Lost in the many legendary treatments of the Scopes trial are the details of the local context. Every event of mythic proportions about ideas also involves ordinary people in real surroundings. This brief photographic history provides that background, while correcting many of the popular misconceptions about the trial. This book contains many worthwhile details of how the case came to occur in Dayton, Tennessee and the lasting effects on Tennessee. The legislature continued to toy with evolution as a subject, even in the 1990s.

The case itself was pretty much a put-up job. Dayton had been on the economic skids for years. The ACLU wanted a test case of the new Tennessee criminal statute barring the teaching of evolution. Whoever prosecuted someone under the law could make a few extra dollars for the local community with the expected publicity. The local leaders in Dayton asked the new teacher, John Scopes, if he would be willing to go along. He was, and the rest is history.

The photographs capture a sense of the town at the time, and the festival atmosphere. They are not particularly outstanding photographs, but do add a note of reality to something that is otherwise very abstract to many of us. The captions that go with them are quite extensive.

I enjoyed the introduction by Edward Caudill that filled in many gaps in my understanding of the trial's background.

I graded the book down one star for the considerable repetition among the introduction, the captions, and the afterword. With more editing, this could have been a more compact and vital volume.

Like many important events where ideas clash, the physical reality is less important than the judicial precedent of contesting the right of ideas to be expressed in a few society. If you had a photographic history of the Magna Carta, the document itself and its application would still be the main story. The same is true of the photographs around the Scopes trial. The publicity around the case had more significance than the trial itself. It served to rally both scientific thinkers and fundamental religionists to their respective causes.

How can public debate advance understanding and cooperation rather than division? That question seems to be the heritage of this famous trial. In today's world, abortion seems to be playing a similar dividing role. What is missing to create progress on such a powerfully troubling issue?

May you always find the words to frame better questions, that reveal new understanding for all!

When I was in high school I read L. Sprague de Camp's account of "The Great Monkey Trial," became enamored of H. L. Mencken, and was fascinated with Dudley Field Malone's speech in Dayton. My interest in the Scopes Trial was such that eventually I used it as my dissertation topic. Since that time I have continued to collect materials about the trial and have followed contemporary versions of the 1925 battle between science and religion with quite some interest. It is certainly nice to have such an extension collection of photographs from the trial, especially since I have not seen most of the 38 shots. For me the best of the "new" photographs is of Rabbi Herman Rosennasser delivering a mock class in biblical translation. Having heard of the rabbi's fascinating translation of Genesis from Hebrew into German and then into English to make its meaning compatible with the theory of evolution. Except for shots of the monkeys that were brought to Dayton, all of the photographs are full page shots covering all of the major players and the fun both inside and outside of the Rhea County Courthouse. There seems to have been a concerted effort not to include a lot of the traditional shots (e.g., Judge Raulston and the jury posing outside the courthouse).

The introduction by Edward Caudill, author of "Darwinian Myths: The Legends and Misues of a Theory" provides a 20-page of the drama in Dayton that covers the passage of the Butler Act, the ACLU's decision to intervene, the defense putting Bryan on trial and the legacy of the case. It is a concise coverage of the multi-faceted trial, certainly superior to the mostly erroneous treatments found in so many reference books that confuse the play/film "Inherit the Wind" with the actual trial. Jesse Fox Mayshark, a senior editor of a Knoxville weekly newspaper, provides an afterword "Seventy-five Years of Scopes" that provides some nice insights into what the trial has meant to the State of Tennessee. Since the volume is published by the University of Tennessee Press this is not particularly suprising, but it is a topic that has been pretty much dismissed in the past and I found it quite interesting.

What I really liked were the photo captions provided by Edward J. Larson, who won the 1998 Pulitizer prize for history for his book on the Scopes Trial, "Summer for the Gods." Whereas Caudill provides the groundwork for the photographs, Larson provides the detail work. Certainly it would be worth your while to have read Larson's book before you go through these photographs. The more you know about the Scopes Trial the more you will appreciate what you are seeing and reading in this photographic history.

Personally I would have liked to have seen portraits of my hero Malone and A. T. Stewart, the true head of the prosecution in Dayton, because the importance of those two men in the trial is always underplayed in the literature. The most glaring photographic ommissions of course would be the celebrated cross-examination of William Jennings Bryan by Clarence Darrow that took place on a platform on the courthouse lawn. I have seen a half-dozen photographs of this infamous confrontation and am surprised one is not included. But since the photos came from the collections of W.C. Robinson (he ran the drug store in Dayton where the plan for the trial was hatched) and Sue K. Hall, I have to temper my disappointment. Overall this is certainly a first class presentation of a collection of photographs.

This book is a good read and interesting for people who want to get a good overview on the topic and are interested in history. The author sticks to the facts and let Lawrence speak through his letters. This, however, lets many questions of his character open. The author avoids getting deeper into his personality and for those who are interested in the psychology of his character will be a littlebit disappointed. The author does not (like one of the reviewers says) clearifies whether he was homosexual or not, nor does he discusses deeply his relationsship his parents and so on. The book is complementary to the film which makes a better statement about his personality and after reading this book I even more impressed about the film.

Jeremy Wilson's bio of T.E. Lawrence is a great resource and, for a subject so riddled (more than any other I know) by ulterior motive by other authors -- whether it is hero-building or hero-trouncing -- and is probably the only worthwhile biography of TEL ever written.*

*I will give exception to Robert Graves, who's work has literary merit, but its age and rushed composition leaves it unfortunately incomplete and inadequate in points of fact.

Wilson does a great job of putting Lawrence's accomplishements and failures during the Great War into context: a great deal of the book is spent on the background policies and overall Eastern war effort to show us exactly where Lawrence fit in. A great description of Larwrence's time as a young idealist in Syria before the war is also provided. In these two areas there is no greater work provided on Lawrence. However, I find the work loses its scholarly charm after the war, where too much is spent dwelling on the possible pyschological underpinnings of Lawrence, and attempting to explain TEL's motives behind his erradic behavior. This kind of amateur science was handled responsibly for most of the work, but the temptation to delve into the pool of conjecture and broad speculation proved too great for Wilson, as with most authorities on the subject.

The work is well-researched, a bit thin in style, and full of notes and a helpful appendix. Not perfect, but definitely the best pick for a Lawrence bio out there.

I found this extremely readable, and written clearly (a relief after trying to plow through T.E. Lawrence's own murky 7 PILLARS OF WISDOM, a book he himself did not like after he learned that good writing is clear writing). I wouldn't have, and a lot of you reading this, wouldn't have come to this book without the movie, so I would like to mention some things that the movie was wrong about, according to this book. 1) T. E. Lawrence did have to execute an Arab with his pistol, but he DID feel remorse about it and did NOT experience a perverse pleasure at it. 2) He was not homosexual. He in fact asked a girl to marry him, who turned him down. It was standard in that era that an educated Englishman still be a virgin in his mid-20's, and the only reason he stayed a virgin until his death in his 40's was that he was raped by those Turks (as is obliquely referred to in the movie), and as a consequence was (tragically) repulsed by physical human contact thereafter. So he became, as he himself described it, "A lay monk." A first-rate book for anyone interested in the heroic Laurence. (I say heroic because after taking Aquaba, he was up for a Victoria's Cross, England's highest military honor. But he needed an English witness to the event, when only Arabs witnessed it. So he did not get a Victoria's Cross, AND LAWRENCE DIDN'T CARE. He perhaps, then, wasn't as vain as the movie portrayed him to be, either.)

Utopia is a classic masterpiece that conveys More's vivid imagination of the Island of Utopia. Although most of the characters are fictional, it is intriguing to learn about the true values of European societies during the 16th century, when More actually wrote the book (although many scholars believe that the exact year was 1515). Truthfully, the book is quite easy to understand. All More tries to do is convey his own views of how society should be through Raphael. Moreover, the use of imagery in Book I is quite fascinating, including the constant references to Roman and Greek myths and beliefs. It is also quite remarkable to see that the story begins to be more and more interesting after More and Giles come back from dinner. To make a long story short, I think it is a great book because of the actual time it was written in since most pieces of literature written at that time were either lost or destroyed.

As a social critique of Enlgish and European society, this book is very effective. It is also beautifully written. But it should not be read as the depiction of what society should be like. Thomas More, a wise and brave man executed by orders of Henry VIII, knew that Utopia shouldn't be taken very seriously, and that is exactly why he used the word Utopia to name his famous island. Utopia, in latin, means "in no place", that what can not exist. The problem is that this simple fact was not understood by many. And so, "utopianism" was born. The preposterous belief that there is a universal and definitive form of organization for human societies led to disasters like Nazism and Communism. By organizing everything perfectly (according to who?), these systems become the negation of the very essence of the human being: its innate imperfection and its need to be constantly changing, always on the move. It is simply impossible that some political, economic and social system resolves once and for all the troubles of humanity. Problems are exactly what make humans progress and reform constantly. Besides, the State has proven indispensable for survival, but also limited in what it can accomplish (in Utopia, the State provides everything for everybody). Stagnant societies degenerate and disappear, or remain to live from the charity of dynamic societies. Closed, perennial social systems, simply don't work: there is abundant proof in history, ancient or recent. "Utopia" is an excellent account of human shortcomings and a good tale, but it is not, nor was intended to be, a recipe with solutions for the world. Aldous Huxley and George Orwell have shown us what might happen in a supposed Utopia. The Communist world was worse. And Anthony Burgess clearly shows us in "A Clockwork Orange", that in "perfect" societies, the only way to practice freedom is violence. Let's not be perfect.

It's unfortunate that it seems as if most of these reviews were written by people whose only knowledge of More has come from the (mostly incorrect) opinions they have formed after reading this book. I don't think one can truly understand its import until he or she understands where Moore is at this point in his life and what he previously wrote ("Life of Pico", for example) and what he wrote later (while in prison, perhaps). No, he wasn't expressing his views through Raphael. In fact, it's clear that Raphael is an opinionated fibber (i.e., he discovered Utopia after Vespucci's fourth voyage? There were only three and Morus knows it...) and his account is purposefully filled with contradictions. There's more to it! More is raising issues, trying to make the careful reader think (and shame on some of the other reviewers for not being careful readers). And once you've read this book, read enough More (ha!) to understand what was going on in the bigger scheme of things, such as More's relationship with the other Renaissance humanists of his time and Henry VIII.

First, let me address the NKJV translation. I'm not usually one to blast a translation as junk, especially since I believe the best Bible is the one that people read. But the NKJV is a pretty skeevy translation, in my estimation. It is so hard to read that you may as well stick with the original KJV. Not only that, but it retains the absolutely worst elements of the KJV (a broken verse format) and combines it with the WORST elements of the NASB (capitalized He's for God). The NKJV is such a massively awkward translation, and whatever benefits it offers for being literal are lost when one realizes that it isn't a literal translation of an reliable New Testament text - it's based on exactly the same manuscripts as the KJV, even when scholarly opinion is universal that the KJV was wrong (e.g., the "book" of life rather than the "tree" of life in the closing verses of Revelation).

That said, Tim LaHaye seems bent on reviving Hal Lindsay's ideas, and that is a Very Bad Thing. I'm still waiting for one verse that even suggests a pre-trib rapture.

I have been using this Bible for only a week but it has been a blessing. This Bible is an encyclopedia for students who want to understand some of the most difficult passages in scripture, the Old Testament Prophets as well as the Revelation of Jesus Christ. The notes are totally from a Dispensational Pre-Trib point of view with no apologies. As a dispensational study Bible I would recommend this over the Scofield or Ryrie, though both of those are more general study Bibles. Of the other Prophecy Study Bibles on the market this is by far the best. The only other specialty study Bible that can compare is Henry Morris' Defenders Study Bible which is unfortantly out of print according to Amazon. Dr.LaHaye and his co-editors have done a splended job. The articles are by many writers but all are well written and open the eyes of the reader to the depths of scripture. And Dr.LaHaye's charts are always a great visual tool for use in classes and with children. May this great Bible stay in print a long time. Maranatha!

If like me you long to fully understand Bible Prophecy, this is the book for you. Tim Lahaye is very gifted yet down to earth, and his books can be read very easily. The deep insight of him and everyone that helped him in conjunction with the KJV of the Bible is exactly what I was longing for. I spend more time reading and understanding the Bible now than ever before.
I was also impressed with the timely delivery of my order. Amazon.com also gets 5 stars!

While this Psycholgy book does have some good points and interesting approaches, if you use this book in a class setting you will be dissapointed. The questions that the proffesor will use for test and quizes are elementary. But so elementary that they are completly subjective.

I used this book in my intro psych class last fall and that it was rather interesting, as far as intro books go. I especially liked how each chapter highlighted a specific experiment done recently on the topic the chapter is discussing. It also had many good graphics and charts, many of which the professor took to use in her power point presentations. The only fault I had with the book is that it seemed a bit too much on a high school level even though it was billed as a college text. But other than that, I thought this was a well-written, and well-executed textbook, though I would be more inclined to use it in a high school psychology course and not a college level one.

I don't know if this is going to reflect on the quality of the psychology book, or the caliber of books I have read and reviewed, but I must say, this introductory psychology book is one of the best I've ever seen. The examples capture the reader and are used in an intelligent way to demonstrate the major points of each chapter. And I was never bored once with this book, which is a big plus. A great book for an intro to psych class!

This was the first book to question the veracity of T. E. Lawrence. The author was a well known man of letters and had been a serving British officer on the Western Front. He was indignant that Lawrence had come to be regarded as the greatest English hero of World War I. Today, historians accept that Seven Pillars of Wisdom is mostly fiction; but in 1955, Aldington was put under a virtual boycott for saying so. It is very curious that a neurotic like Lawrence should have become the object of a cult of personality that is almost unique in the 20th century. If, as his many admirers maintain, Lawrence was a sort of genius, his genius lay in making himself a full blown myth. Aldington, a fine writer, is almost forgotten, which is a pity. His book is extensively researched and fluently written.

Interesting book... picked up in used bookstore. The author has an attitude but admits it early. Excellent research and support of his conclusions... a realistic look at the Legend. A historical piece that will interest those with some knowledge of Lawrence. It is dated but still timely... when looking at heroes, you need to walk around them ... and this book does.

Professor Thomas has written a compelling and highly readable biography of an increasingly controversial figure. We are now told that to esteem the memory of General Lee is somehow to honor slavery and man's inhumanity to man. Professor Thomas provides us with a welcome antidote to this deconstructionist thinking. The author gives us a portrait of a man who was thoroughly human. Possessing great faults but also possessing real character. I would lay only two faults to the book; First, the author's rather tiresome attempts at psychoanalysis, attempting to explain Lee's entire life in terms of difficult personal relationships. Secondly , it is obvious that Professor Thomas is not a military historian and he gives only a general analysis of Lee's strategic vision and his military career generally. Also I found his criticism of James Longstreet to be just a little over the line. Nonetheless this is an excellent biography and I highly reccomend it.

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

This book fails in many ways. The reason it gets 2 stars instead of one is that it's hard to discuss Lawrence without some fascinating things coming through.

First, Asher makes himelf part of the biography. He discusses his own personal travels in a manner that add absolutely nothing to the reader's understanding. The final paragraph of the book begins with "I." Further, the frequency and manner in which he interjects himself in the book is highly annoying.

Second, there are numerous factual problems with the book. At one point Asher refers to Turks shooting their rifles at Bedu who are over two miles away. Even a trained sniper with modern equipment wouldn't take that shot. Further, his description of Lt. Junor's plane crash is at odds with other accounts. Asher says the plane erupted in flames even though there are published photos of the crashed plane that show otherwise. Lastly on this point, Asher doesn't use Tunbridge's writings on Lawrence's days in the RAF as reference material. It's a surprising omission.

Third, as other reviewers noted, Asher writes extensively about Lawrence's psyche. This would be sensible if Asher was either trained in psychology or referenced studies by those who are; unfortunately, neither is the case. Instead there are a few bibliographical references to works on psychology, but none specific to Lawrence. Asher's vehement discussion of Lawrence's mother makes the reader wonder whether the author or the subject had the greater maternal relationship issues.

Fourth, is Asher's style, or more accurately, styles. At times he uses the contemporary jargon of British soldiers, whereas at other points he writes in a very stilted manner adding unnecessary Latin phrases to the text. His best writing is when he's providing background or contextual material such as the discussion of British military actions elsewhere in WWI.

Lawrence was one of the most fascinating personalities of the 20th century. He deserves a much better biography.

This book is most certainly an easy read. Asher whets your appetite by giving a different perspective from other Lawrence biographies. He follows in Lawrence's footsteps to historically significant spots and gives an eyewitness account of varing desert terrains with a pleasant nostalgia. However, instead of pursuing that route he turns to psychological interpretations of Lawrence's personality that are not supported, but merely purported. Overall this is not a definitive biography of Lawrence.

It was with the greatest fortune that I happened across this biography a couple of years ago,and immediately I was struck by the galloping pace and relentless ability Asher displays in making you turn each page.Two years later I find myself re-reading passage upon passage of this wonderful literary work with just as much enthusiasm as was spent the first time around.
Out with the old and in with the new.This assessment of the enigmatic Lawrence steers joyfully clear of the deeply mundane school years that most other biographers choose to dwell upon.
Instead,at last we have a biographer that is willing to put Lawrence to the test and travel in the footsteps of the little man.An experienced camel trecker and linguist himself,Asher portrays the whole Arabian experience and sustains our interest with fantastic descriptions of landscape and personal thought as to what Lawrence was thinking at the time.However,Asher is aware of the complex character of Lawrence and acknowledges the limits one is faced with when dealing with motive.
Ashers reluctance to be drawn into the shallow debate of Lawrences sexuality in a present climate where the obsession of scrutinising potential homosexual desire in the disguise of political corrctness is overwhelming,is both refreshing and worthwhile.He has managed to put to one side obvious adoration and produced a constructive view of personality and genius.On a respectful level this book is clearly too honest to be even sentimental-even though he often discovers that all is not black and white in the world of Lawrence.
In this single work Asher offers us a vast depth from an angle that all previous biographers have failed to acknowledge and attempt.One is struck by the sense that this book is reluctant to enhance the myth of Lawrence.This is the only point on which Asher fails.His conclusions concerning the exploits of Lawrence could have no other outcome.
"All men dream: but not equally.Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,for they may act their dream with open eyes,to make it possible.This I did."
Can this biography of Lawrence be bettered?Keep on dreaming!
Paul Barnes.

Tanizaki's 1933 essay is an excellent introduction to the Japanese aesthetic. True, it IS the personal reflection on one man who, were he anyone else, would probably be dismissed as a curmudgeonly crackpot. However, 'western bashing' is not the issue here -- a point that he makes repeatedly is that had Japan remained closed to the influences and technology of the west, those things that have developed in Japan (and, arguably, later developed Japan) would have had a very different complexion. Although he does not speak for all Japanese, the points he makes -- tastes in architecture, decoration, etc -- appear over and over in ordinary Japanese people's homes and lives, even today, 70 years later. (I recommend this book to anyone going to visit Japan -- it gives most Westerners an entirely new perspective on how to view Japanese art.)

The ideas in Tanizaki's essay on the Japanese appreciation for shadows and nature-based arts and architecture should come as little surprise for those familiar with the Japanese culture and tradition. Tanizaki's suggestion that these inclinations came from practical origins made sense (a lot better than the still-common theory that the Japanese idea of aesthetics is a result of different, Japanese genes). It also seemed to me that the Japanese were more inclined to resign themselves to fate and find beauty in what was at hand (like the shadows) than to fight nature and create light at the expense of beauty.

What interested me most was the fact that Tanizaki has a "us versus them" mentality, not so much that Japan or the West is better than the other, just different. However, it seems that if a young Japanese person were to read this essay today, it would seem just as "foreign" as it does to an American.

Nevertheless, it was interesting to read Tanizaki's essay, which discusses everything from the theatre to the bathroom, gold and lacquer, women and race. One cannot help but read Tanizaki's essay without feeling his loss at the erosion of traditional society and the innate beauty within it. At the same time, it makes you look around and notice the lack of beauty in our everyday lives (in terms of art and architecture). America, too, was once a land of shadows and a people who we probably able to appreciate their beauty. Tanizaki probably never considered the fact that his culture and ours are really not so fundamentally different.

If you read this essay, don't get caught up in Tanizaki's occasional bad-mouthing of Western culture (remember that he probably would have never dreamed that this short essay would be translated and read in the West!) Instead, treat this as a rare look into a common Japanese mindset and an opportunity to see for yourself whether Tanizaki's praise of shadows is a worthy one or not.

Reviewers are treating Tanizaki's essay as a self-righteous narrative. It is, rather, an exposition of one man's aesthetic, which, perhaps mistakenly, he attributes to a nation. At the same time, he derides this nation, Japan, for relinquishing traditionalism, in favor of utilitarianism. Tanizaki did not use this essay to belittle western civilization- he used it to emphasize how western civilization was not, according to his perspective, complementary to eastern civilization. This essay is a powerful opinion piece, reflecting one man's disdain for, or arguably bewilderment at, the changing times and the dissolving of a time and place he loved. Tanizaki is a brilliant essayist; his work is revealing of passion and insight. To take this essay as an insult, or as "boring" and "whiny," is the crudest possible assessment. At best, demeaning the essay by ridiculing it as foolhardy words written by a grumpy old nationalist does nothing but prove Tanizaki's points about the incompatibility of western and eastern aesthetic. I don't believe all of what Tanizaki said to be true, either of aesthetics or of ethnic predispositions to given aesthetics, but I believe he had a valid case as foundation for his essay, and I strongly recommend reading it.

This book should probably only get one star but I gave it two because it does give the reader a good look at Lee the man instead of the saint. The problem is that it goes too far. It is hard but possible to make a much loved figure human without going to the extreme Connelly goes to. A happy medium would have been much more likely to bring us the real Lee. Sadly instead of going after the real General Lee Connelly goes on the attack and gives us a picture of a sad person who does not reflect the real man. Was Robert E. Lee the pure figure he is often pictured as? Not likely. On the other hand he also was not the pathetic figure given us by Connelly. In an attempt to destroy the myths of the past Connelly creates a set of his own half truths and myths. Shame on him!

This book might be approached as an examination of how a well-known personality is transformed for a human being into a cultural icon. Sequentially and chronologically Connelly takes his readers through that process using Robert E. Lee as the item of investigation. Along the way, Connelly makes commentary on the differences between the cultures of the north and south and how Lee's legion spread because of those cultural differences. That context has been well-established by numerous writers. Connelly simply uses it for a closer examination of Lee. For example, on page 102 he quotes another historian, Bradley T. Johnson in writing "Environmental factors had forced North and South to develop contrasting socieites. The North, 'invigorated' by constant struggle with nature, became materialistic, grasping for wealth and power. The South's 'more generous climate' had wrought a life-style based upon non-materialism and adherence to a finer code of 'veracity and honor in man, chastity and fidelity in women'"
This book helps a person to understand how history evolves in the process of retelling over a period of several generations.

This book is not just a revisionist look at Robet E. Lee but also an objective evaluation of the Southern Lost Cause Syndrome that utilzed Lee as their flagship for a just cause. Thomas Connelly is a great writer of the western theater notably the history of the Army of the Tennessee and of the western Confederate cabal that had conflicts with Jefferson Davis. Connelly offers what southerners and partiucularly Virginians may find as a harsh evaluation of Lee during the war. This book also includes some psycho-analysis that offers some reasoning for Lee's very formal demeanor which is in far contrast's to Joe Johnston whose troops would pat him on the head on occasion but not dare approach Lee in such an informal manner. In my opinion the book demonstrates that Lee was simply not infallible like amy man who has overall responsibility, he must accept some of the blame for failure. There is also the question of whether Lee was too aggressive with limited manpower (Gary Gallagher has referred to this as crucial, that the Confederacy was in serious need of military victories for morale). The Lost Cause contingent made up of Jubal Early and company always gave Lee total credit for victory but not in defeat, Early & company always made someone other than Lee a scapegoat in their version of history. Gettysburg serves as the grand indictment of this philosophy where Longstreet becomes the total goat at Gettysburg in the 1870's while one of his accusers, Early, covers his own lackluster performance by publicly hanging Longstreet. Early raps himself with the cloak of Robert E. Lee to deflect criticism of his own actions and post war exile. To my mind, Connaly expolores better than anyone else the self serving relationship of Jubal Early to the Lost Cause syndrome in Early's attempt to rewite history. Connelly brings out that Jackson was the south's great hero until Lee's death and the emergence of Lee's rise among southern writers. He also argues that Lee lacked a national picture of how to best serve the Confederacy by his opposing transferring troops west to bolster those failing armies with limited resources. He argues that Virginia was Lee's first and main focus. Highly reccommend this book, whether you agree or not, Connelly makes you look at the facts presented and while not meaning to destroy Lee's image of a competent and charismatic general, it tends to show him as human and mortal who like everyone made some mistakes. We all have to look at historians presentations carefully, even Douglas Freeman in Lee's Lieutanents slightly diminishes Jackson's role and he makes Longstreet shorter, fatter and a plotter of self grandization. This is an intellectually challenging book best appreciated by those that have an open mind. This book most likely helped foster Alan Nolan's "Lee Considered."