I enjoyed this book very much, as it gave a good overview of the entire life of Robert E. Lee and not only the war years. It included quotes from letters that he wrote to family members, as well as things other people wrote about him at the time, and that added to the flavor of the book and gave a good sense of what kind of man he was. I especially enjoyed reading the brief biography of his father and how the book included commentary on what was happening elsewhere to give a well-roundedness to the life of Lee. However, I felt the author's commentary on reconstruction went on a bit too long. The author's tone was very "pro" Lee and, in that vein, he criticized others, which I don't think was necessary to get the point across. Altogether, I enjoyed this book and it has inspired me to want to seek out more information, not only about Robert E. Lee, but about the Civil War in general, and about other leaders during those times.

An excellent, thorough, effecting biography of a great American. There are many individuals in our nation's history who commanded armies and adulation during their lifetimes which we would be hesitant to call "Hero" - often times these individuals serve their own interests first, inspired by their own egotism (as contemporaries to Lee, Beauregard and Sheridan come to mind). R. E. Lee was of a different mold, born into a proud family humbled by the financial misfortunes of his father, Revolutionary War soldier "Light Horse" Harry Lee (who served time in prison for debts), R. E. Lee's entire life was conducted out of a primary sense of duty: Duty to his family, his God, and his country. Throughout this work, Dowdey convincingly argues that Lee's position must be interpreted within the framework of the Virginia society in which he was raised. When Virginia seceded from the Union (unwillingly, the majority voted to remain in the Union until Lincoln called for force of arms to march on Virginia's soil) Lee saw it as his duty, as a Virginian, to go with his native state and family. This despite the fact that Lee was strongly in favor of working within the framework of the Republic and in favor of an emancipation plan, even after General Scott had offered Lee command of the newly forming Union Army. This work by Dowdey is much more than a biography of one of our great historical figures - it is also a convincing commentary on the politics of the time. Lest we forget, Northern Radical Republicans shared the responsibility for committing the country to the catastrophe that was the American Civil War - in many cases, worked to achieve that end. Even at the point of firing on Fort Sumter, a reasonable, compromise approach (keeping the same objectives in mind) could have retained the key Southern and border states of Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee in the Union (or at least out of the Confederacy). However, Lincoln, acting on behalf of the Radical Republicans, committed the country to a fratricidal war that degenerated into a four-year atrocity committed on the native population. Sumner, Stevens, Stanton - these men cared nothing about preserving the Union or bettering the human condition. They cared about subjugating one section of the country to serve the interests of the Northeastern financial-industrial complex. Dowdey convincingly argues that the ACW was the end of the federated Republic envisioned by the founding fathers and the beginning of the special interest group Democracy that persists to the present day. The majority of the nation (including Lincoln and Lee) was in agreement on the slavery issue - an evil existed which had to be eliminated in a controlled manner over time. In fact, the Virginia state government was on the verge of approving an emancipation plan in 1832 - only to be foiled by fears generated by Northern abolitionists promoting violence (conveniently enough, calling for action in sections of the country far from their own families). The Radical Republicans played the slavery card to stain the South, ensuring that sectional strife would continue to divide the country for as long as possible, providing opportunities for political exploitation. This is a great read, and stands the test of time in answer to more recent works (e.g. Nolan's Lee Reconsidered) which seek to denigrate Lee's status in history in order to cast a more favorable light on Lee's opponents. Any question as to Lee's motives, especially his "decision" (in reality, there was no decision to be made) to continue fighting through the siege at Petersburg and the retreat to Appomattox, are thoroughly answered. Lee's life was consumed by his sense of duty. Lee trusted wholly to the Providence of God and his life was service for the public good - anything else was not worthy of consideration. Consider Dowdey's work on Lee well before considering later attempts at revisionism.

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.

"Old Devil Wind" will get very young children in the mood for Halloween night by telling them what happened "One dark and stormy night" when a Ghost began to wail. One by one other things in the house, from the stool and the broom to the door and the floor, as well as the owl and the witch outside, begin to add their own spooky sounds to the dark and stormy night. You can think of this story by Bill Martin, Jr. (author of "Brown, Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?" and "Happy Hippopotami") as sort of a creepy Halloween version of "Old MacDonald." Barry Root ("Pumpkins") provides the suitably eerie illustrations chronicling the growling cacophony of eerie sounds that builds to the arrival of the Old Devil Wind at the climax. "Old Devil Wind" should work well for youngsters who can still count the number of times they have gone trick or treated on the fingers of one hand (without using the thumb).

Wonderful book for story time. Easy to involve children in the excitement of the book. Lots of opportunities to involve sounds while reading at a Halloween party.

This is a simple book of Bible verses that a couple could pray for whatever they're going through in their marriage. Topics like anger, financial problems, and courage are arranged alphabetically. You can be sure that you're praying God's will when you pray His word back to Him.

This helps the reader identify specific issues that crop up in every marriage. Each chapter is titled by an emotion or a problem (Anger,Financial Problems, Patience etcetera). Scripture and verses pertinent to each chapter are written as personalized prayers. The scriptures remind me of God's perfect will for my marriage. It is a wonderful tool for enhancing any relationship and makes a lovely wedding present.

Lee's work is well written and, in some cases, provides the only description of the legion of battles and skirmishes that characterized the Southern Campaign. The reader needs to keep in mind that Lee wrote in the 18th century tradition of exagerating one's own triumphs and glossing over any shortcomings. Lee likewise writes in a seemingly authoritative manner about events where he wasn't present. For example his condemnation of the NC militia at the battle of Guilford CH has influenced most subsequent accounts although Lee wasn't aware that their orders allowed them to leave the field after delivering up two rounds. In contrast he fails to mention the flight of the Virginia militia in the right wing. Given these faults, Lee's work is still the best of it's kind. Any Rev War library should have a copy.

Anyone with a sobriquet of "Lighthorse Harry" sets up some expectations with his memoirs, but this book delivers on them. Not only does the book take you into the thick of battle in the Revolutionary War's "Southern Campaign", it also takes you to deliberations about how the Colonists reacted to British Rule and what kind of government America should have and how it should solve practical issues of the day. Henry Lee was there for all of it as one of the "Lees of Virginia". This book has a zest and pacing that gently draws the reader in for the next installment.

This is a book of photographs about Robert E. Lee, and features photos not only of Lee but of the people, places, and events that were important in his life. The book has some commentary on the photos, but the focus is the photographs, not the text. The book is designed to complement Thomas' biography of Lee. As a stand-alone book, it provides a brief overview of Lee's life.

Without a doubt I have been a diehard fan of Emory Thomas since I attended one of his guest lectures promoting the highly acclaimed biography on the man and soldier Robert E. Lee. His words on the death of LEE were most memorable.

His recent pictorial essay embodied in this new publication chroniclizes Lee throughout his lifetime in vintage photographs. When I met Lee's great grand daughter Anne Carter Zimmer, I realized that some rather poignant pictures existed, but this book supports the fact.

This book should be purchased as a bedtime companion to Thomas's brilliant biography of the icon we know as Lee. The layout and selection of photographs in this publication truly satisfy one's soul in meditative reflection. Don't miss.

I had this book when it first came out in the 1960's and I loved it. I was first getting interested in skeet shooting and was a young boy. I have re-entered the sport recently and I pulled out my old copy to refresh myelf of the fundamentals. The book was published in the mid 60's so it is dated in its rules and of course, in its photos, but the reader who loves this sport should find it all very interesting. The material it contains on fundamentals is the meat of the book. These fundamentals are critical to learn. The book presents them very well with concise descriptions of foot positions, gun point, where to break the clay target, and most importantly, what to see in your sight picture, and how large a lead to take. Braun does this on each station of the skeet field with well written descriptions, photos and diagrams as well. I highly recommend this publication, my copy had a pullout map of things to do at each station with handy pointers that will make things click for the reader who is a skeet shooter.

I just bought my second copy after losing my original 35 year old copy. Paid a premium, but it was worth every penny. Too bad this book is out of print. This book taught me how to play the game and led me to my first 25 straight. I stopped playing the game for a long time, but now that I'm coming back, I trust this book to start me out right for the 2nd time.

I agree that JACOB'S LADDER is a TV miniseries waiting for production; as I read it, I kept thinking "LONESOME DOVE in the Civil War." The characterizations tend to cardboard, although sometimes they're well-painted. On the other hand, at several crucial points, somebody does something because author McCaig needs to advance the plot, not because it's what that character would do under the circumstances. The book comes nowhere near generating the power of THE KILLER ANGELS or Thomas Keneally's CONFEDERATES. The latter in particular covers much the same historical ground but produces a near-overwhelming sense of the moral horror of slavery and the war, a thunderous undercurrent that JACOB'S LADDER doesn't match. THE KILLER ANGELS imagines its way into the mindset of its characters and reproduces Gettysburg as if it were happening for the first time. JACOB'S LADDER misses this kind of immediacy. If you've already read CONFEDERATES and THE KILLER ANGELS, read JACOB'S LADDER; otherwise, save your money.

If Margaret Mitchell had been as sensitive to the Black characters as to the white ones, she might have written this engrossing novel. That is, if she had had Donald McCaig's courage in taking the reader into the fire-belly of war. The scope of this book is huge, yet its focus is at the same time fine. The variety of the characters is remarkable. And there is an effortless continuum between the mythical and the factual. Donald McCaig is an author of deep intelligence and great heart. He has written the War and Peace of the Civil War.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Jacob's Ladder. The characters are very real and engaging, and the historical references - battles and home life - make you feel as if you are right there as they take place.

If you like this book, you may also like Stonewall Jackson's Gold (sort of a Civil War Treasure Island, but a true story) and On the Occasion of My Last Afternoon (a postwar fictional memoir of a woman who lived a very interesting life during the war).

I can't believe I reached my 30's (even majored in English) without reading Moby Dick. I was turned off on Melville during college when an overzealous teacher assigned us what he called Melville's "worst book," Pierre, Or the Ambiguities. I still don't remember WHY he chose that one, but it was not particularly good. So, while I hunted down many classics, this was not one of them. Then, after finding an old edition in a library sale for $.10, I decided it must be a sign. I was completely enraptured from the beginning. The opening chapters that describe Ismael and Queequog's relationship are stunning. Then, the focus shifts and like the crew, we become accustomed to life on the ship. In fact, the process of reading Moby Dick mirrors the process of getting your sea legs. The years at sea drag on almost as long for us, but I don't mean this in a bad way. I found the whaling chapters fascinating although I did expect to be bored by them. Looking back, it's interesting that Ishmael becomes so secondary in the middle of the book we feel a kind of literary illusion that he disappears until the end. Instead, we take on the characteristics of the crew watching with horror as fixation takes over Ahab. My favorite scene takes place when Ahab is so crazed in his single minded pursuit that he turns down the captain of the Rachel's request to look for his lost son. Though reading Moby Dick is a struggle, lots of great literature doesn't come easy (Magic Mountain comes to mind) -- if you're up for the challenge, go for it. It's infinitely rewarding for a strong reader. Plus, you can always rent the movie with Gregory Peck which is pretty damned good and much shorter!

I first read Moby Dick; or The Whale over thirty years ago and I didn't understand it. I thought I was reading a sea adventure, like Westward Ho! or Poe's Arthur Gordon Pym. In fact, it did start out like an adventure story but after twenty chapters or so, things began to get strange. I knew I was in deep water. It was rough, it seemed disjointed, there were lengthy passages that seemed like interruptions to the story, the language was odd and difficult, and often it was just downright bizarre. I plodded through it, some of it I liked, but I believe I was glad when it ended. I knew I was missing something and I understood that it was in me! It wasn't the book; it was manifestly a great book, but I hadn't the knowledge of literature or experience to understand it.

I read it again a few years later. I don't remember what I thought of it. The third time I read it, it was hilarious; parts of it made me laugh out loud! I was amazed at all the puns Melville used, and the crazy characters, and quirky dialog. The fourth or fifth reading, it was finally that adventure story I wanted in the first place. I've read Moby Dick more times than I've counted, more often than any other book. At some point I began to get the symbolism. Somewhere along the line I could see the structure. It's been funny, awesome, exciting, weird, religious, overwhelming and inspiring. It's made my hair stand on end...

Now, when I get near the end I slow down. I go back and reread the chapters about killing the whale, and cutting him up, and boiling him down. Or about the right whale's head versus the sperm whale's. I want to get to The Chase but I want to put it off. I draw Queequeg with his tattoos in the oval of a dollar bill. I take a flask with Starbuck and a Decanter with Flask. Listen to The Symphony and smell The Try-Works. Stubb's Supper on The Cabin Table is a noble dish, but what is a Gam? Heads or Tails, it's a Leg and Arm. I get my Bible and read about Rachel and Jonah. Ahab would Delight in that; he's a wonderful old man. For a Doubloon he'd play King Lear! What if Shakespeare wrote The Tragedy of The Whale? Would Fedallah blind Ishmael with a harpoon, or would The Pequod weave flowers in The Virgin's hair?

Now I know. To say you understand Moby Dick is a lie. It is not a plain thing, but one of the knottiest of all. No one understands it. The best you can hope to do is come to terms with it. Grapple with it. Read it and read it and study the literature around it. Melville didn't understand it. He set out to write another didactic adventure/travelogue with some satire thrown in. He needed another success like Typee or Omoo. He needed some money. He wrote for five or six months and had it nearly finished. And then things began to get strange. A fire deep inside fret his mind like some cosmic boil and came to a head bursting words on the page like splashes of burning metal. He worked with the point of red-hot harpoon and spent a year forging his curious adventure into a bloody ride to hell and back. "...what in the world is equal to it?"

Moby Dick is a masterpiece of literature, the great American novel. Nothing else Melville wrote is even in the water with it, but Steinbeck can't touch it, and no giant's shoulders would let Faulkner wade near it. Melville, The pale Usher, warned the timid: "...don't you read it, ...it is by no means the sort of book for you. ...It is... of the horrible texture of a fabric that should be woven of ships' cables and hausers. A Polar wind blows through it, & birds of prey hover over it. Warn all gentle fastidious people from so much as peeping into the book..." But I say if you've never read it, read it now. If you've read it before, read it again. Think Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, Goethe, and The Bible. If you understand it, think again.

It's always dangerous to label a book as a "masterpiece": that word seems to scare away most readers and distances everyone from the substance of the book itself. Still, I'm going to say that this is the Greatest American Novel because I really think that it is--after having read it myself.

Honestly, Moby Dick IS long and looping, shooting off in random digressions as Ishmael waxes philosophical or explains a whale's anatomy or gives the ingredients for Nantucket clam chowder--and that's exactly what I love about it. This is not a neat novel: Melville refused to conform to anyone else's conventions. There is so much in Moby Dick that you can enjoy it on so many completely different levels: you can read it as a Biblical-Shakespearean-level epic tragedy, as a canonical part of 19th Century philosophy, as a gothic whaling adventure story, or almost anything else. Look at all the lowbrow humor. And I'm sorry, but Ishmael is simply one of the most likable and engaging narrators of all time.

A lot of academics love Moby Dick because academics tend to have good taste in literature. But the book itself takes you about as far from academia as any book written--as Ishmael himself says, "A whale-ship was my Yale College and my Harvard." Take that advice and forget what others say about it, and just experience Moby Dick for yourself.

In "Gods and Generals" Jeff Shaara follows up on his fabulous "The Last Full Measure," filling in the trilogy of civil war novels that includes his father's classic "The Killer Angels." Where "The Killer Angels" detailed the battle of Gettysburg and "The Last Full Measure" picks up Robert E. Lee's trail and follows him all the way to Appomattox, "Gods and Generals" chronicles some of the key Civil War events leading up to Gettysburg.

This is an odd way to complete a trilogy: write the first story last, the middle story first, and the last story second, but at least readers aren't required to read them in that order--and I suggest they don't. I recommend reading the stories in sequence with the war: "Gods" first, "Angels" second, and then the "Measure." One reason is the simple logic of following the natural progression of the characters and the war. Another is that in that order the writing goes from good to great. Reading the books in reverse order can lead to letdown.

While "Gods and Generals" is an excellent primer to the subsequent volumes, it is not on the same literary level. Shaara introduces the main characters, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, and a few key Union players in the war in the East, i.e., Hancock and Chamberlain, and follows their exploits from Bull Run I (Manassas) through the Peninsular Campaign, Jackson's 1862 Shenandoah campaign, Antietam (Sharpsburg), Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville. He glosses over the early fights and builds tension by providing more detail of each subsequent battle, mostly won by the underdog but aggressive and brilliantly led rebels. Most of his specific battle-scene descriptions center on Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, where Stonewall Jackson receives his fatal friendly-fire wound. But for those who loved "Angels" for its detailed account of the Gettysburg battle, this book will be unsatisfying; the individual battles do not receive enough attention. For those who were moved by the climactic drama and powerful evocative writing in "Measure," this book will seem flat, uninspired, and aimless. On its own, the ending tends to fizzle out to nothing. Of course, it's not on its own, and was never intended to be. It is a strong foundation for one of the best historical war novel trilogies of all time. --Christopher Bonn Jonnes, author of BIG ICE and WAKE UP DEAD.

My first love is Scottish History, but since I was raised on both sides of the pond, I grew to have a great love for the complexities of the War Between the States in the US. So, it was great pleasure I read this book.

Shaara, in this case Jeff, the son of Michael, had a hard act to follow. His father was the author of Pulitzer Prize Winning Killer Angels (1974). Killer Angels looked at the high watermark of the Confederacy which ended with the battle of Gettysburg. That was the single most important event of the whole War Between the States, in a war that shaped the United States. It gave such insight, such reality into the horror, the glory, the humanity and inhumanity of war, of Generals Lee, Hancock, Pickett and Chamberlain. Shaara's words brought alive the battle and made you feel it all, the anticipation, the frustration, the fear and the anger.

In Gods and Generals, Jeff picks up his father's pen and gives you another masterpiece. Though father and son, both have a different writing voices. Jeff picks up the threads of what happened before Gettysburg, a prequel to his father's award winning novel, giving you insight into the men facing what would be their hardest trial. He again centres on the driven Lee, the bumbling Chamberlain, the dashing Hancock, but we also see Jackson, the man who could march his men 40 miles in a day and then fight a battle, one of the most efficient Generals of the whole war on either side, yet overwhelming a religious man. What interested me most, was his portrait of Lee, his dedication to the Confederacy winning and yet the pain of being torn by his loyalty to the Union army he once served and likely of which he would have been General had he not resigned his commission.

A tour de force for a first time writer.

Gods and Generals by Jeff Shaara is a tremendously awesome book explaining the battles between the Union and Confederate armies during the Civil War. Shaara did a wonderful job giving key details while making it interesting. Some history novels are so boring. People just read about what happened without enjoying the book because it would not have any people or scenes or anything because it is strictly summary. This book showed Shaara's true capability of teaching the reader while the reader is enjoying the book.
Before reading this book, I lacked a lot of knowledge pertaining to the Civil War. I did know the basics, it started with slavery and the Union won. Once I read the first chapter, I knew that it was going to be an overwhelming and an awe-inspiring book and I knew that I was going to learn a lot. I learned about each of the major generals, many of the major battles, and actions the people made. I went from knowing almost nothing to being a person with a good deal of knowledge regarding the subject of Civil War.
General Robert E. Lee was a major character and Jeff Shaara really focused on him as well as Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson from the Confederacy. From the Union, Shaara did not focus on one or two of the generals, it was more evened out. Although Shaara focuses on these two generals, I felt that I got to know each character and what they felt. That is one of Shaara's strengths when he writes, the reader feels like they get to know the characters.
It is impossible to characterize the greatnessof Gods and Generals and it is impossible to not have to the chance to read it. If you are want to read a book and learn while reading and enjoying, I strongly suggest that you buy this book and read it because those around you are going to want to borrow the book and read it as well.