"Lee Takes Command" is the volume in the Time-Life Civil War Series that reminds us the Army of Northern Virginia was not overly impressed with its new leader at the beginning of his legendary tenure. Winfield Scott might have convinced Abraham Lincoln to offer Robert E. Lee command of the Federal army, but the average Confederate soldier was not too keen about "Granny" Lee and his penchant for digging trenches in defense of Richmond in June of 1862. This volume begins with a photo essay on "The Making of a General," that covers the highlights of Lee's family and military career up to the moment he was ushered onto the stage of American history.

Lee took command of the Confederate army defending Richmond when General Joseph E. Johnston was wounded at the Battle of Seven Pines. Several choice quotes regarding Lee's shortcomings as a military commander, include a patently ironic one from George B. McClellan, set the stage for the creation of a legend. The volume is divided into five chapters: (1) Mechanicsville to Gaines's Mill details how Lee forced the Federals to withdrawn across the Chickahominy River; (2) Flight to the James describes covers the battle of Malvern Hill, which saw McClellan withdraw his army to Harrison's Landing, thereby ending the Peninsula Campaign; (3) Taking the War North covers Stonewall Jackson's battle with Nathaniel Banks at Cedar Run; (4) Jackson's Bold Sweep finds John Pope now in charge of the Army of the Potomac and the two armies moving around northern Virginia until (5) Another Bull Run, which I have always tended to think of as a major battle, but which is reduced to being covered in a single chapter.

"Lee Takes Command" covers a lot of ground, both in terms of time and territory. As a result, this particular volume focuses more on the bigger picture than the details, as compared to other books in the series. Lee himself is not always at the forefront of the action, but certainly his surrogates, namely Jackson and Stuart, carry out their military efforts in his spirit. The book is illustated with historic photographs, etchings, drawings, paintings and such, which is one of the hallmarks of this series. For every illustration you recognize chances are you will find two or more than you do not. As with most episodes of the Civil War, you will be struck as much by the ineptitude of the Northern commanders as you will be by Lee's brilliance.

"Lee Takes Command" is the volume in the Time-Life Civil War Series that reminds us the Army of Northern Virginia was not overly impressed with its new leader at the beginning of his legendary tenure. Winfield Scott might have convinced Abraham Lincoln to offer Robert E. Lee command of the Federal army, but the average Confederate soldier was not too keen about "Granny" Lee and his penchant for digging trenches in defense of Richmond in June of 1862. This volume begins with a photo essay on "The Making of a General," that covers the highlights of Lee's family and military career up to the moment he was ushered onto the stage of American history.

Lee took command of the Confederate army defending Richmond when General Joseph E. Johnston was wounded at the Battle of Seven Pines. Several choice quotes regarding Lee's shortcomings as a military commander, include a patently ironic one from George B. McClellan, set the stage for the creation of a legend. The volume is divided into five chapters: (1) Mechanicsville to Gaines's Mill details how Lee forced the Federals to withdrawn across the Chickahominy River; (2) Flight to the James describes covers the battle of Malvern Hill, which saw McClellan withdraw his army to Harrison's Landing, thereby ending the Peninsula Campaign; (3) Taking the War North covers Stonewall Jackson's battle with Nathaniel Banks at Cedar Run; (4) Jackson's Bold Sweep finds John Pope now in charge of the Army of the Potomac and the two armies moving around northern Virginia until (5) Another Bull Run, which I have always tended to think of as a major battle, but which is reduced to being covered in a single chapter in this volume.

Consequently, "Lee Takes Command" covers a lot of ground, not just in terms of territory but also time. As a result, this particular volume focuses more on the bigger picture than the details, as compared to other books in the series. Lee himself is not always at the forefront of the action, but certainly his surrogates, namely Jackson and Stuart, carry out their military efforts in his spirit. The book is illustated with historic photographs, etchings, drawings, paintings and such, which is one of the hallmarks of this series. For every illustration you recognize chances are you will find two or more than you do not. As with most episodes of the Civil War, you will be struck as much by the ineptitude of the Northern commanders as you will be by Lee's brilliance.

This biography explained the life of Civil War General Robert E. Lee. This book explains his life from birth and his family, to the marriage and his influence in the war. It explained how the general was the leader of the Confederacy. The book also explains the Civil War so that it is easy for the kids to understand. In the book there are also great pictures that mildly display war along with quotes ad images from that time period.
The author did a wonderful job displaying the war and allowing children to understand the concept on a very neutral level. I also liked the outline at the end of the book on his life. It helped children really visualize the order of events.
I like this book for all the above reasons also for the ease of reading. I found it so easy to understand and I think that this book will allow the children to gain interest into biographies and the war. Maybe even lead them into reading all Adler's other biographies.

I very much enjoyed reading Tim McKinney's Civil War Chronicle "Robert E. Lee at Sewell Mountain". I read the book because several of my ancestors and their relatives were members of the 19th and 27th Brigades of The Virginia Militia (from Southern West Virginia). The book chronicles the conflict of Union and Confederate troops in West Virginia during August through October of 1861. The author provides a good description of the feud between Confederate generals Floyd and Wise - an important factor in the logistics of the Confederate retreat. The book emphasizes the cold rains, which nearly immobilized both Union and Confederate Armies. The author provides several good photographs and sketches to help document his chronicle. The book includes an extensive bibliography.

How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War by Edward H Bonekemper is an interesting book whichgoes too far to prove its point. In overstating his case that Lee was responsible for the Confederate failure, Bonekemper belief that Lee was not the military genius that history has made him is lost.

The central thesis is that Lee's offensive strategy, combined with overly complicated battle plans,led to the destruction of the Confederate Army and their inability to respond to Grant's offensive

strategy in '84 and '85. There is much evidence for the proposition that the offensive strategy bleed the Confederacy to the point where Lee was forced to retreat to Richmond. There is also much evidence to support the proposition that most of Lee's victories resulting in a higher percentage of casualties then suffered by the Union were phyric, at best. The most obvious fact is that the Union could absorb the losses and the South could not.

Whether a change in strategy would have resulted in a Confederate victory is an open question. However, given the political nature of the war, and the Northern war weariness, Lee's ability to continue to bleed the North could not have helped Lincoln get reelected.

Lee forgot that he did not have to win, just not lose. If there had been more Frederickburgs and less Chancellorvilles, both Lee "victories", Lee may have not lost. Bonekemper does a fine job bringing these issues to the forefront. If for only this reason, this is a worthwhile book.

The author's theory is that the North had the burden of conquering the South, a huge, defensible area consisting of eleven states. The South only had to play for a tie and only had to wear down the northern will to win. Specifically, the South had to hold onto its precious manpower resources and convince the North to vote Lincoln out of office in 1864. Instead, Lee unnecessarily went for the win, squandered his irreplaceable troops, and weakened his army so badly that military defeat became inevitable. With the Confederacy outnumbered four-to-one, Lee's aggressive strategy and tactics proved to be suicidal. The author looks beyond Lee's battles in the East and describes how Lee's Virginia-first myopia played a major role in crucial Confederate failures in the West. He itemizes Lee's refusals to provide reinforcements for Vicksburg or Tennessee in mid-1863, his causing James Longstreet to arrive at Chickamauga with only a third of his troops, his idea to move Longstreet away from Chattanooga just before Grant's troops broke through the undermanned Confederates there, and his failure to reinforce Atlanta in the critical months before the 1864 Presidential election. Lee's final failure as his continuing the hopeless and bloody slaughter after Union victory had been ensured by each of a series of events (the fall of Atlanta, the re-election of Lincoln, the fall of Petersburg and Richmond) is described. Finally, the author explores historian's treatment of Lee, including the deification of him by failed Confederate generals attempting to resurrect their own reputations. How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War is a unique, thoughtful, challenging reassessment of one of the pivotal participants in the American Civil War.

I found Mr. Bonnekemper's theory as to the weaknesses of generalship as he applies it to General Robert E. Lee a refreshing new viewpoint. Author Bonnekemper has done his homework and authenticates well, the failings of General Lee's strategy and tactics. If one can get past their preconcieved notions about the greatness of General Lee, this book makes a significant contribution to the study of the history of our Civil war. Mr. Bonnekemper does not degrade General Lee, he simply states the facts; that General Lee's excesses in committing troops to battle may well have resulted in opportunities lost. General Lee will always be revered as a fine gentleman, a man of honor, dignity and great personal courage. This book will not change that. It should be read for what it is, a scholarly contribution to the study of American history.

"Gone for Soldiers" focuses almost exclusively on the relationship between and experiences of General Winfield Scott and Captain Robert E. Lee during the Mexican-American War. Readers looking for much more will be disappointed. The war at large and the exploits of many of it's primary figures, including General Zachary Taylor and his major role in the conflict, are virtually ignored. However, when viewed as a prequel to Jeff Shaara's "Gods and Generals" and "The Last Full Measure", as well as his father's "The Killer Angels", this book is a worthy addition to the narrative thread the two men have woven. "Gone for Soldiers", while the least exciting of the narratives, is still an engaging and enjoyable read. Shaara, like his father, breathes life into the sometimes one-dimensional figures of history by using the historical fiction genre to give voice to their unrecorded musings and conversations. For readers looking for a more balanced history of the war, John Eisenhower's "So Far From God" is strongly recommended for it's thorough treatment of the subject. The "Class of 1846" by John Waugh is also an outstanding book for those interested in the pre-Civil War story of that war's participants.

Having brought the Civil War to life through his continuation of his father's classic, "The Killer Angels," Jeff Shaara has now ressurected one of America's most forgotten wars, the Mexican War.

In his latest novel, Mr. Shaara introduces us to many of the Civil War's greatest leaders as they learn their craft under fire in Mexico. The book follows the exploits and deeds of one General Winfield Scott as he leads the campaign to defeat Santa Anna's army.

At his side is a young engineer, Capt. Robert E. Lee. Shaara's portrayal of Lee as a young officer, unsure of his untested abilities and his place in the command structure, is truly wonderful. It is a whole different Lee than the polished General of the Civil War. With each new mission Scott assigns him, we can see Lee grow and mature as an officer.

Many of the other men who would later become Generals are also with Lee in Mexico, Grant, Jackson, Meade, Johnston, Pickett, Longstreet, albeit as Lieutenants. They are not given the same in depth treatment as Lee, but already you can see their abilities developing for command.

General Scott and Santa Anna are also portrayed in manners rarely seen. Few modern Americans have heard of Scott, which is a shame since he was one of the best Generals in our early history. Santa Anna is usually mentioned only in conjunction with the Alamo, but here he is given a very fair treatment.

Overall I would say this book is every bit as good as the Shaaras' works on the Civil War. Once again Jeff Shaara has restored life to a long dead period of our nation's history.

For those who have an interest in the American Civil War and in some of the more noted people who became involved in the conflict, will be able to see some of these people at the early stages when all fought on the same side. This "Prequil" to use the term is fitting for this book by Jeff Sharra. Gone For Soilders: A Novel of the Mexican War. Is a very insightful historical fiction. Though the story revolves more around Robert Lee, Jeff Sharra does introduce the reader to an early Sam Grant and James Longstreet.

Like his father before him who's book Killer Angels brought to life again the battle of Gettysbugh as seen through the eyes of some of the people found in Gone For Soilders. The characters are well fleshed out and the story moves along well. It should help bring more people to read up on Pre-Civil War America and some of the men whos names are covered in this fine novel.

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

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

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

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.

At least they saved the title. Or should we say they stole a good title to market trivial trash. It copies the movie, and has all the flaws. The troopers in the movie had no guns. We're expected to believe that they flew starships and the best personal weapon they could find was an automatic rifle hardly better than 20th century. They had no guns. Even a battery of civil war field pieces would have been a major improvement. A Sherman tank would have been a miracle. Given the starship technology a viewer/reader would expect them to carry real guns that fire real destruction, not those puny ineffective popguns they died holding. The lack of credible weapons makes these troopers seem like ineffective jerks and destroys the credibility of the whole thing.

Heinlein's troopers wore armored suits and carried weapons sufficient to destroy everything alive within several hundred yards. They had to pay attention when they got within half a mile of each other so they wouldn't wipe each other out. Not these fools, they have to fire a hundred rounds to kill one unarmed bug. Pathetic and unbelievable.

The original Starship Troopers spends half the book discussion moral philosophy of government, command structure of troops, and the morals of space exploration. This has none of that. What a waste.

Maby I'm biased a little bit, but i found this book uninteresting and insulting to Robern Heinlein (may he rest in peace). I felt the book strayed too far from the original purpose of Heinlein's excellent book. This novel detailed the military aspect well, but completely missed the philosophical aspects of Heinleins book that made it a classic. The book is often thought of with the movie, even though they are nothing alike. It is unfortunate that this other seemed to have never even read the novel Starship Troopers, much less adhered to its purpose.

I really liked this trade-paperback because my parents prohibited my viewing the 1997 sci-fi thriller. This comic sets the stage by showing the prequel (Insect Touch) in which man comes in contact with the vicious arachnids, the tie-in (Brute Creations) in wich Raczak tries to save the inhabitants of Port Joe Smith, and the actual adaptation of the film itself.