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
(Page 2 of 4)
Meanwhile, though, Harry’s fast and loose speculation in hundreds of thousands of the new nation’s acres went sour, and in 1808 he was reduced to chicanery. He and his second wife, Ann Hill Carter Lee, and their children departed the Lee ancestral home, where Robert was born, for a smaller rented house in Alexandria. Under the conditions of bankruptcy that obtained in those days, Harry was still liable for his debts. He jumped a personal appearance bail—to the dismay of his brother, Edmund, who had posted a sizable bond—and wangled passage, with pitying help from President James Monroe, to the West Indies. In 1818, after five years away, Harry headed home to die, but got only as far as Cumberland Island, Georgia, where he was buried. Robert was 11.
Robert appears to have been too fine for his childhood, for his education, for his profession, for his marriage, and for the Confederacy. Not according to him. According to him, he was not fine enough. For all his audacity on the battlefield, he accepted rather passively one raw deal after another, bending over backward for everyone from Jefferson Davis to James McNeill Whistler’s mother. (When he was superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy, Lee acquiesced to Mrs. Whistler’s request on behalf of her cadet son, who was eventually dismissed in 1854.)
By what can we know of him? The works of a general are battles, campaigns and usually memoirs. The engagements of the Civil War shape up more as bloody muddles than as commanders’ chess games. For a long time during the war, “Old Bobbie Lee,” as he was referred to worshipfully by his troops and nervously by the foe, had the greatly superior Union forces spooked, but a century and a third of analysis and counteranalysis has resulted in no core consensus as to the genius or the folly of his generalship. And he wrote no memoir. He wrote personal letters—a discordant mix of flirtation, joshing, lyrical touches, and stern religious adjuration—and he wrote official dispatches that are so impersonal and (generally) unselfserving as to seem above the fray.
During the postbellum century, when Americans North and South decided to embrace R. E. Lee as a national as well as a Southern hero, he was generally described as antislavery. This assumption rests not on any public position he took but on a passage in an 1856 letter to his wife. The passage begins: “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.” But he goes on: “I think it however a greater evil to the white than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”
The only way to get inside Lee, perhaps, is by edging fractally around the record of his life to find spots where he comes through; by holding up next to him some of the fully realized characters—Grant, Jackson, Stuart, Light-Horse Harry Lee, John Brown—with whom he interacted; and by subjecting to contemporary skepticism certain concepts—honor, “gradual emancipation,” divine will—upon which he unreflectively founded his identity.
He wasn’t always gray. Until war aged him dramatically, his sharp dark brown eyes were complemented by black hair (“ebon and abundant,” as his doting biographer Douglas Southall Freeman puts it, “with a wave that a woman might have envied”), a robust black mustache, a strong full mouth and chin unobscured by any beard, and dark mercurial brows. He was not one to hide his looks under a bushel. His heart, on the other hand . . . “The heart, he kept locked away,” as Stephen Vincent Benét proclaimed in “John Brown’s Body,” “from all the picklocks of biographers.” Accounts by people who knew him give the impression that no one knew his whole heart, even before it was broken by the war. Perhaps it broke many years before the war. “You know she is like her papa, always wanting something,” he wrote about one of his daughters. The great Southern diarist of his day, Mary Chesnut, tells us that when a lady teased him about his ambitions, he “remonstrated—said his tastes were of the simplest. He only wanted a Virginia farm—no end of cream and fresh butter—and fried chicken. Not one fried chicken or two—but unlimited fried chicken.” Just before Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, one of his nephews found him in the field, “very grave and tired,” carrying around a fried chicken leg wrapped in a piece of bread, which a Virginia countrywoman had pressed upon him but for which he couldn’t muster any hunger.
One thing that clearly drove him was devotion to his home state. “If Virginia stands by the old Union,” Lee told a friend, “so will I. But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will follow my native State with my sword, and, if need be, with my life.”
The North took secession as an act of aggression, to be countered accordingly. When Lincoln called on the loyal states for troops to invade the South, Southerners could see the issue as defense not of slavery but of homeland. A Virginia convention that had voted 2 to 1 against secession, now voted 2 to 1 in favor.
When Lee read the news that Virginia had joined the Confederacy, he said to his wife, “Well, Mary, the question is settled,” and resigned the U.S. Army commission he had held for 32 years.
The days of July 1-3, 1863, still stand among the most horrific and formative in American history. Lincoln had given up on Joe Hooker, put Maj. Gen. George G. Meade in command of the Army of the Potomac, and sent him to stop Lee’s invasion of Pennsylvania. Since Jeb Stuart’s scouting operation had been uncharacteristically out of touch, Lee wasn’t sure where Meade’s army was. Lee had actually advanced farther north than the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, when he learned that Meade was south of him, threatening his supply lines. So Lee swung back in that direction. On June 30 a Confederate brigade, pursuing the report that there were shoes to be had in Gettysburg, ran into Federal cavalry west of town, and withdrew. On July 1 a larger Confederate force returned, engaged Meade’s advance force, and pushed it back through the town—to the fishhook-shaped heights comprising Cemetery Hill, Cemetery Ridge, Little Round Top, and Round Top. It was almost a rout, until Maj. Gen. O. O. Howard, to whom Lee as West Point superintendent had been kind when Howard was an unpopular cadet, and Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock rallied the Federals and held the high ground. Excellent ground to defend from. That evening Lt. Gen. James Longstreet, who commanded the First Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia, urged Lee not to attack, but to swing around to the south, get between Meade and Washington, and find a strategically even better defensive position, against which the Federals might feel obliged to mount one of those frontal assaults that virtually always lost in this war. Still not having heard from Stuart, Lee felt he might have numerical superiority for once. “No,” he said, “the enemy is there, and I am going to attack him there.”
The next morning, Lee set in motion a two-part offensive: Lt. Gen. Richard Ewell’s corps was to pin down the enemy’s right flank, on Culp’s Hill and Cemetery Hill, while Longstreet’s, with a couple of extra divisions, would hit the left flank—believed to be exposed—on Cemetery Ridge. To get there Longstreet would have to make a long march under cover. Longstreet mounted a sulky objection, but Lee was adamant. And wrong.
Lee didn’t know that in the night Meade had managed by forced marches to concentrate nearly his entire army at Lee’s front, and had deployed it skillfully—his left flank was now extended to Little Round Top, nearly three-quarters of a mile south of where Lee thought it was. The disgruntled Longstreet, never one to rush into anything, and confused to find the left flank farther left than expected, didn’t begin his assault until 3:30 that afternoon. It nearly prevailed anyway, but at last was beaten gorily back. Although the two-pronged offensive was ill-coordinated, and the Federal artillery had knocked out the Confederate guns to the north before Ewell attacked, Ewell’s infantry came tantalizingly close to taking Cemetery Hill, but a counterattack forced them to retreat.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (22)
+ View All Comments
This "new" biography was written in 2003?
Posted by john on February 28,2013 | 07:30 PM
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
+ View All Comments