This is a book that I've somewhat dreaded reviewing. It's a little hard to know how to rate it, and it's hard to review it without going off onto my own interpretation of the topic. (Despite the temptation, I'm going to try and avoid doing that.)

Nesbitt's essential thesis is that the blame laid by some upon General Stuart for the defeat at Gettysburg is unfair. I agree with him. However, I'm not sure I don't think he's right for the wrong reasons.

Nesbitt proposes several beliefs: Stuart's absence brought on the battle; no cavalry was left to Lee; Stuart was "late" for the battle; Stuart wasn't following orders; Stuart was joyriding; and offers to prove them false one by one. He is more successful with some of these proofs than others. He spends much of the narrative on Stuart's orders. I'm not sure this was the best strategy. The orders were confusingly written, we may not have them all, and after the war they were variously interpreted. Harping on the orders and on Lee's aide, Marshall's, possible postwar dishonesty concerning them tends, I think, to weaken Nesbitt's thesis by taking time and attention away from the real weak points in the "Stuart was to blame" argument. He gets caught up in the morass and makes some confusing and contradictory statements himself. In his discussion of the orders he does establish to my satisfaction that Stuart was not outright disobeying, though other readers have disagreed.

Nesbitt is perhaps on better ground with his discussion of postwar events -- the canonization of Lee as part of Lost Cause ideology and the fact that Stuart, being dead and not having been a favorite of some major hagiographers, made an ideal victim. Mosby's refreshingly lucid comments serve Nesbitt well here.

Time is also given to an analysis of the cavalry's role during the battle and retreat. Nesbitt points out, very cogently, that Stuart left men behind watching the Federal army who were supposed to stay in contact with Lee, but he fails to explain why these men did not, apparently, do their duty. This would be a useful thing to know, as would the reason why much of the cavalry Lee did have was off with the Second Corps, thus out of touch with Lee--but not at Stuart's bidding. Also, though the accidental nature of Gettysburg and the fact that it wasn't seen as a "high-water mark" till after the war do receive mention, Nesbitt's argument might have been stronger, I think, had he focused more on those factors.

Some rather unusual photos grace this volume, including one in which Mosby looks startlingly like actor Kyle MacLachlan.

This book will be required reading for anyone interested in the subject, but I'm afraid it may intensify controversy rather than clarifying discussion.

This book takes one of the most controversial actions in the greatest campaign of the Civil War and re-examines the original documents related to the controversy, at least insofar as they can be found. The thoughtful, reasoned analysis of Stuart's actions, his basis for them, and their ultimate effects on the outcome of the campaign, combine to produce a fresh book on the Gettysburg campaign.
Certainly it will not settle the controversy fully, but it is a welcome addition to the canon of literature on Gettysburg.

Too bad the publisher could not have included text that would do justice to this volume's photo imagery. That is why for appearance and artistic design, the book rates 5 stars; however, for accuracy of historical text, Mr Symonds rates negative stars. The author advances so many myths (just two of the many horrendous myths advanced Mr Symonds are: 1) Longstreet is to blame for July 2 and; 2) Richard Ewell was given discretionary orders by Lee to pursue on July 1. Both are pieces of fiction that all too often repeated as fact) that the reader must simply consult many, more reliable texts on the battle.

Need a coffeetable book to get someone's attention on Gettysburg? This will do it. Need a book to learn the facts about the battle? Don't open this one.

This book is ideal for teenagers: lots of pictures, lots of summaries and no heavy-lifting.

It's an attractive regurgitation of all previous histories, including the myths of the Barlow/Gordon Incident and the Kilpatrick exchange with Farnsworth that never took place.

No new ground broken, old ground retilled with plenty of sweeteners on top.

This text is, in my opinion, meticulously crafted and researched. It's a perfect introduction to Gettysburg because of its lively text and spectacular presentation. Symonds' strength as a writer has always been his ability to devour all available information and articulate an insightful, thoughtful and original thesis. I would recommend Symonds' compelling biographies of Joseph E. Johnston and Patrick Cleburne as further examples of his talent.

Hey, my name is Jeremiah Johnson. I'm doing a book review for Abraham's Battle. The book is about a freed black man named Abraham Small. He escaped from the South, and now he works for a nice white family in Pennsylvania. Their young daughter, Ladysmith, loves Abraham and wants to spend all her time with him. One day, a young Confederate soldier by the name of Lamar Cooper walks up to the fence asking for food. He and Lamar become friends, even though they are complete opposites.
When the Civil War began, Ladysmith's father had to go off to war. Abraham decided that it was the manly thing to do. He is black, so no one wants him in their regiment. He becomes an ambulance driver. An ambulance driver picks up wounded souldiers from the battlefield. One day, Abraham finds Lamar on the Union side. Abraham takes him to their makeshift hospital.
When the war is over, Abraham Lincoln comes to Gettysburg and makes a speech. Lincoln uses Small's mule and gives him his hat. Abraham in honored and very happy.
This is a good book, but it is only 88 pages and is made for kids. I reccommened this book for anyone who needs to do a book review for a project in school. It's short, easy, and has plenty of information about the life of and old black man during the Civil War. Otherwise, stay away from this book.

Abraham's Battle, by Sara Harrell Banks, is about the Civil War, more specifically, The Battle of Gettysburg. But that is only skin deep, it is a novel about equality, about hate, and about love. The story centers around a white northern girl, Ladybird, and a runaway slave man, Abraham, the best of friends, despite the time in which they are living, which may frown on such friendships. They are perfectly happy together, and enjoy walking with the mule, Charity. But their simple existence is complicated when a soldier for the south arrives at the farm, asking for food. Abraham, despite himself takes a liking to this homesick young man and is almost sorry when they part at the end of the day. Later on, Abraham saves his life. Throughout the entire book, Banks is constantly reinforcing the message that all men are created equally but in such delicate and subtle methods that the flow of the story is never once interrupted. For example: Ladysmith's friendship with Abraham, Abraham saving a man fighting on the opposite side in the war, and Abrahams conversation with the president that shares his name. Abraham's Battle is a flowing and poignant tale that is subtle and yet a still powerful narrative that should be enjoyed for generations to come.

This book is most helpful as a guide to the markers and tablets on the Gettyburg battlefield. It will help you locate some out-of-the way markers and make a detailed tour slightly easier. However, take the comment about the objectivity of the descriptions contained on the markers with a grain of salt. For example, the four markers at the edge of the Peach Orchard describe the fighting on July 2 as III Corps commander Daniel E. Sickles would like you to understand it. The truth is a little more complicated, to say the least. The inscriptions offer evidence of the battle for memory and the shaping of narratives to privilege one view over another. When reminded that there was no statue of himself on the field, Sickles responded that the whole battlefield was his monument--a monument to his ability to impress his view of the battle on others.

I have only read the Gettysburg portion of this book. Abner Doubleday presents a high-level, general's view of the battle, written 20 years later. Movements of large units are described, with very few vignettes of how savage the fighting was. The wounds of his fellow generals are, however, detailed. This book will be difficult for the novice Civil War reader. If you are unfamiliar with the terms regiment, brigade, division, and corps as they were organized in the Civil War, you will probably not appreciate this book. Doubleday does provide detailed, day-by-day order of battle information for both sides in an appendix. Those unfamiliar with the organization of both sides will have to refer to it frequently. There is a detectable bias against Union general Oliver O. Howard, and some antipathy towards General Meade, the overall Union commander, largely because Doubleday was demoted from a battlefield command position he had assumed on the death of his corps commander. Doubleday also provides much less detail after the first day, because only on the first day were his units involved in heavy fighting. If you're looking for an account of the general course of Gettysburg down to the brigade level, this is the book. If you're looking for excitement, you'll have to go elsewhere. It should be noted that there is slim evidence that Abner Doubleday had anything to do with the invention of baseball. However, he did win a Medal of Honor at Gettysburg.

Firstly, though it seems to be generally classed as fiction, this isn't fiction; it's a narrative account of Gettysburg and the events leading up to it which contains no fictional material beyond some interpretations of generals' motives. Essentially, this is about "who was to blame", and it fastens on several scapegoats, notably excluding Lee. The writing is enlivened by some good quotes from original sources. As usual, the fighting on Culp's Hill (my personal Gettysburg hobbyhorse) gets short shrift. This book is hard to find, and it really isn't worth making a massive search for. Plenty of other, better material is available.

Accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg always seem to focus on who is to blame for the Confederate loss. Dowdey's version happens to blame Longstreet, primarily. However, Longstreet fans shouldn't avoid the book on that account. Dowdey gives a clear, well-written, though inevitably at this date somewhat old-fashioned, account. As no other author that I'm aware of does, he discusses the preparation for the invasion: the way that Davis refused Lee the reinforcements he'd requested, the way that Lee failed to rethink his method of dealing with subordinates after Jackson's death. I think Dowdey is a little scanty on Culp's Hill, but then I think that about everyone but Pfanz. Overall, this is a good basic analysis, definitely worth reading.

This book is basically a register of all buildings used as field hospitals after the battle of Gettysburg, also including a description of the large hospital at Camp Letterman. It has pictures of the sites where available and gives an overview of what took place at each one, who owned it, what troops may have been there and what surgeons were stationed there. The depth of available information varies, of course. I found that the maps were on a scale too small to be very helpful -- for example, I was unable to determine what route a soldier would have taken coming off Culp's Hill and walking to the Picking farm. The book would have been vastly improved by a chapter on the type of wounds suffered during the battle and the medical care of the time; some anecdotes and factoids are given but it's really not enough. As it is, the book is probably best read as an adjunct with Patterson's Debris of Battle and possibly Gangrene and Glory or some similar work on medical treatment.

This guide book would be very useful for a first time visitor to this area of the battlefield. But for those wishing to spend more time in the Little Round Top/ Devil's Den area, or who wish for more complete and detailed guides, I recommend two other books: Little Round Top: A Detailed Tour Guide by Garry E. Adelman, and Devil's Den: A History and Guide by Garry Adelman & Timothy H. Smith

This book is a disaster. It should be condemned by anyone interested in history. Author David Eicher was simply unable to produce any "definitive" illustrated history of the Gettysburg battlefield without taking images from William A. Frassanito, the preeminent Civil War photo historian. So that is what Eicher did, scanning DOZENS of images from Frassanito's books and passing them off as his own work product, without proper credit or permission. Eicher's conduct, which he has admitted, was unethical and deserves censure.

Calling this book definitive is laughable, unless definitive also means "incomplete, incorrect, and poorly presented!" I noticed SCORES of wartime photos that were not even included! The views that are presented are fuzzy, misidentified, misdated, and poorly interpreted. The only thing "definitive" about this book is that it is a definitive example of poor research and the wonton misuse of the photos and information of others. If this book is definitive, I cringe to think of what the author considers less-than that!

The incredible amount of misinformation contained within the
covers of this creation actually surpasses the misattribution of
sources of photographs here. How someone can claim to be an
expert on Gettysburg and misidentify a photograph of Edwin
Stoughton as Joshua Chamberlain (akin to misidentifying a photograph of Abraham Lincoln or Robert E. Lee in the context of
Gettysburg)is incomprehensible! The failure to identify other
photographs correctly as well as other historical errors simply
amplifies the fact that this book should not have been written, or at least not written until the primary author studied his
subject thoroughly. The essays by other historians are good but
fail to redeem the overall failure of this humbug of a book. A
lavish waste of paper, ink, and the writings of other good historians.