Democratization and the Protection of Human Rights in Africa: Problems and Prospects Book

The best of the Bevin Alexander works that I have read, his analysis of Lee's actions as commander of The Army of Virginia call into doubt the sterling reputation he has as a battlefield commander.

One of Alexander's main points is that Lee's desire to attack in all situations, along with his style of direct frontal assault, bled the confederate army of soldiers it could ill afford to lose.

Alexander is also critical of Lee for his lack of progressive use of military engineering to better the position of his army and develop knowledge of the terrain where his army could end up fighting. Alexander finds this aspect of Lee especially confusing because Lee was an engineer by trade and had shown great skill as a military engineer during the Mexican War.

Finally, Alexander questions Lee's pattern of delegating responsibility for the most critical elements of a battle to his subordinates while providing them with, at times, vague direction (i.e. the 2nd and 3rd days at Gettysburg).

Certainly there are many people who would think this book is pure revisionist trash as Lee is beyond any criticism. Alexander goes at great to support Lee as the most important figure in the confederacy, praises him for his character and for how he handled the end of the war.

But as a battlefield commander, Alexander makes the case that Lee benefited more from the superior abilities of other CSA generals (Jackson, Longstreet) and from the ineptitude of some of his opponents (McClellan, Burnside, Pope, Hooker) than he did from his own battlefield skill.