How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War

Rating:
Summary: Lee's Myopia
Review: Calling Robert E. Lee myopic in any context of the war he fought is crazy. Lee followed a strategy that was highly tuned to Southern desires. His strategy was well calculated to exert influence in the North and the crowned thugs in Europe. Lee could see a truth in the war nobody else could see, the war could be lost in either the east or west but only won in the east. Lee knew his men in the east were superior to the generals in the west, this however gave Lee no satisfaction but he did know it. As far as Lee being too aggressive is out of play as well. The southerners demanded aggressiveness and clamored for one thing, more war! Lee's style was exactly what southern temperment required. Look at what he achieves during the war and any one can see that because he was not successful does not mean he was wrong. At Seven Days he saved Richmond, at second Manassas he gave Lincoln a true emergency and at Chancellorsville, with the exception of Grant, haunts all other generals in the North during the rest of the war. Lee alone gave the Confederacy its only chance of victory and lived a life that was a vibrant heritage to everyone. So all of you on the Robert E. Lee myopia train need to get off, quit playing Monday morning quarterback and start studying a piece of history that can hold some water.

Rating:
Summary: Finally Some Truth about the Teflon Man of American History
Review: For years I've felt Bobby Lee to be the most overrated man in American History. A traitor to his country, a racist and a loser, it's amazing how many of my fellow Virginians think he's the best our great state can produce. Bonekemper delivers a thoughtful and damning analysis of Lee's grotesquely overrated military career and manages to make a dent in the mythological edifice. Let's hope, for truth's sake, it's the first of many.

Rating:
Summary: Worthwhile attempt to discuss Lee's generalship
Review: How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War by Edward H Bonekemper is an interesting book whichgoes too far to prove its point. In overstating his case that Lee was responsible for the Confederate failure, Bonekemper belief that Lee was not the military genius that history has made him is lost.

The central thesis is that Lee's offensive strategy, combined with overly complicated battle plans,led to the destruction of the Confederate Army and their inability to respond to Grant's offensive

strategy in '84 and '85. There is much evidence for the proposition that the offensive strategy bleed the Confederacy to the point where Lee was forced to retreat to Richmond. There is also much evidence to support the proposition that most of Lee's victories resulting in a higher percentage of casualties then suffered by the Union were phyric, at best. The most obvious fact is that the Union could absorb the losses and the South could not.

Whether a change in strategy would have resulted in a Confederate victory is an open question. However, given the political nature of the war, and the Northern war weariness, Lee's ability to continue to bleed the North could not have helped Lincoln get reelected.

Lee forgot that he did not have to win, just not lose. If there had been more Frederickburgs and less Chancellorvilles, both Lee "victories", Lee may have not lost. Bonekemper does a fine job bringing these issues to the forefront. If for only this reason, this is a worthwhile book.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting and well-resarched
Review: I found Mr. Bonnekemper's theory as to the weaknesses of generalship as he applies it to General Robert E. Lee a refreshing new viewpoint. Author Bonnekemper has done his homework and authenticates well, the failings of General Lee's strategy and tactics. If one can get past their preconcieved notions about the greatness of General Lee, this book makes a significant contribution to the study of the history of our Civil war. Mr. Bonnekemper does not degrade General Lee, he simply states the facts; that General Lee's excesses in committing troops to battle may well have resulted in opportunities lost. General Lee will always be revered as a fine gentleman, a man of honor, dignity and great personal courage. This book will not change that. It should be read for what it is, a scholarly contribution to the study of American history.

Rating:
Summary: Could not agree more with the author
Review: I recently came across this book, but have long agreed with it's premise. I think that the others reviewers who call this book revisionist, or monday morning quarterbacking are missing the point. First, Lee missed the biggest and most obvious military lesson from a man to whom he was related by marriage - George Washington. Washington was not the tactician Lee was, but he understood that in fighting for independence from a numerically superior foe, all you need do is survive long enough to tire out the enemy. You don't even need to win any battle, just make sure that your army stays in the field. Even territory, for the most part, is irrelevant, except in a symbolic sense. Some people may not see it, but the Revolutionary War, was largely a guerilla war. Northern opinion was sharply divided throughout the was and the South really never took advantage of this fact.

Second, the revisionist history is that which was propagated soon after Lee's death by the anti-Longstreet cabal, led initially by Gen. Early. That is what has become accepted as "history", in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, because the South needed something coming out of the was to have pride in. Lee sybolized that.

I do, on the other hand, think that the author's anti-Lee attitude comes out a little too much. His cause would have been better served with a more neutral tone. I disagree with his idea that Lee should have resigned in late '64, when it was apparent that a military defeat was inevitable, especially after Lincoln's re-election. That thought pre-supposes modern values that did not exist in the mid 19th century. The idea of the cavalier fighting the good fight was still a very real ideal at that time. There was no way Lee was going to walk away while the cause still possessed the ability to fight on.

However, in spite to the tone, I found the book to be mostly well reasoned, and supported by the evidence. Either way, a definite read for any Civil War enthusiast. If nothing else, it's great conversation fodder.

Rating:
Summary: Should be paired with J.L. Harsh's "Confederate Tide Rising"
Review: If you're interested in this book, you should also read "Confederate Tide Rising" for well researched counterpoint. I enjoyed both perspectives. A warning about this book: you'll want to have a Civil War era map to refer to while reading since the descriptions of army movements/battle logistics gets very dense. It would have been better if the book included such maps since the author goes into blow-by-blow accounts of several battles. I don't see how he could expect normal readers to keep up with the information without some visuals aids. I give 4 stars for the author's competent writing--not necessarily for his conclusions. Some reviewers gave this book a bad review because they disagree with his conclusions which is o.k. but that doesn't mean the book is written badly.

Rating:
Summary: Response to Mr. Bonekemper
Review: In response to Mr. Bonekemper's assertion that I was somehow responsible for Amazon's mistakenly listing me as the author of this book when, in fact, I am merely its editor, as he has done publicly in other forae, I wish to state that, as soon as I noticed Amazon's error, I e-mailed them and asked that they clarify asap. I hold a Ph.D. from Michigan State University in three fields: English, Philosophy and Sociology. I am the editor of 26 books of history, and the author of hundreds of poems, most of which have been published in such places as The Comstock Review, The Asheville Poetry Review, The Threepenny Review, College English, Virginia Writing, Appalachian Heritage, etc. To credit my editing work as being simply that of adding commas and changing a few words is to say that Picasso held a brush. We checked Mr. Bonekemper's work for factual accuracy, for cohesion, for clarity, for organization and development, etc. We met with the printers and undertook efforts to successfully market the final product. We contributed artwork and other details to its aesthetic quality. To call me simply his publisher's wife instead of a professional who worked very closely with the text in order to ensure its success is to reveal his position toward females in general.

Rating:
Summary: armchair quarterbacking is easy
Review: Lee did make many mistakes. But the author desn't realize that the Viet Cong in Vietnam were differnt from the average US citizen. The confederacy didnt have the military knowledge we have today, 115-145 years later. Hindsight shows all their mistakes. So what? How would a goon general have performed then, with limited knowledge? Lee made mistakes, but the other senior southern generals were pretty bad. What would they have done had Lee sent them some reinforcements? Does anyone honestly believe Joe Johnston would have been able to save Richmond if he had an additional 15000 troops? Had Lee not attacked during the 7 days abttle and broken McCellens will, Richmond might have fallen by siege in 1862 or 1863. Lee did make mistakes (Gettysburg) but would any other general have done better?

The entire southern war strategy may be faulty, and thats not just Lees fault. Could the south have conducted massive Guerilla resistance? What would the norths reaction have been? Were that many of the southerners willing to fight that type of long protracted war?

The book is ok, but the author is unfair, and anyone with a deep understanding of the Civil War sees this.

Read some of JFC Fullers books on the subject, such as the Generalship of US Grant.

Rating:
Summary: Midwest Book Review
Review: The author's theory is that the North had the burden of conquering the South, a huge, defensible area consisting of eleven states. The South only had to play for a tie and only had to wear down the northern will to win. Specifically, the South had to hold onto its precious manpower resources and convince the North to vote Lincoln out of office in 1864. Instead, Lee unnecessarily went for the win, squandered his irreplaceable troops, and weakened his army so badly that military defeat became inevitable. With the Confederacy outnumbered four-to-one, Lee's aggressive strategy and tactics proved to be suicidal. The author looks beyond Lee's battles in the East and describes how Lee's Virginia-first myopia played a major role in crucial Confederate failures in the West. He itemizes Lee's refusals to provide reinforcements for Vicksburg or Tennessee in mid-1863, his causing James Longstreet to arrive at Chickamauga with only a third of his troops, his idea to move Longstreet away from Chattanooga just before Grant's troops broke through the undermanned Confederates there, and his failure to reinforce Atlanta in the critical months before the 1864 Presidential election. Lee's final failure as his continuing the hopeless and bloody slaughter after Union victory had been ensured by each of a series of events (the fall of Atlanta, the re-election of Lincoln, the fall of Petersburg and Richmond) is described. Finally, the author explores historian's treatment of Lee, including the deification of him by failed Confederate generals attempting to resurrect their own reputations. How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War is a unique, thoughtful, challenging reassessment of one of the pivotal participants in the American Civil War.

Rating:
Summary: Politcial Correctness twists history to suit the times
Review: This book unfortunately fits the times...all great Christian men excluding men of color are being systematically destroyed in the rewrites of history. The author takes facts and makes a case that does not fit the situation. He assumes a war at all cost was Lee's motive...he wanted the war to end soon and like all military leaders preferred to be on the winning side. Thus, he used offensive tactics vs a long defensive struggle that would have further divided the country to end it quickly. It was the right thing to do for someone who cared about the people..he had many friends in the US Army...his home for many years.