Robert E. Lee's Civil War

I am not a military historian nor a civil war specialist, but am an avid reader, have read Foote's books recently and have read many more books on the Civil War ove the years. This book goes into great detail discussing the military and strategy mistakes Lee made, crucial to the war's final outcome. It is not a Lee-bashing book, but puts him in perspective, contradicting the traditional "he can do no wrong" or "he can do no right" viewpoints, in my opinion. It is dry in tone and style in many parts--it is, after all, not a fictional novel but a scholarly, well researched and well-written nonfiction book. But, through letters and personal reminiscences, Lee becomes human. He is not deified or vilified. He was after all, just a man--educated, well trained, with great courage and dignity, but still--just a man. We should remember that and judge him and his place in history accordingly.

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.

If only Stonewall had lived , if only Longstreet had been able to convince Lee not to fight at Gettysburg, if only Lee had understood the changing nature of war..... We will never know how things might have turned out. Bevin Alexander does a fine job of trying to look at the real LEE by setting aside the mythical LEE. This book is for the reader who is open to seeing our Heros as they were ,not as popular history portrays them. This book make Robert E. Lee a human and in the end retains Lees heroism at Appomattox.

As a former student of Mr. Alexander (I took classes on his regarding How Great Generals Win (HGGW) and The Future of Warfare), I can see a unifying theory throughout his work. He sets forth a number of principles that must be met in order to confound and eventually defeat an enemy (without using a million men to the enemy's one) in HGGW and reexamines Lee's stewardship of the South according to those principles in Lee's Civil War. Interesting at the same time thought provoking, Alexander has once again broken through the mythical aurora of time-honored military greats. By saying Jackson was a better tactition than Lee, and Lee only had the superiority because of birthright, Alexander forces us to look at the prejudices history has forced upon us.

Mr. Alexander takes a hyper-jump into a Civil War faux-pas by examining Robert E. Lee not as a man but as a General. He puts Marse Robert to the tactical test of warfare and finds the legend a bit lacking in his understanding of the weapons and tactics. Alexander shows that if General Lee had listened more to his Lt.'s such as Longstreet and Jackson he would have fought a primarily defensive campaign as he did with much success at the end of the war. Mr. Alexander's scholarship is thorough and his style is easy to understand for the scholar as well as the common Civil War enthusiast. Kudos for taking the risk Mr. Alexander.