey of Lee's life. Unfortunately, that is not how the book is billed. Taylor purports to answer Lee's critics. I'm squarely in his camp; I find much of the criticism of Lee to be scholarly opportunism: an attempt to make a name through iconoclasm. Taylor is right when he notes that the attempt to puncture the Lee myth went too far, but he fails to convincingly demonstrate why. He brings up specific criticisms infrequently, inadequately lays out the critic's argument, and often dismisses the criticism without having made a convincing case of his own. His arguments concerning Lee's attitudes toward slavery are never fully convincing, for example. This is particularly distressing when one can see that, in most cases, the convincing counterargument is there, waiting to be made. By constructing his book in the format of a chronological narrative, Taylor lost the opportunity to level a blast at academic graverobbers. A book aimed at answering Lee's critics needs to spend a great deal more time and effort on the critics and their arguments. To Taylor's credit, he never attempts to whitewash information damaging to one of his points. He tries to be complete in his portrayal, and that alone makes this a worthwhile read.

Potential readers should know that this book isn't a scholastic history of Robert E. Lee. Like Dwyer's "Stonewall," this book is historical fiction. Furthermore, interposed within its "story," is ultra-conservative-Texan-Christian rhetoric... I'm shocked that Amazon.com doesn't state this in the book description.