How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War

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: Tantalizing Idea and Well Written
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: 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.