James Longstreet: Lee's War Horse

Rating:
Summary: A Very Well Written Yet One Sided of the MAN.
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Classic revisionist history
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Very Early Bio on Longstreet: with all the Warts
Review: 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.