I found this book to be one of the best books about command decisions and relationships between Politicians and generals during the Civil War I have ever read. It covers the battles and the leaders of the Confederacy, both great and flawed. I found it hard to believe that some Southern leaders/generals fought harder against their own side in stupid little infights and disputes. The book goes a long way in explaining Lee's strategy and that of Davis and how they were different and the results of that difference. This book concentrates on the Eastern Theatre, the author's other book 'Jefferson Davis and his Generals' covers the Western Theatre of operations and is brillant in its examination of this area. Both books are well worth reading.

It was ok but if your doing a report then it could get a little boring but it is great information!

The Gleam of Bayonets by James V. Murfin is a worthwhile read concerning the bloodiest day that the American military has ever experienced. It is not the best book I have read concerning Antietam. For that I would recommend Landscape Turned Red : The Battle of Antietam by Stephen W. Sears.

Murfin's basic premise is that Antietam was the turning point in not only the Civil War, but in American history. The Union "victory" allowed Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and turn the war from one concerning economics and unionism to that of one to end slavery. By changing the nature of the conflict, intervention by the French and British was averted. Murfin's conclusion seems to based more on his assumptions than analysis.

Where the book shines is in the comparison of the generalship of McClellan and Lee. Murfin goes a fine job discussing the strengths and weaknesses of both. For McClellan, who history has justifiedly ridiculed his handling of the entire Maryland Campaign, Murfin rightfully gives him credit for reorganizing the Army after the debacle of the Second Battle of Bull Run. Murfin is also correct is in his conclusion that Antietam was the best chance, prior to Appomattox, that the Union had to end the War and that McClellan needlessly lost that opportunity. On the day after the battle McClellan had up to 25,000 fresh troops, combined with at least the same number of other troops which could have been used to crush half as many battle fatigued Confederates. The cautious McClellan chose not to fight, and Murfin may be correct, that the Union was then condemned to two more years of bloody conflict.

Murfin is deservedly more complimentary to Lee. Antietam may have been Lee's greatest tactical achievement. Outnumbered two to one, he was able to properly predict McClellan's moves and fight a battle that he should not have fought to a tactical stalemate. Any historical reviewer should have marveled at the ability of the Confederate Army to have survived the battle, without being routed, much less avert a Union victory. However, Murfin properly criticizes Lee's initial decision to invade Maryland and Lee's expectation that any tangible results could be achieved. The one point that Murfin misses is that the decision to stand and fight at Antietam needlessly sacrificed thousands of Confederate troops that Lee despritedly needed at future battles.

All in all, this is a good read. The book is well written and Murfin does a fine job of interspersing quotes from the participants with his narrative. As a result, one gets a good feel of the soldiers thoughts and feelings on that bloody field.

What started as an assignment for a newspaper's 100th anniversary edition of the battle of Antietam, The Gleam of Bayonetd is the result of six years of intensive research and consultation with regarded historians. Murfin, an editorialist for the Hagerstown, Maryland "Herald Mail" newspaper and a member of the Hagerstown Civil War Roundtagle, explains in the book's preface his opinionated style of writing. For Murfin, what started as a mere examination of the battle, eventually became an analysis of the controversial Union General George B. McClellan. Throughout the book, Murfin examines and analyzes McClellan's excessive strategic caution, his failure to initiate an offensive, and how his indecisiveness shpaed Lee's decisions. Murfin portrays McClellan as a cautious general, reacting to Lee's movements as if Lee would, in some way, make a tactical error. This tactical error if committed would somehow afford McClellan the opportunity to launch a successful military offensive. On the other hand he describes Lee as the more cunning general, who knew McClellan's weaknesses and exploited them with his reactions. Comparing the generalships of McClellan and Lee to that of a game, Murfin writes, "It was a game of chess with McClellan moving only on piece at a time as if the same rules applied to war. Lee proved to be the master chessman, however." Convinced of the significance of McClellan's and Lincoln's relationship, Murfin dedicates and entire chapter to this relationship entitled "McClellan-Lincoln's Dilemma." In this chapter he examines McClellan's selection as General in Chief, his lack of initiative during the Peninsula Campaign, and his relationship with the political power in Washington. Intriguing as well are the two chapters examining both armies' physical contion to fight, and the Union Army's delay in pursuing the Confederate invaders. Murfin provides a detailed and descriptive analysis of Lee's Maryland Campaign strategy, and his seven reasons for taking the war to the North. Likewise, he looks at McClellan's blundered attempt to pursue the Confederate Army, while having in his possession "The Lost Order," and outline of Lee's entire campaign plans. In the chapter "The Flower of Lee's Army," Murfin writes of Confederate General Hood's arrest for insubordination, the conflict between Generals A P Hill and Stonewall Jackson, and of Hill's eventual relief from command. Murfin describes in detailed written accounts the Confederate's shoeless feet, their ill health, lack of uniforms, lameness, and diarrhea. Murfin writes, "Its seems almost symbolic that the "big three" of the Confederacy -Lee, Longstreet, and Jackson-rode into Maryland in a fashion that would soon be used by hundreds of Confederates when they left; by means of ambulance." The Gleam of Bayonets is a well written and scholarly account of the events leading up to Antietam and the battle itself. The equal treatment of both armies, and the almost blow by blow manner in which Murfin describes the events, absorbs the reader. His accurate portrayal of General George B. McClellan provides a greater understanding of the Union's failure and McClellan's eventual relief from command by President Lincoln on 5 November 1862. Scholars and history buffs alike will enjoy and benefit from the historical facts, documents, and human focus of this book. Winner of the Fletcher Pratt Award, the Gleam of Bayonets 402 pages is worthy of further examination by all persons interested in this significant battle or the generalship of George B. McClellan. JAMES W. GROVE, JR. AMERICAN MILITARY UNIVERSITY

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.

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.

This is not just another book on Gettysburg. It is a long-overdue study of this important battle written from the point of view of what Lee and his generals knew before and during the 1863 battle. The authors care-fully craft Lee's background and his history and relationship with other leaders including Jefferson Davis and Jeb Stuart. They describe Lee's plans and the actual battle, including the failure of subordinates to effectively utilize their artillery on the disastrous last day. The authors did not base their presentation on how the battle turned out. Instead they explored the actions of the Confederates and analyzed the facts known to Lee, Stuart, and the others to determine the basis for decisions and courses taken. In doing so, Bowden and Ward reach conclusions drastically different than those of many other historians, showing that many of the popular myths about the battle are indeed false. By using Stuart's initial troop movements while Lee was moving north, they show that Stuart did indeed have orders to move north rather than take his wayward ride around the Union forces. They show that Lee's orders to Richard Ewell to take Cemetery Hill were not discretionary. They not only look at actions taken; they also examine options not taken. Lee's generalship in this battle is shown to be much better than often credited to him. The arguments of many of Lee's critics are addressed and refuted in detail. Even a reader with great knowledge of this battle will benefit from this book. It is a "Must Read" for every student of the War.

Bowden and Ward provide a well-researched and compelling look at one of the most researched and written-about battles in American history. I have read more than 20 books about Gettysburg and countless others on Lee's generalship. "Last Chance for Victory" was one of the most thought-provoking and compelling books on this topic I have ever read.

The author's analysis of Day Two of the battle is a refreshing look at the many controversies surrounding the battle and Lee's battle plan. Their analysis of President Davis's decisions prior to the Gettysburg Campaign and Stuart's famous and controversial "ride" also were refreshing and compelling.

In addition to forcing readers and historians to reassess traditional concepts about Lee and Gettysburg, this work is well researched.

Most important, it is well-written. The text flows easily and in many instances it reads like a novel.

I could not put it down.

This book is a must buy for any serious student of the Civil War or military history. It is also approachable for those new to the Civil War and Gettysburg.

Whether you agree with the authors' final conclusions or not, you should read this book. You will never think the same way about Gettysburg and Lee again!

There are numerous reasons why this book is superb, and why it has been named as part of the curriculum at the School of Advanced Military Studies at the United Stated Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

1) The description of Lee's art of war, and the explanation of what Lee believed had to be done in order to give the Confederates the best chance to win is rooted in the lessons of the Great Captains, and has never before been presented this clearly;

2) Lee's vision of victory and how he could accomplish same through his operational objectives for the campaign, along with the military, logistical and political forces at work that combined to influence his decision to transfer the defense of Richmond out of Virginia and into the North, and how these continued to bear upon his decisions once the battle was underway, are laid out clearly;

3) The Lee-Stuart controversary is dealt with in unprecedented clarity. Bowden and Ward's presentation of the facts and analysis provides, for the first time, a clear understanding of what all the principals involved knew and understood at that time, and how Stuart, once he reached Haymarket, made a decision that violated Lee's restraining orders and resulted in him compromising his command and the trust placed in him by Lee;

4) The entire issue of how and why Lee concentrated the Confederate army in the Cashtown-Gettysburg area is explained in
detail. The timeline provided by the authors concerning when and where Lee received information, his resulting orders and more, demonstrate the continued implimentation of his operational plan and goals;

5) Thank goodness, that for the first time ever, we have two authors that have deleved into thoroughly and explained properly Lee's role in the July 1 fighting. What's more, Bowden and Ward present, for the first time, the entirety of all the issues---and there are many of them---involved with Lee's pursuit orders to Richard Ewell following the battle that day. Further, the authors demonstrate, conclusively in my military opinion, why so many past and present writers. along with so-called students of the battle, are confused over this issue. These are just some of the reasons that the chapter dealing with July 1 is impressive;

6) As impressive as the book is up to the battle of July 2, it is my belief that the best part of LAST CHANCE FOR VICTORY are the two chapters that deal with Lee's initial plan of battle, and the actual fighting on July 2. In spite of all that has been previously written about Gettysburg, Bowden and Ward are the first authors I know of that PROPERLY explain Lee's initial plan of action, AND how and why it was modified to the en echelon mode of attack once the Federals realigned their positions on the South end of the field. Lee was present to scout the enemy positions, ascertain those changes, and issue a change of orders accordingly that took into consideration the new relative positions of the armies that was consistent with the best way to accomplish the mission for that day. Moreover, the description of the fighting on July 2, COUPLED WITH the explanation of how the en echelon plan of attack was being implemented and how and why it broke down and what that meant to the detriment of the Confederate cause, can only be described as just superb;

7) Lee's plans for July 3, how these had to be modified, and how the attack that did take place that afternoon did not materialize as had been planned, are covered in a succinct manner that helps the reader identify how the attack failed and the multiply people responsible for its failure (including Lee);

8) The summary of the book ("Reflections") provides additional insight (including more analysis than what has already been given) to the most important issues that contributed to Lee's defeat. It is a powerful conclusion to a hard-hitting book.

Are there any drawbacks to the book? Yes, given the reality of today's short-attention span public, and those with their minds already made up, there are. And after reading two recent so-called "reviews," I am more convinced than ever. THIS IS NOT A BOOK THAT CAN BE ABSORBED BY "BROWSING THROUGH" AT A BOOK STORE. THIS IS NOT A BOOK THAT CAN BE CLAIMED TO BE READ BUT THEN CRITICIZED IN A SPECIOUS WAY BECAUSE THE READER HAS NOT READ THE BOOK CAREFULLY ENOUGH IN ORDER TO GRASP THE TOTALITY OF THE
AUTHORS' ARGUMENTS. This does not mean that everyone who reads this book should AGREE with the authors. What this means is that there are legitimate criticisms and those which are not.

LAST CHANCE FOR VICTORY is a highly detailed book that provides in-depth analysis never before presented involving very complex historical and historigraphical issues. As such, it reveals the strengths and weaknesses of Robert E. Lee at his greatest trial by combat. The testiment to this book is in its accomplishments, which to date are:

Winner of the 2001 Douglas Southall Freeman History Award

Winner of the 2001 General N B Forrest Southern History Award

Winner of the 2001 Grady McWhiney Award of Merit

Winner of the 2002 Bonnie Blue Society Literary Award

and, arguably the most telling accomplishment, part of the curriculum at the US ARmy Command and General Staff College.

Buy the book; read and study it carefully; enjoy it.

JS

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).

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.

This book is a biography of Lee the man, not an examination of one of our history's most notable generals.

The military side of Lee is, of course, a major part of Thomas's story. However, he has attempted to paint a charactor study of Robert E. Lee so that his deportment and decisions during the Civil War can be seen to flow from a man molded by tradition, duty, honor and the uniquely historic family from which he came.

This means that the book spends much time on Lee's pre Civil War life as well as time delving into his relationships with his family and others. The result is a readible book that gives the reader an entre into the man Robert E. Lee. Those looking for a military expose or exploration may be somewhat disappointed, but this is still a worthwhile book.

Thomas has given us a post-revisionist portrait of Lee that addresses the general as a human being much better than it presents him as a brilliant military strategist. His complicated relationship with his rakish father, his sainted mother, his demanding wife, and his children are all central foci of the book; his relationships with those outside his family get relatively short shrift. It is amazing how little of this book deals with the actual history of Lee's Civil War battles; more attention seems to be given to his involvement in the Mexican War. Indeed, the book seems to give disproportionate attention to his life prior to the Civil War, with relatively lesser attention to what happened after he became commanding general of the Army of Northern Virginia. Since the latter period is that in which he made his mark on history, this focus is rather disappointing. But Thomas does a relatively able job of dispelling the image of Lee as "the marble man," and for that, Civil War afficionados owe him a debt of gratitude.

Emory Thomas is ambitious but ultimately correct in proclaiming his compelling Lee biography a post-revisionist portrait. He attempts (with admirable success) to balance his respect for Lee's character and ability (without Douglas Freeman's blatant worship and apocryphal stories) with honest accounts of his faults and contradictions (minus the carping of Connelly's 'The Marble Man' and Nolan's 'Lee Considered'). In the process, Thomas has captured as much as any writer is able the humanness of Lee. I was struck throughout the book by events and words that mirror my own aspirations and failures. I think the highest praise I can offer Thomas's book is that this avid Lee fan and Civil War buff felt like he had met Robert E. Lee for the first time