Should legendary general Robert E. Lee have been called to account for his controversial actions during the fateful battle of Gettysburg? Although a work of fiction, The Court Martial of Robert E. Lee is written exclusively from historical sources, including all of Robert E. Lee's 1,000 surviving letters and dispatches.
This novel reminds me a bit of Douglas Jones's "Court Martial of George Armstrong Custer," for obvious reasons. It attempts to examine a key engagement by means of an event that never happened; i.e., the court martial. It is even more deeply researched than Jones's book, though not quite as well written. It captures the internal battles of the Confederacy, the complexities of Gettysburg, and the deep regard with which Lee was held by his men, even after Gettysburg and defeat.
This is a pretty good read. Even if you know a good deal about the Civil War, I think you'll enjoy this one. It poses a number of questions about leadership -- without really answering them. Nevertheless, the discussion of tactics in the various battles in MD, VA, and PA does add insight about Lee, and Jackson, et al. Give it a go.
In my opinion, Savage's "what if?" in which Robert E. Lee is called before the Confederate congress as to his command performance at Gettysburg is all right, but it is also somewhat stagy, as all "trial" stories seem to be by default (with a few exceptions). "Breaker Morant" or "The Killer Angels" this isn't, even though Savage's writing style is superb.