Michael Golay is a master story-teller. Thus he instantly enthralls his audience by inter-weaving the lives of one of America's greatest heroes: Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, and an American traitor: Edward Porter Alexander, into one, seamless story. Golay takes dry, dead history and makes it live, so that the seemingly formidable task of reading 345 pages passes quickly and enjoyably.

This is a great book to read if you are looking for a little fun, or if you wish to share information with a friend or family member unfamiliar with the details of America's 19th century, intramural tragedy.

However, a double biography is an artificial construct, at best. Golay's choice to tie together the lives of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and Edward Porter Alexander emphasizes just how artificial that structure can be.

Chamberlain was a genuine American hero: a civilian academic, past the age when he would have been expected to serve, he rushed to his country's defense at the beginning of the Civil War. Serving brilliantly, at great personal cost, Chamberlain is creditted by many with turning the Battle of Gettysburg, contributing significantly during the Battle of Five Forks, and beginning the process of national healing with his chivalrous gesture at the Surrender Triangle of Appomattox Court House.

Alexander, on the other hand, was a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, and a regular Army officer. Like all regular Army officers, he had sworn "to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." In order to participate in the insurrection, he violated his sacred oath: he lied. The nation expected better of the man, and should have had its expectations fulfilled.

In an age when values are, again, viewed as important, we must clearly state that, ultimately, despite the shared battles, hardships, and adventures, the lives of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and Edward Porter Alexander were not parallel. Chamberlain's life is to be emulated, and Alexander's rejected.

This book works. It is simply flawed by its structure.

Golay writes a very good book on both Alexander and Chamberlain. There are better books on each man though. Klein's book on Alexander comes to mind as does Wallace's book on Chamberlain or Trulock's book on Chamberlain. I think though the previous reviewer is too quick to judge Alexander. To understand Alexander better I highly reccomend his book "Fighting for the Confederacy" which gives his motives for fighting and his experiences in the Civil War. I think it is very easy to judge a 140 years after the fact. I personally think Alexander was a good and brave man. He fought for his home. Chamberlain and Alexander believed in different things let us respect them for that.

this book is plum terrible. lacks focus, lacks character. would rather discuss the north than the destruction of the south. the south was gallant. there is none of that here. military account are boring. i want feeling. i want heart. this book does nothing for me. talk about how the south was ruined, not the northerners looking down on the south after the war.

only southerners should write books about the south. no one else can talk accurately on the subject.

With so many books on the Civil War, I thought this sounded like a novel idea: describe, from primary, first-person sources, what it was like at the very end. The author, Michael Golay, does an admirable job of "personalizing" the story. Knowing the scope of the topic, he chooses a few people in a few locations and tells us their stories. And he does it with a prose that is all-to-lacking with most books on the Civil War. (Nowhere will you read, for example, "Jackson brought his division up and smashed into Hancock's left." That's about as bad as it gets, and Golay includes little or nothing like that.) Consequently, we feel as if we're there: we soar with the New England abolitionists who dedicated their lives to making life better on the Sea Islands; our hopes sink with their betrayal by racism and the federal government; we suffer with the innocent as well as with the guilty; and we almost hear the snap of the ropes as the Lincoln-assassination "conspirators" drop.

But that is the problem: Golay cannot decide whether this is "big history" or "little history," and as a consequence, we get both. He leaves and returns to characters so often--and has the irritating habit of so often referring to them by first name--that I found myself constantly reviewing the index to inquire, "Now, who is this person?" Sherman's story has been told; Booth's story has been told; Lee's surrender to Grant has been told. This book would have been much more effective had Golay stayed exclusively with what really worked: the up-close-and-personal stories of ordinary people whose lives were turned upside down. He need not have told them all, or in all places, because the experiences were similar everywhere.

Still, I recommend this book as an antidote for what is wrong with so much writing about the Civil War. It's balanced; it's personal; it's compelling. It could have been so much better.

Haven't had time to read much of it yet, but I'm pretty sure Mr. Golay's better than that 2.5 star rating gives him credit for.