Written Review

If you’ve read any of my previous biography reviews, you’ll know that I struggle with the endings, especially when it comes to the tragic deaths of the figures involved. It’s always a tough read. This book is no different in that regard, but it does offer an excellent epilogue that brings clarity to the very reason I wanted to read about Robert E. Lee. The book delves into Lee’s life and the impact of his actions on America after his death.

It answers the questions I had: Who was Lee, and why did he choose to lead the Confederacy? Was his decision solely about slavery, something he couldn’t bear to give up? These questions are addressed, and while I feel satisfied with the answers, I’m left with a sense of perplexity. What an interesting man.

Robert E. Lee

This biography is on Robert E. Lee, born in 1807 and passed in 1870. Robert E. Lee was a Confederate general during the American Civil War and one of the most iconic figures of the era. Born in Virginia to a prominent family, Lee was a highly disciplined and ambitious man who graduated second in his class at West Point. He served with distinction in the U.S. Army for over 30 years.

When Virginia seceded from the Union in 1861, Lee felt torn between his loyalty to the United States and his deep ties to his home state. He ultimately chose to fight for the Confederacy, despite opposing secession. As a general, he was admired for his tactical brilliance and calm under pressure, leading the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in some of the Civil War’s most famous battles.

After the war, Lee became a symbol of dignity in defeat, urging Southerners to reconcile with the Union. He spent his final years as the president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University), working to rebuild the South through education. While respected for his personal character and leadership, Lee’s decision to fight for the Confederacy and its defense of slavery continues to spark debate about his legacy.

Lee and the Confederacy

Lee’s decision to fight for the Confederacy is one of the most debated aspects of his life, shaped by his personal convictions, sense of duty, and the historical context of his time. On the surface, Lee was a man of principle who valued honor, loyalty, and service. These traits guided his career as a highly respected officer in the U.S. Army and influenced the agonizing choice he faced when the Civil War began.

Lee’s loyalty to Virginia played a central role in his decision. Although he personally opposed secession and considered slavery a moral and political evil, his identity was deeply tied to his home state. And this specifically was something that took me by surprise. As I wrote earlier, I assumed it was because of slavery, however, it was his identity that entrenched Lee in the Confederacy.

When Virginia seceded in 1861, Lee felt that his allegiance to his state outweighed his commitment to the Union. In his view, it was a question of loyalty to the people and land that shaped him, not a defense of the broader Confederate cause.

At the same time, Lee’s decision cannot be separated from the larger context of the Confederacy’s fight to preserve slavery. By choosing to side with Virginia, he inevitably became a leading figure in a war to maintain an institution he claimed to oppose. This contradiction—fighting for a cause that upheld slavery while maintaining his personal discomfort with it—has led many to view Lee as a man of the moral compromises and contradictions of the Southern elite during the Civil War.

Lee himself saw the war in terms of duty and sacrifice rather than ideology. He believed it was his responsibility to protect his state, even if it meant standing against the country he had served for decades. After the war, he reflected on the conflict with regret, urging reconciliation and avoiding public defenses of the Confederacy’s actions.

Ultimately, Lee’s decision was shaped by his time and culture, where loyalty to one’s state often trumped national unity, and where the institution of slavery was deeply entrenched. His choice, while understandable in its context, remains a focal point for discussions of personal morality versus collective responsibility.

Lee's Wife-Cousin

Lee also married his distant cousin Mary Anna Custis in 1831, tying him to the Washington family through her lineage as George Washington’s step-great-granddaughter. Their marriage brought him stewardship of Arlington House, the Custis family estate. Though often apart due to Lee’s military career, their relationship was marked by mutual respect and duty, with Mary managing their home and raising their seven children despite her fragile health.

A Citizen 100 Years Later

Lee’s citizenship became a complicated symbol of his legacy after the Civil War. Following the Confederacy’s defeat, Lee applied for a pardon and the restoration of his U.S. citizenship, as required by the terms of surrender. Though he signed an oath of allegiance to the United States, an oversight led to the application being ignored, leaving his status unresolved.

Despite this, Lee spent his postwar years encouraging reconciliation and working to heal the nation. More than a century after his death, in 1975, President Gerald Ford officially restored Lee’s citizenship, recognizing his efforts to promote unity and acknowledging the historical significance of his postwar actions. This symbolic act reflected the enduring complexities of Lee’s legacy, as both a figure of rebellion and a man committed to rebuilding the fractured Union.

Prose

This book was a pleasure to read, written with a clarity and precision that made its subject come alive. Having recently read biographies by Ron Chernow—whom I consider one of the most outstanding biographers of our time—I couldn’t help but compare Guelzo’s approach to Chernow’s.

Chernow’s work, with its sweeping narratives and masterful attention to detail, sets an exceptionally high bar, and Guelzo, though skilled, occupies a different plane entirely. While Chernow’s prose feels like an orchestra in full symphony, Guelzo’s is more restrained—competent and thoughtful, but without the same grandeur or emotional resonance. It’s not entirely fair to compare them, as their styles and approaches are so distinct, yet I found myself appreciating Chernow’s flair all the more while reading this book.

Still, an excellent work by Guelzo.