Of all the major spy stories to break open in the last thirty years, the case of John Boyce and Andrew Dalton Lee has to take the prize and the most troubling in its larger implications. Other spies like Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen were disillusioned middle aged bureucrats whose spying was an outlet for their frustration as well as a source of additional income. Boyce and Dalton, however, were young men who blundered into the spy game mostly because of boredom with their comfortable upper middle class upbringings. Their betrayal of the country that allowed them to live such an easy life is as baffling, if not as horrific, as the later actions of the shooters at Columbine High School.

Those who enjoyed the popular movie starring Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn based on this book will particularly enjoy the details that the movie had to leave out. Of the two, Boyce's story is the most tragic. He was highly intellegent with a potentially bright future, and secured a position at defense contractor TRW with a Top Secret security clearance because of his retired FBI agent father's connections. Lee, on the other hand, was a dropout and a drug dealer whose life was spiraling downward toward the inevitable bad conclusion. One of the astonishing facts revealed in the book is just how many second chances Lee squandered along the way. A child of less affluence would have ended up in prison long before he even had the chance to join Boyce in his spying.

Author/journalist Robert Lindsey is an excellent writer and he tells the story in such a way that it reads like a fiction thriller. Lindsey reports astonishing facts such as the incredibly lax security at TRW without editorial comment, letting the events speak for themselves. Lindsey's extensive interviews with all of the principals, including Boyce in particular, make for particularly compelling reading.

Overall, a well-written journalistic account of one of the most unfortunate of America's spy cases.

Robert Lindsey's "The Falcon and the Snowman: A True Story of friendship and Espionage" was a true story about Chris Boyce and Andrew Dalton and how they were selling secrets to the Soviets in the middle of the cold war. You see how simple this was, how they did it, and why they did it. I can't tell you much more with out giving something away. Once you pick it up you can't put it down.

At the southern tip of L.A. there's a bridge across the harbor. On one side it's beautiful, the other leads to Terminal Island, a federal prison. Boyce and Lee grew up on the beautiful side and ended up in the hell of a prison cell. Lindsey's book tells how. They did it, but to read of their journey downward is frightful when one considers the extreme differences the two sides of the bridge represent. And the book is much much better than the movie.

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.

I don't speak Korean well enough to appreciate most of this book, but it was still very helpful to me. It has the best explanation I've seen of pronouns and forms of address in Korean; even Korean people had a great deal of trouble trying to explain those things to me. The explanation of verbs was also helpful. If you know more Korean, the book is probably even better; every time I go back to it I learn something new and interesting.

Completely agree with the first reviewer. I have the English edition. I found every section interesting and useful. The design of the alphabet in "Korean Writing" (very unique design), the many sound changes described in "Phonology" that I wasn't aware of and issues it raises in spelling, the use of tones (!) in Middle Korean and in some dialects of modern Korean. But of course the majority of the book is on the grammar of the language. It has copious examples and employs a modest set of vocabulary items. Many lists abound including a list of 14 appellations that can be used to address a person (besides the many used to address relatives).

Like Ramsey's book on Chinese, this is a very well written book and employs a very pleasing font. Every example is in Hangul and accompanied by modified Yale Romanization. Initially, I was not happy with "sensayng-nim" preferring instead something more familiar (to me) like "sohnsaeng-nim" but then I realized the Yale Romanization is much closer in spirit to Hangul and superior to the romanization I was accustomed to.

I recommend this book for anyone learning Korean who want to see the big picture. The book is packed with useful information that learners would without doubt benefit from. I think even advanced students would find something interesting.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book.

Actually, I do not have the English version of the book, but I do have the Korean version, which was supposedly translated into English by Professor Ramsey.

This book has been the answer to my prayers. I have been trying to learn Korean for the past twenty-five years and have had all kinds of questions about the language that average Koreans have simply been unable to answer. The main reason they have been uable to answer is because they were not used to looking at their language from a non-native speaker's point of view. Well, the writers of the "The Korean Language" finally look at Korean from my point of view.

This book discusses the differences between English and Korean and focuses on answering the nitpicky questions that native English speakers are likely to have when learning Korean. What made this book especially interesting for me was that it gave detailed explanations of all aspects of Korean without boring me with a bunch of linguistic jargon.

I must admit that I did get a little bored with the chapter explaining the writing system, "hangul," but in general the book was a very interesting read, beginning with the introductory chapter.

For beginning students this book may not be what they are looking for, but for the native English-speaking intermediate student and above whose goal is to achieve fluency in Korean, this book is a must-have.

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.

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.

This book is a definite for anyone starting out in Civil War reenactment. If your first experience is anything like mine, you'll be given a thousand pieces of information and advice, from twenty different people, all on your first day in. After arriving home from that first event, you'll be asking "But why do they do this, and that, and this other thing?" "What does it mean when they say that?" and etc. Simply put, this book has the answers.

Hadden has made "Reliving the Civil War" even better with the 2nd Edition of his book, expanding, improving, and correcting some of the perceived deficiencies of the 1st Edition (although there are those of us who would have said it was pretty flawless). This book is unquestionably the definitive guide to the genre of Civil War reenacting, and is as requisite as a Hardee Manual for anyone interested in this aspect of living history, whether a novice or a veteran. It proved an invaluable guide to me when writing my own book, "Everyday Life During the Civil War" (Writer's Digest, October 1999). I recommended it to anyone interested in watching, reading about, or participating in reenactments.

Reliving the Civil War: A Reenactor's Handbook is more than its title conveys. Although it was designed for newcomers to living history and Civil War reenactment, it is also a great reference for the experienced reenactor and for those interested in Civil War history.

It is obvious from R. Hadden's writing that he is in love with reenacting. An experienced reenactor himself, he shares his knowledge with the reader in this entertaining, educational, and well-crafted book.

"Reenacting is as old as human society, religion, and drama," he begins somewhat philosophically. From their beginning, reenactments gave history "life, taste, and smell, something significantly missing from dry academic tomes."

The book provides information on several different aspects of reenacting, including a brief history of the trials and tribulations faced in the formation of the hobby. He gives knowledgeable advice for dealing with spectators: the old, the young, the informed, and the ignorant. He even includes a section containing strange and "silly" questions asked by spectators.

And Hadden knows how to answer all the questions. He discusses everything from wearing (and not wearing) undergarments, to the new trend of virtual reenacting on the World Wide Web. He gives advice on speaking, manners and etiquette, and purchasing equipment and clothing. In his section on infantry reenactment, he provides a useful list of the high and low prices one should expect when purchasing essential equipment and clothing. He also provides sketches of Confederate and Union rank insignias and 16 pages of informative photographs.

Throughout the book, Hadden emphasizes the reenactor's role as a teacher. He says that audience participation and visual aids are the best ways for people to learn about the time period. He also stresses the importance of authenticity in reenacting. In an effort not to mislead spectators, a reenactor should thoroughly research the person he is portraying and/or the regiment in which he is participating.

In addition to information on military reenactment, he also provides advice on civilian reenactment for men, women, and children, including information on clothing and roles. The book also contains several appendices with additional information on rules and regulations, taxes, organizations, and periodicals, a glossary of reenactment terminology, and a detailed bibliography for further research.

Reliving the Civil War is a well-written, informative, and reader-friendly book that is a must-have for reenactors!

Correction: Vision of the Disinherited was first published in 1979 by Oxford Univ. Press

Pentecostalism is arguably the most important mass religious movement of the twentieth century. As it grew out of revivals in Topeka, Kansas and Los Angeles, California in the early twentieth century it rapidly gained adherents across the U. S. and throughout the world. Today, it is the second largest sub-group of global Christianity. It has over 30 million American adherents and a worldwide following of 430 million. Before 1970 there were few scholarly histories of the movement. Academics' unfamiliarity with the world of ecstatic religion might have been one reason for this oversight. But just as likely, scholars thought the conservative religion of pentecostalism, like Fundamentalism, was regressive, entrenched, and not worthy of their interests. Because of the paucity of historical research on pentecostalism, Robert Mapes Anderson's exploration of the movement's origins in 1977 was a seminal study. Anderson applied the newest methods in social history, psychology, and religious studies in his effort to trace the roots of American pentecostalism. What he found was that extreme social strain was the source of pentecostalism. Following Eric Hobsbawm and E. P. Thompson, Anderson located social tension (such as class conflict and class stratification) in industrialism. The shift from an agrarian to an industrial society fed estrangement. "Status anxiety" demonstrates how individuals affected by these changes became pentecostals. Accordingly, when asking who pentecostals were, Anderson answers: those cut loose from their roots in the soil, the highly mobile and unstable in residence, occupation, and religious affiliation, who hovered uncertainly between working and middle class (113). He begins his study by examining the rise of the Holiness movement during the second half of the nineteenth century. Holiness advocates were unsatisfied with the lack of piety in mainline denominations and were put off by the growing wealth and elaborateness of the of their churches. Dozens of holiness sects left the mainline denominations in protest, establishing their own fellowships that ministered to common laborers and farmers. The holiness revival spawned a new zeal for "spirit baptism" or a divine empowerment of believers. Pentecostalism took spirit baptism one step further. In 1901, holiness minister Charles Fox Parham asked the students at his Topeka Bible school to study the scriptures and determine what evidence might be given of spirit baptism. Using the pentecost account of Acts chapter two, they concluded that speaking in tongues was the confirmation of holy spirit baptism. The first practitioners of tongues speaking thought they were speaking in known human languages. They reasoned that God had given them the ability to preach the gospel in other countries. Slowly this view changed, and pentecostals came to believe they were speaking in a divine language, which God alone understood. Even though pentecostals were uneducated and poor, speaking in tongues meant that in God's eyes they were powerful citizens of a higher kingdom. The 1906 revival at Azusa street, Los Angeles marked the second phase of the pentecostals' origins. William Seymour, a black student of Parham's, initiated the revival amidst an impoverished urban setting. The Azusa street revival gathered the "ethnic minority groups of Los Angeles," who discovered a "sense of dignity and community denied them in the larger urban culture"(69). Anderson illustrates Pentecostalism's appeal to the dispossessed by analyzing forty leaders of the early movement. Of these he finds that most came from the lower economic ranks of society and had shifted from job to job throughout their lives. Pentecostalism was a release for these individuals. The ecstatic experience of speaking in tongues offered an escape from their "status anxieties" and gave them a sense of divine significance. Equally important, pentecostals' apocalyptic view of the end times allowed them to explain the past and present in terms equal to their social experience. "From the Pentecostal perspective, history seemed to be running down hill . . . and the world seemed to be at the point of collapse." Pentecostals looked for Christ to return and rescue the faithful from the fallen world (80-81). Anderson concludes that pentecostalism represented a dysfunctional and maladjusted reaction to social pressures. Because of the pentecostals' negative appraisal of society and their pessimistic outlook for the future, they were an apolitical, "conservative bulwark of the status quo." They channeled their social protest "into the harmless backwaters of religious ideology"(239). For Anderson, the radical social impulse inherent in the vision of the disinherited was squandered away in escapism and conservative conformity. This is the tragedy, says Anderson, of pentecostalism. This conclusion is one-sided. Anderson assumes that the pentecostals' faith is irrelevant if it does not foment social and economic protest. He also assumes that religious rewards are less satisfying than material ones. Anderson's materialist reading neglects the religious functions of faith for pentecostals and overlooks the importance of pentecostals' internal religious lives. But for the disinherited, speaking in tongues and partaking in healings and other miracles opened new vistas that improved and transformed their lives. Anderson's use of status anxiety to explain the ascendence of pentecostalism is also problematic. Status anxiety, as someone like Richard Hofstadter used it, supposes that the dispossessed sought upward social mobility. According to Hofstadter, status anxiety occurred among Fundamentalists because they desired social and political clout, but were unable to achieve it. Did pentecostals want to climb social and political ladders? By Anderson's own account pentecostals had removed themselves from politics and society. Their quest for religious enrichment rather than social and economic security, calls into question the status anxiety model. Although Anderson's work suffers from a rigidly functionalist model, it is still the best comprehensive history of early pentecostalism. Perhaps future studies, following Grant Wacker's work, will correct his account by emphasizing the positive functions of faith for pentecostals.

This is the definitive work on Early Pentecostalism. I cannot imagine why it is out-of-print, with it's extraordinary insight, unbelievable size of Bibliography which is worth the price of the volume in itself, and if that's not enough, the insightful and perceptive original material from original sources. Get this volume if at all possible. Recommended

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.

Gene Smith's Lee And Grant was a well-written documentation of the lives of these Civil War generals. The way the book was set up kept it interesting and almost fun to read. The format was such that consecutive chapters paralleled each man's life. For instance the first chapter pertained to Lee's father and his childhood while the second chapter was about Grant's Father and childhood. One warning I have to potential readers: this is a great book for those interested in the Civil War and these two men. If one doesn't have any interest in the topic, then this book is not for them. There aren't and underlying driving plots or surprises that make the book suspenseful. This is a historical piece highlighting two great men in our country's history. It's a great book for those who want to read specifically about these two men, not for a reader just looking for a book to read.

I enjoyed this book very much. The contrast between Grant (who led a hard scrabble life, even resorting to selling firewood by the side of the road to make a living) and Lee (perhaps the greatest man of the South) and Grant's triumph was a great story. You get a great introduction to the Civil War, even though there is a focus on the Virginia campaign because this is a biography of these two men, not an overall history of the Civil War. Highly recommended.

I was enthralled by the unique view that this book afforded. I have read many histories of the Civil War from many perspectives. This is the first time that I was introduced to these two pivotal historical figures from the human side. The juxtaposition of each of them to the other was very helpful to put the time and sequences of the war into perspective and give true scale to all that happened.

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.