I bought this book because it was recommended by James McPherson, but I was not especially impressed by it. Gallagher carefully explains in his introduction that he is not a neo-Confederate because he was born in Los Angeles and grew up in Colorado and had no relatives who fought in the war. But neo-Confederate is more a matter of ideological sympathy than heritage. This book is a response to those scholars who have said that the CSA had serious problems with desertion and low civilian morale and that Lee's and Davis's strategy was flawed, especially because taking the offensive cost too many soldiers' lives. On the low morale and desertion, Gallagher does have some serious points --apparently many of the deserter only went home temporarily and then returned to the army, and some at least on the home front were still writing passionately pro-Confederate diaries and letters right up to the bitter end.He says there was nothing in the CSA to match the New York draft riots, ignoring, for instance, a Unionist uprising in Tennessee. In response to those who said the CSA died of states' rights, he quotes a number of people, mostly soldiers, expressing strong loyalty to the nation as such, but ignores the strongly states rights governors like Brown of Georgia and Vance of NC. .To e the most dubious part is his sharing the adoration many Confederates expressed for Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia. He responds to postwar critics like Beauregard and Johnston who felt it should have been more defensive, and to modern admires of Mao and Ho Chi Minh who felt it should have been a guerrilla war. He does have a point that the civilians wanted an aggressive policy and rejoiced in victories; like Chancellorsville, but he does not address the fact that when Johnston was replaced by Hood who openly tried to imitate Lee's offensive policy the result was disastrous losses of men as well as the city of Atlanta. On the guerrilla war, he says the Confederate officers were West Pointers and members of the slaveiholding elite who would not have accepted that kind of war, which may be true, though when he denies there was a single officer capable of fighting that kind of war, he omits Nathan Bedford Forest, who in effect won a guerrilla war during Reconstruction with the KKK which, with allied movements, did in fact wear out the northern forces and win back control of the south. From as modern point of view, that was a terrible blow to the rights of the freed slaves, but there is no denying it was strategically effective in its time. ( )

I really enjoyed The Confederate War by Gary Gallagher. He made some interesting points and some decent discoveries that I have never heard of when reading about the Civil War. Although he does this, while reading the text it seemed that Gallagher made some accusations that kept me going "really?," "I don't think know if that is right," "history shows that" and "but this historian would disagree." Even though his perspective is unique, I questioned some of the information in the book. ( )

jsdhksjhdkjashd