As a historian I have to say that this work is appalling. This work reads more like a partisan hit piece than a true historical investigation. The very best that can be said for this work is that it's sloppy. If the misrepresentation of facts in the book were intentional, then it's unforgivable.

Since the question of the Custis slaves has been commented on so frequently, I'll use it as the main example of the sort of problems this book has. This work makes it sound like Lee inherited a number of slaves from George Washington Parke Custis that he was ordered to free within 5 years. This is NOT the case.

Lee did not inherit any slaves. If anyone could be bothered to read the Custis will, it states, "And upon the legacies to my four granddaughters being paid, and my estates that are required to pay the said legacies, being clear of debts, then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executors in such manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease."

What this means is that the slaves were not bequeathed to anyone in the will. However, the will REQUIRED the executers of the will, including Robert E. Lee, to use the slaves for up to 5 years to pay the "legacies" of George Washington Parke Custis's granddaughters. Not only did Lee not own the slaves, but he did not have the power to free them until the final will of Custis was accomplished.

Not only does the work fail to add mush substantially to the understanding of Robert E. Lee, the work is flawed to an extreme degree. I would advise any wishing to learn more on Lee to avoid this book.

Despite the author's comments to the contrary, this book is clearly biased attempt at using recently discovered coorespondance from and about the subject, in an attempt to tarnish the image of a man of true integrity and statesmanship.

The actual quotations that the author uses are very sparce, and often used out of context, in thinly veiled attempts to show the subject's supposed failings. Robert E. Lee was flawed, as every human being is, but many, many well-qualified researchers have shown that he was revered, loved, and admired by his contemporaries for his impecable sense of honor and integrity.

The author has chosen to allow the reader to view very little of the actual information directly, choosing instead to present it by his own description, or in poorly chosen, heavily edited snippets, obviously intended to support the author's pre-concieved judgement about the subject.

What a shame that this author was given the rare opportunity to view newly discovered historical information, and has used it so carelessly.

Don't waste your money on this large, expensive, and clumsy editorialization in the guise of research.

I was anxious to learn more about Ms Pryor's "reading" of Lee the general through whatever letters she had uncovered. Oooppps. No such thing.

Pryor's "reading" of the Lee the general is so second-handish that it reminded me of another infamous treatment of Lee's generalship. So similar were the concepts and critiques of Lee the general that looking at her footnotes, I discovered that her "reading" of Lee during the war comes from her reading of select, secondary sources that support her agenda and have been thoroughly discredited as inaccurately portraiting Lee's generalship.

For me, this spoiled the book. I have gifted my copy to charity.