Robert E. Lee's Civil War

First, Alexander points out that Lee made far too many frontal assaults, from his first battle to his last. This is quite true, and we can justly point out that what Nathan Bedford Forrest figured out in his first action ('Never make a frontal attack if there's a half-way decent alternative'), R. E. Lee may still not quite grasped in '65. But a one-sentence idea does not make a book.

Second, Alexander rehashes his 1996 volume "Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson." If only Davis and Lee and _listened_ to Jackson, we're told, and implemented his strategies, the South would have won in 1862 or '63. But war is the realm of uncertainty: the one time Jackson's ideas were followed to the letter, Chancellorsville, things didn't go as planned, Jackson died, and it's arguable that Hooker would have won the battle if he hadn't been wounded.

Thirdly, there's fantasy masquerading as analysis. For instance, during the Gettysburg campaign, Lee should have attacked Philadelphia! That would have taken the Army of Northern Virginia 80 or so miles further into Northern territory, cut Lee's line of retreat, and enabled Lincoln to move troops there first via Philadelphia's thickest concentration of rail lines, but what the heck, it was certain to work because . . . well, that's where I lose the thread.

And then there's random inconsistency. Lee was a menace to the Confederacy because he constantly made frontal assaults on superior numbers in strong positions. Braxton Bragg, otoh, invaded KY in the summer of '62, and had a chance to take Lexington -- by making a frontal assault against superior numbers in a strong position. Ah, but Bragg also had an entire separate Union force on his tail, one that ALSO outnumbered him. Besides, Bragg's troops were badly worn out by marching and short rations, and Bragg's subordinates frequently disobeyed orders without even telling Bragg what they were doing. So obviously Bragg's failure to attack Lexington reflects a loss of nerve, because a Confederate attack would have inevitably won. "RIGHT!", as Noah said to the Lord.

There are many good books on the Civil War. This isn't one of them. Skip it.


Excellent   April 15, 2004
 3 out of 6 found this review helpful

This book is quite good, and most people are unwilling to admitt to something that goes against what they have always known. This is a decent book on Lee, and needs to be read by all. Others call this book terrible, but it is very revealing and goes against what people have always been taught and what they want to believe. All in all a decent book.


Good overall book about the strategy behind the war   March 30, 2003
 1 out of 4 found this review helpful

I liked this book, although it got a little too detail oriented in a couple spots, I learned alot from this book about Robert E. Lee's overall character and strategy.


Interesting view of American History   August 7, 2000
 2 out of 6 found this review helpful

I found this book to be very interesting. I couldn't lay it down until I was finished reading it. It was the first Civil War book I have read, and it is a good foundation for the others I have read since.

Alexander uses a lot of detail on tactical moves that Lee and Jackson used. Lee and Jackson are both praised in the book, and Lee is criticized for his mistakes. Alexander does not criticize Lee's character, but only some tactical moves that he made on the battle field. I know hindsight is 20/20, but Alexander gives Lee is dues. Overall, this was an excellent book and fun to read.


A Civil War Buff Hates This Book   April 19, 2000
 9 out of 11 found this review helpful

This is the only Civil War book that I have started and not finished. I was looking forward to reading this book and the introduction only served to get me more interested. The author claims that Robert E. Lee was not a perfect general (true enough) and sets out to point out where he could have done better and show times where wrong-headed thinking hurt the Confederate cause (Pickett's charge would be a great example). However, this book does not stick to this premise. It becomes a blow-by-blow character assassination. I got tired of him saying that nearly everything Lee did was wrong. If he was wrong ALL OF THE TIME how could he have fought so long with so few supplies so effectively? Don't waste your time - read James McPherson or Bruce Catton or Shelby Foote. They are much more even-handed in their appraisal of Lee and they are much more interesting writers.