Rating: 
Summary: A Very Mixed Bag
Review: Alan T. Nolan claims that Robert E. Lee has never been objectively considered as a man and general. Instead, he says Lee has become an icon, a sacred symbol of the rightness of the Secessionist cause. There is much truth in this.
Nolan goes on to say he will attempt to examine the Lee myth and compare it with the facts. It is here that he sometimes falls down.
In some respects, Nolan seems right on the money. He documents that Lee's opposition to slavery was almost purely verbal -- someday, God in his wisdom would end slavery, but till then, everyone was obliged to allow it to continue unmolested. Quite a few of Lee's fellow slave holders felt the same way. The possibility that the Civil War Between the States was God's way of ending the Peculiar Institution never occured.
Nolan also shows that Lee had typical attitudes of a white southerner of his time towards blacks, namely, he didn't like them very much and felt that they were inferior to whites; that Lee frequently referred to the Union forces as 'the enemy;' and that Lee wasn't infallible as a general. It's long past time such simple points were made.
But other times Nolan is quite bizarre. Although he doesn't quite say it, he seems to feel that Lee was morally obligated to fight for the Union, because as an officer in the U.S. Army he'd taken a loyalty oath to the govt. So what? No one at the time expected that oath to be binding on someone who'd resigned his comission. Nolan flatly argues that Lee should have surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Grant sometime after the fall of Atlanta, and certainly shortly after the re-election of Lincoln. It doesn't seem to occur to him that he probably couldn't have done this, physically (why would his officers and men obey, when they were in touch with Richmond, where Davis was most certainly not surrendering?), and Nolan doesn't realize that this would have been a betrayal of Lee's oath to support the Constitution of the Confederate States.
And although Lee did more than anyone else North or South to heal the divisions of the War, this isn't enough for Nolan. He thinks Lee should have made a public repudiation of the Secession. Why he imagines Lee would think the cause he fought for was wrong and immoral he never says. Heck, I'm a stone Union man, and I can't see how Lee would have come to that conclusion.
Still, this book is a good begining on the task of finally seeing Robert Edward Lee clearly, as a very great and good man and general, but not the Christ figure some historians have made him out to be. Despite its flaws, its worth reading and thinking about.
Rating:
Summary: Not too compelling
Review: Although I am a native Southerner, I was looking forward to reading this book because I believe that R.E. Lee was a human being like the rest of us, with faults and making some mistakes along the way. However, the "evidence" Nolan uses to make this point isn't that compelling. It isn't too say that Nolan does not make any good points, but on some (for instance, Lee and slavery) he seems to reach and use conjecture to prove his point. Another knock against this book is that I felt several of the chapters dragged and were boring. While this book is a pretty good addition to both Lee and Civil War literature, it fell below my expectations. Thomas Connelly's "Marble Man" is probably a better attempt at proving Lee's flaws.
Rating: 
Summary: Lee on the stand
Review: I am not a huge fan of Lee and i do not defend him or his actions. with that being said, i feel that Mr. Nolan's book was nothing more than repeated attacks on Lee with a lack of supporting evidence. Nolan tries to make many points but when he goes to support those points, the evidence does not credit him. He uses 1 or 2 documents to try and bring down the Lee tradition. it would seem to me that he wants to make ripples in the water by attacking the South's premier icon. With a library card, u can get the most use out of this book by reading chapter 4, i think any civil war historian can find that information in that chapter usefull and enlightening. other than that, Unless you are highly intersted in Lee, i do not recommend you to by this book
Rating: 
Summary: an objective treatment of a southern icon
Review: in this very readable and enjoyable book, historian alan nolan cuts "marse robert" (i.e., robert e. lee) down to size. his purpose is not to denounce lee, but rather to identify and criticize what he perceives to be myths surrounding the persona of lee (e.g., that he was opposed to slavery and that he harbored no ill feelings for union soldiers). nolan has aroused the ire of those who genuflect before the graven image of robert e. lee, a man who, despite having fought against the united states in defense of slavery, has been virtually deified not only in the south but also in other parts of the country. like religious fundamentalists in denial over scientific facts contradicting their theologies, neo-confederates reading nolan's book have to contend with what they hate most...historical facts about robert e. lee, the confederacy and the civil war which undermine their "lost cause" ideology. that these facts are presented in a cogent, coherent and very readable manner will only further antagonize them. the ad hominem attacks against alan nolan contained in many of the reviews bears witness to their frustration. tough noogies, y'all!i sincerely hope alan nolan will now take on that other pillar of confederate "virtue", namely thomas j. jackson. after james robertson's hagiography on "mighty stonewall", it would be nice to see an objective treatment of jackson and alan nolan is just the man for the job!
Rating:
Summary: an objective treatment of a southern icon
Review: in this very readable and enjoyable book, historian alan nolan cuts "marse robert" (i.e., robert e. lee) down to size. his purpose is not to denounce lee, but rather to identify and criticize what he perceives to be myths surrounding the persona of lee (e.g., that he was opposed to slavery and that he harbored no ill feelings for union soldiers). nolan has aroused the ire of those who genuflect before the graven image of robert e. lee, a man who, despite having fought against the united states in defense of slavery, has been virtually deified not only in the south but also in other parts of the country. like religious fundamentalists in denial over scientific facts contradicting their theologies, neo-confederates reading nolan's book have to contend with what they hate most...historical facts about robert e. lee, the confederacy and the civil war which undermine their "lost cause" ideology. that these facts are presented in a cogent, coherent and very readable manner will only further antagonize them. the ad hominem attacks against alan nolan contained in many of the reviews bears witness to their frustration. tough noogies, y'all! i sincerely hope alan nolan will now take on that other pillar of confederate "virtue", namely thomas j. jackson. after james robertson's hagiography on "mighty stonewall", it would be nice to see an objective treatment of jackson and alan nolan is just the man for the job!
Rating: 
Summary: It's War! Scarlett War!!, (sort of)
Review: It's the forces of the Politically Correct launching yet another tiresome attack on those so called "Neo Confederate" bad guys. (yawn). Problem is, by the time they're through, we're not going to have one hero left intact. Nolan, an attorney by profession, attempts to make Robert E Lee the latest casualty in this war of stupidity, this time under the guise of scholarship. And from the standpoint of both scholarship and leisure reading, he's about as successful as the Union attack at Fredericksburg. Give him one star for honesty. In his preface he admits to being disturbed about the "myth" of Lee, so we know going in that this is going to be a trial, that Nolan is the prosecutor, that what he purports in the book is the so-called evidence, and that Lee is the defendant. However, while saying that he is seeking to avoid "presentism", Nolan quickly falls victim to it himself. His comparisons of Lee's behavior are not to the standards of the mid nineteenth century, but to those of the present time. Nolan uses several examples from Lee's life and his writings which prove, at least in Nolan's mind, that Lee was a die-hard secessionist and a proponent of slavery. If you've jumped on the "let's trash the confederacy" bandwagon, you'll be be having a literary orgasm. If, however, you're out there looking for the truth, you'll quickly notice that the examples cited are anything but clear when taken in the context of the mid nineteenth century, and that Nolan fails to offer ALL explanations of their possible meanings. Rather, he offers only those explanations which would, if true, convict the defendant and advance the cause of his case (thesis). And then there's Nolan's criticism of Lee's generalship, which amounts to the ramblings of a Monday Morning quarterback. (nuff'said). While the hard core anti-confederate camp seems to have adopted this book as one of its many bibles, I'd have to render my humble opinion as being this; if this were a trial, the judge would rule the evidence to be circumstantial, the case would be thrown out of court, and Nolan would be fined or jailed for wasting the court's time. If you're one of a growing number of pseudo historians who's joined the ranks of the "let's trash the confederacy" mob, then this book is a 'must-have' for your library of politically correct history. You can stick it right next to your comic book collection. Anyone else out there, be they "reb", "yank" or something in between, who's genuinely searching for the truth should take a pass on this baby. It would only give you heartburn, and you would be genuinely appalled at what passes for scholarship these days.
Rating: 
Summary: Lee Considered: General Robert E. Lee and Civil War History
Review: Lee Considered: General Robert E. Lee and Civil War History by Alan T. Nolan is a book that brings us the human man and not he icon of the Civil War. Lee is a paradox of sorts, while owning slaves he was opposed to the institution of slavery. Lee left the United States Army so as not to take his sword and use it against his native Virginia. A most revered but misunderstood man, Lee was a brilliant military leader who was tactically effective in bringing the exploits of the Confederacy to those of Northern aggression. This book brings out a more human man, complete with all of the frailties and fallacies. A man or moral character, but a man whos job is that of a soldier. This book gives us a more honest view of Lee... a Lee not on his terms, but a Lee in the eye of history. No assumptions, just a rigorous reexamination through correspondence and historical sources. Everyone knows the larger than life Lee, but knowing Lee is to know that he is a man... a man who happens to be the Commanding General of the Confederate Forces, a native Virginian, and a Southern aristocrat who opposed slavery.
Rating:
Summary: A "Prosecution" of Robert E Lee, with mixed results...
Review: Nolan is an attorney and in this book he takes the assignment to debunk the myth surrounding Robert E. Lee. There is no attempt in this extremely slim volume to reach objectivity; it is a rather angry polemic which seems to aim beyond Lee to anything connected with Southern vindication after the war. In one rather exemplary paragraph, Nolan attempts to "shatter" any myth surrounding the idea of Southerners being distinct as a people. He quotes historian Grady McWhiney as validating this point in his 1973 work Southerners and Other Americans. I have to feel Nolan is aware that McWhiney altered this view in his much later book Cracker Culture and that the mention of the earlier work was a rather underhanded jab at McWhiney. The Lee Myth is not dogma and it is fine to address it. It was addressed in a far better fashion earlier by a far better historian, Thomas Connelly in the work The Marble Man. Take a pass on this book unless you truly want to see jaundiced historical analysis up close and personal.
Rating:
Summary: A Hard Reflective Look at Lee, Challenging the Lost Cause
Review: Nolan's book falls in line with Thomas Connelly's "Marble Man" in that he takes a revisionist look at Lee and the history of the Civil War. In his text, Nolan challenges the saint like portrayal of Lee as opposed to Douglas Freeman's view in Lee's Lts., a classic study. In Nolan's view, the south could have won the war and they were not simply overwhelmed by large numbers of yankees nor was Gettysburg the "High Tide", Nolan argues that if the south had effectively utilized its resources perhaps they would have had a greater advantage and preserved their few numbers. Nolan's is very critical of Lee's offensive measures where he feels that Lee was more effective on the defennsive, taking far less losses. Nolan attempts to breakout of myths and present a factual perception of Lee. The book is challenging in that respect, breaking through myths to find facts. What may be difficult to measure is the positive psychological effect Lee's victories may have had on the south in the early years of the war when all appeared lost after Shiloh and McClellan was just seven miles outside of Richmond when Lee took over for the fallen Johnson.
Rating:
Summary: A must read for any student of Lee.
Review: Nolan's book isn't the Lee bashing book that I thought it would be thank goodness. My history instructor at college let me read this book when I told her I was a huge fan of General Lee's. Nolan states that he thinks Lee was a great man; moral, intelligent, and loved by his men. This is all true and any Lee basher will have to face up to these facts. Nolan simply tries to offer another side of Lee than many of the Lee "traditionalists" have not included, and that is the human side of Lee. Lee made errors like any man, and he was also the victim of the Southern way of thinking when Lee believed in a "gradual emancipation". Another important fact that was addressed by Nolan, which is the usual argument by Lee critics is his offensive strategy. Nolan points out that if Lee believed that the only way of truly winning a battle and ending the war was to fight "those people" on their own ground and drive them from it, which Lee did believe in, then he is not at fault. I don't believe this book is an attack on the ability or character of Lee, it is simply a well-rounded version of the "Lee tradition". My opinion of Lee has not changed since reading the book, I only feel he was human like the rest of us.
|
