Title: Biased
Product review: You would think while reading this well-written but highly-biased tome that Robert E. Lee never made the mistake of sending troops into massive frontal assaults against impregnable positions. Yet Lee was far more experienced at wasting troops in useless attacks than Grant. One need only examine the disasterous Confederate attacks at Malvern Hill in 1862 and Gettysburg in 1863 to see that Lee had his own share of "Cold Harbors." And that is exactly where this book fails. While Furgurson does debunk some of the myths of Cold Harbor, he acutally manages to bolsters the myth of Lee's saintly invicibility. I thought most of today's historians were moving beyond this type of mindless hero worship, but apparently not.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
