Lee Best balanced biographies of Lee.

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?
How do we define the word " balanced". Based on Lee's letters and actions including post ACW can we fairly state that Lee was a proponent of equal rights such as former Union General Otis Howard? Did Lee lead black milita to oppose white terrorists such has former Confederate General
Longstreet did in Louisiana?
Leftyhunter
 
Maybe another thought would be to read contrasting biographies of Lee. For example, Freeman's laudatory book vs. Alan Nolan's "Lee Considered." That approach offers differing views on Lee as opposed to a more "antiseptic" or "balanced" biography.
 
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.



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.

There's a line between not totally balanced, and zero balance. Go read all 3 volumes of Lee's Lieutenants. Lee did nothing wrong, all his subordinates let him down. That's not balanced.
 
There's a line between not totally balanced, and zero balance. Go read all 3 volumes of Lee's Lieutenants. Lee did nothing wrong, all his subordinates let him down. That's not balanced.
Maybe the short condensed version is that Lee was a **** who as a military commander did the best he could with the available resources at hand.
It's up to each student of history to determine if Lee was a "good" or "bad" person.
Leftyhunter
 
As a northner by birth I happen to admire Lee very much, he was man of his times, all that knew him admired him as well, and also do read his Dispatches, not a bio but revealing in small ways, he wasnt the communicative type, but during some battle he would find a few moments to enquire of the Mrs: : "you said you sent 18 socks but only 17 arrived please be more careful", or something to that effect. The socks were not meant for him of course but to be handed out to those in need, trivial perhaps but he was in the dire situation where 18 socks were important, and again he was not very communicative in the social respect so there is very slight record of his thoughts other than military. His military thoughts found in Dispatches are of the highest human order, supremely polite thoughtful and respectful,

His very first allegiance was to Virginia, that was #1 in his motivation. It was states rights back then let us not forget,

Was he on the wrong side of history? You bet, but a beautiful individual for his time, his graceful acceptance at Appomattox is heart wrenching as was Grants and indeed most of the AOP, in being respectful of the hard road they all had travelled, and he advocated to the south to let it go, its now over. I dont believe he would be in favor of any monuments for him, this became an 1890's thing. In summation I believe he was an amazing American of the highest order.
 
As a northner by birth I happen to admire Lee very much, he was man of his times, all that knew him admired him as well, and also do read his Dispatches, not a bio but revealing in small ways, he wasnt the communicative type, but during some battle he would find a few moments to enquire of the Mrs: : "you said you sent 18 socks but only 17 arrived please be more careful", or something to that effect. The socks were not meant for him of course but to be handed out to those in need, trivial perhaps but he was in the dire situation where 18 socks were important, and again he was not very communicative in the social respect so there is very slight record of his thoughts other than military. His military thoughts found in Dispatches are of the highest human order, supremely polite thoughtful and respectful,

His very first allegiance was to Virginia, that was #1 in his motivation. It was states rights back then let us not forget,

Was he on the wrong side of history? You bet, but a beautiful individual for his time, his graceful acceptance at Appomattox is heart wrenching as was Grants and indeed most of the AOP, in being respectful of the hard road they all had travelled, and he advocated to the south to let it go, its now over. I dont believe he would be in favor of any monuments for him, this became an 1890's thing. In summation I believe he was an amazing American of the highest order.
As a southerner by birth, I think that General Lee was a complex and complicated man. He did some unkind things and he did some generous things. He is worth knowing about--as well as so many of the men who died for him (and many who died because of him)-- the Original Poster is absolutely correct is seeking balance.
 
As a southerner by birth, I think that General Lee was a complex and complicated man. He did some unkind things and he did some generous things. He is worth knowing about--as well as so many of the men who died for him (and many who died because of him)-- the Original Poster is absolutely correct is seeking balance.

This. You sum up well what I feel when I read a biography. I want it all, warts and all. Give me the total picture and let me as the reader draw more conclusions for myself.
 
There's a line between not totally balanced, and zero balance. Go read all 3 volumes of Lee's Lieutenants. Lee did nothing wrong, all his subordinates let him down. That's not balanced.
A friend of mine hoped to me out loud that I taught "both sides of history." I politely told him that there are no "both sides" just honesty no matter how good, bad, and/or ugly it is.
 
There's a line between not totally balanced, and zero balance. Go read all 3 volumes of Lee's Lieutenants. Lee did nothing wrong, all his subordinates let him down. That's not balanced.

Well one day I will read all three of those volumes (it's also on my list of upcoming purchases), but don't confuse that set with the R.E. Lee bio. That set I have read and consider fairly well balanced. Oh, how often have I read that Freeman presents Lee in a way that re-enforces the "Marble Man" image, but I never got that out of the books; in fact I'd say that his honesty & candor in relating to us the facts of Lee's life reveals some of Lee's faults & weaknesses. He presents him as a man - not an everyman, per say, but certainly not as a god of Mount Olympus either.

Now will readers of Freeman's Lee bio still get a picture of the General as an exceptional man & brilliant military leader despite his faults? Absolutely, but I'd say that any honest look at Lee will lead you to that conclusion. That doesn't have to mean that there's extreme bias in the writing.

I'd personally guess that anyone calling Freeman's Lee bio "biased" is probably either (1.) someone who trashes on most exceptional men or (2.) someone with an axe to grind so hard against anything Confederate that they simply refuse to acknowledge any exceptional greatness in the Confederate Army's General-in-Chief. The first type is rooted in jealousy and has been around as long as mankind; the second has been around since the Confederacy was formed in 1861, but has recently gained in numbers due to the rise in presentism & emotionalism in the analysis of history.
 
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?

I read it a few years ago, but I thought Robert E. Lee: A Biography by Emory M. Thomas was pretty balanced.
 
Well one day I will read all three of those volumes (it's also on my list of upcoming purchases), but don't confuse that set with the R.E. Lee bio. That set I have read and consider fairly well balanced. Oh, how often have I read that Freeman presents Lee in a way that re-enforces the "Marble Man" image, but I never got that out of the books; in fact I'd say that his honesty & candor in relating to us the facts of Lee's life reveals some of Lee's faults & weaknesses. He presents him as a man - not an everyman, per say, but certainly not as a god of Mount Olympus either.

Now will readers of Freeman's Lee bio still get a picture of the General as an exceptional man & brilliant military leader despite his faults? Absolutely, but I'd say that any honest look at Lee will lead you to that conclusion. That doesn't have to mean that there's extreme bias in the writing.

I'd personally guess that anyone calling Freeman's Lee bio "biased" is probably either (1.) someone who trashes on most exceptional men or (2.) someone with an axe to grind so hard against anything Confederate that they simply refuse to acknowledge any exceptional greatness in the Confederate Army's General-in-Chief. The first type is rooted in jealousy and has been around as long as mankind; the second has been around since the Confederacy was formed in 1861, but has recently gained in numbers due to the rise in presentism & emotionalism in the analysis of history.
How do we define "presentism "and emotionalism"?
Are we to believe that soldiers on either side and no emotions and we're highly analytical men?
Are we to believe that absolutely no white Union soldiers were opposed to slavery? Would it not be logical to assume that USCT troopers had rather strong feelings about slavery?
Leftyhunter
 
I'd personally guess that anyone calling Freeman's Lee bio "biased" is probably either (1.) someone who trashes on most exceptional men or (2.) someone with an axe to grind so hard against anything Confederate that they simply refuse to acknowledge any exceptional greatness in the Confederate Army's General-in-Chief. The first type is rooted in jealousy and has been around as long as mankind; the second has been around since the Confederacy was formed in 1861, but has recently gained in numbers due to the rise in presentism & emotionalism in the analysis of history.
This brings up the role of the historian or historical biographer. My feeling is that if a writer merely lists events, s/he is a chronologer; the historian will add interpretations and even judgements--however, it is incumbent on this writer to alert the reader. The reader needs to be free to come to his own conclusions. The late Mrs. Pryor's work has been criticized because she has added her own assessments but I counter that anyone who can not tell the difference between the words of General Lee and those of Mrs. Pryor is probably reading way over his head! Mr. Freeman also injects his own biases but is perhaps a bit less candid about it; for a reader who already has a good picture of the General, this isn't so bad. If I had to compare the two writers, I'd say that Mr. Freeman is event-oriented and driven by admiration for a legend; Mrs. Pryor is more focused on inner motivations and is more sympathetic to a man.

Perhaps Desert Kid ought to read them both!
 
Last edited:
There is no absolute "truth' on this matter, nor for anything when humans are involved, only opinions. Lee unfortunately never wrote a memoir so its all speculation, we will never arrive at the 'truth', frustrating but that is what it is.
 
Some modern reappraisals of Lee have tried to argue he was practically a closet abolitionist. That's no more helpful than the Lost Cause argument he was a flawless general.

I think Lee's talents as an engineer and a leader, and his apparent good character mean he has admirable qualities. But he's not Confederate Jesus. Whether he's a "good man" or a "bad man" is going to vary from person to person based on how each of us defines those terms.

Give me a complete presentation of the facts, and a fair, reasonable analysis of what the individual did and why.

I, for one, would criticize Lee for putting his home state ahead of the country he served for 31 years before I criticized his Confederate service or slaveowning. But a good biographer can help me understand why he made that decision and held that loyalty.
 
Lee unfortunately never wrote a memoir so its all speculation, we will never arrive at the 'truth', frustrating but that is what it is.
He did, however, leave a journal/diary and a pile of letters. Both are in the collection of the Louis Round Wilson Library at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill).
 
"I, for one, would criticize Lee for putting his home state ahead of the country he served for 31 years before I criticized his Confederate service or slaveowning. But a good biographer can help me understand why he made that decision and held that loyalty."

isn't it abuntably (sp) clear by now the 'USA" was a novel and controversial concept at the time and states were the overriding consideration, I am reading Wainright now (great book) and he said he would never trust Mass or PA if in a similar dilemma,

so everything I have read to date (i am 66) leads back to state pride, there wasnt a USA as such, but am always open to learn, thank you
 
Some may consider Lee on the wrong side of history, but regardless of your perspective in Freeman's four volumes I think that you get an excellent perspective of Lee the man. I seriously doubt that there is any historian, past or present, who knew more about Lee than Freeman. For this Southerner, I found Freeman's Lee the most authoritative, insightful and interesting account of Lee ever written. I for one throughly enjoyed it, and all this discussion has made me want to reread it.
 
I seriously doubt that there is any historian, past or present, who knew more about Lee than Freeman.

I should certainly hope so. 2500+ pages is a LOT to write about anyone.

Is there any other Civil War figure besides Lee and Lincoln to be the subject of a 4+ volume biography?
 
Is there such thing as a balanced book on Lee, or any ACW person/event for that matter? Doesn’t everyone write with a slant? Up to the reader to make his or her own informed choices. I think there is a generality that any biography written a while back on Lee would be an attempt to deify him while anything more current would be to slander him?

so read a few books?
 
Back
Top