Rating: 
Summary: A Hard Look at Lee from a More Global Perspective
Review: Nolan, famous for his book on the Iron Brtigade, virtually takes a hard objective view of the Generalship of Robert E. Lee. With respect to Lee's aggessive attack plans, Nolan argure that limited manpower required more defensive measures. Chancellorsville is probably where Nolan's argument is most controversial and interesting. Lee wins a great victory but he does suffer substantial losses particularly the day after Jackson's crushing blow after the Union Army digs in. Lee always desired to crush the Union Army but it never seemed possible although second Manasas was close to it. Some engaging arguments about Gettysburg in contrast to Fredericksburg. An interesting book to read after the "Marble Man" which is a hard objective view of Lee and to contrast Nolan's view, read Gallagher's book "The Confederate War" where Gallagher argues that the south was desperate for victories in order to survive and Lee was the only man that could do so consistently. Gallagher, believes in spite of his losses, Lee inspired his country men which was necessary for the south to sustain itself. I had my book autographed when Nolan spoke at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. He held up well under a barage of questions that Lee may have admired as a polite but verbal counter attck.
Rating: 
Summary: A mixed bag but some good analysis
Review: Reading some of the other reviews of this book is proof enough that the Lost Cause orthodoxy is alive and well. It would be simple enough to ascribe this book to vile Yankee enmity for daring to challenge accepted assumptions about RE Lee.That having been said, I am not totally satisfied with Nolan's approach. He rightfully criticizes various historians for drawing conclusions about Lee based on single statements or letters written by Lee (often after the fact). However, Nolan is often guilty of the same misdeed. While I suspect that the documentary record would tend support Nolan's thesis than undermine it, nonetheless the documentation Nolan provides is quite limited. Carefully selecting the evidence that supports your argument might work in a court of law, but not in a work of history. I also think that Nolan at times indulges in unnecessary hair-splitting, such as in the 5-page Chapter 5, where he discusses Lee's feelings towards his adversaries. The chapter seemed to me to be totally superfluous and contributed nothing to the book overall. Nolan, in an effort to discredit the dogma of the Lost Cause, at times goes overboard in his assumptions. When criticizing Lee for undermining the Confederacy's war effort by going too much on the offensive, Nolan states that the South actually had a realistic chance of winning the war. His argument is that if Lee had preserved his manpower more prudently, the South could have withstood the North's attempts at conquest. This is a valid argument, because it is obvious that Lee did a good job of wrecking his army from 1861-1863. However, Nolan's larger argument rests on the supposition that the South was effectively managing its war effort elsewhere. Ironically, like many of the devotees of the Lost Cause, Nolan ignores the impact of the war in the Western Theatre while focusing on the Eastern Theatre. The reality was that in the Western Theatre, especially in the first two years of the war when North & South were more or less equally matched in the field, the South was steadily losing ground virtually from the beginning. This is due as much to the incompetent generalship of the Confederacy as anything else. Even if Lee had carefully husbanded his manpower, he could not have undone the damage caused by generals such as Polk & Bragg in the Western Theatre. The best part of Nolan's book is the final chapter, where he discusses the overall effort by the South (with very willing collusion from the North) to turn the Civil War & the Antebellum period into some sort of idyllic fairy tale, due to the racist attitudes that both regions shared. He gives a convincing argument about century-long effort to change the very nature of the war, of which the Lee mythology is only one element. While at times this book veers dangerously close to being a commonplace chop-job, overall it makes a decent contribution to the literature. If Nolan had provided more comprehensive documentation, its impact would be all the better. As it is, one cannot consider it the last word, but it has ushered in an honest debate on the subject.
| 
