Gabor S. BorittKirja-arvosteluja

While Boritt covers everything surrounding Gettysburg from the height of the grass, bodies and how they were buried, slave and free activities, and more, he leaves out an in-depth analysis of the speech itself (or any analysis for that matter), which for me is a gross slight. His attention to everything surrounding the Battle, day of the speech, weather, and details galore miss the fact that he leaves out what I would consider the gospel of Gettysburg, which is big mistake plus the description of everything else tends to get tedious and dry.½

Thought provoking collection of essays setting forth the various writers' opinion as to the myriad causes of why the confederacy lost, or why the union won, the civil war. The essays are written in a manner that will appeal both to a casual reader and more serious civil war fan.

This is an informative book, but it really shows or highlights the difference in historians approaches and writing ability. By far the best and brightest spot is the piece done by Stephen Sears. Expect to find much of the information and quotes repeated.

Very useful for some of the essays, especially on LIncoln's assassination, debunking some of the conspiracy theories, especially about Stanton and about Mary Surratt --a forerunner to larer work on the guilt of Mary Surratt

This is one of the collections of essays presented at the annual Gettysburg lectures at Gettysburg College in November. This group of papers is focused on the coming of the Civil War and the contributions of those who failed to stop it. Topics range from Lincoln's role, the failure of the political system, the roles of women and African-Americans, and the relief that followed the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

The topics were all interesting, and tended to be aimed at a scholarly audience-though many who attend the Gettysburg lectures tend to be a more general audience. I found Boritt's essay, and his failure to anticipate the drift toward war interesting. Charles Royster's article on the collective relief after the Sumter bombardment also interesting. The long William Freehling article was the most difficult to follow.

In any case, the topics were useful, and I learned a lot.½

This is a '100 essential Lincoln book', but I wouldn't rank it that high. The essays (many/most are condensed from books by their respective authors) are typically very scholarly, but often very dry. Of interest is the range of works, from whether Lincoln was really a friend of the slaves or not, to psychoanalytic views of Lincoln. The latter delves into total absurdity, such as whether the famous dream that Lincoln had of the 'dead president' days before his assassination was really Lincoln's unconscious fear that he had 'killed Washington' (Washington's view of the Republic, that is.) Yeah, right. There are a number of commentaries on the essays, which provide a nice reality check. Overall, this was really a bit too dry for my taste. Guess I'm just a plebe.

This book is a collection of five essays by James McPherson, Archer Jones, Gary W. Gallagher, Reid Mitchell, and Joseph T. Glatthaar, detailing why the Confederate States of America lost the Civil War.

This book did a lot to make me re-evaluate my opinions on whether or not the South would have won if they'd had the same resources as the North. According to the essays, the Confederate states lost the war because the Union had key victories, dedicated troops, African Americans, military planning/political necessity, and better generals. And considering my inherent stubbornness, any book that makes me rethink my opinions on anything is worth note. All five writers present their point well, and they all back them up with solid facts. My one quibble has to do with the fact that the overall point of each essay seems to overlap with the others, and by the fifth essay, Glatthaar's "Black Glory," it was all redundant.

I would recommend this book to those who are interested in learning a little more about some of the specifics of the Civil War and its outcome.

Civil War/U.S.