Lee Best balanced biographies of Lee.

Desert Kid

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
Given recent events about Lee’s legacy in public spaces. And how so many are trying to destroy him.

What are some good, balanced biographies of Lee I can get my hands on?
 
My favorite is Reading the Man by Elizabeth Brown Pryor; it is a biography through his letters. It is carefully sourced and the notes are as interesting as the book itself. I've read that Mrs. Pryor is inclined against General Lee but I don't see it: she uses his own writing. She is more sympathetic to him than I and I found myself reassessing.
 
Given recent events about Lee’s legacy in public spaces. And how so many are trying to destroy him.

What are some good, balanced biographies of Lee I can get my hands on?
Clifford Dowdey has a one volume biography of Lee that I have never read but I imagine is pretty good, I have read all his other books ( on the Seven Days, Gettysburg, and the last year of the war) and they are great.
 
And how so many are trying to destroy him.

I think 21st century ire toward Lee is primarily about what he fought for (CSA) and secondarily the pedestal he was placed. I doubt anyone has as many Southerners named after them since 1865 as Robert Lee (George Washington is the only other contender). He's the unofficial patron saint of the white South.

I find it odd that as much ink has been spilled about Grant in the last 30 years much less has been spent on Lee. Maybe everyone is intimidated by Freeman?

I really disliked "Clouds of Glory". I have a lengthy Goodreads review that explains why, which I've linked to before). Freeman is extensive but too biased. "Reading The Man" is too narrow in scope to be a true biography.
 
Clifford Dowdey has a one volume biography of Lee that I have never read but I imagine is pretty good, I have read all his other books ( on the Seven Days, Gettysburg, and the last year of the war) and they are great.

I would be interested in reading that one. I have read his books on Lee's army but they seem very similar to Freeman in their level of affection for the man
 
Clifford Dowdey has a one volume biography of Lee that I have never read but I imagine is pretty good, I have read all his other books ( on the Seven Days, Gettysburg, and the last year of the war) and they are great.

I don't think I got 50 pages into Dowdey's book on the Seven Days before I tossed it and vowed never to read any of his work again. It's 50 years old and feels incredibly out of date.
 
I think 21st century ire toward Lee is primarily about what he fought for (CSA) and secondarily the pedestal he was placed.
Aside: I think that current "ire" is based upon what he fought for, rather than who he fought for. The trouble with being placed on a pedestal is that when people find contrary information, they are disillusioned.
 
I don't think I got 50 pages into Dowdey's book on the Seven Days before I tossed it and vowed never to read any of his work again. It's 50 years old and feels incredibly out of date.

I beg to disagree. I read the book about three years ago and learned a lot. Granted, Dowdey is a Confederate sympathizer and presents the narrative from a Confederate point of view. But that has value by itself.

I read it shortly after reading Sears' To the the Gates of Richmond -- which offers the same narrative from the point of view of the Union military leadership -- and found the the two complememted each other nicely. Dowdey is a good writer and the history is pretty solid. The only drawback is rather exalted view of Lee (in that sense it is outdated, so you are right about that).
 
Last edited:
R.E. Lee by Douglas Southall Freeman
It's as balanced a look at the man as you'll find.
... and do yourself a favor by reading the full, four volume bio rather than the abridged edition; if you really want the whole story then you won't regret it.

Freeman is not balanced

This idea is, in my mind, an unbalanced one.

Human beings, by nature, tend to lean towards one side or another on most any topic, so it's probably impossible to get a totally balanced biography on anyone. Biographers often go into their writing with a bias, and those who don't often wind up developing one before they've finished their book.

I think the argument for Freeman's 'R.E. Lee' being balanced is the general high regard with which the work has been held for generations. It has been almost universally praised since it's release 85 years ago, which (in my opinion) shows that one does not have to be a stark-raving "Lost-Causer" or Lee-sycophant to view it as a fairly balanced account of the man's life.
 
... Reading the Man by Elizabeth Brown Pryor; it is a biography through his letters. It is carefully sourced and the notes are as interesting as the book itself. I've read that Mrs. Pryor is inclined against General Lee but I don't see it: she uses his own writing. She is more sympathetic to him than I and I found myself reassessing.

I haven't read the book, but (as I said to someone else looking for Lee bio recommendations on here a couple years back) I have read the reviews. Here are some excerpts from one that I found to be most enlightening. It says, in part:

"... throughout the biography it is clear that Pryor's call to objectiveness is completely undermined by her overall goal to defame Lee. What effort she makes at being impartial is quickly dropped after a few pages in every chapter, almost with complete consistency. Each chapter is involved in a formulaic approach to vilify Lee.

"The chapters begin with a selection of one or more letters written either by Lee, or about him and his situation. The context of the letters is then discussed, with emphasis on their relationship to the current political situation in the country at the time, or to Lee’s personal environment at the time. Pryor would then use her research to discuss some facts about Lee’s situation, and then immediately dive in to the defamation of his character. By the end of each chapter, Pryor has either abandoned her research for a rampage of vilification or is on damage control, trying to salvage what is left from the object of the chapter after her tirade of libel."

"... the final product reads to my subjective mind as if Pryor has some sort of distaste of Lee’s reverence, and has made it her goal to prove that he is not worthy of the praise.

"Subjectively, as an old-cultured South Carolinian, I read this book expecting a plethora of facts about Lee’s life supported by Lee’s own personal words, from which I hoped to gain insight into his actual mindset and character. But I soon realized that what I was reading was a work of character assassination. Time and time again, Pryor detailed Lee through subjective lenses that distort facts, consistently comparing Lee’s political views to our modern era’s, and setting him up to fail. This originally made me put down the book for a while, but after I started it back up, I was delighted to find that despite Pryor’s endless attempts to defame and vilify Lee and his character, she fails."

The full review can be found here:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1T3B0DLIF13J9/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0143113909
This person is obviously not someone simply with an axe to grind, as they do compliment some aspects of the book and give the book a three-star rating. Another poster here (@Andersonh1 ) agreed with that review, saying...
I have read most of "Reading the Man" and this review describes the book with 100% accuracy. The goal is clearly to tear Lee down, not objectively look at his life. "We can't infer"... Pryor will say, and then she spends most of any given chapter making the worst possible inferences.

Having read several Lee bios already, I suppose that I'll have to see if I can find a pre-owned copy of this somewhere so that I can see for myself exactly what others love & hate about it, but if one is just starting out on reading about Lee then the reviews suggest that there are far better places to start than Pryor's book.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read the book, but (as I said to someone else looking for Lee bio recommendations on here a couple years back) I have read the reviews. Here are some excerpts from one that I found to be most enlightening. It says, in part:

"... throughout the biography it is clear that Pryor's call to objectiveness is completely undermined by her overall goal to defame Lee. What effort she makes at being impartial is quickly dropped after a few pages in every chapter, almost with complete consistency. Each chapter is involved in a formulaic approach to vilify Lee.

"The chapters begin with a selection of one or more letters written either by Lee, or about him and his situation. The context of the letters is then discussed, with emphasis on their relationship to the current political situation in the country at the time, or to Lee’s personal environment at the time. Pryor would then use her research to discuss some facts about Lee’s situation, and then immediately dive in to the defamation of his character. By the end of each chapter, Pryor has either abandoned her research for a rampage of vilification or is on damage control, trying to salvage what is left from the object of the chapter after her tirade of libel."

"... the final product reads to my subjective mind as if Pryor has some sort of distaste of Lee’s reverence, and has made it her goal to prove that he is not worthy of the praise.

"Subjectively, as an old-cultured South Carolinian, I read this book expecting a plethora of facts about Lee’s life supported by Lee’s own personal words, from which I hoped to gain insight into his actual mindset and character. But I soon realized that what I was reading was a work of character assassination. Time and time again, Pryor detailed Lee through subjective lenses that distort facts, consistently comparing Lee’s political views to our modern era’s, and setting him up to fail. This originally made me put down the book for a while, but after I started it back up, I was delighted to find that despite Pryor’s endless attempts to defame and vilify Lee and his character, she fails."

The full review can be found here:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1T3B0DLIF13J9/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0143113909
This person is obviously not someone simply with an axe to grind, as they do compliment some aspects of the book and give the book a three-star rating. Another poster here (@Andersonh1 ) agreed with that review, saying...

This reviewer said it better than I did. I was very disappointed with this book, given the access Pryor apparently had to Lee's writing and effects, which was consistently used to tear him down.
 
I haven't read the book, but (as I said to someone else looking for Lee bio recommendations on here a couple years back) I have read the reviews.
As I said before, some have claimed this--but I didn't find that to be. In fact, she was a lot more sympathetic to Gen. Lee than I had been before reading the book. Yes--read the book and make up your own mind! ☺
 
As I said before, some have claimed this--but I didn't find that to be. In fact, she was a lot more sympathetic to Gen. Lee than I had been before reading the book. Yes--read the book and make up your own mind! ☺

When I first heard about the book, it was described as a collection of his private letters (many of them having never been published before at that time); a book which actually was that would've already been read and have a place on my bookshelf. After learning of the author's "analysis" following each letter and reading the reviews regarding that portion, however, I decided to pass on picking it up.

I work for a major package delivery company and just ended a very profitable "peak season," so I already planned on spoiling myself with some book shopping; I'll make sure that Reading The Man is one I purchase & read... if for no other reason, just so I can offer my own educated opinion (rather than those of an Amazon reviewer) the next time one of these threads pops up.
 
Dowdey is a Confederate sympathizer and presents the narrative from a Confederate point of view. But that has value by itself.

Those are two different things:
1. Presenting the Confederate POV
2. Presenting a pro-Confederate POV

The former focuses on the motivation, decisions, and actions of the Confederates rather than the Union. Although in most cases a good battle/campaign history should cover both sides pretty well, there are times a focus on one side can be useful, especially to emphasize issues overlooked by previous works. For example, David Powell's study of Confederate cavalry during the Chickamauga campaign.

The latter presents a warped view of what actually happened in an effort to promote an agenda. In Dowdey's case, I recall his views of Lincoln, McClellan, Davis, Johnston, and Lee might politely be described as outdated.
 
Those are two different things:
1. Presenting the Confederate POV
2. Presenting a pro-Confederate POV

The former focuses on the motivation, decisions, and actions of the Confederates rather than the Union. Although in most cases a good battle/campaign history should cover both sides pretty well, there are times a focus on one side can be useful, especially to emphasize issues overlooked by previous works. For example, David Powell's study of Confederate cavalry during the Chickamauga campaign.

The latter presents a warped view of what actually happened in an effort to promote an agenda. In Dowdey's case, I recall his views of Lincoln, McClellan, Davis, Johnston, and Lee might politely be described as outdated.

I'll have to go back and re-read. It's the only Dowdy book I've ever read.
 
Back
Top