This is a very good book on the Overland Campaign of 1864. It is the story of the great campaign between Lee and Grant. The author writes very good character sketches of Lee, Longstreet, Ewell, and Hill. He also tells about the lower level officers of the Army of Northern Virginia. He does show bias against Longstreet who he does not think very highly of. Grant fans will not be too happy with some of the narrative. But it is a book about Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia not Grant and the Army of the Potomac. For the flip side of the coin I highly recommend Bruce Catton's "Surrender at Appomattox" which is an excellent account of the Army of the Potomac in these campaigns.

An excellent work that in my opinion captures the essence of the Confederate failure. Dowdy debunks the myths of Grant the butcher and the subsequent "Lost Cause" explaination that the South lost the war due to the overwhelming superiority of Northern numbers, industry, weaponry and supply. Dowdy places the blame with Jefferson Davis, Braxton Bragg, the CSA War Department and to some extent on P.G.T. Beauregard. The decentralized defensive strategy adopted by Davis, led to the inability by General Lee and other CSA field commanders to sufficiently concentrate the forces necessary to defeat the Union armies.

The author writes a simply marvelous history of the great generalship of an almost god-like Robert E. Lee.
Read how sheer numbers, not superior leadership, allowed U.S. Grant final victory.
Although I think this book is out of print, I would highly recommend any history or Civil War buff to search hard for it. They will not be dissapointed.

One time when Lee was on his travels, a woman ran from her house, grabbing his arm and dragging him into her front arm. She told of how her grandfather had plant the tree in the front yard, how it had grown so tall and perfect. The tree was now nothing but dead limbs. She told how the dreadful Yankees came and stayed in her home, and they destroy the tree for fun and target practise. To her the tree was her 'red badge of courage', and she was proud to show Lee how terrible the in justice the Yankees visited up her, how she suffered. Lee quietly told her to cut it down. Not the reaction the woman hoped for, but so like Lee. When the war ended, it ended. He made sure there the war did not devolve from armies fighting armies, into a situation similar to Northern Ireland, local resistance prolonging the fighting, likely bringing down swift retribution from the Northern Reformations.

Lee started his memoirs, but never finished, and at his death, the part of history was never really addressed by Lee. There have been many like Longstreet who wrote about the war, but not Lee.

His father had been Lighthorse Harry Lee, a friend of George Washington and a Revolutionary War Hero - a role that would have been Lee's had the Confederacy won. Instead of helping to forge a new nation of independence as his father had, by the simple act of the South losing, he was on the 'wrong side'. Instead of hero, he was a rebel. Lee was troubled deeply by his decision to leave the Union Army and take up leadership for the Army of Northern Virginia. He was the husband of Mary Ann Randolph Custis, great-granddaughter of Washington. Arlington, our national cemetery that is so honoured, was her plantation, and the dead originally put there was done so as an insult to the Lee family.

Lee was a brilliant tactician, did what so few did before him, divide his army in the face of superior forces, and succeeded until the fiasco at Gettysburg in Pickett's Charge.

Since Lee could not or would not complete his memoirs, A.L. Long, with backing of Lee and later his family, took up the role, an amazing chore since most of his work was done when he was losing his sight, and the writings accomplished with a slate used for the blind. Long was military secretary to Lee and the vast amount of information was unpublished before this work. The papers were collected with the assistance of Marcus J. Wright, formerly Brig. General of the Army of Tennessee and Agent for the Collections of Confederate Records.

This books provides a wealth of information on a gentleman, a husband, a father, a lady's man, but first and foremost a soldier and leader.

I highly recommend this for anyone wanting a clear pictures of Robert E. Lee.

Long knew Lee in the pre-war army and was with him in notth-west Va. and the sea coast defenses in '61 through Appotamox. As his milt. secretary, Long drew on his own resources as well as those of Taylor and Venable also on Lee's staff, in addition to corrospondance with Lee's family members after the war. When one wonders why Lee resigned his commission to offer service to his Virginia, one can readily find the answers in this text....As a professional soldier being above politics, Lee merely was"doing his duty" to Vriginia and his family. Who won was not as important as duty, in the life and times of Lee. One can readily understand the resolve displayed by Kempe, Gordon, Armistead and others after reviewing the text. A recommended reading for any serious student of history studying the period

This book includes General and Mrs. Lee in 3 stages of their life: as young a young couple about to be married, during the 1840s with their children, and during the war with their adult children. It includes many of General Lee's uniforms, and his famous horse, Traveller. This is a must for Civil War buffs(especially Southern ones!) and paper doll fans.

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.

An interesting book to read,but very negative in parts. The best thing to do is see Marvin's films then read about it in the book, so you've already made your own mind up. The book brings across the authors own likes and dislikes about Marvin's films and career,i felt that it was a bit to influenced by his own likes and dislikes. At the end of the day you either like Lee Marvin and his film's or you don't. Personally i love the bloke and enjoy his film's and the many characters that he played. Marvin maybe dead but he'll never be forgotten with the work he left behind for us all to enjoy.

Robert Lentz has done an outstanding job in profiling the film and television career of one of America's most beloved tough guys. This insightful look into Marvin's tenure as an actor is a must read for anyone interested in films from the 1950s through the 1980s.

The detail used to describe each of Marvin's movies and television programs is excellent and the author deserves to be commended for his thorough research and love of the subject. In the fickle world of Hollywood stardom, it is refreshing to seem a tribute paid to some of the movie world's older names.

This book is a must for any fan of Lee Marvin. It contains dozens of great photos from Lee's career. Lee's growth from a young handsome actor to a legendary star is traced by the photos and the reviews in this book. The book tells the story of each film by Lee Marvin and also contains much information about Lee Marvin's television and documentary work as well.

The film reviews have detailed information about the films' plot and theme; and information about the producers, directors and other actors in the film. The reviews are set in chronological order so the progress of Lee Marvin's career may be easily followed.

This book only minimally describe Lee Marvin's personal life outside the movies. It takes the view of a student and fan of Lee Marvin - a fan who has all the best photos and has compiled all the details about Lee Marvin's films and his acting career. This book will be a reference for movie buffs and film students and teachers.

A very useful guide to the Chennault Papers, covering the American Volunteer Group and the 14th Air Force. Note that there is a microfilm version of the Chennault Papers at the Library of Congress, as well as the originals at Stanford. Though the LOC version is differently cataloged, the published guide can still lead you to what you want; once you get to the LOC manuscript room, you can supplement it with a paper finding aid. I spent weeks reading this material for Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and the American Volunteer Group.

This book should probably only get one star but I gave it two because it does give the reader a good look at Lee the man instead of the saint. The problem is that it goes too far. It is hard but possible to make a much loved figure human without going to the extreme Connelly goes to. A happy medium would have been much more likely to bring us the real Lee. Sadly instead of going after the real General Lee Connelly goes on the attack and gives us a picture of a sad person who does not reflect the real man. Was Robert E. Lee the pure figure he is often pictured as? Not likely. On the other hand he also was not the pathetic figure given us by Connelly. In an attempt to destroy the myths of the past Connelly creates a set of his own half truths and myths. Shame on him!

This book might be approached as an examination of how a well-known personality is transformed for a human being into a cultural icon. Sequentially and chronologically Connelly takes his readers through that process using Robert E. Lee as the item of investigation. Along the way, Connelly makes commentary on the differences between the cultures of the north and south and how Lee's legion spread because of those cultural differences. That context has been well-established by numerous writers. Connelly simply uses it for a closer examination of Lee. For example, on page 102 he quotes another historian, Bradley T. Johnson in writing "Environmental factors had forced North and South to develop contrasting socieites. The North, 'invigorated' by constant struggle with nature, became materialistic, grasping for wealth and power. The South's 'more generous climate' had wrought a life-style based upon non-materialism and adherence to a finer code of 'veracity and honor in man, chastity and fidelity in women'"
This book helps a person to understand how history evolves in the process of retelling over a period of several generations.

This book is not just a revisionist look at Robet E. Lee but also an objective evaluation of the Southern Lost Cause Syndrome that utilzed Lee as their flagship for a just cause. Thomas Connelly is a great writer of the western theater notably the history of the Army of the Tennessee and of the western Confederate cabal that had conflicts with Jefferson Davis. Connelly offers what southerners and partiucularly Virginians may find as a harsh evaluation of Lee during the war. This book also includes some psycho-analysis that offers some reasoning for Lee's very formal demeanor which is in far contrast's to Joe Johnston whose troops would pat him on the head on occasion but not dare approach Lee in such an informal manner. In my opinion the book demonstrates that Lee was simply not infallible like amy man who has overall responsibility, he must accept some of the blame for failure. There is also the question of whether Lee was too aggressive with limited manpower (Gary Gallagher has referred to this as crucial, that the Confederacy was in serious need of military victories for morale). The Lost Cause contingent made up of Jubal Early and company always gave Lee total credit for victory but not in defeat, Early & company always made someone other than Lee a scapegoat in their version of history. Gettysburg serves as the grand indictment of this philosophy where Longstreet becomes the total goat at Gettysburg in the 1870's while one of his accusers, Early, covers his own lackluster performance by publicly hanging Longstreet. Early raps himself with the cloak of Robert E. Lee to deflect criticism of his own actions and post war exile. To my mind, Connaly expolores better than anyone else the self serving relationship of Jubal Early to the Lost Cause syndrome in Early's attempt to rewite history. Connelly brings out that Jackson was the south's great hero until Lee's death and the emergence of Lee's rise among southern writers. He also argues that Lee lacked a national picture of how to best serve the Confederacy by his opposing transferring troops west to bolster those failing armies with limited resources. He argues that Virginia was Lee's first and main focus. Highly reccommend this book, whether you agree or not, Connelly makes you look at the facts presented and while not meaning to destroy Lee's image of a competent and charismatic general, it tends to show him as human and mortal who like everyone made some mistakes. We all have to look at historians presentations carefully, even Douglas Freeman in Lee's Lieutanents slightly diminishes Jackson's role and he makes Longstreet shorter, fatter and a plotter of self grandization. This is an intellectually challenging book best appreciated by those that have an open mind. This book most likely helped foster Alan Nolan's "Lee Considered."

This book is very historical and full of facts and footnotes but that is its downfall. We don't get to see the real, personal man. It has alot of North Carolina politics and deals with some of the relations of England to the colonies but most people want to get to know the man intimately. It does tell of his death and the aftermath and goes into the legal fallout after Blackbeard's death, such as who had legal right to Blackbeard's loot. All in all I would rate it as average read.

as this book is more of an in-depth research paper concerning all things blackbeard, it deals mostly with litigation and politics surrounding his life. that is what all the known public records deal with, and that is almost all that is in this book. the last 75 pages are footnotes. it's well-researched and interesting if you want that level of information.

This book, while a bit dry in writing style, is a decent history. However, it is not a decent history of Blackbeard, himself. While the author makes some nice points about Blackbeard and the creation of his image, the main focus of the book is the political struggle that led up to the attack on the "retired" Blackbeard and the fallout from that action. If political intrigue between Virginia and North Carolina during this period is your interest you may enjoy this book. If you are looking for a history of Blackbeard, the man, look elsewhere.

I am a bit new to the Civil War history ranks, but I have read several books over the last few years. I just completed Grant's memoirs, and decided I needed more information about Lee, hence this book. I could not rate it higher, due to the apparent inaccuracies (too many to detail, primarily with regard to numbers in the ranks and casualties), and the racist attitude that prevails. Taylor was clearly a loyal soldier, and true to his cause, but his mis-guided attack on General Longstreet became tiresome.

Walter Taylor offers a great perspective into the charater of General Lee, the ability of his subordinates, and the fighting courage of the army itself. Taylor's book should be read by any Civil War buff since Taylor was actually there as Lee's adjutant general. While those critical of Lee may find Taylor to be too defensive and loyal to Lee, one can only continue to admire the Greatest General of the Civil War. I like to take in both sides of the issue concerning Lee, but I have found that Lee was an able, moral, and intelligent leader with weaknesses like every human. The only reason I didn't give this book a five is because of Taylor's subtle criticism of General Longstreet, while he does give him deserved credit.

Gary Gallagher has compiled 13 interesting essays on Robert E. Lee and his CSA Army and its generals. Each individual essay is very interesting, especially his concentration on Jubal Early and the development of the "Lost Cause" myth to explain the defeat of the CSA. Gallagher expertly details how Jubal Early and other early Civil War historians explicitly wanted to make sure that the soldiers of the CSA were portrayed in a positive light, sometimes, regardless of the facts.
Gallagher also attempts to rebuild the reputation of Early destroyed by his defeat in his campaign in the Valley. In doing so, Gallagher explains that a comparison between Early's lack of success and the success in the valley of "Stonewall" Jackson is inappropriate. Early inflicted as many casualties as he could on the forces opposing him, however he was faced with superior generals on the Union side than most of those that faced Jackson. In essance, Gallagher explains that Jackson's success must at least in part be attributed to the fact that he faced incompitent opponents, and Early did not.
There are a couple drawbacks to this book, and while they don't detract from the individual essays, they do detract a bit from the book in its entirety. First, much of the first third of the book, particularly the essays, "The Idol of His Soldiers and the Hope of His Country: Lee and the Confederate People" and "If the Enemy Is There, We Must Attack Him: Lee and the Second Day at Gettysburg" address larger issues than just Lee and his generals, they both seem to me they would have been more appropriately included in Gallagher's work "Lee and His Soldiers."
While the section on the "Lost Cause" and Jubal Early is very interesting, it also seems that it's misplaced in this book. It seems that it should belong in Gallagher and Nolan's book on the lost cause.
The last section in the book on "historical memory" which includes essays on Ken Burn's miniseries "The Civil War" as well as battlefields, seems also to be out of place in this book.
I'm not sure why Gallagher chose to title this work "Lee and His Generals in War and Memory" when so few of the essays included deal directly with the relationship between Lee and his lieutenants.
Another drawback is that the book doesn't have an epologue that attempts in any way to tie each essay together in a larger framework. Absent this, it really lacks a central focus as a book.

I bought this book based on the fact that I consider Gary Gallagher one of the premiere Civil War historians today. Luckily, he did not disappoint me with this effort. Through a series of 13 essays, Dr. Gallagher takes a detailed look at General Lee and his subordinates performance during the Civil War, and how they have been portrayed by historians. More speficially, he details how the "Lost Cause" writers created some of the myth and legends about the South's best and worst leaders. Additionally, he looks at more recent works (both books and video) about the Civil War, and whether or not these historians bring a more balanced and better pespective on the war.

I really enjoyed this book because it offers so much fresh material on many popular Civil War leaders, and topics (like Ken Burns video collection). Also, I think that Gary Gallagher brings a very balanced approach to his research and analysis. In other words, I trust his opinion because he always supports his thoughts with detailed research from the latest sources available. Therefore, he can successfully weave together both the battles and politics of the war, and paint accurate pictures of the Southern leaders discussed in this book.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who has a fundamental understanding of the Civil War, and is looking for resources to develop a deeper analysis of this complex war. Learn from someone who is at the forefront of current research, and willing to put in the extra time and effort to get the story right.