Stephen W. Sears

Yes, i like it. Yes, it is a well paced narrative of the story of McClellan's failed foray down to Richmond in 1862. Well told, generally fair. But.... and this will be a general comment because it does sort of drive me crazy in countless civil war books, but this books sort of epitomizes the bias of extolling Lee at the expense of all else. Throughout the Peninsula campaign, Lee barely triumphs- often due to McClellan's cautious bungling and misjudgments. But... it is never Lee's fault that things go wrong... it is always his people who don't write his orders down correctly or commanders practically willfully misreading his supposed intent. Never is it Lee... bungling. And yet... for McClellan and well, for everyone else (south included) they are simply "wrong" (or - though the author doesn't use these words: stupid, lazy, cowardly, slow, etc). As i mention this courses though these civil war histories - even supposedly objective (non south leaning, like this one) is suffused with this Lee worship. But when he isn't clear with orders and doesn't have the alignment right and the battle fails... isn't that his fault (as it would be if it were McClellan or anyone else)?… (plus d'informations)