3 comments about The Bishop of the Old South: The Ministry And Civil War Legacy of Leonidas Polk.

1. In Luke chapter 18, we learn of a rich young man who turned away from following Christ. What would have happened had he followed Jesus? This book gives one possible answer. This is one of the two or three finest books I've ever read, not just Civil War Books. It is the story of Leonidas Polk, the son of a very wealthy North Carolina plantation owner, who was converted to Christianity while at West Point, and entered the Episcopal ministry. While continuing to run a successful plantation, he was a priest, then a missionary Bishop, then presiding Bishop of Louisiana. This book gives a wealth of Church history during the years 1830-1860, including much detail of Polk's founding of the University of the South. Accepting the offer of a commission tendered by his old friend Jefferson Davis, Polk became a Lieutenant General in the Army of Tennessee.
   
   While the book gives more space to the "Bishop" than to the "General", there is plenty of information about Polk's military campaigns. His problems as a General are not glossed over, including less than perfect coordination during the Kentucky campaign of 1862, and his difficulties with General Bragg are well reported. [Bragg could be difficult, and the Bishop was not the only General who held a dim view of him] General Polk was killed at Pine Mountain, GA on June 14, 1864; not long before his death, he baptised Generals Hood and Joe Johnston. This would be a fitting end to a book that is a superb combination of Church and Military history. But, of course, the story of a successful Minister never really ends; numerous Churches consecrated by Bishop Polk are still in service, and the world class University he founded continues to train young people for Christian service. The life and career of Leonidas Polk remains a problem for some. How could a Christian man and Priest own around 500 slaves? He was a man of his time and place, and saw no conflict. On the record, his slaves were as well treated as any in the South. Whether we are discussing Bishop Polk, Thomas Jefferson, or even FDR, it is dangerous to project our values onto a man from a different age. Perhaps not a book for the general reader, but get this one, and read it. You won't be sorry.



2. Dr. Glenn Robins captures the multiple nature of Leonidas Polk's life. He was a man of God, educator and lieutenant general and Corps commander in the Army of Tennessee. This book develops the theological aspect of Polk better than its predecessors by Joseph Parks and Polk's son, William Mecklenberg Polk. Drawing from a rich bibliography, Dr. Robins explains Polk's theology and his impact on the mid-nineteenth century Episcopal Church, clearly and precisely. Unfortunately, for the Civil War reader, Polk was at best a mediocre general,who performed poorly in command of a very important corps in the Army of Tennessee. I have been conducting research on General Polk for an article I hope to get published during the next year. Robins' book has been invaluable in helping to understand this very complex, remarkable man. The Episcopal Church has even had difficulty with the Episcopal school, The University of the South, celebrating the life of a man who owned so many slaves. For those interested in learning more about Polk, I recommend looking at the Leonidas Polk website at www.leonidaspolk.org. This biography is a great read. I highly recommend it.



3. Robins' biography of Leonidas Polk, Episcopal bishop and Confederate general, reveals little about the inner life and personality of its subject. The reader is left wondering about his motives and about Polk's interaction with the most important people in his life: his wife, family and close friends. The book is a general overview of the life of this conflicted figure who has been portrayed both as a traitor to his role as a Christian leader and as some kind of latter-day Christian knight. Still, I was left wondering which he really was.

5 comments about Ranger Mosby.

1. I have read Mosby's Memoirs, Mosby's Rangers and Rebel-The Life & Times of John Singleton Mosby. Ranger Mosby by Virgil C Jones is the best of the lot. An insight to the adventurous daring of Mosby and his men; an event in history never to be repeated by men of such daring and cunning skills. Required reading for every Civil War enthusiast.



2. I would suspect that this book never made it to the shelves of West Point. The West Point Generals in the Civil War (as well as Vietnam) just never understood Guerilla warfare. If Generals Lee and Westmoreland had only employed Mosby's techniques, we would have won both wars (I'm from Virginia). In reading the book from this point of view, it was a real "Fountainhead." Ranger Mosby was Roak in every sense of the word. He was daring, he persevered, and he endured. The book brought to life more than any other book I've read (including Cold Mountain) the excitement of that era.



3. I was totally amazed at the greatness and importance of Mosby. If only there were more men like him in the South! His valiant deeds extended the war (not that long wars are better) quite a bit, I think. This book shows you a new (at least not as well known) aspect of the Civil War. Those of you who love the South will find their hearts beating as Mosby makes his dashing raides behind Yankee lines. It is almost unbelievable! Get it, by all means.



4. I bought this book with great enthusiasm due to the reviews I read here. It has taken me three weeks to literaly "plow" through this disjointed and just plain difficult to follow narrative. The attemps at literary fluorish are constant distraction and hinder the reader's progress. This book is written as if someone simply took various accounts from other sources and cobbled them together with no idea how to make truly fascinating events into a readable story. There are areas where there is given painfully intricate detail in non-essential minutae and then where there could be benefit from detail there is only the briefest passing mention of important events. There has to be a better book on this.



5. As another reviewer mentioned, the telling of the Mosby story is done so awfully. I could not finish the book because I was not able to get into a rhythm (keep in mind I read about 3-4 books a month). Parts where you're expecting to have details he summarizes in broad strokes, meanwhile in other places pages and pages are spent on meaningless points.
   
   I gave the book two stars because when the narrative is good (in a few places) it is very good and you learn some interesting facts. There are also some excellent photos/illustrations.
   
   Other than that, I just got done watching a Civil War Journal episode done on Mosby and it pretty much summed up much more effectively what Virgil took about 300 pages doing. It doesn't look like there is a solid bio out there, other than his own memoirs. I should have started their in the first place.

No comments about A Civil War Drummer Boy: The Diary of William Bircher, 1861-1865 (Diaries, Letters, and Memoirs).

5 comments about James Longstreet: Lee's War Horse.

1. Although this book was very easy to read, excluding the very boring aspect of the Seven Days Campaign which was very hard to understand, the book made Longstreet seem like the bad man in every situation. This book even made Longstreet seem bad at Fredricksburg, quite possibly one of the greatest defensive stands ever. The authors clearly do not like Longstreet and show it throughout the book. However, I am a Longstreet and Civil War fanatic and I would still suggest you read this book just to get everyone's opinion on the controversy that is James Longstreet.



2. General James Longstreet has always been one of the most controversial southern generals. Long before the end of the war, in fact dating back to the battle of Gettysburg, the revisionist history began and continued until well after the turn of the century. This book is a picture perfect example of that revisionist history. The generals from both sides of the conflict were very flawed and imperfect men. Longstreet was no exception. His vilification is however unjust. He was blamed for the ill advised failure at Gettysburg, for no one could bear to place the blame on the true culprit, General Robert E. Lee. Lee was a great general , but this battle was none the less a mistake. His mistake. Eckenrode's book however blames Longstreet for this defeat and for nearly every other defeat the Confederacy suffers in the last two years of the war. The idea that Longstreet had some nearly mystical power over Lee, a very strong personality in his own right, is simply preposterous. The only accurate information in the book seems to be related to Longstreets dismal campaign as an army commander in the west. He truly did show greater tallent as a corp commander than as an army commander. This was certainly one of the best southern generals of the war, but is unfortunately given no credit for this in this inaccurate account. The only reason I gave the book two stars instead of one was for the simple fact the book was well written, and easy to read, if not based in fact. It would seem its author was certainly a more gifted writer than he was historian.



3. This is one of the first bios on Longstreet going back to 1936 when the first edition was published. The subsequent second edition is graced with Gary Gallagher's introduction that is more balanced and gives you a better and fuller picture of Longstreet with the benefit of more recent research. The authors' writing is very good and presents all of Longstreets warts full bore and pretty much hang Gettysburg on his shoulders. But, the Gettysburg segment is not very balanced and the authors do not write very complimentary of Longstreet and are more than punishing. It is still an engaging book but oddly the authors wrote a complete book without foot notes so sources are missing. But still, the book gives you a reference point of what Longstreet's reputation was in the south in the 1930's, virtually a pariah in the south still. The high point of the book is Gallagher's introduction that in 1986 was up to date on a broader perspective that the authors do not give. A much friendlier more up to date book is Piston's classic.



4. I'm a fair student of the Civil War and read this book a week after making my first visit to Gettysburg. In all my years of reading about the War I had read of Longstreet, but, not a considerable amount about him. It finally occured to me that this wasn't from a lack of my reading, but, a lack of material. I picked this book up at my library to learn more about him.
   
   Most of my impressions of him in general reading had been fairly positive. Particularly the "Killer Angels" portrayed him as Lee's discenting General, but, one that obediently obeyed. From other readings I had him listed as the Godfather of trench warfare of WWI.
   
   This book really took that shine off his overall generalship, but, showed him as an EXCELLENT defensive tactician. If it was a defensive operation none was better. Other than that he is made out to be an extremely egotistical person who will sacrifice anything for his own glory. That sacrifice including his men, his army, others army's, and, his country he is fighting for. I'll need to read other sources to be sure this is true, but, this text definately changed my opinion.
   
   I would have liked more detail on his life after the war. I briefly coves how he was a Republican and a friend of Grant, but, this part is a mere sketch at best. If the detail of troop movements can be covered for Chickamauga, then the last forty years of his life can be covered in more than one chapter.
   
   Having personally walked Gettysburg and seen the terrain involved, I can only conclude that Lee was absolutely insane to keep attacking after the second day. The successes seen at this battle were made in spite of Lee's direction. Lee's men would have been justified in shooting him as they came back from Picketts charge. The Japanese Kamikazees were at least given upfront expectations of their mission.



5. This book, like its subject, is destined to remain controversial. James Longstreet was one of Robert E. Lee's two main subordinates, and, after the death of Jackson, Lee's right arm. He was either a vain, insubordinate man, who should have been cashiered from the Army, or he was a genius ahead of his time. Longstreet was one of the officers most loved by his own men. Two others of whom that can be said were Joe Johnston and George McClellan. All three were defensive-minded leaders, who never wasted their men's lives in vain assaults. In addition, Longstreet shared some of the "bad habits" of his troops, and was approachable, unlike Lee and Jackson, who seemed to dwell on Mount Olympus.
   
   After the war, Longstreet was blamed for the loss of Gettysburg; interestingly, that was NOT the impression at the time. Some of the General's political statements after the war angered his own people, and may have caused them to "look back" for things not seen earlier. The debate over who was "right" at Gettysburg will continue forever. I suppose my own opinion is obvious, though I still consider Lee to be the greatest officer that ever lived. See "The Killer Angels".
   
   James Longstreet certainly did not help himself with his post-war political associations, or with the book he wrote. The authors of the book under review did not like General Longstreet, though they did admit his physical courage. "The man never lived who could call James Longstreet a coward". Longstreet seems to be one of those very rare leaders who are at their best ONLY when things fall apart....Churchill and Rudy Giuliani come to mind. I do wish the authors had given more space to Longstreet's first 40, and last 40, years. The book is well written, but ultimately I disagree profoundly with the authors. That's fine....this is America. If you want to read about James Longstreet, try Jeffry Wert.

No comments about Civil War Recollections of James Lemuel Clark: Including Previously Unpublished Material on the Great Hanging at Gainsville, Texas in October, 1862 (Elma Dill Russell Spencer Series, 7).

No comments about The Custer Album: A Pictorial Biography of General George A. Custer.

3 comments about Images from the Storm.

1. Private Sneden, a survivor of the Civil War was long forgotten when this was published recently. What is so vital about this book is that it is untouched by politicians, generals,and other propogandists of that era. Furthermore it is done through the viewpoint of the artists eyes, and done by his hand - without the editorial expections of the time.

   It is so refreshing to see this long studied subject being given a fresh viewpoint from someone who was actually there.

   Recommeded for any serious student of the Civil War.




2. If you love to see pictures from a fascinating time in American history, this is your book. The details and the description really put you there to experience what was happening. No flowery, romatic view of war from this guy!! This book provides
   extra pictures that were not included in "Eye of the Storm".
   Don't miss this piece of history.



3. Images From The Storm will appeal to two audiences: those who appreciate treatises on early military art and those with an interest in the Civil War. The Virginia Historical Society unearthed a treasure trove of photos by Union photographer Robert Knox Sneden: this shares his handwritten memoir and a sampling of his storehouse of nearly 1,000 watercolors, sketches and engravings about the war. An outstanding example of military art.

3 comments about Gettysburg (Voices of the Civil War).

1. I like to refer to this book as a colorful, well done "coffee table" book as it features many drawings, photos and skips the details you would find in other books about the battle. This book is probably not for those looking for details or heavy explanations about a specific conflict in the battle. For one that is looking to get a basic understanding of the battle and aftermath quickly it is perfect. For those new to understanding Gettysburg this is an excellent book. Having read many books about the battle I found this book interesting in regards to the personal accounts that are found on just about every page. Time Life has made a great book and continues their quality as with other series in the past.



2. This is one of the books in the Time-Life Series, "Voices of the Civil War". In these books the authors/editors have taken passages out of diaries, letters to home, and personal observations of Union and Confederate Soldiers, along with photographs and pictures (of the soldiers, if a photograph is available), and given the soldier's viewpoints of the Battle. This is an insightful, moving, inspiring, and tragic account of the particular battle. In this case, the great and terrible Battle Of Gettysburg.

   From such Generals as Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, W. Scott Hancock, to low ranking officers, to the enlisted men, there are letters, diary entries, and viewpoints taken from these soldiers as they write about "Little Round Top", "The Devils Den", "Culps Hill", "Cemetary Ridge", and other locations where the battle took place around Gettysburg. The letters and viewpoints range from the patriotic, others talk about the terror of the battle, others inform about lost loved ones, and yet there are humorous tales taken from the diaries of the soldiers.

   This is such an interesting book, that once you pick it up, it is hard to put down. The other books in the "Voices of the Civil War" series are just as interesting as "Gettysburg".

   Highly recommended!




3. There are probably thousands of books written about the Civil War, and many of them cover the same territory. But Gettysburg: Voices of the Civil War by the editors of Time-Life Books, provides a new look at this monumental battle.
   
   Voices of the Civil War is filled with first hand accounts of the events leading up to and including the Battle of Gettysburg. Instead of a dry narrative, the authors provide a brief description of events. But they then turn the story over to the soldiers, civilians, families and newsmen who were eyewitnesses. They spent thousands of hours searching out letters, journals, and dairies as well as photographs and sketches. In reading these accounts, we get a more vivid picture of the battle. We can almost see the bullets flying by our heads, hear the constant roar of cannons and guns followed by the anguished cries and moaning of the injured and dying soldiers and horses. We also read about the mayhem and chaos of battle. One soldier writes "I could have walked a half or three quarters of a mile on the dead soldiers of the enemy and not have put my feet on the ground. In some places, they were lying three deep." Recalls a Virginia artillery lieutenant, "The sights and sounds that assailed us were simply indescribable" with "corpses swollen to twice their original size, some of them actually burst asunder with the pressure of foul gases and vapors." Civilians were left to deal with the carnage, and one resident reports on "piles of amputated limbs were heaped outside the open windows." Yet, despite the death and destruction, there was a determination that this battle needed to be fought for a noble cause. A New York Times reporter lamented upon finding the body of his dead son, "O, you dead, who at Gettysburg have baptized with your blood the second birth of Freedom in America."
   
   Yet, throughout the battle, there were tender scenes as well. Civilians especially, helped provide food and medical care to the soldiers of both sides. Even the soldiers could put aside regional hatred. One Confederate soldier came upon a wounded Union man. "I saw that all one side of his lower jaw was torn off. I got him to a shade and fixed him down with his oil cloth, blanket and knapsack, then brought him a canteen of water and how pitiful to see him trying to drink by pushing the mouth of the canteen through the wound in his throat."
   
   I have a selfish reason for being fascinated by Voices from The Civil War. My great-great grandfather fought in the Civil War and was wounded on the second day of fighting at Gettysburg. Having left no written record of his war experiences in diaries or letters, Voices of the Civil War is as close as I can get to understanding what he lived through.
   
   This book has three things that should be required for all Gettysburg books. First, it has an artist's rendering of the battle ground. Second, it has a chronology of the sequence of events. And finally, it includes a list of officers for both armies that includes the generals, corps, divisions and brigades. These three items makes it much easier to see the full picture while reading.
   
   So while some Gettysburg books may give you a more complete description of battles and such, no book will capture your attention, your imagination or your heart like Voices of the Civil War.

5 comments about In Search of Enemies: A CIA Story.

1. By the former Chief of the Angola Task Force at CIA, this book is a classic on the Keystone Kops aspects of paramilitary operations as run by the CIA"s Special Operations Group within the Directorate of Operations, as well as the lack of contextual judgment that accompanies the CIA's decisions to "get into" local conflicts that are none of our business. Ammunition from the warehouses that doesn't fit the weapons in the field is just the beginning.



2. Please read this book. It tells all, that you didn't know about the direction and practices of your own country. I attended a lecture by John Stockwell and he pleads for you to not purchase this book but pirate it from your local library. The US government sued him and won the rights to this book so all proceeds go to the CIA or the Federal government. Also read "The Grand Chessboard" This is the blue print for the United States foreign policy. You will be blown away.



3. It is most interesting to read Mr. Stockwell in light of the fall of the Soviet Union. Before it fell, he was preaching the dread of nuclear annihilation and the common brotherhood of American and Soviet peoples. Ronald Reagan of course, was a apocalyptic fanatic. All well and good - except we won the Cold War and the people behind the Iron Curtain celebrated their liberation for all the world to see. The Soviet horror was worse than we had imagined.
   
   One can not but honor John Stockwell for his service and listen to him carefully for his experience. Especially the bloody mistakes we have made, which he exposes. But in the end, he leaves us with no other plan than for shame and national passivity. What can we do, if all that we do leads to the suffering of innocent peoples caught in the middle?
   
   I make this judgement only from having read John Stockwell and heard his speeches - but he seems like the character who sees too much of the horror of the world - and is utterly cynicized about any good - especially that of his own country. He alone knows the truth.
   
   His first-hand experience makes him a powerful voice. But that does not mean his voice speaks true.



4. Not to put too fine a point on it but this book is DRY - almost like a text book. There is very little action and/or suspense brought forth about involvement in the Angola operation and what could have been was quickly blunted with operational and bureaucratic detail. And that's how the book drags on, with excruciating detail. In one part, Mr. Stockwell describes what he did to finally get a desk to work from at Langley by sitting in the hall in everyone's way and stacking his papers up beside him. What took him pages to describe should've been done in a simple paragraph. To be fair, the book is written from the viewpoint of an intelligence staffer not a cloak and dagger operative. Yes, there might be some interest in how inefficient the CIA was operating back in the mid-1970s but that's true for most large government organizations. He also describes some of the "political" machinations between officials within the CIA. Again, mildly interesting but nothing notable. Some of the descriptions of dialog and reactions of persons seems contrived, almost as if he (or some ghost writer) added these things for effect. It almost "reads" like a fiction novel in that respect. Rather than writing a solid, crisp account with thoughtful and concise opinions about CIA policy and inner workings the book devolves often times into monotonous detail. However, in the latter chapters the account does get more interesting as he discusses "plausible deniability" and the deception of the CIA to "hide" their involvement. One of the more interesting parts is the organizational background and resources needed to run an operation of this type including the shipping of weapons and ammo, the propaganda strategy, the political workings thru committees, the State Department and the President to gain support, etc. The book does makes one wonder what other rebellions or conflicts the CIA was involved in over the last 30-40 years and is an eye opener about our nations espionage policies. On this level, the book succeeds. But, in the end the book was almost a grind to finish. I'd only recommend this one for the hard core 'spook' fan.



5. In the last decade, a lot of CIA exposés have been published, with the declassification of many previously unavailable documents. What distinguishes this one is that it was originally published in 1976, which makes it one of the first, and it is written by an extraordinary man who could not have been more personally involved in the subject of his book.
   
   If you are looking for a James Bond genre spy novel, you will be disappointed. If you want to understand, in detail, the actual structure and dynamics of a covert CIA operation, this book is the jackpot. In the early 1970's Mr. Stockwell was in charge of the Angola Task Force. He knows what he is talking about. This book is very direct and hits hard. For the most part Stockwell just presents the facts and allows the reader to decide, but of course the book is written after he experienced a moral rectification and left the CIA. The book is intended as an insider's exposé, and it does a fantastic job. He makes no attempt to justify his own role in the drama, referring to himself as a "villain".
   
   Personally, I found the author to be a fascinating man. He grew up in the heart of the Belgium Congo, where he learned French and Tshiluba, one of the many native languages of the country. Obviously, he got a first hand glimpse of an African nation colonized by a European power. I assume he learned English from his parents, his vocabulary is slightly more extensive than my own.
   
   Later he joined the Marines, and as a reconnaissance officer on a Navy cruise he engaged in covert hydrographic surveys off the western African coast. Afterwards, as a CIA officer, he did a tour of duty in Vietnam, but has apparently had many CIA experiences in many African countries as well. I hope this man writes a biography someday, it would be fascinating.
   
   As the author himself recommends, buy a used copy of this book already in circulation, not a new copy. The CIA sued Stockwell over publication of this book, and all new sales proceeds go to the agency, not to him. That by itself is a strong recommendation to read his story.

5 comments about Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson.

1. To hear Bevin Alexander tell it, Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson was the only general in the Army of Northern Virginia who knew which end was up. All the others were incompetent.

   Further, not only was 'Stonewall' better than any of them, he had the infallible secret of Southern victory in his head. If only Lee and Davis had _listened_, he would have ended the war in 1862 or '63, with the Confederacy triumphant.

   These are strong claims. Does Alexander establish them? No.

   Alexander goes over Jackson's career in the Civil War Between the States, recounting what happened at various times and giving some of Jackson's ideas on how to fight and what targets to attack. He also claims that many of the ideas that are commonly asserted about Jackson are just wrong: e.g., that Jackson failed to perform during the Seven Days Battles. (Bevin gives evidence that it was A. P. Hill's impatience, and Lee's mistaken estimate of Union intentions that kept the Army of the Potomac from disaster).

   This is very interesting stuff, and earns the book three stars. I recommend it to all students of the War for Northern Independence of Southern Aggression. But he provides no arguments for his larger points.

   Alexander confuses his own visions with evidence. He'll present one of Jackson's ideas (invade Maryland, manuver north of Washington, cut the rail lines from the capital to Baltimore). Then he'll speculate about what would happen (Washington DC starves, loses the will to fight the war, and surrenders). Then he treats the speculation as a certainty. Repeat endlessly, and you have the substance of the book's claims.

   So this book is worth reading, but can't be taken too seriously.




2. This book clearly and accurately details the genius of Stonewall Jackson. Alexander's conclusions are not really all that mind-bending, and quite resonable when further examination is done. He is hard on Lee, but only as pertaining to Jackson. All-in-all, a book that is anything but conventional, but remarkable in it's logic.



3. In "Lost Victories" author Bevin Alexander advances the proposition that Stonewall Jackson was the only military genius who could have brought victory to the Confederacy, had his initiatives not been thwarted by the limited visions of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. The main idea is that Jackson saw that the only way the South could win was through a bold invasion of the North. He begins his story with descriptions as to how advances in arms, primarily in rifles and cannon, switched the advantage from the attack to the defense. The narrative then leads the reader through many of the major battles of Virginia and Maryland as it explains the troop movements for which the various generals were responsible. During the descriptions of the battles, Alexander points out the many mistakes made by leaders on both sides. Toward the end he argues that, had Jackson been at Gettysburg, it is likely that he would have prevented that battle from being fought and would have guided the fighting to land favorable more to the Southern cause.
   
   This book makes a good effort in establishing its point. It is well written, although, at times, it drifts into minutiae over which units were where it the line, etc. The reader is left with an appreciation for Jackson's admirable talents in the military arts. I tend to be suspicious of second guessers who tell us how much better things could have been done. Lee's actions are open to critical analysis while Jackson's dreams have not undergone the test of battle. Maybe Lee and Davis did blow it by not following Jackson's advice, but I remain unconvinced. I am glad, however, that I read Alexander's brief.



4. I find it downright amusing reading those who say this book unfairly criticizes the sacred Robert E. Lee. While Lee could inspire men, time after time he used the wrong strategy for what he had to work with.
   
   As it is brought out in the book, the Union had more than three times (4.6 million) possible soldiers than the South (just over a million). The best strategy would have been to avoid losses and offensive operations except when carefully chosen and destroy the union army as soon as possible. As shown in the book, time after time Lee wasted his soldiers in frontal assaults.
   
   Let's look a few of General Lee's disasters:
   Malvern Hill
   D.H. Hill wrote afterwards, "It wasn't war; it was murder." Lee's army suffered 5,355 casualties with a frontal assault versus 3,214 Union and nothing was accomplished.
   
   Gettysburg - Lee attacked a well-fortified and larger Union army again. He let Stewart leave him blind in enemy territory. Confederate Losses about 23,000 out of 72,000; Federal 23,000 out of 94,000. This includes the disastrous Pickett's Charge. From Wikipedia: Approximately 12,500 men in nine infantry brigades advanced over open fields for three quarters of a mile... with over 50% casualties.



5. This book is very enlightening and demonstrates how the Confederacy might have won their independence. It is clear to see when reading the book how things might have gone during the course of the War. Of course one can also see Providence's hand at work in preserving us a Nation during those turbulent years. But this book demonstrates the military mind of one of America's finest soldiers, General Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson. I highly recommend this book if you are a student of the Civil War or a fan of the Confederacy and Stonewall Jackson such as myself.