Sherman's forgotten general

Sample

Eric J. Wittenberg

In Little Phil, historian Eric J. Wittenberg reassesses the war record of a man long considered one of the Union Army's greatest leaders. Throughout his life, Phil Sheridan was by all accounts a lucky man. He was fortunate to receive merely a suspension, rather than an expulsion, when as a West Point cadet he attacked a superior officer with a bayonet. During the Civil War, he was ultimately rewarded for numerous acts of insubordination against his superiors, while he punished his own officers for similar offenses. In his first effort as a cavalry commander with the Army of the Potomac in the spring of 1864, he gave a performance that has long been overrated. Later that year in the Shenandoah Valley, where Sheridan gained fame by making his legendary ride to Cedar Creek, he benefited greatly from the tactical ability of his subordinates and from a huge manpower advantage against the beleaguered Confederate troops of Lt. Gen. Jubal Early. Further, in his after-action combat reports and postwar writings, Sheridan often manipulated facts to depict himself in the best possible light. Thus, he ensured himself an exalted place in his own version of history. Wittenberg has written a thoroughly researched and cogently argued study that explodes the mythical image of Philip Sheridan and exposes the human frailties that bedevil the art and science of military leadership. - Jacket.

Sample

[by] Frank E. Vandiver

"Frank E. Vandiver's detailed research ... provide a vivid description of Stonewall's boyhood, West Point training, early career, years of teaching at the Virginia Military Institute, and Civil War campaigns. Here, too, are insights into Jackson's personal life and his deep religious feelings, which were so influential on his military thought and actions"--Jacket.

Sample

David C. King

Reviews the military career of the man who, at the start of the Civil War, refused an offer to take command of all Union armies and, instead, became a hero of the Confederacy.

Sample

Ed Longacre

Did two more perfectly matched enemies ever confront one another on the field of battle? The reserved and gentlemanly Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and the brash, arrogant, and brilliant Union Gen. Joseph Hooker squared off in the pivotal battle at Chancellorsville, the only time they were in combat. Although Lee and Hooker were equals in ability, these two were opposites in personality. The magic and mystery of the story of these two generals is even greater than the battle they fought. Colorful and controversial, "Fighting Joe" Hooker had a fondness for cards, booze, and loose women. His army was so undisciplined that the dalliance of his troops with camp "followers" is frequently said to have spawned the modern word hooker. In the strategies of war he had a gambler's mentality -- a unique combination of nerve, braggadocio, and bluff that made him a formidable foe. Robert E. Lee, born and bred a gentleman, was in many ways Hooker's opposite. With his impeccable social and military pedigree, Lee exuded rectitude, respectability, and erudition. He carried the mantle of authority with the ease and grace of a genuine aristocrat. Chancellorsville was a pivotal battle of the Civil War. The disaster that befell the U.S. Army of the Potomac there was the latest in a series of catastrophes for the North and eventually led Lincoln to remove Hooker from command. For the South, Chancellorsville was a monumental victory -- and an equal disaster, for it was at Chancellorsville that Stonewall Jackson suffered a mortal would. At Chancellorsville, "Fighting Joe" Hooker came close to matching Robert E. Lee's masterful maneuvering. Although he retreated, Hooker's brilliant strategy could just as easily have destroyed Lee's plans and ended the war in May of 1863. - Jacket flap.