Accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg always seem to focus on who is to blame for the Confederate loss. Dowdey's version happens to blame Longstreet, primarily. However, Longstreet fans shouldn't avoid the book on that account. Dowdey gives a clear, well-written, though inevitably at this date somewhat old-fashioned, account. As no other author that I'm aware of does, he discusses the preparation for the invasion: the way that Davis refused Lee the reinforcements he'd requested, the way that Lee failed to rethink his method of dealing with subordinates after Jackson's death. I think Dowdey is a little scanty on Culp's Hill, but then I think that about everyone but Pfanz. Overall, this is a good basic analysis, definitely worth reading.

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......

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.

This trivia book has over 800 questions on Confederate generals. The problem is that numerous questions are re-used throughout the book. There is also a list of the generals in the back of the book that seems far from complete. It's good points is that it's unlike your regular trivia books due to focussing on a specific area of the war, with questions that will make you want to learn more about these men.