What do you think?
Rate this book
Military Memoirs of a Confederate
General Edward Porter Alexander was the master gunner of the Confederacy, and undeniably one of the great American artillerists. He was involved in nearly all of the great battles of the East, from First Manassas through Appomattox; on the second day at Gettysburg, Alexander's battalion executed one of the greatest artillery charges of the war; Longstreet relied upon him for reconnaissance, and Stonewall Jackson wanted him made an infantry general.
Alexander wrote two a personal memoir intended for his children, which remained unnoticed until 1989, when it was published to enormous critical acclaim as Fighting for the Confederacy; and this book, Military Memoirs of a Confederate, which was first published in 1907 and immediately recognized as a classic. Unlike Fighting for the Confederacy, which was based largely on Alexander's own recollections, Military Memoirs relies on a vast amount of research. It is undoubtedly the most accurate and most important first-hand general history of the Civil War.
Alexander wrote two a personal memoir intended for his children, which remained unnoticed until 1989, when it was published to enormous critical acclaim as Fighting for the Confederacy; and this book, Military Memoirs of a Confederate, which was first published in 1907 and immediately recognized as a classic. Unlike Fighting for the Confederacy, which was based largely on Alexander's own recollections, Military Memoirs relies on a vast amount of research. It is undoubtedly the most accurate and most important first-hand general history of the Civil War.
667 pages, Paperback
First published March 21, 1993
150 people are currently reading
181 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
May 12, 2017
This is an excellent history of the Civil War written by one of the premier participants in the Army of North Virginia. He served as an Ordnance officer and then as an Artillery commander throughout the Eastern Theater with one excursion to the Western Theater with Longstreet's Corps where he participated in the Battle of Chickamauga though not decisively. General Alexander's battle experience commences with the First Manassas and runs through Appomattox. The book is first published in 1907 so the author has access to a lot of information and reflection. He is no fan of General Jackson overall nor in the selection of his replacement as Corps Commander. He would much rather have seen General J.E.B. Stuart given the command and thought him wasted as the Cavalry Commander. He likes Confederate General D. H. Hill and Union General Fitz John Porter and thinks Porter's dismissal was a boon for the Confederacy because he was so good a fighter. throughout the book the author comments with hindsight at advantages missed or lost and disadvantages that were catastrophic or that actually were overcome. For those who enjoy the Civil War history, this is an excellent assessment of the War and of the individuals who commanded on both sides. A good read!
July 23, 2018
An interesting review of the conflict from a chiefly southern perspective (though not exclusively). Only addresses the military aspect, so don't look for moralizing here. Like most military veteran retrospectives is laced with "Monday morning" generalship, but he is a harsh critic of all and spares no sacred cows.
February 8, 2021
Interesting more than most for its criticism of the efforts on both sides from a military point of view and its detailed information on issues related to the artillery branch.
May 7, 2014
Very good read on the history of the Army of Northern Virginia from the point of view of one who lived it. Surprisingly candid in his criticisms of Lee, though still reverential of the man himself. Of course, Alexander, a veteran of the entire conflict, is best known for his conversation with Lee on that last morning about sending the men off back to their states rather than surrendering to Grant. Alexander still feels a twinge of shame and admits so openly, not because of any ill intentions on his part but because of how small he felt in comparison to Lee's position on the issue.
In terms of tactics and strategy, his main beef is the lack of coordination in attacks, the lack of seasoned staff officers to oversee said attacks, and most interestingly the Confederate strategic mistake of not utilizing "interior lines" between the theaters of the war. He took part in the Battle of Chickamauga, in which the 1st Corps ANV was transferred to the West and delivered a stunning blow to the previously victorious Yankees. Alexander in particular thinks Lee should have personally led troops out West to relieve Vicksburg rather than invading the North in the summer of '63. Certainly an intriguing what if.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the flashes of his personal opinion on The Cause. He's clearly accepted the benefits of the Union victory and flat out says the Confederacy would not have survived victory. Hard to imagine any nation fighting a civil war that bloody and then, within days, getting on the same train cars with their former opponents and making a point of being civil. Very interested in reading his other book, but in all of my reading the proposed future of the Confederacy in peace is one I've surprisingly never come across.
In terms of tactics and strategy, his main beef is the lack of coordination in attacks, the lack of seasoned staff officers to oversee said attacks, and most interestingly the Confederate strategic mistake of not utilizing "interior lines" between the theaters of the war. He took part in the Battle of Chickamauga, in which the 1st Corps ANV was transferred to the West and delivered a stunning blow to the previously victorious Yankees. Alexander in particular thinks Lee should have personally led troops out West to relieve Vicksburg rather than invading the North in the summer of '63. Certainly an intriguing what if.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the flashes of his personal opinion on The Cause. He's clearly accepted the benefits of the Union victory and flat out says the Confederacy would not have survived victory. Hard to imagine any nation fighting a civil war that bloody and then, within days, getting on the same train cars with their former opponents and making a point of being civil. Very interested in reading his other book, but in all of my reading the proposed future of the Confederacy in peace is one I've surprisingly never come across.
February 7, 2022
Though most famous as the commander of the Confederate Artillery in the preparatory bombardment for Pickett's Charge, E. P. Alexander spent much of the War as a logistics officer. Consequently, he had a good overview of the military operations in the Virginia Theatre of Operations. He gives a very critical analysis of Confederate actions, mainly on failure to adequately coordinate efforts. He specifically critizes such Confederate icons as Jeb Stuart (his ride around McClelland's Army revealed the weakness of the Union's lines of communication and McClelland increase caution prevented his destruction), Stonewall Jackson (tardy movements throughout the same Peninsular Campaign minimized Lee's victory) and even Robert E. Lee himself! Lee is taken to task for giving battle at Sharpsburg and Gettysburg.
EP has some kind things to say of George McClelland, pointing out that of the six invasions of Virginia only two achieve any success. One was McClelland invasion up the James River Valley and the other was Grant's Campaign in which by constantly marching to the southeast, he essentially ended up in the James Valley. He also says that McClelland caution was understandable due to his overestimation of Confederate strength and political considerations (the north was delusionary fearful of an attack on Washington, D.C.
Most telling, Alexander justifies the Confederate cause by pointing out that no one was tried for treason who participated in the Rebellion. I agree with him, sort of. There should have been hangings.
EP has some kind things to say of George McClelland, pointing out that of the six invasions of Virginia only two achieve any success. One was McClelland invasion up the James River Valley and the other was Grant's Campaign in which by constantly marching to the southeast, he essentially ended up in the James Valley. He also says that McClelland caution was understandable due to his overestimation of Confederate strength and political considerations (the north was delusionary fearful of an attack on Washington, D.C.
Most telling, Alexander justifies the Confederate cause by pointing out that no one was tried for treason who participated in the Rebellion. I agree with him, sort of. There should have been hangings.
October 11, 2021
A memoir from a West Point graduate born in the South. When the Rebellion came, offered a commission in the Confederacy, he accepted that commission, its profound obligations. You may someday understand what it feels like to throw your self into a dire rebellion against corrupt, fascist government. Ultimately everything matters in the universe but being honorable, joining one’s brothers, Rebels, matters most.
This memoir, to its narrative detriment, describes the author’s War with great remove, a detailed chess like detachment. Appropriate for the time and memoirist’s station, the style removes the reader from the intense immediacy of this first person war story. His is a tale of precise, officer class observation from the front. It remains a supremely rare Confederate time capsule. Well worth dissection.
This memoir, to its narrative detriment, describes the author’s War with great remove, a detailed chess like detachment. Appropriate for the time and memoirist’s station, the style removes the reader from the intense immediacy of this first person war story. His is a tale of precise, officer class observation from the front. It remains a supremely rare Confederate time capsule. Well worth dissection.
November 1, 2011
If Douglas Southall Freeman says MEMOIRS is " the most valuable single commentary on the operations of the Army of Northern Virginia", what else really needs to be said? The book is clear and offers strong opinions on events relating to the battles and operations of the Army Of Northern Virginia. It is complete and does not hold back when criticism is due. It is a must for any student of the Civil War.
December 20, 2021
Apparently I read this book a few years ago and completely forgot and somehow bought another copy. Thank God it was only $3.95. There is so much detail in this book it's crazy and I just cannot read it again. I tried but it's so dry I could not go any futher. For a Civil War interested person it would definitely be worthwhile reading.
Read
October 20, 2019Alexander gives us a most complete and thorough account of his intimate knowledge of the Confederate Army. A great read for those interest in the Civil War, and the subject of War, in general!
December 28, 2023
As a student of the Civil War, E.P. Alexander's book has been on my reading list for a number of years. This primary source is often cited in books written about the Civil War, and for good reason: he was there in the fighting from 1861-1865.
Although Alexander served with the Confederate Army of Virginia, his observations and writings are objective, and unlike many other writers, he points out the faults and bad decision making on the part of the Confederate States and the Union as well. He also defends the tactical decisions made by both sides where it is appropriate.
I was especially interested in Alexander's account of the Gettysburg Campaign of 1863, and I was not disappointed. I have several books on the campaign, and Alexander's firsthand account of what took place at Gettysburg is fascinating.
This is a great read for anyone interested in the Civil War and military history, but especially for the serious student to use as a reference.
Although Alexander served with the Confederate Army of Virginia, his observations and writings are objective, and unlike many other writers, he points out the faults and bad decision making on the part of the Confederate States and the Union as well. He also defends the tactical decisions made by both sides where it is appropriate.
I was especially interested in Alexander's account of the Gettysburg Campaign of 1863, and I was not disappointed. I have several books on the campaign, and Alexander's firsthand account of what took place at Gettysburg is fascinating.
This is a great read for anyone interested in the Civil War and military history, but especially for the serious student to use as a reference.
December 23, 2018
The best
This has been the very best historical narrative I have ever read about the Civil War. It is in deep detail but in story form and interesting to read. The author having been in service to the CSA, from the beginning of the war, until the end, observed everything first hand and had personal knowledge of that terrible war. Even knowing the ending of the story it was hard to put down.
This has been the very best historical narrative I have ever read about the Civil War. It is in deep detail but in story form and interesting to read. The author having been in service to the CSA, from the beginning of the war, until the end, observed everything first hand and had personal knowledge of that terrible war. Even knowing the ending of the story it was hard to put down.
August 2, 2022
An excellent critical review of the Army of Northern Virginia operations during The Civil War by General E.P. Alexander, C.S.A. . Alexander offers great insight of how the campaigns from 1862-1865 were run from behind the scenes and on the battlefields. He allows the reader to see the blunders and the brilliance of the commanders on both sides of the war. It is simply an outstanding piece of work.
March 29, 2018
An eyewitness memoir. Highly recommended. Was recommended to me by my favorite (at least one of my two favorites) history professor, Gary Gallagher at UVA.
August 17, 2019
Very Thorough Examination
Alexander gives us a most complete and thorough account of his intimate knowledge of the Confederate Army. A great read!
Alexander gives us a most complete and thorough account of his intimate knowledge of the Confederate Army. A great read!
April 26, 2022
Fascinating, remarkably well-written, and very honest account of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia from before Manassas to the surrender at Appomattox. Porter pulls no punches here.
December 25, 2024
Painfully detailed and longer than necessary. Given the subject matter I understand why but it isn't a particularly enjoyable read. More of a somber tone. In spite of the reviews, I had read he doesn't seem to trash anyone in this book, but he does acknowledge that there is tension in war.
November 1, 2015
Edward Porter Alexander is best known as Longstreet's Chief of Artillery in the Army of Northern Virginia. He was in charge of the artillery barrage that preceded Pickett's Charge. He served in various capacities from 1st Bull Run to Appomattox, although he went w/ most of Longstreet's Corps to Tennessee & Georgia for Chickamauga & Knoxville.
This book's subtitle is A Critical Narrative. The best part of this book is that Alexander does make a critical analysis of both the Union & Confederate sides. He's the one who coined the descriptions "Jackson of the Valley" & "Jackson of the Chickahominy" to contrast Jackson's stellar performance in the 1862 Valley Campaign with his poor performance during the Seven Days. Although he clearly respected Lee, he does criticize Lee when he thinks it's appropriate.
Alexander's analyses are pretty objective & largely free of a lot of the Lost Cause bias that colors a lot of Confederate memoirs. One flaw in his analysis is that he doesn't ascribe the same degree of patriotic motivation to the Union troops as he does to the Confederate troops. He does often admire the fighting qualities of the Union forces and freely acknowledges their superior equipment.
Alexander frequently quotes official records and obviously read a number of the post war memoirs and magazine articles written by generals who fought on both sides.
This book is worth reading.
This book's subtitle is A Critical Narrative. The best part of this book is that Alexander does make a critical analysis of both the Union & Confederate sides. He's the one who coined the descriptions "Jackson of the Valley" & "Jackson of the Chickahominy" to contrast Jackson's stellar performance in the 1862 Valley Campaign with his poor performance during the Seven Days. Although he clearly respected Lee, he does criticize Lee when he thinks it's appropriate.
Alexander's analyses are pretty objective & largely free of a lot of the Lost Cause bias that colors a lot of Confederate memoirs. One flaw in his analysis is that he doesn't ascribe the same degree of patriotic motivation to the Union troops as he does to the Confederate troops. He does often admire the fighting qualities of the Union forces and freely acknowledges their superior equipment.
Alexander frequently quotes official records and obviously read a number of the post war memoirs and magazine articles written by generals who fought on both sides.
This book is worth reading.
May 18, 2017
An excellent historical perspective of the Army of Northern Virginia written by a man who was there.
December 21, 2015
Very good book
A well written narrative of the problems of the Union armies and the Confederate armies during the War Between the States.
A well written narrative of the problems of the Union armies and the Confederate armies during the War Between the States.
April 17, 2022
DNF
When a book starts by justifying an insurrection by “defending our freedom,” I don’t think I can finish it.
When a book starts by justifying an insurrection by “defending our freedom,” I don’t think I can finish it.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews