I suppose the greatest challenge for an author writing about the Civil War is that four out of five readers are already fairly versed on the subject. Of those, perhaps a great many even feel they are more knowledgeable about the subject than the author. A Civil War history, in many cases, is essentially a test for authors, to gauge to what extent their opinions conform with the predjudices of the readers.

By preferring Lee to Grant and Davis to Lincoln, as the author has done, he undoubtedly courts the underdog bloc of Southern fetishists and latter-day redeemers. Unfortunately, he runs afoul of this reader in the process.

However, that's sort of the knee-jerk reaction. Upon reflection, I wonder instead if Jay Winik hasn't made the unspoken observation that books extolling Lincoln and Grant abound and a closer look at Lee and Davis are simply needed to fill a gap in the popular history. There is evidence to support this idea, since Winik seems to think quite highly of General Sherman and poorly of Forrest. No true Southern apologist would dare express either opinion. Yet, surely an exploration of the "real" Robert E. Lee isn't necessary - he is the subject of as many (if not more) books as Grant.

After much reflection, I conclude that Winik has researched and written several books on the Civil War and then cut them into confetti. Then he's shaken it all up, like a snow globe, and let the pieces fall where they will. There is no other explanation for a book whose thesis is the thrillingly focused beam of a single month to immediately plunge backwards into a star-struck eulogy for Thomas Jefferson and devolve into a Pop Up Video trivia fest about 20th century captains of industry.