Duty Faithfully Performed: Robert E. Lee and His Critics

Rating:
Summary: Mission Unclear
Review: Taylor's book is a satisfactory survey of Lee's life. Unfortunately, that is not how the book is billed. Taylor purports to answer Lee's critics. I'm squarely in his camp; I find much of the criticism of Lee to be scholarly opportunism: an attempt to make a name through iconoclasm. Taylor is right when he notes that the attempt to puncture the Lee myth went too far, but he fails to convincingly demonstrate why. He brings up specific criticisms infrequently, inadequately lays out the critic's argument, and often dismisses the criticism without having made a convincing case of his own. His arguments concerning Lee's attitudes toward slavery are never fully convincing, for example. This is particularly distressing when one can see that, in most cases, the convincing counterargument is there, waiting to be made. By constructing his book in the format of a chronological narrative, Taylor lost the opportunity to level a blast at academic graverobbers. A book aimed at answering Lee's critics needs to spend a great deal more time and effort on the critics and their arguments. To Taylor's credit, he never attempts to whitewash information damaging to one of his points. He tries to be complete in his portrayal, and that alone makes this a worthwhile read.

Rating:
Summary: Mission Unclear
Review: Taylor's book is a satisfactory survey of Lee's life. Unfortunately, that is not how the book is billed. Taylor purports to answer Lee's critics. I'm squarely in his camp; I find much of the criticism of Lee to be scholarly opportunism: an attempt to make a name through iconoclasm. Taylor is right when he notes that the attempt to puncture the Lee myth went too far, but he fails to convincingly demonstrate why. He brings up specific criticisms infrequently, inadequately lays out the critic's argument, and often dismisses the criticism without having made a convincing case of his own. His arguments concerning Lee's attitudes toward slavery are never fully convincing, for example. This is particularly distressing when one can see that, in most cases, the convincing counterargument is there, waiting to be made. By constructing his book in the format of a chronological narrative, Taylor lost the opportunity to level a blast at academic graverobbers. A book aimed at answering Lee's critics needs to spend a great deal more time and effort on the critics and their arguments. To Taylor's credit, he never attempts to whitewash information damaging to one of his points. He tries to be complete in his portrayal, and that alone makes this a worthwhile read.

Rating:
Summary: Plenty of Lee, Not Many Critics
Review: When I bought this book I assumed it would be in the vein of Charles Roland's "Reflections on Lee" (which is excellent). In other words, I thought it would be a rebuttal of the current excrement that's been written by the likes of Thomas Connelly and Alan Nolan. The "And His Critics" part of the title led me to this conclusion. Well, what I got instead was a short biography of Lee that was competent, but broke no new ground. Connelly and Nolan and their unfounded, post-modern rantings were only mentioned twice in the entire book: once at the beginning and again at the end. This sorely disappointed me and made it a grueling task to finish the book. I agree with most of Taylor's conclusions, but the false advertising in the title was so misleading and irksome that I couldn't enjoy the book. For those who have read Roland's book and would like to read more in the same vein, I'd reccomend "Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee" by J. Steven Wilkins. Don't waste your time with this one.

Rating:
Summary: Plenty of Lee, Not Many Critics
Review: When I bought this book I assumed it would be in the vein of Charles Roland's "Reflections on Lee" (which is excellent). In other words, I thought it would be a rebuttal of the current excrement that's been written by the likes of Thomas Connelly and Alan Nolan. The "And His Critics" part of the title led me to this conclusion. Well, what I got instead was a short biography of Lee that was competent, but broke no new ground. Connelly and Nolan and their unfounded, post-modern rantings were only mentioned twice in the entire book: once at the beginning and again at the end. This sorely disappointed me and made it a grueling task to finish the book. I agree with most of Taylor's conclusions, but the false advertising in the title was so misleading and irksome that I couldn't enjoy the book. For those who have read Roland's book and would like to read more in the same vein, I'd reccomend "Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee" by J. Steven Wilkins. Don't waste your time with this one.

Rating:
Summary: What is wrong with this title....?
Review: When I brought this book, I expect to read about the modern pro and con of actions of Robert E. Lee. Instead, what I got was a superifical biography on Lee and some summary judgement of his actions based on the author's say so. So where is that debate of Lee's critics?? Many people like to dismissed Lee's critics as revisionists but they got it backward. While Lee was alive, he was soundly critized in many circles by veterans of Confederacy and by his foes. It was only after Lee's death did this mythology of Lee's greatness took on a godly scale as the reconstruction period was ending. This period of Lee's mythology is the true period of revisionism which did not really end until Thomas Connelly came out with the Marble Man which brought Lee back to Earth and where author critized without merit. This book lack any depth and appears to be pretty shallow work. If the author wanted to back up Lee, do with so with evidence and logic. Just saying so don't mean much. This book will probably go back to the used book store soon......