Nolan's "biography" of the battle-torn Iron Brigade contains the most stirring description of the 1st day of battle at Gettysburg that I have ever read. His account of the bravery and heroism of these men is exceptional. At times I got a bit confused trying to keep track with whom was in charge of which regiment/brigade/division, etc., but this information is vital to the history of the brigade. This book also made me aware of the under-appreciated accomplishments of Lt. Col. Rufus Dawes who should be accorded the same recognition as other noble Union leaders during this battle, such as Chamberlain, Hancock and Warren.

This is the definitive history of what I consider the best brigade-sized unit in either army during the Civil War. Alan Nolan is THE authority on this famous, hard-hitting outfit and this book is a classic. Interesting, vivid, full of valor, heartbreaking losses, and gallant deeds, it chronicles the Army of the Potomac's sole western unit from its meager beginnings, its first engagement at Brawner's Farm the day before Second Bull Run, where it met and defeated the vaunted Stonewall Brigade in a vicious stand-up fight though outnumbered and still an untried unit of well-trained rookies. through the tough tutelage of veteran artilleryman John Gibbon, its first commander of note, to its moment of truth at Gettysburg, where, suffering almost 70% casualties, it goes into the fire unperturbed and outnumbered, both ruining and capturing opposing Confederate units, coming onto the field behind its tattered regimental flags like a wave of blue doom. I first became interested in the Iron Brigade while reading Bruce Catton's excellent trilogy on the Army of the Potomac. Not until this superb volume, however, did the whole story come out in gripping detail and hard-to-put-down narrative. The author paints a vivid picture of the realities of war, what losses can do to even a veteran, well-trained unit, and the value of personal valor and leadership. This book is highly recommended and should be on the book shelf of every Civil War reenactor, historian, and enthusiast.

This is the best brigade history I have ever read. It sets the standard for other brigade histories.

Compiled and written by Brett Barker, Exploring Civil War Wisconsin: A Survival Guide For Researchers is a practical, step-by-step guide presented especially for Civil War enthusiasts, genealogists, students, and other researchers. Offering tips, tricks, and techniques for taking maximum advantage of resources in the libraries, military and census records, published primary sources, newspapers, and the useful yet sometimes unreliable wealth of information to be found on the Internet, Exploring Civil War Wisconsin is enhanced with black-and-white illustrations combined with down-to-earth, practical advice, making it a "must-read" for dedicated Civil War enthusiasts and Wisconsin History researchers.

It's sometimes tough finding memoirs or diary accounts that don't get involved in writing battle history on a larger scale that doesn't have anything to with the person writing it. Rufus Dawes heavily battle tormented years in the hard fighting Iron Brigade only covers his involvment and the affairs of the Iron Brigade which I found refreshing to read. Rufus Dawes has wrote down a lot in his diary and also wrote many letters home which are presented very well throughout this book. Most of his diary writings mention the date and the events which occurred. Dawes manages to define daily life activity in the camp and soldier actions. What makes this book exciting is his detail for writing about his involvement at major battles such as Antietam, Gettysburg, Cold Harbor and more! Rarely receiving a single scratch, Dawes manages to live to write about his military life as other officers around him eventually become discharged while a majority die. He gets descriptive at times which captures the chaos and confusion of battle. His writings also talk a lot about the Iron Brigade and it's a great reference for those trying to understand how hard fighting this group of soldiers were. Unlike some recollections or memoirs, Dawes writes very well and makes this book easy to follow and read. At times Dawes was very detailed and explains many army movements and his thoughts about approaching battle and surviving the aftermath. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the Civil War and especially for those looking to learn about the Iron Brigade.

This is by far the most readable and accurate of the many Chamberlain biographies. Chamberlain's historical significance had been buried since his death and only resurrected in the 1991 film, "Gettysburg." Trulock is an inventive and gifted writer with a flair for research and unearthing some hitherto unknown facts about her subject.

The strong suit of this biography is its focus on the personal side of JLC. There is much engrossing material about his marriage with Fanny and her estrangement from her husband following his Petersburg wound. Here was a woman who had been so prim and proper before marriage that she wished to put off a marital union. She had transformed herself into the type of lady who would dump their hero husband because of grievous wounds that prevented him from enjoying "horizontal refreshments" much after 1865. Go figure!

Trulock's book flows nicely and balances JLC's professional and military accomplishments with the personal aspects of his character. If you are a novice of the civil war or Chamberlain, this book is a must read, but it's also enlightening for those who have a broader understanding of the war. Highly recommended.

"In the Hands of Providence" is a masterful biography of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, one of the great Americans of the nineteenth century, and certainly one of the most heroic and hardest fighting U.S. Army officers of all time. The author, the late Alice Rains Trulock, presents a well researched, meticulously documented, and detailed portrait of this brilliant and courageous man. She traces Chamberlain's early life and career - first, as a student, and later as Professor of Rhetoric (and other subjects) at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. Chamberlain's military career - his rise from command of the 20th Maine to general officer rank in the Union army, and his outstanding leadership and valor during some of the fiercest and bloodiest battles of the Civil War, including Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Petersburg, and Five Forks - is then chronicled with some of Trulock's liveliest and most exciting prose. (Chamberlain, of course, is best known for his actions as Colonel of the 20th Maine Volunteers at the Battle of Gettysburg. Here Trulock describes in detail the events of July 2, 1863, when he led his 380-man regiment in its successful defense of Little Round Top, thereby saving the Union army from a crushing defeat, and ensuring his own place in the pantheon of American military heroes.) Trulock also details Chamberlain's post-Civil War career as Governor of Maine (1867-1871); President of Bowdoin College (1871-1883); and unsuccessful businessman.

In addition to providing obviously well researched and superbly written descriptions of Chamberlain's military, political and business accomplishments, "In the Hands of Providence" also gives the reader a balanced and objective look at Chamberlain's personal life. Especially enjoyable and informative are the descriptions of his relationships with his wife Fannie; his daughter Grace and son Harold Wyllys; and his brother Tom. The author does a wonderful job of allowing the reader to get to know Chamberlain the warm hearted and loving family man, as well as Chamberlain the patriot, scholar, college professor and president, military hero, and Governor of Maine.

"In the Hands of Providence" is the best modern biography of one of the most extraordinary and gifted Americans of the nineteenth century. Highly recommended!

Trulock's biography of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain is an excellent book for 3 reasons: 1) the man, 2) the times, and 3) the biographer.

The man -- Joshua Chamberlain is a fascinating and worthy topic for biography. His defense of Little Round Top turned the Battle of Gettysburg, and his subsequent bayonet charge down the slopes and into the Devil's Den awed not only his peers, but Americans to this very day.

The times -- the Civil War -- is perhaps the most important and interesting period in American history.

But it is the biographer -- Trulock -- that brings this book alive. Her accounts are well-researched, well-footnoted, and read with an insight and flow. Her account of Chamberlain's stand at Little Round Top is consistent with Shaara's The Killer Angels, and goes into about as much detail. And this is why I, and others I expect, bought this book. Trulock mixes narrative, quotes in a nice way here.

But it is not the account of Little Round Top that sets this book apart, in my estimation. It is the *rest* of the book, which places these and other events in context of his life and times. His childhood, relationship with his wife, parents, brothers, college, and post-war career are all well-told and add considerable and interesting information to this truly heroic American. Highly recommended.

this most recent civil war anthology edited by gary gallagher is on a par with the high quality of the previous ones. however, this book differs from the others in that it does not focus on a battle or campaign but on a more philosophical topic, i.e., the myth of the lost cause. the overall tone of the book is skeptical of the claims of the lost cause, but this does not detract from its scholarly worth. the nine essays are generally readable and informative, although some are somewhat dry and academic. the best essay, in my view, was from alan nolan, who pulls no punches in his disdain for the claims of the lost cause. nolan had dealt with this theme at greater length elsewhere, but his essay is a nice synopsis of his view that the lost cause is one of the great fabrications of history and was obviously motivated by the need to downplay the significance of slavery in provokong secession and the war and to assuage the wounded pride of the south at the devastating magnitude of its defeat by creating a pseudo-history of god-like leaders (lee, jackson and davis), and incredibly heroic soldiers fighting against hopeless odds in every battle against a brutish and craven invader. nolan does a great job, in my view, of analyzing the true nature of the lost cause myth and refuting its claims.

this book is a worthy addition to the shelf of any civil war buff or anyone interested in american history.

Gary Gallagher continues to provide books with an excellent cross section of essayists. Usually he covers particular battles and campaigns, but here he covers an important topic, myth as history. There is unfortunately too much myth as history presented on Civil War and I remember much of it from growing up during the centennial in the 1960s, which I have grown to recognize after years of my own research. Neo Confederates will not like this, but that is a good reason in itself to buy it. Of the writers, Alan Nolan is on the shakiest ground when discussing Lee, but hits the nail on the head on most of the rest. This is a good adjunct to William Davis' book of his own essays called "The Cause Lost".

This is simply a superb collection of essays on the "Lost cause" propaganda of the Southern "interpretation" of the civil war.

The essays are written by an impressive list of academic and lay historians. Four of the university professors are from schools located in the South! All have extensive footnotes and bibliography.

The book gracefully debunks the moonlight and magnolia view of the South, skillfully skewering the old bromides about "happy" slaves, that the war was about state's rights and not simply slavery, and along the way makes some telling points that Lee was no saint, and a very fallible leader and a miserable strategist, that perhaps the winning general, U.S. Grant, was actually very, very good at his trade, that "Pete" Longstreet was falsely vilified, that the Confederates lost because they were flatly beat, not because they lacked industry and supplies, and that a whole galaxy of beliefs about the civil war are based on some pretty bad history.

The essay about the original revisionist historian, Jubal Early, is fascinating as it shows just how much of the Southern explanation for their defeat was just made up of whole cloth.

This book clearly shows just how bigoted, misguided, and duplicitous most of the Confederate leadership was, and how misconcieved their succession and its resultant war truly was.

Read this book. Give it to friends!

(as an added incentive their is a truly hilarious send-up of that "Great" movie "Gone with the Wind." That little fantasy has influenced many an American as being "history" when it is nothing but a sad fantasy that deserves to be sent to the sealed archives along with "Amos and Andy.")

This is just the beginning of the flood of books that will allow us to truly see the civil war for what it was. After 135 years, it's about time!

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.