Uncertain Glory: Lee's Generalship Re-Examined [Hardcover]

John D. McKenzie (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

McKenzie, a contributor to Civil War magazine, reexamines General Robert E. Lee's military skills. MacKenzie's work is bound to stir up controversy, because he claims that Lee wasted lives with pointless attacks, created an inefficient staff structure, was unable to take a long-term strategic view of the war, and could not adapt to the changing military technologies. It is easy, some 130 years after the war, to criticize a general's performance under extraordinarily stressful conditions. Despite this, McKenzie presents his arguments forcefully and well in a number of short chapters that provide a glimpse into various aspects of Lee's generalship. Whether or not the reader will agree with the author's conclusions is something else again. For public libraries.?Robert A. Curtis, Taylor Memorial P.L., Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
Copyright 1997 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Kirkus Reviews

A candid evaluation of Robert E. Lee's military career, penetrating the misty legends surrounding the ``marble man'' and the Lost Cause that grew after his death in 1870. At the end of the war, McKenzie points out, many Southern newspapers blamed Lee and Jefferson Davis, among others, for their defeat. But Southern historians, he suggests, came to dominate the study of the Civil War and gradually reworked Lee's image, turning him into an idealized figure, incapable of error. Early Southern victories, he reminds us, were won by the skilled use of defensive tactics applied against the hapless efforts of incompetent Union generals. McKenzie asserts that Lee, an engineer, had a genius for just such warfare, but that he had to be pushed by Davis and ``Stonewall'' Jackson to go on the offensive, where he was often less effective. Jackson emerges as the greatest Southern strategist, an innovative general who advised Lee against a war of attrition, arguing for attacks designed to cause maximum casualties to the enemy. But Jackson died, and Lee, applying Jackson's tactics in less favorable circumstances, staged massive frontal assaults at Antietam and Gettysburg, against strong defenses, that resulted in huge casualties. And as younger, more innovative and battle-tested Union generals (Grant, Sherman, etc.) emerged, their new strategies and tactics consistently outclassed the poorly staffed and supplied Southern armies. McKenzie argues that Jackson's tactics, if used early in the war, might have won more battles and foreign allies for the Confederacy, leading to a negotiated peace. But Lee was not the figure to carry out such a strategy, and he was further handicapped by an interfering, inept president, by ill health, and by a bureaucracy unable to provide sufficient food, clothing, and arms for his troops. McKenzie's first book offers a clear, concise, realistic rereading of Lee's career and strategic abilities. A powerful revisionist work. (12 b&w photos, 6 maps, not seen) -- Copyright ©1996, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 384 pages
• Publisher: Hippocrene Books; 1ST edition (November 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0781805023
• ISBN-13: 978-0781805025
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.8 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 2.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,185,957 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars One very frustrating read, June 13, 2000

By 

Thomas J Klepaczyk (Eastport, ID United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Uncertain Glory: Lee's Generalship Re-Examined (Hardcover)

Mr Hallsey is too generous is his review of this book. McKenzie would have us believe this is a serious treatment of a serious issue. Wrong! McKenzie fails miserably to support his assertions with probably this and probably that chapter after chapter. To re-examine Lee's career, we really do not need a play-by-play of every battle. A direct approach to Lee's faults and detailed evidence of such would have served the purpose. Instead the reader is given a flimsy statement and referred to footnotes. One footnote citation is not even listed with the footnotes - I had to check the bibliography to find the full title of that reference. Lee's victories at Second Manassas and Chancellorsville are taken from him by this faux historian while he fawns over the immortal Jackson. Historical context is ignored or twisted in McKenzie's stories of Confederate Command failures and the retention of Lee in command over his own proposed resignations. Additionally, the book has inexcusable typos - the aftermath of the Seven Days left the armies EAST of Richmond, not west. The publisher, Hippocrene Books, should be ashamed of itself to put out this shoddy product at such an outrageous price.

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Comical, January 22, 2000

By 

Deborah Hallsey (Chicago, IL) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Uncertain Glory: Lee's Generalship Re-Examined (Hardcover)

Comical is the best word to describe John D. McKenzie's book Uncertain Glory. It should be considered a work of creative fiction and not a serious history book. The research is shallow, the review is cursory and assumptions are never fully developed. The accuracy in the book is also in question since on page 254 Mr. McKenzie has the battle of the crater taking place on "July 30, 1964." This book could have been a remarkable treatise had any serious time been spend exploring artillery placement, troop deployment and southern economic conditions. It would have also been useful to use the opinions of modern military experts to bolster his position. Having studied the Civil War seriously for many years, I find the book to be bankrupt of any serious historical fact (that has not already been discussed) is not worth serious academic consideration.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A critical view of Robert E. Lee's Generalship, July 10, 2007

By 

Steven A. Peterson (Hershey, PA (Born in Kewanee, IL)) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This volume takes on a critical orientation toward the generalship of Robert E. Lee during the Civil War. This is an issue that provokes strong arguments on both sides. McKenzie's book takes a rather simplistic perspective, but it raises useful points.

First off, one cannot ignore the typos (e.g., an interesting spelling of Pennsylvania). The book appears to have been rather poorly copy edited. Second, the writing style is adequate, but certainly not compelling.

Third, analysis of battles is sometimes a bit confusing and not as clear as it could be.

But, fourth, there is an argument herein that needs to be taken seriously. For instance, one of the most useful things that the author does is enumerate Confederate and Union casualties (and the ratio of casualties to total forces present). From the Seven Days through Gettysburg, if one examines the "butcher's bill," Lee bled his army badly. His forces suffered about as many casualties as did Union forces. If the author's figures are accurate, from the Seven Days through Gettysburg, somewhere around 76,000 Confederate casualties and 80,000 Union casualties had occurred. Given that the Confederate forces had fewer troops and a much smaller manpower pool to call upon to replace casualties, this suggests a real problem. Did Lee misuse his smaller forces? McKenzie certainly argues so. On the other hand, Lee's defenders would context this explanation. Nonetheless, the cold numbers game raises interesting questions.

Again, the arguments tend to be rather simplistic in this volume, but they do raise useful and interesting questions about Lee's generalship.