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 3 of 4)
On the third morning, July 3, Lee’s plan was roughly the same, but Meade seized the initiative by pushing forward on his right and seizing Culp’s Hill, which the Confederates held. So Lee was forced to improvise. He decided to strike straight ahead, at Meade’s heavily fortified midsection. Confederate artillery would soften it up, and Longstreet would direct a frontal assault across a mile of open ground against the center of Missionary Ridge. Again Longstreet objected; again Lee wouldn’t listen. The Confederate artillery exhausted all its shells ineffectively, so was unable to support the assault—which has gone down in history as Pickett’s charge because Maj. Gen. George Pickett’s division absorbed the worst of the horrible bloodbath it turned into.
Lee’s idolaters strained after the war to shift the blame, but the consensus today is that Lee managed the battle badly. Each supposed major blunder of his subordinates—Ewell’s failure to take the high ground of Cemetery Hill on July 1, Stuart’s getting out of touch and leaving Lee unapprised of what force he was facing, and the lateness of Longstreet’s attack on the second day—either wasn’t a blunder at all (if Longstreet had attacked earlier he would have encountered an even stronger Union position) or was caused by a lack of forcefulness and specificity in Lee’s orders.
Before Gettysburg, Lee had seemed not only to read the minds of Union generals but almost to expect his subordinates to read his. He was not in fact good at telling men what to do. That no doubt suited the Confederate fighting man, who didn’t take kindly to being told what to do—but Lee’s only weakness as a commander, his otherwise reverent nephew Fitzhugh Lee would write, was his “reluctance to oppose the wishes of others, or to order them to do anything that would be disagreeable and to which they would not consent.” With men as well as with women, his authority derived from his sightliness, politeness, and unimpeachability. His usually cheerful detachment patently covered solemn depths, depths faintly lit by glints of previous and potential rejection of self and others. It all seemed Olympian, in a Christian cavalier sort of way. Officers’ hearts went out to him across the latitude he granted them to be willingly, creatively honorable. Longstreet speaks of responding to Lee at another critical moment by “receiving his anxious expressions really as appeals for reinforcement of his unexpressed wish.” When people obey you because they think you enable them to follow their own instincts, you need a keen instinct yourself for when they’re getting out of touch, as Stuart did, and when they are balking for good reason, as Longstreet did. As a father Lee was fond but fretful, as a husband devoted but distant. As an attacking general he was inspiring but not necessarily cogent.
At Gettysburg he was jittery, snappish. He was 56 and bone weary. He may have had dysentery, though a scholar’s widely publicized assertion to that effect rests on tenuous evidence. He did have rheumatism and heart trouble. He kept fretfully wondering why Stuart was out of touch, worrying that something bad had happened to him. He had given Stuart broad discretion as usual, and Stuart had overextended himself. Stuart wasn’t frolicking. He had done his best to act on Lee’s written instructions: “You will . . . be able to judge whether you can pass around their army without hindrance, doing them all the damage you can, and cross the [Potomac] east of the mountains. In either case, after crossing the river, you must move on and feel the right of Ewell’s troops, collecting information, provisions, etc.” But he had not, in fact, been able to judge: he met several hindrances in the form of Union troops, a swollen river that he and his men managed only heroically to cross, and 150 Federal wagons that he captured before he crossed the river. And he had not sent word of what he was up to.
When on the afternoon of the second day Stuart did show up at Gettysburg, after pushing himself nearly to exhaustion, Lee’s only greeting to him is said to have been, “Well, General Stuart, you are here at last.” A coolly devastating cut: Lee’s way of chewing out someone who he felt had let him down. In the months after Gettysburg, as Lee stewed over his defeat, he repeatedly criticized the laxness of Stuart’s command, deeply hurting a man who prided himself on the sort of dashing freelance effectiveness by which Lee’s father, Maj. Gen. Light-Horse Harry, had defined himself. A bond of implicit trust had been broken. Loving-son figure had failed loving-father figure and vice versa.
In the past Lee had also granted Ewell and Longstreet wide discretion, and it had paid off. Maybe his magic in Virginia didn’t travel. “The whole affair was disjointed,” Taylor the aide said of Gettysburg. “There was an utter absence of accord in the movements of the several commands.”
Why did Lee stake everything, finally, on an ill-considered thrust straight up the middle? Lee’s critics have never come up with a logical explanation. Evidently he just got his blood up, as the expression goes. When the usually repressed Lee felt an overpowering need for emotional release, and had an army at his disposal and another one in front of him, he couldn’t hold back. And why should Lee expect his imprudence to be any less unsettling to Meade than it had been to the other Union commanders?
The spot against which he hurled Pickett was right in front of Meade’s headquarters. (Once, Dwight Eisenhower, who admired Lee’s generalship, took Field Marshal Montgomery to visit the Gettysburg battlefield. They looked at the site of Pickett’s charge and were baffled. Eisenhower said, “The man [Lee] must have got so mad that he wanted to hit that guy [Meade] with a brick.”)
Pickett’s troops advanced with precision, closed up the gaps that withering fire tore into their smartly dressed ranks, and at close quarters fought tooth and nail. Acouple of hundred Confederates did break the Union line, but only briefly. Someone counted 15 bodies on a patch of ground less than five feet wide and three feet long. It has been estimated that 10,500 Johnny Rebs made the charge and 5,675—roughly 54 percent—fell dead or wounded. As a Captain Spessard charged, he saw his son shot dead. He laid him out gently on the ground, kissed him, and got back to advancing.
As the minority who hadn’t been cut to ribbons streamed back to the Confederate lines, Lee rode in splendid calm among them, apologizing. “It’s all my fault,” he assured stunned privates and corporals. He took the time to admonish, mildly, an officer who was beating his horse: “Don’t whip him, captain; it does no good. I had a foolish horse, once, and kind treatment is the best.” Then he resumed his apologies: “I am very sorry—the task was too great for you—but we mustn’t despond.” Shelby Foote has called this Lee’s finest moment. But generals don’t want apologies from those beneath them, and that goes both ways. After midnight, he told a cavalry officer, “I never saw troops behave more magnificently than Pickett’s division of Virginians. . . . ” Then he fell silent, and it was then that he exclaimed, as the officer later wrote it down, “Too bad! Too bad! OH! TOO BAD!”
Pickett’s charge wasn’t the half of it. Altogether at Gettysburg as many as 28,000 Confederates were killed, wounded, captured, or missing: more than a third of Lee’s whole army. Perhaps it was because Meade and his troops were so stunned by their own losses—about 23,000—that they failed to pursue Lee on his withdrawal south, trap him against the flooded Potomac, and wipe his army out. Lincoln and the Northern press were furious that this didn’t happen.
For months Lee had been traveling with a pet hen. Meant for the stewpot, she had won his heart by entering his tent first thing every morning and laying his breakfast egg under his Spartan cot. As the Army of Northern Virginia was breaking camp in all deliberate speed for the withdrawal, Lee’s staff ran around anxiously crying, “Where is the hen?” Lee himself found her nestled in her accustomed spot on the wagon that transported his personal matériel. Life goes on.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (22)
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
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
MR Blount,
This is a fantasic article and well researched and very objective. The question on why Lee was agressive on the 2nd and 3rd of July may well be explained because of the reason he moved North at all.
In early June Lee met with Davis and others in Richmond. There was a crisis in Mississippi. Grant had been operating near Vicksburg since the 1st of May and had beaten back Pemberton into a seige after beating back Joe Johnston's army at Jackson, Mississippi.
Davis andthe cabinet asked Lee about what to do in the West. Lee's answer was an offensive from Virginia to the North where he would crush the Army of the Potomac. More pragmatic memebers of the Confederate Cabinet prefered Lee going to Vicksburg to lead the relief column.
In the end Lee's recomendation won out and in Mid June Lee prepared and launched his offensive North to relieve pressure on Vicksburg as Vicksburg was in the final stages of its survival. by early July, Lee needed to crush Meade because Grant had crushed Pemberton.
Mid July was a very desperate time in the Confederacy. Grant had removed his second Confederate Army from the field, cut off the Trans Mississippi and occupied all of Mississippi. Rosecrans had moved south from Nashville to the Tennessee/Georgia border and Lee was pushed out of Virginia.
The Confederacy was literally cut in half, with only Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Alabama in relative secure Confederate hands.
Lee's colossal miscalculation of the stratergic situation is a lasting legacy that has to be balanced against the standard accepted view of this man.
Posted by Don Herko on April 20,2012 | 01:29 PM
For what it is worth I am close kin to Robert E LEE my great granddaddys name is Jim henrylee.
Posted by williamdavidjohnson on December 7,2011 | 11:44 AM
Robert E. Lee stated to a friend If Virginia stands by the old Union , so will I. But if she secedes then I will follow my native state with my sword, and if need be with my life. He also stated he abhors slavery. from Winston S Churchill's History of English Speaking People.
Now let me put my two cents in. I am an immigrant from England nearly seventy five years. I am a Korean Veteran(US Army). I love this Republic Democracy. But it it took over a hundred years: because of the Civil War: before we came one nation. Slavery was the immediate cause but the main cause was that we were a divided nation. Also I am saying the Civil War was the real Revolutionary war.
Posted by Charles M. Adams on December 1,2011 | 04:47 PM
Ethics and morals are not subjective. You are said to be who you really are in bad times as in good. There is an old saying that " Just because you can, does not mean you should" even if it is the law of a land. Conscience is all that seperates us from the animals. A man knows he should not be owned and knows he should not own another man. One random act of a General towards a personal slave does not override the actions of a General who sought to keep enslaved many more. It is at best Hypocracy. God help us when we excuse such behavior and idiology.
Posted by jo on April 12,2011 | 01:42 PM
I weary at historians who impose 21st Century moral concepts on 18th and 19th Century reality. Slavery was legal, protected by Constitution. It was a tool of agrarian economic endeavor. To question Lee's honor on the issue of slavery is an injustice to the man. He was not a superman, or a diety, but he was a highly honorable man. He accepted the outcome of the war and, the abolishment of slavery and urged his followers to do the same.
Frederick Douglas's comments on Lee at Lee's death are understandable, but wrong.
Lee also reminds me of my father.
Posted by Doug Lawrence on January 28,2011 | 02:44 PM
Why is there no picture of Lee, only one of his father? Seems odd.
Posted by B D on December 22,2010 | 12:04 AM
You fail to mention that Lee once left his post to nurse the family servant when he became ill- and had him buried next to Lee's mother in the family plot when he passed-fitting for the man who raised him, slave or otherwise. Lee's speech on leaving the Union mentioned his opposition to Lincoln's centralized Republic and how it resembled George Washington's opposition England. This was something Lee found disturbing and was obviously one of the important factors in his choosing to side with the South.
Posted by Box211 on November 15,2010 | 03:58 PM