How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more

Buy Used
Used - Acceptable See details
$12.85 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details

or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
 
   
Kindle Edition
 
   
Sell Back Your Copy
For a $1.36 Gift Card
Trade in
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War
 
 
Start reading How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War on your Kindle in under a minute.

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War [Paperback]

Edward H. Bonekemper III (Author)
3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (28 customer reviews)


Available from these sellers.


Formats

Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition $8.99  
Hardcover --  
Paperback --  

Book Description

October 1999
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 primarily responsible for the South's loss in a war it could have won.

His theory: The North had the burden of conquering the South, a huge defensible area consisting of eleven states. The South only had to play for a tie and only had to wear down the northern will to win (as insurgents did against superior forces in the American Revolution, the Chinese Communist takeover of China, and the Vietnam War). Specifically, the South had to hold on to its precious manpower resources and convince the North to vote Lincoln out of office in 1864.

Instead, Lee unnecessarily went for the win, squandered his irreplaceable troops, and weakened his army so badly that military defeat became inevitable. Lee's army took 80,000 casualties in his first fourteen months of command-the same number of troops he inherited when he took command. This crucial period of the war extended from the Seven Days' Campaign, in which Lee's army went on the suicidal offensive almost every day for a week; Second Bull Run/Manassas, where the final offensive charge was costly; the Antietam Campaign, which Lee initiated on his own and almost cost him his army; Fredericksburg, a lesson in slaughter that Lee failed to learn; Chancellorsville, the "victory" that wasn't; and finally the disastrous Gettysburg Campaign, in which he took his army on the strategic offensive and seriously damaged its future utility. With the Confederacy outnumbered four-to-one in white men of fighting age, Lee's aggressive strategy and tactics proved to be suicidal.

Also noteworthy are Lee's failure to take charge of the battlefield (such as the second day of Gettysburg), his overly complex and ineffective battle-plans (such as the Antietam and Seven Days' campaigns), and his vague and ambiguous orders (such as those that deprived him of Jeb Stuart's services for most of Gettysburg).

Furthermore, the book describes how Lee's Virginia-first myopia played a major role in crucial Confederate failures in the West. Too little attention has been paid to Lee's refusals to provide reinforcements for Vicksburg or Tennessee in mid-1863, his causing James Longstreet to arrive at Chickamauga with only a third of his troops and none of his artillery, his idea to move Longstreet away from Chattanooga just before Grant's troops broke through the undermanned Confederates at Missionary Ridge, and his failure to reinforce Atlanta in the critical months before the 1864 Presidential election.

Lee's final failure was his continuing the hopeless and bloody slaughter after Union victory had been ensured by each of a series of events: the fall of Atlanta, the reelection of Lincoln, and the fall of Petersburg and Richmond.

This book also explores historians' treatment of Lee, including the deification of him by failed Confederate generals, such as Jubal A. Early and William Nelson Pendleton, attempting to resurrect their own reputations and restore the pride of the South through creation of the Myth of the Lost Cause.

Readers and listeners are not neutral about this stinging critique of the hero of The Lost Cause.
--This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought


Product Details

  • Paperback
  • Publisher: Sergeant Kirkland's Press (October 1999)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1887901337
  • ISBN-13: 978-1887901338
  • Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.5 x 0.7 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 12 ounces
  • Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (28 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,673,569 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

After decades of Civil War reading and with encouragement from his father-in-law, Ed Bonekemper wrote a highly critical analysis of Robert E. Lee's Civil War generalship in his first book, HOW ROBERT E. LEE LOST THE CIVIL WAR. That book was successful in all respects and opened the door to a C-Span appearance and ultimately to hundreds of Civil War speaking engagements -- especially to Civil War Roundtables.

In the course of researching his Lee book, Ed discovered that many "Lost Cause" and other pro-Lee historians had denigrated Ulysses S. Grant in order to deify Lee. So Ed next produced a positive analysis of Grant in A VICTOR, NOT A BUTCHER: ULYSSES S. GRANT'S OVERLOOKED MILITARY GENIUS. Another C-Span appearance followed.

About this time Ed became an adjunct lecturer in military history at his original alma mater, Muhlenberg College, in Allentown, PA. He still enjoys teaching military history -- and writing skills -- to classes at Muhlenberg on the Civil War, World War II and American Military History. (In addition to his BA from Muhlenberg, Ed has an MA from Old Dominion University and a JD from Yale Law School.)

His more recent books are McCLELLAN AND FAILURE: A STUDY OF CIVIL WAR FEAR, INCOMPETENCE AND WORSE, in which he discusses the abject failures and virtual treason of George B. McClellan, and GRANT AND LEE: VICTORIOUS AMERICAN AND VANQUISHED VIRGINIAN, in which he traces the careers and contemporaneous Civil War experiences of Grant and Lee. Through narrative and statistical analysis, Ed presents a compelling case for Grant being the greatest general of the Civil War and Lee being an overrated general who was more aggressive than the South needed or could afford and who was a Virginian first and a Confederate second.

Ed loves to advance these arguments and debate them at Civil War Roundtables and other forums, such as the Smithsonian Institution, the Delta Queen, the Lincoln Forum of the District of Columbia, and the Chautauqua Institution.

He lives with his wife Susan and their red cockapoo Ruby in Willow Street, PA. Susan taught kindergarten for 42 straight years and now volunteers at a nearby school and a local library.

In addition to writing, speaking and teaching, Ed is the Book Review Editor of the CIVIL WAR NEWS. He can be contacted at ebonekemper@comcast.net.

 

Customer Reviews

28 Reviews
5 star:
 (12)
4 star:
 (5)
3 star:
 (3)
2 star:
 (5)
1 star:
 (3)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
3.6 out of 5 stars (28 customer reviews)
 
 
 
 
Share your thoughts with other customers:
Most Helpful Customer Reviews

16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars A review, June 18, 2007
This review is from: How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War (Paperback)
Bonekemper has written a book that many Civil War history buffs will find outrageously controversial. His thesis, that Gen. Lee lost a winnable war through incompetent leadership, is broken down into the following claims:

1) By taking the war into the North, Lee followed an ill-conceived strategy that had no chance of ultimate success. He could not maintain himself in supply at that distance from his base. He would eventually have to retreat, making it seem like he had been defeated, whether he had been or not. Further, he was making poor use of the two strategic advantages that the South had: a) they did not have to conquer the North in order to win the war, they only had to outlast them; and b) with their internal lines of communication, they could shift men and resources to the places where they most needed them.

2) Lee's strategical viewpoint was influenced by his focus on the war in the East, and particularly the war in Virginia. He demanded and received the best of everything the South had to offer, and used it to fight for Virginia rather than for the South as a whole. He ignored important developments in the West, and denied that theatre resources that might have prevented its collapse. This myopia eventually allowed his own forces to be cut off and surrounded.

3) Lee's strategy was made even worse by his preference for being on the offensive tactically. He failed to grasp that technological changes in weaponry had made massed charges on well-prepared defensive fortifications tantamount to suicide. He sent his soldiers into numerous assaults on Northern positions, that, even when they succeeded in driving back the enemy, were using up his manpower resources at an unsustainable rate.

4) Compounding the above errors, Lee was not good at managing his army. He failed to provide himself with an adequate staff that could oversee the carrying out of his orders. His orders themselves were often vague, discretionary, and delivered verbally so that they were subject to misinterpretation and distortion.

Anyone who is not wed to the image of Lee as a brilliant military commander will probably find himself being swayed by Bonekemper's arguments. Although born and raised in the South, my opinions on the Civil War make me an honorary Yankee. Therefore, I was entirely open to reading criticism of Lee, in spite of his iconic status. I found that at some point, though, I began to lose confidence in Bonekemper's objectivity. No possible objections to his viewpoint are presented or answered. He sets up the facts he want the reader to focus on, and ignores everything else. Nowhere does he mention that the idea of an invasion of the North was promoted by Johnston before Lee ever took command, or that it was also floated by Jackson at the end of his Valley campaign. Nowhere does he mention that the weight of public opinion in the South was completely opposed to a defensive war, and would probably have forced the resignation of any general who attempted to fight in that manner. (Lee could hardly have argued in favor of a defensive war using the prestige that he only enjoyed due to his willingness to go on the offensive.) Nor does Bonekemper mention the material advantages in resources and advanced weaponry enjoyed by the North that would have made a defensive war unlikely to succeed. Although weaponry made great technological advances during the war, the South did not possess the advanced weaponry as soon or in the same quantity as the North. For example, the South's retreat in the face of McClellan's advance during the Peninsula campaign was necessitated by their lack of long range guns that could respond to an artillery bombardment by Northern batteries.

That said, I think there is some truth in Bonekemper's book, even if he does overstate his case. The South did not lose solely because of the decisions of one man, but Lee does bear some of the responsibility for the loss (not that I would have wanted the outcome to be different). Had Bonekemper tempered his arguments and taken into account some of the possible objections, this would be a much stronger book. Even so, I think it is worth reading for those who already have some knowledge of the issues. It is not a good book to start with in learning about the Civil War, though, and it is definitely not the last word on its subject.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


18 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Tantalizing Idea and Well Written, February 24, 2000
By 
This review is from: How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War (Paperback)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


15 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars Should be paired with J.L. Harsh's "Confederate Tide Rising", December 23, 2001
By 
J. West "jw library" (Flower Mound, TX United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
If you're interested in this book, you should also read "Confederate Tide Rising" for well researched counterpoint. I enjoyed both perspectives. A warning about this book: you'll want to have a Civil War era map to refer to while reading since the descriptions of army movements/battle logistics gets very dense. It would have been better if the book included such maps since the author goes into blow-by-blow accounts of several battles. I don't see how he could expect normal readers to keep up with the information without some visuals aids. I give 4 stars for the author's competent writing--not necessarily for his conclusions. Some reviewers gave this book a bad review because they disagree with his conclusions which is o.k. but that doesn't mean the book is written badly.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
 
 
 
Most Recent Customer Reviews











Only search this product's reviews



What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?


Tags Customers Associate with This Product

 (What's this?)
Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
 

Your tags: Add your first tag
 

Customer Discussions

This product's forum
Discussion Replies Latest Post
No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight
Start a new discussion
Topic:
First post:
Prompts for sign-in
 


Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
Search all Amazon discussions
   
Related forums



So You'd Like to...


Create a guide


Look for Similar Items by Category


Look for Similar Items by Subject

Search Books by subject:











i.e., each book must be in subject 1 AND subject 2 AND ...