Unless you're purchasing this book for a child, avoid it. The text is written at the level of a fourth grader and the conclusions drawn are about as weighty. There are numerous errors pockmarking the book, some of them not inconsequential (Grant did not graduate from West Point in 1845, but 1843).

If you want a readable and scholarly book on either Grant or Lee, don't buy a dual biography. Each man is much too vast and important to cover in such a manner. Opt for Emory Thomas' Lee biography and Campaigning with Grant by Horace Porter. These books will illuminate the titans of the civil war much better than this sorry effort.

Not everyone is excited by history or the Civil War or even biographies of historical personalities. My daughters (age 14) were required in home school to read biographies of famous Americans. They were easily inspired by biographies of women -- entertainers, leaders, women who overcame adversity. But men were less interesting. And men known specifically for their historical contributions were downright boring. One of my twins started reading this book and loved it. The side-by-side biographical sketches provided enough information to interest her and offered a format for making snapshot comparisons. She is definitely NOT a history buff and is NOT a lover of biographies; however, for a short piece of her life she took time off from the Hardy Boys and read about (and discussed) two great men, the Civil War, and pieces of American history. (She went on to read about Civil War photography.)

I thought that "A House Divided: The Lives of Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee" was a wonderful book. I especillay liked it because I'm a Civil War fenatic. It was not only intresting but accurate. It was a fun to read book. It tells about how Grant, a contry boy who grew up on a farm in Ohio who when he was about 17 went to West Point and graduated yet the sight of blood made him loose his apitate yet he went to war and won against Lee. Lee was a proper slave owner and grew up on his father's plantaion, he had manners and was a very good student at West Point. Yet he was one if not the 1st. person to graduate from his class at West Piont and still lost to gruffy Grant. Read this book if you want to learn more about Lee and Grant. It also has pictures of them.

The Hunter game is a nice addition to anyones WoD collection. This book can help one to build better characers. You know onesa that can actually live for past 60 seconds.

When I purchased this book, I was expecting something along the lines of a a player's guide or such. What I got, on the other hand, was a sourcebook chock full of information on supernaturals around the world. Be careful that you know what this is before you purchase it. It's an excellent book and I liked it very much, but it was not what I had in mind for a survival guide.

I liked this book. Its written from the point of view of the hunters, a different one for each section. The book does not have any game mechanics, its pure story. It begins with a few tips for novice hunters, something you should get your players to read through. Then it goes on to describe each continent. It spends a lot of time discussing the world outside of North America, so if your planning on running a game in a different country then this is the book for you. I liked the fact that since the information is given out by hunters, it is full of various facts that are completely not true, so your players can read through the book and still not have any of the real information. Full of great story potential and well written. A good buy if your going to run a hunter's game.

"History has given Mary Custis Lee a bad rap," writes John Perry in the opening sentence of LADY OF ARLINGTON: THE LIFE OF MRS. ROBERT E. LEE. "I'm out to change that."

And change that he does. Perry rehabilitates Mary Custis Lee from a whining, neurotic invalid whose weakness and selfishness made everybody around her miserable and demonstrates that she was, in fact, a charming, attractive woman who turned heads in the Supreme Court chamber as a teenager and who almost certainly received a marriage proposal by no less a man than Sam Houston.

"Over her sixty-five years," writes Perry, "friends, relatives, and perfect strangers consistently described her as cheerful, smiling, welcoming, and industrious. She read Latin and Greek, and when she ordered a copy of LES MISERABLES, she wrote the bookseller to send it in either English or French, whichever was more readily available."

True, had not her great-grandfather been George Washington, and had she not have married Robert Edward Lee, the greatest of Confederate generals, we probably would never have heard of Mary Anne Custis. But Perry shows that she was a fascinating and inspiring woman in her own right.

Mary Custis Lee was an excellent painter, a published author, a legendary hostess, a tireless fund-raiser for charities, a devout Christian, staunch patriot, the mother who cared for seven children when their father was away from home for years at a time, and a devoted wife who nurtured her beloved husband's career even as arthritis crippled her body and the ravages of the Civil War drove her from the only home she had ever known.

Through diligent and dedicated research, John Perry has tracked down false rumors, half-truths, and conflicting claims about his subject and, by bringing the real Mary Custis Lee into the light, has set the record straight.

"Certainly the most exciting discover was Mary's prayer journal at the Virginia Historical Society in Richmond," writes the author. "As far as I can learn, none of it has ever been published or even examined before. Filled with her innermost thoughts, hopes, and fears, it casts new light on every word we have from her."

Was the discovery of Mary's prayer journal a blessing or a curse? Although some readers may rejoice in Mary's expression of religious emotions (concerning which Perry puzzlingly writes, "No one would ever read this"), others may find her diary to be overwrought, tedious, repetitious, and ultimately boring.

Be that as it may, Perry's diligent and dedicated research has tracked down false rumors, half-truths, and conflicting claims, and, by bringing the real Mary Custis Lee into the light, has set the record straight.

3.5 Stars

I was attracted to this book as a result of reading, "April 1865". I found General Robert E. Lee to be a particularly fascinating person, both militarily and in his personal life, and so a biography of his wife seemed to be an appropriate progression. I had never read material on this historical figure, so this books promise of the inclusion of her diary for the first time was also an attraction. The book was less than I had hoped for, while Mrs. Lee certainly held a unique place as a result of The Civil War and her relationship to George Washington, this book did not seem to justify its necessity.

Mrs. Lee like many women of the southern wealthy families lost virtually everything she ever called her own as the result of the war. She also was a beneficiary of the provision of a new home, and a more rapid return to a form of normalcy due to her husband's appointments, and then her son taking his father's place as a college president after the war. This was a return that was measurably longer for other families. The transition she did not make with her husband was the progressive acceptance of what had happened, and acknowledging the new reality that post war America would offer to those of the losing side of the conflict.

Mrs. Lee came from a family that was very progressive with regard to abolition and many other issues typically credited to The North. Unfortunately these thoughts did not carry through the war, and when compounded by her illness and the confiscation of the family homestead, she spent the balance of her life growing progressively angry. The US Government did return the title to her Arlington home after her death, and after it had thoroughly been destroyed as a family home. This home was also the site of many of George Washington's belongings, including the bed he had passed away in, his carriage, silver, literally rooms of possessions. This estate that had been the calling place of successive presidents and dignitaries like Lafayette was turned into a deforested piece of land, a squatter's village numbering several thousand people, and a national cemetery that encroached to the edge of her families graves.

The offerings from the diary are fairly slim in their variety and information they share. They are deeply personal notes of a devout Christian woman, however they do not offer great and original insight to her life.

This book is about much more than Mrs. Lee; it could have been called, The Families of Arlington. There is much that is of interest regarding her relations, and details of General Lee's correspondence, however she alone does not fill this book. Other work has been written about Mrs. Lee, and has received high praise; a reader might be better served to read other work prior to setting out with this offering by Mr. Perry.

I love everything about this book. They way it traces Mrs. Mary Custis Lee's family all the way back to George Washington and takes it forward from their. The way it describes the acquisition of Arlington. I have never seen a biography written better and keep my attention word for word till the end prior to this book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too much psychoanalysis and too little factual information. Almost 140 years after the Civil War and Blount searchs for personality quirks to define a complex and interesting gentleman, general and leader.

I'm disappointed too in the general trend for many historians to ever search and highlight as much negative as they can about our historical figures, especially military leaders.

It's easy to second guess and use modern beliefs to define the past. Blount (or anyone else for that matter go lead men in battle for four years) and then write your book.

Blount helps us understand the real Lee for a change, not the "marble man" admired and revered by simple Civil War buffs. Those looking for yet another breathless account of the same old stories will be intellectually overmatched by the insightful, sensitive and illuminating portrait Blount presents. A real contribution to understanding Lee, the Civil War, and the mindset which led the nation to and through that disaster.

This is the fourth Penguin Lives title I've read (the other three being Auchincloss on Wilson, Keegan on Churchill, and Johnson on Napoleon), and for pure biography, this one is the best of the four. Other reviewers who criticize the relative superficiality of Blount's analysis need to recognize that the Penguin Lives are not intended to be comprehensive, ground-breaking studies. That just couldn't be done in under 200 pages.

No, these books -- essays, almost -- are introductions to, surveys of, key historical figures. The question shouldn't be, Did Blount give us all the answers about Lee? but rather, Has Blount painted a sharp enough portrait that we have a clear idea of who the man was, why he did what he did, and what impact his life had? I think the answer to that latter question is a decisive Yes.

Unlike Keegan and Johnson, Blount is not a professional historian. But he's done a fine job with a subject all biographers admit to be a man very difficult to get close to. This fact in itself forms part of Blount's theme, as he explores the roots of Lee's famous reserve and inapproachability. He largely avoids pop psychoanalysis -- when he wades into those waters, he tells us he's doing so -- and his insights seem to make sense.

I particularly appreciated the way Blount addressed the issue that defines (many, if not most) modern treatments of Lee: the question of whether he can justly be called a Great Man while having fought, if not explicitly for slavery itself, at least for a nation and a culture in which slavery played a central role. The fact that Blount sees nuances to the discussion, instead of making the absolute, unarguable, definitive statement "Lee = slavery = evil", may cause ideologues, or people who just don't know any better, to reject his reasonings entirely. But that would be their loss because this section, too, is rewarding reading.

I said this book is good pure biography. That's because Blount is an excellent writer and storyteller, as well as a fine presenter and interpreter of facts. As a "humorist," (I've always hated that term), he has a keen eye for the ridiculous, both in human behavior and in historians' more labored interpretations.

So, no, this isn't a scholarly, definitive, biography that will become the new gold standard in Civil War Studies. But as a highly readable thumbnail portrait of one of the most loved and reviled, admired, misunderstood, and dare I say, greatest, figures in American history, I think it will be hard to beat.

It was with great disappointment that I read in 15 minutes a book whose title had promised so much. A small, thin book to begin with, "Wit and Wisdom" is heavy on white space between too few quotes. The quotes that are collected herein appear to have been collected carelessly with little concern for their merit. The truly memorable sayings contained in this book can be counted on one hand and can be had for free with a good search engine on the internet. This is one of the few books that ever saddedned this Librarian.

Devereaux Cannon, Son of Confederate Veterans, expert historian, and true believer in the "cause" and its great leader Robert E. Lee, has chosen a wonderful selection of quotes that reveal the multi-faceted General Lee. He has captured Lee the leader, Lee the strategist, Lee the man, Lee the parent, Lee the commander and the many other Robert Lee's that we know and recognize as the greatest loved of American military commanders. One quote truly stands out, as General Lee speaks across the generations to us today: "The consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it...I grieve for posterity, for American principles and American liberty."

Excellent book.

A short account of the final days of the Civil War where Grant forces Lee into bloody battles of the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna, Cold Harbor, and Petersburg. Grant forces the Confederates to use their most precious resource--manpower, and wins the Civil War. Good insights on how Lincoln backed Grant to the full degree in his waging of the war. Also a good overview of the final days in both Richmond and Washington D. C. For those who doubt Grant's genius, they should read this book.

As a Southerner whose ancestors fought for both the Confederacy AND the Union in the Civil War, I tend to disagree with both sides in the debate over "Lee Considered". I agree with those who argue that a more balanced and realistic view of Robert E Lee is long overdue, and that Nolan's book does offer some telling blows at the Lee mythology. But, I also don't believe that Nolan has made the "convincing" case against Lee that some of the posters on this board would have you to believe. Nolan, who is a lawyer and not an historian (a fact which should be borne in mind as you read this book), attempts to put the romantic, mythological Lee "on trial" and expose him for the flawed and decidedly unheroic person that Nolan believes him to be. Like a good lawyer, Nolan denies trying to "convict" Lee in the beginning of the book, and even states that he admires him in some ways, but the rest of the book reveals Nolan to be committed to "convicting" his target of several specific charges. Namely: 1)That Lee was privately far more supportive of slavery than the Lee myth would have it; 2)That Lee was far more supportive of secession and "breaking up the Union" than his myth reveals; 3)That Lee made numerous mistakes as a General that helped cause the South's defeat - mistakes such as pursuing an aggressive, "go get'em" strategy that led to the highest casualty rates of any Civil War General and bled his smaller army dry; and 4)That Lee prolonged the Civil War longer than was necessary by continuing to fight after Gettysburg, which Nolan argues "convinced" Lee that the South was doomed to defeat, and therefore he should have urged the Confederacy to surrender, or at least refused to fight or encourage his men to make useless sacrifices for a cause he privately knew was doomed. Nolan presents a good deal of "evidence" (much of it in Lee's own words), but like a good prosecutor he leaves out "evidence" which contradicts his theories, and he completely ignores the fact that Lee was a nineteenth-century man, not a late twentieth-century one. An historian would have put many of Lee's views into further context (without necessarily excusing them). Dr. James McPherson, the famed Civil War historian and author of "Battle Cry of Freedom", can hardly be called a "neo-Confederate" historian (if anything he's pro-Union), but even he has some problems with Nolan's book. A few years ago he wrote a criticism of "Lee Considered" in which he "judged" Nolan's "trial" of Lee, and while he found Lee to be "guilty" of being more pro-slavery than the Lee myth allows, he also found Lee to be "innocent" of prolonging the War (McPherson points out that the South still had a good chance of winning the war right up to Lincoln's reelection in November 1864), and that Nolan failed to "prove" many of his other charges, although McPherson argues that Nolan does raise some worthwhile questions about the accuracy of the traditional Lee myth. I fully agree with McPherson's views - this book is worth reading because it does offer a view of Lee that is in some ways more "realistic" than the Lee myth. However, Nolan fails to destroy Lee's reputation as a great general and one of the true "legends" of American military history. Overall, this book is quite a mixed bag, but it's still a thought-provoking, intellectually stimulating piece of work, even if Nolan is sometimes off-target.

Reading some of the other reviews of this book is proof enough that the Lost Cause orthodoxy is alive and well. It would be simple enough to ascribe this book to vile Yankee enmity for daring to challenge accepted assumptions about RE Lee.

That having been said, I am not totally satisfied with Nolan's approach. He rightfully criticizes various historians for drawing conclusions about Lee based on single statements or letters written by Lee (often after the fact). However, Nolan is often guilty of the same misdeed. While I suspect that the documentary record would tend support Nolan's thesis than undermine it, nonetheless the documentation Nolan provides is quite limited. Carefully selecting the evidence that supports your argument might work in a court of law, but not in a work of history.

I also think that Nolan at times indulges in unnecessary hair-splitting, such as in the 5-page Chapter 5, where he discusses Lee's feelings towards his adversaries. The chapter seemed to me to be totally superfluous and contributed nothing to the book overall.

Nolan, in an effort to discredit the dogma of the Lost Cause, at times goes overboard in his assumptions. When criticizing Lee for undermining the Confederacy's war effort by going too much on the offensive, Nolan states that the South actually had a realistic chance of winning the war. His argument is that if Lee had preserved his manpower more prudently, the South could have withstood the North's attempts at conquest. This is a valid argument, because it is obvious that Lee did a good job of wrecking his army from 1861-1863.

However, Nolan's larger argument rests on the supposition that the South was effectively managing its war effort elsewhere. Ironically, like many of the devotees of the Lost Cause, Nolan ignores the impact of the war in the Western Theatre while focusing on the Eastern Theatre. The reality was that in the Western Theatre, especially in the first two years of the war when North & South were more or less equally matched in the field, the South was steadily losing ground virtually from the beginning. This is due as much to the incompetent generalship of the Confederacy as anything else. Even if Lee had carefully husbanded his manpower, he could not have undone the damage caused by generals such as Polk & Bragg in the Western Theatre.

The best part of Nolan's book is the final chapter, where he discusses the overall effort by the South (with very willing collusion from the North) to turn the Civil War & the Antebellum period into some sort of idyllic fairy tale, due to the racist attitudes that both regions shared. He gives a convincing argument about century-long effort to change the very nature of the war, of which the Lee mythology is only one element.

While at times this book veers dangerously close to being a commonplace chop-job, overall it makes a decent contribution to the literature. If Nolan had provided more comprehensive documentation, its impact would be all the better. As it is, one cannot consider it the last word, but it has ushered in an honest debate on the subject.

Lee Considered: General Robert E. Lee and Civil War History by Alan T. Nolan is a book that brings us the human man and not he icon of the Civil War.

Lee is a paradox of sorts, while owning slaves he was opposed to the institution of slavery. Lee left the United States Army so as not to take his sword and use it against his native Virginia. A most revered but misunderstood man, Lee was a brilliant military leader who was tactically effective in bringing the exploits of the Confederacy to those of Northern aggression.

This book brings out a more human man, complete with all of the frailties and fallacies. A man or moral character, but a man whos job is that of a soldier. This book gives us a more honest view of Lee... a Lee not on his terms, but a Lee in the eye of history. No assumptions, just a rigorous reexamination through correspondence and historical sources.

Everyone knows the larger than life Lee, but knowing Lee is to know that he is a man... a man who happens to be the Commanding General of the Confederate Forces, a native Virginian, and a Southern aristocrat who opposed slavery.

Beliavsky et al.'s book is one of the worst chess books I have ever seen. The book is so poorly laid out that it is difficult to follow the various variations and subvariations. Otherwise, it is bascially a dump of games and lines that have intrigued the authors, omitting many other lines, and possibilities. Don't expect to find scintilating commentary either because all the notes are in Informator-speak hieroglyphics. I have studied chess for over ten years and own over 50 chess books. This book is one of the worst. Just run a search on the Two Knights in ChessBase and save your money for a nice dinner or trip to the movies.

I was looking for new ways to deal with 3. Bc4 in my ICC blitz repertoire. I'm 1733 USCF over the board, with an ICC blitz rating that can hover anywhere from 1200 to 1600, depending on my mood and the (usually low) quality of my play. I thought the 2 knights might be fun, because I like the quirky defenses like the Keene Defense to the KG and Bird's variation of the Ruy.

Gee, the 2 Knights is one aggressive countergambity, wild opening. Beliavsky does a really good job of making it interesting, but it's pretty wild, even as a blitz weapon.

I'm a timid, second rate player. If you're the sort of person who loves the King's Gambit as white and loves defending the wilder KG variations as black, you'll probably love the Two Knights. Me? I learned that in the rare instances that I play 1 e4, the proper third move for me after black's 3...Nf6 is 4 d3. It's not that the Two Knights is unstoppable--far from it, it's pretty on the edge lots of times. It's just that the whole darn thing is just so....complicated!

But if you're into tactics and you want a new blitz weapon, this is a good purchase!

A modern look at the most interesting lines of the Two Knights. I found the assessments of many variations are thoughtful and interesting. Playing through the variations and comparing one's own assessments with the authors' takes effort, but it's worth it in this case since there are many fascinating variations in the notes. Not for those who want to skip to the end of the chapter and have the authors tell them what to think. I liked this book a lot and would recommend it to anyone who likes thinking about the Two Knights (I certainly enjoyed it as much as Estrin's revered tome).