Uncertain Glory: Lee's Generalship Re-Examined

Perhaps because he's not a professional historian, McKenzie, a Civil War buff and retired business executive, brings, in his first book, a fresh perspective to the contentious debate over the merits of the generalship of Robert E. Lee. McKenzie claims that Southern historians have protected Lee's reputation by blaming his subordinates for mistakes on the battlefield and by arguing that, since the defeat of the Confederacy was inevitable, Lee's heroic fight against the overwhelming force of the Union was all the more admirable. Not so, claims the author, who believes that the South had the opportunity to win the war but failed. McKenzie examines a number of topics, such as Lee's health, his inability to assemble an effective staff and his faulty offensive strategy, which resulted in heavy casualties. He concludes that Lee was a less than great general, but that incompetent Northern generals who fought prior to Grant's ascendancy allowed Lee to escape his major mistakes (such as Antietam and Gettysburg) without irreparable harm. In making his case, McKenzie traces the story of the Virginia theater of operations from 1861 to 1865, highlighting Lee's role in the heavy fighting in the East, as well as his effect on Confederate strategy west of the Alleghenies. Although his text is marred by several factual errors, McKenzie brings new and serious insight into a thorny area of Civil War history. Military Book Club selection. (Feb.)