Robert E. Lee: Commander Of The Confederate Army, by Mona Kerby

This is the sort of biography about Robert E. Lee that the subject himself would likely have found to be acceptable. Part of a series of legendary American biographies, this particular book is aimed at middle-grade audiences who likely have some interest in the Civil War, and it offers to give the most polite and gracious explanation of the behavior of rebellious Southerners in general and Robert E. Lee in particular concerning his particular view of duty. Throughout the book the author notes that Lee seemed to be a deep riddle and sphinx to others, who frequently appreciated his handsome exterior, seemingly chiseled out of marble, but could not get a grasp of his thinking or feeling, which he kept deeply private within. The author, throughout this volume, alludes to Lee’s conventionality as a Southern gentleman as well as to his apparent lack of deep religious thinking and to his ambivalence about being very good at what he seems to have viewed as a very bad thing (namely being a military leader). This is not a book that seeks to tell you what you ought to think, for better or worse, about Lee, but rather presents anecdotes and quotes from his writings and the writings of others about him and lets the reader come to conclusions indirectly, which is a winning appproach as far as this reader is concerned, at least.

This book is less than 100 pages of moderate-sized text that begins in media res with a discussion of Lee’s tough decision to resign from the U.S. Army in the period after Fort Sumter (1). This is followed by a discussion of Lee’s troubled childhood with his father in constant debt and the poor health of his mother (2), as well as Lee’s development of a marble exterior that allowed him to live conventionally and respectably as a career army officer (3), with a high degree of focus on matters of duty and family (4) as he married and had children of his own and was sent to various army postings. A single chapter of the book discusses the period between the Mexican-American War and the Civil War and Lee’s skill and promotion within the prewar army (5). Three chapters of the book then focus on Lee’s leadership within the Civil War, the first of which begins with his frustrating period consulting Davis and leading Virginia’s troops up to the battle of Antietam (6), the second examining Lee’s victory at Chancellorsville and the Gettysburg campaign (7), and the final chapter examining the overland campaign, the siege of Petersburg, and the decisive Appomattox campaign (8). The author then looks at Lee’s life after the war including his leadership of Washington and Lee College (9), and concludes with a brief chapter that seeks to place Lee in a heroic light within American history (10). The book then closes with a chronology, chapter notes, glossary, suggestions for further reading (which include books about the Civil War and biographies on Lee by Gillis, King, Rice, and Robertson), and an index.

It is striking that this particular book, which was published in 2015, is in such contrast to much of the recent writing about its subject, which by and large has taken a very negative turn in recent years. For a considerable period after the Civil War, Lee was viewed as a commander of considerable tactical skill, even brilliance, who managed to take a generally inferior army and inflict superior casualties and win tactical victories against Union armies led far less skillfully. This book manages to perpetuate the myth that Grant won his victories through butchery, though there is something to be said for Grant’s superior use of and skill in logistics in bringing Lee to bear at Appomattox Court House. Similarly, the author also passes along the familiar but mistaken blame of Jeb Stuart for following Lee’s orders to circle around the Union Army and engage in raiding in the period between Brandy Station and Gettysburg that left Lee largely ignorant of the disposition of the Army of the Potomac before the contact engagement at Gettysburg occurred. As might be expected, this particular author seems to have read, and internalized, biographies that were largely favorable to Lee and not the more recent biographies that are much more critical and even hostile to the man. While this results in at least some historical accuracies, as noted above, it does at least make for a sincere effort to understand the man as he would have understood and presented himself, and there is considerable value in giving someone the benefit of the doubt that is often lacking in contemporary discourse about controversial political figures.