Making Sense of Robert E. Lee
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." — Robert E. Lee, at Fredericksburg.
- By Roy Blount, Jr.
- Smithsonian magazine, July 2003, Subscribe
Few figures in American history are more divisive, contradictory or elusive than Robert E. Lee, the reluctant, tragic leader of the Confederate Army, who died in his beloved Virginia at age 63 in 1870, five years after the end of the Civil War. In a new biography, Robert E. Lee, Roy Blount, Jr., treats Lee as a man of competing impulses, a “paragon of manliness” and “one of the greatest military commanders in history,” who was nonetheless “not good at telling men what to do.”
Blount, a noted humorist, journalist, playwright and raconteur, is the author or coauthor of 15 previous books and the editor of Roy Blount’s Book of Southern Humor. Aresident of New York City and western Massachusetts, he traces his interest in Lee to his boyhood in Georgia. Though Blount was never a Civil War buff, he says “every Southerner has to make his peace with that War. I plunged back into it for this book, and am relieved to have emerged alive.”
“Also,” he says, “Lee reminds me in some ways of my father.”
At the heart of Lee’s story is one of the monumental choices in American history: revered for his honor, Lee resigned his U.S. Army commission to defend Virginia and fight for the Confederacy, on the side of slavery. “The decision was honorable by his standards of honor—which, whatever we may think of them, were neither self-serving nor complicated,” Blount says. Lee “thought it was a bad idea for Virginia to secede, and God knows he was right, but secession had been more or less democratically decided upon.” Lee’s family held slaves, and he himself was at best ambiguous on the subject, leading some of his defenders over the years to discount slavery’s significance in assessments of his character. Blount argues that the issue does matter: “To me it’s slavery, much more than secession as such, that casts a shadow over Lee’s honorableness.”
In the excerpt that follows, the general masses his troops for a battle over three humid July days in a Pennsylvania town. Its name would thereafter resound with courage, casualties and miscalculation: Gettysburg.
In his dashing (if sometimes depressive) antebellum prime, he may have been the most beautiful person in America, a sort of precursorcross between Cary Grant and Randolph Scott. He was in his element gossiping with belles about their beaux at balls. In theaters of grinding, hellish human carnage he kept a pet hen for company. He had tiny feet that he loved his children to tickle None of these things seems to fit, for if ever there was a grave American icon, it is Robert Edward Lee—hero of the Confederacy in the Civil War and a symbol of nobility to some, of slavery to others.
After Lee’s death in 1870, Frederick Douglass, the former fugitive slave who had become the nation’s most prominent African-American, wrote, “We can scarcely take up a newspaper . . . that is not filled with nauseating flatteries” of Lee, from which “it would seem . . . that the soldier who kills the most men in battle, even in a bad cause, is the greatest Christian, and entitled to the highest place in heaven.” Two years later one of Lee’s ex-generals, Jubal A. Early, apotheosized his late commander as follows: “Our beloved Chief stands, like some lofty column which rears its head among the highest, in grandeur, simple, pure and sublime.”
In 1907, on the 100th anniversary of Lee’s birth, President Theodore Roosevelt expressed mainstream American sentiment, praising Lee’s “extraordinary skill as a General, his dauntless courage and high leadership,” adding, “He stood that hardest of all strains, the strain of bearing himself well through the gray evening of failure; and therefore out of what seemed failure he helped to build the wonderful and mighty triumph of our national life, in which all his countrymen, north and south, share.”
We may think we know Lee because we have a mental image: gray. Not only the uniform, the mythic horse, the hair and beard, but the resignation with which he accepted dreary burdens that offered “neither pleasure nor advantage”: in particular, the Confederacy, a cause of which he took a dim view until he went to war for it. He did not see right and wrong in tones of gray, and yet his moralizing could generate a fog, as in a letter from the front to his invalid wife: “You must endeavour to enjoy the pleasure of doing good. That is all that makes life valuable.” All right. But then he adds: “When I measure my own by that standard I am filled with confusion and despair.”
His own hand probably never drew human blood nor fired a shot in anger, and his only Civil War wound was a faint scratch on the cheek from a sharpshooter’s bullet, but many thousands of men died quite horribly in battles where he was the dominant spirit, and most of the casualties were on the other side. If we take as a given Lee’s granitic conviction that everything is God’s will, however, he was born to lose.
As battlefield generals go, he could be extremely fiery, and could go out of his way to be kind. But in even the most sympathetic versions of his life story he comes across as a bit of a stick—certainly compared with his scruffy nemesis, Ulysses S. Grant; his zany, ferocious “right arm,” Stonewall Jackson; and the dashing “eyes” of his army, J.E.B. “Jeb” Stuart. For these men, the Civil War was just the ticket. Lee, however, has come down in history as too fine for the bloodbath of 1861-65. To efface the squalor and horror of the war, we have the image of Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves, and we have the image of Robert E. Lee’s gracious surrender. Still, for many contemporary Americans, Lee is at best the moral equivalent of Hitler’s brilliant field marshal Erwin Rommel (who, however, turned against Hitler, as Lee never did against Jefferson Davis, who, to be sure, was no Hitler).
On his father’s side, Lee’s family was among Virginia’s and therefore the nation’s most distinguished. Henry, the scion who was to become known in the Revolutionary War as Light-Horse Harry, was born in 1756. He graduated from Princeton at 19 and joined the Continental Army at 20 as a captain of dragoons, and he rose in rank and independence to command Lee’s light cavalry and then Lee’s legion of cavalry and infantry. Without the medicines, elixirs, and food Harry Lee’s raiders captured from the enemy, George Washington’s army would not likely have survived the harrowing winter encampment of 1777-78 at Valley Forge. Washington became his patron and close friend. With the war nearly over, however, Harry decided he was underappreciated, so he impulsively resigned from the army. In 1785, he was elected to the Continental Congress, and in 1791 he was elected governor of Virginia. In 1794 Washington put him in command of the troops that bloodlessly put down the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania. In 1799 he was elected to the U.S. Congress, where he famously eulogized Washington as “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (21)
+ View All Comments
In a new biography, Robert E. Lee, Roy Blount, Jr., treats Lee as a man of competing impulses, a “paragon of manliness” and “one of the greatest military commanders in history,” who was nonetheless “not good at telling men what to do.” and Abraham Lincoln answer he said that why will you do a new biography
Posted by esmeralda on November 1,2012 | 05:09 PM
SMithsonian should do a little more homework. They apparently have accepted as factual every goofy deception by Douglass SOuthall Freeman, who wrote probably the most singularly fraudulent biography in American History. No deception was too absurd for Freeman to vouch for. The main one, briefly-- Freeman insisted Lee's "servants" (he could hardly admit Lee had slaves) loved him. How did he arrive at this? By quoting a black "preacher" named Rev Mack Lee. The good Rev made a living speaking to white groups in the South, praising Lee, and raising money for his church. He always just needed 500 more dollars. Rev Mack Lee, according to Freeman, wrote a book telling all kinds of wonderful things about Lee, how kind he was, how brave. Rev said he was Lee's personal slave every day of the war. Utter nonsense. And Freeman knew it. Freeman knew the names of Lee's personal slaves, of course, and they weren't Mack Lee. Rev would tell the white audiences that he had "every faith" in whites to treat blacks like God wanted, and that blacks should learn to respect whites. Douglas Freeman acted as if it was a "book". IT was a pamphlet the Rev handed out in towns he was going to speak at. The pamphlet told whites to "find me on the street" where he would be walking up and down collecting money for his "church". In other words THIS is the guy Freeman said proved Lee's slaves loved him. Remember that, Freeman knew Rev Mack was an imposter. It was on the basis of this fraud that Freeman said "Those who knew Lee best, loved him most". He was talking about the SLAVES!! But that's just the problem. Lee's slaves hated him. SO using Freeman's own measuring stick -- what Lee's slave thought of him -- Lee was therefore a despicable man. Actually we know Lee's slaves HATED him. Lee's own letters and slave ledgers still exist. Lee's slav
Posted by Mark Curran on August 23,2012 | 10:36 PM
Anyone who could speak I'll of Robert E. Lee has not studied his life, nor considered the choices which he faced. He was brilliant in battle. His strategies are still studied today in our war colleges. The great Erwin Rommel admired his tactics and mimicked them in WWII. He was a great man.
Posted by Marty Durden on August 12,2012 | 11:36 PM
I am descended from Richard Lee, the original immigrant who arrived in 1620 or so, my ancestor being a John Lee of Norfolk married to Sarah Jane Brazill. From 1620 to 1860, the time of Richard Lee to Robert E. Lee, was 240 years. In that period the Lee clan multiplied so that Virginia was basically Lee Country, with thousands of members by the time of the Civil War. To keep perspective, the time from the Civil War to now, 1860 to 2012 is about 152 years, just over half the time. Robert E. Lee was faced with the choice of supporting his huge family and state, or supporting the larger Union and fighting against slavery. He very much wanted to support the Union, but he reluctantly chose family over the Union when his family and state made their democratic choice. He made his choice to side on the wrong side and lost. Ironically, Abraham Lincoln's mother was also from the Lee family of Virginia, so unknown to both men, they were cousins.
Posted by Surazeus Simon Seamount on April 23,2012 | 12:31 PM
I would love to know why we castigate Historians who are critical of the abhorrent practice of Chattel Slavery as providing 21st Century moral concepts on 18th-19th Century realities. Do we brush off the infanticide that was practiced in rural areas in Roman times, or cannibalism of 19th Century Africa. Do we wink at the Mongols slaughtering the whole population of a city who had the gall to resist their conquest. Do we shrug our shoulders at the Inquisitors who would break body, and mind on the rack and condemn the victim to death by fire for not believing in the same religious views. Of course not. But we give a giant pass to those who committed treason and warred on the United States to terrible effect, simply to hold other people in bondage. They were such gentlemen and so brave, but even if Lee didn't he must have known quite a few of his fellow slave owners who took the bodies of their female slaves, whipped branded and tortured the recalcitrant males, sold off children from their parents, and lived a dissolute life on the backs of unpaid sweat. Some Southern Gentleman, The Myth of the Lost Cause lives on to the eternal detriment of this country.
Posted by JimmyP on April 22,2012 | 01:41 PM
I have never understood the esteem in which General Lee is held as a military man. He wasted the advantage he had in the fighting quality of his troops in conventional battles in which the superior numbers and material of his adversaries could overcome that quality. He surrendered his army rather than dispersing it to fight again. Had he commanded the colonial army rather than Washington, there would have been no USA from which to secede.
Posted by Danny Ross on April 21,2012 | 08:07 AM
Mr. Blount, while the main body of your article is cogent enough and somewhat entertaining, your opening betrays a sense of confusion about who you are and what, therefore, you should think of Robert E. Lee. If you want to continue claiming to be a Southerner, may I suggest you return to the South and write from your home, as Faulkner did. I think you must have spent too much time among the Yankees. Either quit chasing them and come home, or give up posing as a Southerner for people who will never really appreciate it.
Posted by Bigfoot on April 20,2012 | 12:57 AM
D. Lawrence's comment is dead-on. It is pointless to judge 19th century lives by 21st century standards of morality. We certainly don't see the Union government suffering the same moral repudiation for their genocide of the Native Americans which they committed after the 'war against slavery.' Moreover, slavery was no more the reason for the war than the iceburg was to blame for the Titanic. It was everpresent and provided the gash; but, it was not the animated forces - the decisions of men - which actually caused the tragedy. If 'free' black men and women in Africa could have known how much better (longer, healthier, free from tribal wars and genital mutilation of women) their lives would be as slaves in America, they would have lined up to get on the boats. Slavery is never an admired station that anyone would aspire to, but it was the best station available for blacks of that time - and better than living 'free' in Africa. Lee was plainly a compassionate man and ahead of his time. Indeed, it is only in the last 30 years that he has been re-defined as immoral and out-of-touch with 'universal ethics' about slavery. I submit it is his modern inquisitors who are out-of-touch.
Posted by James Spivey on April 20,2012 | 11:10 PM
The Union, led by McClellan, almost overwhelmed the Confederates in 1862 before Richmond, just before RE Lee took over the Army of Northern Virginia. In 1862 slavery would have been maintained if the South had returned to the Union right then. But Lee prolonged the war by his generalship with the result that the war aims changed and the war became a war against slavery. Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation and one result of the war was freeing the slaves. This was the consequence of Lee's generalship. This always seems so strange and ironic, so providential.
Then too we might have had guerrilla war after 1865 if Lee had not told the soldiers to go home and be good citizens at the end of the war. We can see from what happened in other countries how terrible that would have been. This article seems rather silly and flippant about Lee compared to the reality of the man, his life and the consequences of his life.
Posted by KS on April 20,2012 | 10:58 PM
Lee resigned his U.S. Army commission to defend Virginia and fight for the Confederacy, on the side of slavery.
This is untrue. Lee was bigger than this. It was about States Rights. Slavery was a secondary issue even with Lincoln.
Posted by David brickner on April 20,2012 | 10:39 PM
What's to make sense? A traitor that betrayed the oath he took at the United States Military Academy to fight for the evil cause of slavery. No "state's right" candy can cover the fact that the 'right' he helped kill over half a million people for was the continuation and expansion of human chattel slavery. His brilliance protracted the war and made things worse for everybody. I am a Virginian, and a white male combat vet, but I think he should be remembered with the same disrespect as the equally brilliant German and Japanese generals we fought in WWII, For he was a warrior for the same kind of race-obsessed slavers and aristocrats. He betrayed the Revolution, and everything it stood for.
Posted by Lee Thomas on April 20,2012 | 07:39 PM
Cemetery Ridge not Missionary Ridge. And Lee surrendered 26,000 men not 10,000.
Also do not underestimate his post-war importance which helped seal his legacy. He was being urged from many directions to begin an "asymetric" war which would probably still be going on but instead chose to set the example which most of the other Confederate generals followed. Second he encouraged his former soldiers to ungrudgingly embrace their roles as citizens of a reunited country instead of encouraging their resentment of their former enemy. Lastly though very much a product of his time he set the example of treating former slaves with dignity and respect.
Posted by Todd on April 20,2012 | 07:13 PM
"After Gettysburg, Lee never mounted another murderous head-on assault." Battle of the Wilderness May 6, 1864.
Posted by Mark Buehner on April 20,2012 | 05:59 PM
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Lee in how he conducted himself in April 1865 and thereafter. More than any other Southerner, his grace in defeat helped stop the bleeding. A different man would have encouraged the South to fight on in whatever way was possible, including guerrilla war and terrorism.
That said, Lee was not the brilliant general he has been made out to be. He was aggressive and won a lot of battles against hesitant commanders - but his aggression was extremely ill-suited to the strategic situation facing the South.
Even in some of Lee's greatest victories, he lost a higher percentage of his army than his enemy - and the North could replace the men.
Lee bled the Army of Northern Virginia to death.
Posted by Mark Hamilton on April 20,2012 | 04:38 PM
+ View All Comments