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.

I read this book because I am studying Psychology and it is the focus of a personality assessment piece I am to present. I found 'Aman' to be an easy read, but a pleasurable one. For those who choose to criticise her story, I would put to you that Aman did not presume to explain her story as that of EVERY Somali woman, but of her own life experience. Furthermore, I have been educated in the fact that not EVERY Somali woman is as dependent on her husband as I once presumed. I thank Aman for teaching ME a thing or two.

I've read this book twice and enjoyed it immensely both times. It tells the story of Aman, a Somali girl, and her childhood. It is a fascinating story where you can only feel sorry for the unfairness of their culture for a young girl like Aman. I recommend it.

I read the book a few years ago while Somali refugees started coming to my country, Finland. I found the people and their traditions in the book quite male centered - but at the same time it helped me to understand Somali people's difficulties to adapt to a totally different society in a Nordic Democracy where family ties have no economic meaning because welfare society subtitutes for them.

I waited in vain for Smith to reveal a reason why Crystal Spangler's life and troubles were important enough to dramatize. Smith writes well and creates a vivid milieu, but my overwhelming reaction was, "So what?" Crystal, despite the vast amounts of text devoted to her thoughts and feelings, remains essentially a non-entity and her troubled life contains no redemptive or cathartic aspect. It's an exercise in detailed, adequately-crafted pointlessness.

Well, I'm a huge Lee Smith fan, so I'm surprised to find myself giving only 3 start to one of her creations. But this one just didn't live up to what her readers have come to expect from her.
I couldn't really get behind Crystal Spangler and her remoteness. It's clear to readers what her problem is from close to the beginning, but it takes the rest of the looooong book for Cristal herself to figure it out, and when she does, she just becomes more passive and decides to die.
I gave up real interest in the outcome long before I came to the end.
The one I'd have found more interesting was Agnes, her across-the-street friend, through whose eyes we see Crystal over the passage of years. She was a much stronger character than Crystal herself.

I have read all of Lee Smith books and highly recommend all of them. My favorite is Fair and Tender Ladies.

Accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg always seem to focus on who is to blame for the Confederate loss. Dowdey's version happens to blame Longstreet, primarily. However, Longstreet fans shouldn't avoid the book on that account. Dowdey gives a clear, well-written, though inevitably at this date somewhat old-fashioned, account. As no other author that I'm aware of does, he discusses the preparation for the invasion: the way that Davis refused Lee the reinforcements he'd requested, the way that Lee failed to rethink his method of dealing with subordinates after Jackson's death. I think Dowdey is a little scanty on Culp's Hill, but then I think that about everyone but Pfanz. Overall, this is a good basic analysis, definitely worth reading.

I'd like to begin a personal review of this book by stating that I am not a writer, or a journalist but just an ordinary receptionist introduced to this case by a friend. I had never even heard of Virginia Lazalere before I read this book. I'd also like to say that the first mistake I made while helping to research this case was to actually read the book before looking into the facts.

Now that I have looked at both sides of the story, including transcripts of the case, police reports, and other valid information, I realize that this book is not a source of information I would use to form an opinion on whether someone should live or die. For a Mother's Love is based on a lot of newspaper reports and media hype, not court room transcripts and witness interviews. It seems that the author was so focused on sensationalizing this case that he didn't notice how many times he contradicts himself and the truth in various places throughout the book. I truly believe that the sole purpose of this book was to brainwash the reader with impertinent and irrelevant information.

I hope that readers will use their better judgment and actually study the facts. I believe that if people enjoy reading mystery novels or tabloids they have every right to do so but we should not enjoy a book that is written to further jeopardize someone who's life is already at stake. It's sad that the lack of integrity in some writers nowadays drives them to with just about anything to make a buck. I hope that they never have to sit on death row reading lies about themselves as they await their death. I'd like to challenge everyone out there to read about this case, form an opinion based on facts not fiction, because Virginia Lazalere is real, not some character in a book. She is also someone's mother, daughter, & friend and lost all of that in one day. What do we have to lose by checking out our justice system and making sure that they provide our jurors with ALL the facts and don't conveniently leave out information that would provide Plenty of Reasonable Doubt. I know I would want every piece of evidence examined if my life was at stake. It's very critical that we make the time to scrutinize the system for ourselves and for our children rather than just paying our tax dollars and turning a blind eye. Don't you agree?

I became interested in this case when I realized someone I knew had been involved in the trial. The only information available on the Internet points to Virginia Lazerle's innocence, so I was curious as to how she was convicted of murder.

I was glad in reading this book as it paints such a clear portrait of this psycho woman, using facts and witness interviews, and includes information you wouldn't be able to get from reading court transcripts - information that was not admitted as evidence in the trial. If you're looking for an innocent person on death row, it sure isn't Virginia - it's amazing how much she got away with before she was finally caught.

It's no "In Cold Blood," but it's a fun little read.

Tidewater Dynasty is a fictional account of the Lee family. It is based upon historic dates and facts. The glimpses of the Lee family are not true to life. All the Lee husbands are good looking, intelligent, perfect husbands, unselfish, ... All the wives have the same traits. There is one Lee who does not comform to the Lee image. I suppose he embodies all the bad traits of the Lee family so that none of the others had any.

I've always been interested in the Lee family of Virginia, especially Richard Henry and Francis Lightfoot, the Declaration of Indpedence signers, so I ordered this book, hoping it would give me an insight into the world the two lived in. The book did, in a way. Some of the best points were when the authors described the society of Old Virginia, the relationships between the Virginia families, and how the colonists lived. Thankfully, the authors did a good job of portraying Richard H. and Francis L., but after that, the book sort of went downhill. I definitely did not enjoy how the authors portrayed Henry 'Light Horse Harry' Lee. He came off as some whiny, simpering man, and it really annoyed me. But, other than that, this book is a great insight into the society of Old Virginia and a fair look at the Lee family, and their roll in our history