I can recognize this book as a pillar of Civil War history, while also recognizing that the historiography has moved past it, and while the collection of primary source accounts are vital, in terms of research questions, writing style, and place in a larger academic debate, Lee's Lieutenants is obsolete and painful.

Freeman makes a close study of the campaigns of the Army of Northern Virginia in terms of the leading subordinates of Robert E Lee (he had previously written a massive biography of Lee). My dissatisfaction comes from my inability to get a good feel for the period, for why these commanders acted as they did in moment. The section that I read covered the crucial transformation from a mob into a semi-professional army, and I still have little sense of how 'old Army' veterans interacted with political appointees, the energy of ambitious young men, or the masses of common soldiers. The battles of the Civil War were a fascinating last gasp for when the physical courage and strength of a commander could make a decisive difference, for when information moved at the speed of horse messenger and battalions at a quick march, but I have little sense of how generals decided to deploy and attack. Confederate commanders seem to spend as much time sniping at each other in dispatches as they fighting the Federals. I have rarely read so many words and learned so little.

Part of this may come down to political differences. Freeman clearly idolized the Confederate generals. He grew up down the street from General Jubal Early, and his father was a Confederate veteran. I think we should be honest about the causes and consequences and call the war 'The Slavers Rebellion', and remember the Confederates as such, if at all. Freeman thought they should be memorialized, and their crimes covered up. I could forgive an opposing point of view, if it had something interesting to say. For example, I really enjoyed Guderian's memoirs, and Nazis murdered almost all my relatives who stayed behind in Poland.