First, this professor has indeed done some pretty good original research and his book is probably worth a read.
Second, I sense that he may have taken many of his original research findings and quite possibly written them into his book as if they were overarching, strategic reasons as to why the South defeated itself instead of portraying them more accurately as isolated, geographic- or state-specific occurances that did not have an effect on the entire Confederacy.
I will be interested to see if any others reacted similarly.