Robert E. Lee, in fact and legend

[matthew mckeon]

For me, one of the most fascinating characters of the Civil War was Robert E. Lee, IMO, the greatest Confederate. Because he wrote so little after the war, he has an enigmatic quality. At the surrender Grant remembers he could tell nothing about Lee's feelings from his manner or facial expression. "He was a man of much dignity." Grant concludes, a little lamely.

Lee was the great icon of what is loosely called "The Lost Cause" ideology, as the perfect Christian warrior, great in battle, greater in defeat, George Washington without the stony inhumanity.

Recently, Lee's reputation has come under fire, his personality probed, his beliefs on slavery and secession examined, and his generalship criticized.

What are peoples' opinions of Lee the man, the general, his beliefs about slavery, secession, and how to win the war?

[ole]

Lee, as THE personification of the confederacy, will necessarily be examined ad nauseum. I believe he was simply a good man caught in a bad situation. He did his best, which was admirable, in a hopeless situation.

I would prefer that his character remain as legend has it. I find no pleasure in discovering flaws -- which he certainly had, being human. He earned his place in history. I'd say, let him have it.

Just a thought.
Ole

[samgrant]

Well, he made mistakes (see Gettysburg), but did a fine job mostly otherwise, out-generalling most of those thrown against him, and even held Grant pretty much to a stalemate till the inevitable dissolution of his army.

I see him as a great soldier/general, not as an idol or a saint.

[larry_cockerham]

Robert Edward Lee stands as an icon in the South, not for being a great general, but for his stand to risk his life and honor for something in which he believed, his home state of Virginia. A good engineer, an educator, and a leader of men. He did it all, with dignity.

[unionblue]

And yet...,

He was a man before he was an icon. He was not considered an icon at times, even when he was much admired as a General leading his army.

'Granny Lee' 'King of Spades' and other names were first attached to him when he first took command of the ANV. He was even severly critizied for his support of enlisting slaves as soldiers.

In some ways, Lee might be viewed having the same type of 'lucky' legacy as President John Kennedy. They were both involved in tragic events and these events have colored our perception of them. With Kennedy, it was his assasination. With Lee, it was the Civil War.

It is sometimes interesting to dwell on the idea of how we would view these men today if Kennedy has finished out his first term or if there had been no war for Lee to participate in.

The Civil War was like that with many of the soldiers in the ranks, taking ordinary men from many different occupations and walks of life and putting them into extraordinary events making them do amazing things they would have never even contemplated in their previous lives.

Timing has a lot to do with becoming a hero or an icon.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[lrd89]

Lee was a great American who can be admired as a hero by all Americans, north and south. He was not perfect but he was a very good general.

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Neil,

Kennedy was idolized because of his attractive personality, charisma, and above all, his unrealized potential. His death was a tragedy because of what might of been.

Lee got the chance that Kennedy didn't. The middle aged engineering officer is revealed as a great general. His potential is realized. While he was involved in tragic events, his life isn't really a tragedy. Kennedy was once asked if he was happy as president. He said, "I am happy as the Greeks defined it; pursuing excellence." Lee, as the Greeks defined it, was happy.

In fact, Lee makes a Classical Greek hero. He makes a fatal choice. He demonstrates excellence, greatness and gains glory and honor. You can even consider Pickett's Charge as hubris.

[matthew mckeon]

Leaving aside Lee as mythic figure. I was thinking about his actual leadership style. What were his strengths and weaknesses? A received wisdom is that he gave his subordinates too much leeway, which played him false at Gettysburg.

As I have posted elsewhere, I think one of Lee's greatest achievements was to weld together his generals into a team. Contrast him with the turmoil in the leadership of the Army of Tennessee, or the Army of the Potomac. Certainly between Longstreet, D.H. Hill, Jackson Stuart Early and the rest, he had some abrasive followers!

Both the AoT and the AoP lost many battles, while Lee supplied victories, but that's not his secret: he still commanded respect and loyalty when things turned bad.

[nbforrest]

I think the idea that Lee was a "hands off" superior, while grounded in some truth, is exaggerated. In any event, he was able to hammer out better cooperation between corps and division commanders, in general. Certainly there were notable lapses, but he didn't seem to have the same problems trying to successfully coordinate his subordinates as his opponents did, including Grant.

Respectfully

[samgrant]

One of Lee's faults was that some of his orders were not as specific as they should have been, perhaps leading subordinates to at times go off on their own way (Stewart?), or to be hesitant and indecisive (Ewell?).