Scan barcode
wdudley89's review against another edition
5.0
I blitzed through this book, which offers a compelling tale of a complex and important man. It offers just the right level of detail to enable the general reader to understand the political and military currents in which Lee moved without getting distracted or lost in smaller matters.
I learned that Lee opposed secession and war, but also felt incapable of continuing to serve in the Union army once it became the enemy of his home state. He also felt compelled to accept the call to put his talents as a soldier to use when asked by Virginia.
At the end of the war he was asked to serve as the president of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia. There were only 45 students enrolled, the position was poorly paid, and the institution might well have gone out of business. Lee was drawn to the purpose of providing education to young men, many of whom had served in the war, with the hope that it might contribute to the reconciliation of the Union. His presence proved a powerful draw and the enrollment multiplied tenfold in the five short years before his death.
Like many good books, this one made me want to learn more: about George Washington, Stonewall Jackson, the Constitution, and the Civil War.
But now I will read General Lee's College, better to understand the university I will soon be privileged to lead.
I learned that Lee opposed secession and war, but also felt incapable of continuing to serve in the Union army once it became the enemy of his home state. He also felt compelled to accept the call to put his talents as a soldier to use when asked by Virginia.
At the end of the war he was asked to serve as the president of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia. There were only 45 students enrolled, the position was poorly paid, and the institution might well have gone out of business. Lee was drawn to the purpose of providing education to young men, many of whom had served in the war, with the hope that it might contribute to the reconciliation of the Union. His presence proved a powerful draw and the enrollment multiplied tenfold in the five short years before his death.
Like many good books, this one made me want to learn more: about George Washington, Stonewall Jackson, the Constitution, and the Civil War.
But now I will read General Lee's College, better to understand the university I will soon be privileged to lead.
bupdaddy's review against another edition
5.0
I haven't read enough about Lee, I guess. I probably haven't read enough about the Civil War. This provides an insightful, brief (for a history book) look at the man, who can be summed up in Horn's thesis as a question. Robert E. Lee is the question, "How could he esteem George Washington like no other mortal, look at George Washington's legacy of union above sectionalism, and conclude that duty to home state trumps duty to nation?"
So it's fair that Horn doesn't answer it - the man is the question, the enigma. Here's a guy who was against secession, but considered duty to the state higher than his own opinion. He was against secession. He turned down Lincoln's offer to head the Union army. Previously, his ranking officer was Winfield Scott, who stayed loyal to the Union, and who was from Virginia. He felt honor-bound to accept the state of Virginia's offer for him to head the state's military, which eventually sort of morphed into becoming the head of the confederate army.
Horn uncovers a lot of interesting symbolism as well. Harper's Ferry, the "Lee Mansion," the C&O canal, and Mount Vernon all lie on the Potomac, which empties into the Chesapeake Bay, where English colonization of the New World first successfully began. All of English/American history can be viewed through the lens of whether the Potomac River connects, or divides, the people above and below it. Additionally, Lee, whose pedigree of being the son of Revolutionary war hero Light-Horse Harry Lee, and who married the granddaughter (through Washington's adopted son) of George Washington, ended up holding the bag, while Abraham Lincoln rose from nothing to become the true inheritor of Washington's great legacy. That's the United States' legacy.
When Lee was born, where he lived was Washington, DC (the part of Virginia that had been part of Washington before it was retroceded to Virginia). Washington, the man and the city, and eventually the monument, stayed with the union. Lee chose Virginia.
SMH.
So it's fair that Horn doesn't answer it - the man is the question, the enigma. Here's a guy who was against secession, but considered duty to the state higher than his own opinion. He was against secession. He turned down Lincoln's offer to head the Union army. Previously, his ranking officer was Winfield Scott, who stayed loyal to the Union, and who was from Virginia. He felt honor-bound to accept the state of Virginia's offer for him to head the state's military, which eventually sort of morphed into becoming the head of the confederate army.
Horn uncovers a lot of interesting symbolism as well. Harper's Ferry, the "Lee Mansion," the C&O canal, and Mount Vernon all lie on the Potomac, which empties into the Chesapeake Bay, where English colonization of the New World first successfully began. All of English/American history can be viewed through the lens of whether the Potomac River connects, or divides, the people above and below it. Additionally, Lee, whose pedigree of being the son of Revolutionary war hero Light-Horse Harry Lee, and who married the granddaughter (through Washington's adopted son) of George Washington, ended up holding the bag, while Abraham Lincoln rose from nothing to become the true inheritor of Washington's great legacy. That's the United States' legacy.
When Lee was born, where he lived was Washington, DC (the part of Virginia that had been part of Washington before it was retroceded to Virginia). Washington, the man and the city, and eventually the monument, stayed with the union. Lee chose Virginia.
SMH.
aloyokon's review
3.0
An interesting biography of the famous Civil War general that focuses on his link to George Washington and his decision to cast his lot with the Confederacy instead of the Union.
evildeadthing's review
4.0
An examination of the life and career of Confederate General Robert E. Lee that examines, and largely dispells, the philosophical association between American Founding Father George Washington and the man who married into his family prior to taking up arms against the country Washington had helped found. What it lacks in detail, it makes up for in resonance and readability, deftly cutting through Lost Cause mythology that has presented Lee as some saint-like figure he was not, without embracing the similarly reductive portrayal of Lee as an irredeemable traitor to the ideals that his quasi-ancestor fought for... all while the story ticks along rapidly. It probably doesn't have so much to offer those who are already experts on Lee and have already braved the more detailed biographies of his life. For those who don't want to be bogged down in the details, however, it's about as proficient and entertaining as they might hope.
For me, what I took away from the book that I didn't have before was an appreciation for Lee's perceptiveness: He recognised the tragedy of secession before Virginia's own secession compelled him to fight for it; embraced the idea of enlisting and emancipating Confederate slaves as a strategic and rhetorical boon to the CSA cause while those in government continued to denounce such a departure from the CSA's founding principles; and he declined to scatter his army in lieu of surrender, foreseeing a scenario not so dissimilar to that which would follow reconstruction:
In brief, this book does a great job of wrestling with Robert E. Lee's life and legacy, and the principles - often contradictory to each other - that guided his decisions, be they right or wrong. Crucially for a work about a man who has often been misrepresented both by hagiographers and detractors alike, Jonathan Horn's book has the ring of truth.
For me, what I took away from the book that I didn't have before was an appreciation for Lee's perceptiveness: He recognised the tragedy of secession before Virginia's own secession compelled him to fight for it; embraced the idea of enlisting and emancipating Confederate slaves as a strategic and rhetorical boon to the CSA cause while those in government continued to denounce such a departure from the CSA's founding principles; and he declined to scatter his army in lieu of surrender, foreseeing a scenario not so dissimilar to that which would follow reconstruction:
"If I took your advice, the men would be without rations and under no control of officers. They would be compelled to rob and steal in order to live. They would become mere bands of marauders, and the enemy's cavalry would pursue them and overrun many wide sections they may never have occasion to visit. We would bring on a state of affairs it would take the country years to recover from. And, as for myself, you young fellows might go to bushwhacking, but the only dignified course for me would be, to go to Gen. Grant and surrender myself and take the consequences of my acts."
In brief, this book does a great job of wrestling with Robert E. Lee's life and legacy, and the principles - often contradictory to each other - that guided his decisions, be they right or wrong. Crucially for a work about a man who has often been misrepresented both by hagiographers and detractors alike, Jonathan Horn's book has the ring of truth.
apattonbooks's review
3.0
A solid enough history book that brought good context to Robert Lee compared to some of the others I have read on him. It's not gripping but it does appear to be well researched.
librarianonparade's review
3.0
My major criticism of this book? It's too short. And I don't say that in a 'I loved it, hated getting to the end, could have read ten times as much' kind of way. I mean that it's too short to do justice to its subject. Leaving aside plate sections, notes and the bibliography, it's little more than 200 pages, and that is just not enough, not even close enough, to treat the topic of Robert E. Lee and his wartime career with the kind of focus and attention it warrants.
To be honest, I'm not even entirely sure what this book is trying to be. It isn't a biography of Lee, even though it may appear to be and seems to be marketed as such. But it skips over huge chunks of Lee's life - we skip straight from his marriage to his service during the Mexican War, for example, a leap of some 15 years. It isn't an investigation of his Civil War generalship, because again, aside from focusing on a few key battles it doesn't delve into any kind of depth there. It seems to be some kind of curious amalgam of abbreviated biography, potted wartime sketch, and extended essay on the links and parallels between Lee and George Washington.
That there were such links is undeniable. Lee was married to Washington's granddaughter-by-marriage after all, his father had served closely with Washington during the Revolution, Lee lived in houses and on plantations with direct links to Washington, was gifted one of Washington's swords. He was considered by many to be a kind of spiritual heir to Washington, a man who never had children of his own and therefore lacked any direct heirs. If Washington was 'first in peace, first in war and first in the hearts of his countrymen', as Lee's father described him as such in his eulogy, then many in the South considered Lee in the same manner. And yet Lee, for all these parallels and for all his reverence and awe of Washington, fought against the Union Washington created, rebelled against the government created by Washington, deliberately turned against all that Washington stood for. The decision that Lee made, 'the decision that changed America', as the title calls it, shredded every link and bond Lee had with Washington.
It is a interesting topic, but alas not one I feel is done justice here. A psychological profile of Lee would be a fascinating read - he comes across here as a man so wedded to the notion of self-denial, so determined not to follow in the footsteps of his father, that he have deliberately acted against his own inclinations and desires his entire life, as indeed he did when choosing to forsake the Union, since Lee actually opposed secession. A man, indeed, who could not even rebel against rebellion. I'm not sure such a man is entirely deserving of the kind of respect and admiration history has bestowed on him, from both sides of the Mason-Dixon line...
To be honest, I'm not even entirely sure what this book is trying to be. It isn't a biography of Lee, even though it may appear to be and seems to be marketed as such. But it skips over huge chunks of Lee's life - we skip straight from his marriage to his service during the Mexican War, for example, a leap of some 15 years. It isn't an investigation of his Civil War generalship, because again, aside from focusing on a few key battles it doesn't delve into any kind of depth there. It seems to be some kind of curious amalgam of abbreviated biography, potted wartime sketch, and extended essay on the links and parallels between Lee and George Washington.
That there were such links is undeniable. Lee was married to Washington's granddaughter-by-marriage after all, his father had served closely with Washington during the Revolution, Lee lived in houses and on plantations with direct links to Washington, was gifted one of Washington's swords. He was considered by many to be a kind of spiritual heir to Washington, a man who never had children of his own and therefore lacked any direct heirs. If Washington was 'first in peace, first in war and first in the hearts of his countrymen', as Lee's father described him as such in his eulogy, then many in the South considered Lee in the same manner. And yet Lee, for all these parallels and for all his reverence and awe of Washington, fought against the Union Washington created, rebelled against the government created by Washington, deliberately turned against all that Washington stood for. The decision that Lee made, 'the decision that changed America', as the title calls it, shredded every link and bond Lee had with Washington.
It is a interesting topic, but alas not one I feel is done justice here. A psychological profile of Lee would be a fascinating read - he comes across here as a man so wedded to the notion of self-denial, so determined not to follow in the footsteps of his father, that he have deliberately acted against his own inclinations and desires his entire life, as indeed he did when choosing to forsake the Union, since Lee actually opposed secession. A man, indeed, who could not even rebel against rebellion. I'm not sure such a man is entirely deserving of the kind of respect and admiration history has bestowed on him, from both sides of the Mason-Dixon line...
More...