How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War

by Edward H. Bonekemper III

Book Overview

This book challenges the general view that Robert E. Lee was a military genius who staved off inevitable Confederate defeat against insurmountable odds. Instead, the author contends that Lee was... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1887901159
• ISBN13: 9781887901154
• Release Date: February 1998
• Publisher: Sergeant Kirkland's Press
• Length: 248 Pages
• Weight: 1.15 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.9" x 5.9" x 8.9"

Customer Reviews

Could not agree more with the author

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.

Tantalizing Idea and Well Written

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.

A Great Book ! ! ! ! !

This is a Great Book and places Robert E. Lee where he belongs. Lee didn't win the Civil War. He actually help win it for the North! Perhaps, he had spent to much time in a Federal uniform to do other wise. The Revolution was won from the grass roots, with the courage of the farmers that fought it, and not with ego's who lead it. A true eye opener for anyone with an open mind.

A Fair Conclusion - Given to the Numbers Losted

Bonekemper's How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War takes into account the writings of various Condefederate Generals including Edward Porter Alexander, who stated, "One thing remains to be said. The world has not stood still in the years since we took up arms for what we deemed our most invaluable right - that of self-government. We now enjoy the rare privilege of seeing what we fought for in the retrospect. It no longer seems so desirable. It would now prove only a curse. We have good cause to thank God for our escape from it, not alone for our sake, but for that of the whole country and even of the world." Mr. Bonekemper's fine book tells of a failed generalship, whose defenders omit that General Robert E. Lee lacked a master strategy of how to win the war. A war, in which, he personally took to the North. A war, where in he never recover a square foot of the Commonwealth of Virginia from the North, ie., Hampton (Fort Ward remainded a Union Fort throughout the war), let alone Alexandria, Virginia, his home. For a war that lasted four years, killing off thousands of young Southern males, to cover such a lost, some hope to cover that terribly lost by enshiring a false icon. A war which was apparently entered into without any hope of ever winning it, and no one to 'blame' for that lost, is the base form which those who disagree with Mr. Bonekemper ground breaking work. Both sides deserved better generalship.

The book is well-researched and well written.

This book challenges the widely held view -- which also happens to have been my view -- that General Lee's military genius staved off an inevitable defeat by the South. You may not emerge totally convinced that Lee lost the war. You will absolutely emerge knowing a lot more about the War Between the States and having read a magnificently crafted work. The book stimulates further thought on a subject that is a focal point of American history. It is a worthy counterpoise to Freeman.