What do you think?
Rate this book
The Man Who Would Not Be Washington: Robert E. Lee's Civil War and His Decision That Changed American History
The riveting true story of Robert E. Lee, the brilliant soldier bound by marriage to George Washington's family but turned by war against Washington's crowning achievement, the Union. On the eve of the Civil War, one soldier embodied the legacy of George Washington and the hopes of leaders across a divided land. Both North and South knew Robert E. Lee as the son of Washington's most famous eulogist and the son-in-law of Washington's adopted child. Each side sought his service for high command. Lee could choose only one. In The Man Who Would Not Be Washington, former White House speechwriter Jonathan Horn reveals how the officer most associated with Washington went to war against the union that Washington had forged. This extensively researched and gracefully written biography follows Lee through married life, military glory, and misfortune. The story that emerges is more complicated, more tragic, and more illuminating than the familiar tale. More complicated because the unresolved question of slavery--the driver of disunion--was among the personal legacies that Lee inherited from Washington. More tragic because the Civil War destroyed the people and places connecting Lee to Washington in agonizing and astonishing ways. More illuminating because the battle for Washington's legacy shaped the nation that America is today. As Washington was the man who would not be king, Lee was the man who would not be Washington. The choice was Lee's. The story is America's. A must-read for those passionate about history, The Man Who Would Not Be Washington introduces Jonathan Horn as a masterly voice in the field.
384 pages, Hardcover
Published January 6, 2015
76 people are currently reading
824 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Horn
9 books24 followersJonathan Horn is an author and former White House presidential speechwriter whose books include Washington’s End and the Robert E. Lee biography The Man Who Would Not Be Washington, which was a Washington Post bestseller. He has written for outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times Disunion series, New York Post, The Daily Beast, National Review, and Politico Magazine, and has appeared on CBS Sunday Morning, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and PBS NewsHour. A graduate of Yale, he lives in Bethesda, Maryland, with his wife, two children, and dog. On April 15, 2025, Scribner published his newest book, The Fate of the Generals: MacArthur, Wainwright, and the Epic Battle for the Philippines.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews
January 22, 2018
Robert E. Lee is a fascinating character in American history. He stands alongside the many other sober, thoughtful, God fearing, talented men that came before him in the American aristocracy of intellect (that being far behind us now). He was keenly aware of his character and determined to put self interest aside as much as possible. At all times he sought to do the right thing.
Though Lee was admired in my family (that is almost entirely from the American south as far back as the 1700's), he put his all into defending a society built on slavery. I bought this book to find out exactly how he arrived at his decision to fight for the Confederacy. In addition, I wondered what happened to him after the surrender at Appomattox.
I'm pleased to say that Jonathan Horn's biography of Lee answered my questions and then some. This book attends to Lee's thinking without needlessly going into daily details of life that could have added many pages.
Lee was quite prepared to stay with the Union. He bound his decision to accord with the one the state of Virginia would make. He did not like the idea of succession, was very doubtful that it could succeed and was in conversation with General Winfield Scott, the head of the U.S. Army, about taking command of Union forces just days before he would turn in his commission and join the rebels. Scott warned Lee that if he did go over to the other side, it would be the greatest mistake of his life.
On slavery, Lee was with the many who thought the institution should be allowed to go away in its own time while doing little to nothing to get that started. He never claimed it a good thing and was in agreement with Lincoln that the best option was the return of slaves to Africa. But this idea of slavery withering away was never practical because of economics. The South had to have slavery to survive as a society based on labor intensive agriculture with a low profit margin that required paying no wages.
In his account of the war, Jonathan Horn avoids taking us through every forest and down every path. The major engagements are detailed. Though Lee was an exceptional commander, he had the assistance of others such as "Stonewall" Jackson and James Longstreet on which he could depend. In fact, he was an adviser to Jefferson Davis in Richmond for some time before going to the front to take actual command. He also had help from the other side, facing a variety of Union generals, primarily George McClellan, who would not, until Grant, tenaciously follow Confederate forces to grind them down with the advantage of numbers.
From the start, Lee denounced those who predicted a short war. He thought it might last ten years. Eventually the industrial might of the north combined with its armed force over three times that available to the South prevailed.
Here I must address Lee's legacy. Let me take you back to the fight as it approached Richmond with the west fallen to Grant at Vicksburg and Atlanta burned by Sherman. With all hope gone for an armistice, far less victory, Lee, as Horn writes, made a point of questioning how anyone could have expected a different outcome. "While the military situation is not favorable, it is not worse than the superior numbers and resources of the enemy justified us in expecting from the beginning. Indeed, the legitimate military consequences of that superiority have been postponed longer than we had reason to anticipate."
With this any admiration I had for Lee collapsed. Before he made his decision to fight for the South, he was aware of his proven skill in the field and he was aware of the advantages of the North. He had no fondness for slavery. As mentioned, he had no illusion that the war would be short. By placing himself in service to the South he would be prolonging as much as was within his power a conflict that would kill over 650,000 troops. To say that he had to do this because of the choice of Virginia to join the South is a refusal to place the responsibility where it belongs, on himself. Indeed, and increasingly near the end of the war, the image of Lee in command was all that kept the South fighting. Imagine how different things would have been had Lee taken command of Union forces from the start. The war might well have been far shorter and less destructive.
I only wish that this were more widely known about the man: that he became an instrument of destruction knowing the chances of victory were almost nil, based solely on the decision of others to join the South.
What happened to him after the surrender? He took a position as head of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) in Lexington, VA. where he served until he died peacefully in 1870.
It should be noted that Arlington was the home of Lee and his wife, Mary, after they inherited it by way of Mary's father, the adopted son of George and Martha Washington. The house still stands surrounded by the graves of thousands of soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery across the Potomac River from the District of Columbia.
The Man Who Would Not Be Washington is a penetrating character study and epic tragedy that I am very glad I read.
Though Lee was admired in my family (that is almost entirely from the American south as far back as the 1700's), he put his all into defending a society built on slavery. I bought this book to find out exactly how he arrived at his decision to fight for the Confederacy. In addition, I wondered what happened to him after the surrender at Appomattox.
I'm pleased to say that Jonathan Horn's biography of Lee answered my questions and then some. This book attends to Lee's thinking without needlessly going into daily details of life that could have added many pages.
Lee was quite prepared to stay with the Union. He bound his decision to accord with the one the state of Virginia would make. He did not like the idea of succession, was very doubtful that it could succeed and was in conversation with General Winfield Scott, the head of the U.S. Army, about taking command of Union forces just days before he would turn in his commission and join the rebels. Scott warned Lee that if he did go over to the other side, it would be the greatest mistake of his life.
On slavery, Lee was with the many who thought the institution should be allowed to go away in its own time while doing little to nothing to get that started. He never claimed it a good thing and was in agreement with Lincoln that the best option was the return of slaves to Africa. But this idea of slavery withering away was never practical because of economics. The South had to have slavery to survive as a society based on labor intensive agriculture with a low profit margin that required paying no wages.
In his account of the war, Jonathan Horn avoids taking us through every forest and down every path. The major engagements are detailed. Though Lee was an exceptional commander, he had the assistance of others such as "Stonewall" Jackson and James Longstreet on which he could depend. In fact, he was an adviser to Jefferson Davis in Richmond for some time before going to the front to take actual command. He also had help from the other side, facing a variety of Union generals, primarily George McClellan, who would not, until Grant, tenaciously follow Confederate forces to grind them down with the advantage of numbers.
From the start, Lee denounced those who predicted a short war. He thought it might last ten years. Eventually the industrial might of the north combined with its armed force over three times that available to the South prevailed.
Here I must address Lee's legacy. Let me take you back to the fight as it approached Richmond with the west fallen to Grant at Vicksburg and Atlanta burned by Sherman. With all hope gone for an armistice, far less victory, Lee, as Horn writes, made a point of questioning how anyone could have expected a different outcome. "While the military situation is not favorable, it is not worse than the superior numbers and resources of the enemy justified us in expecting from the beginning. Indeed, the legitimate military consequences of that superiority have been postponed longer than we had reason to anticipate."
With this any admiration I had for Lee collapsed. Before he made his decision to fight for the South, he was aware of his proven skill in the field and he was aware of the advantages of the North. He had no fondness for slavery. As mentioned, he had no illusion that the war would be short. By placing himself in service to the South he would be prolonging as much as was within his power a conflict that would kill over 650,000 troops. To say that he had to do this because of the choice of Virginia to join the South is a refusal to place the responsibility where it belongs, on himself. Indeed, and increasingly near the end of the war, the image of Lee in command was all that kept the South fighting. Imagine how different things would have been had Lee taken command of Union forces from the start. The war might well have been far shorter and less destructive.
I only wish that this were more widely known about the man: that he became an instrument of destruction knowing the chances of victory were almost nil, based solely on the decision of others to join the South.
What happened to him after the surrender? He took a position as head of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) in Lexington, VA. where he served until he died peacefully in 1870.
It should be noted that Arlington was the home of Lee and his wife, Mary, after they inherited it by way of Mary's father, the adopted son of George and Martha Washington. The house still stands surrounded by the graves of thousands of soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery across the Potomac River from the District of Columbia.
The Man Who Would Not Be Washington is a penetrating character study and epic tragedy that I am very glad I read.
June 9, 2015
Jonathan Horn explores the twists of fate that intertwined George Washington and Robert E. Lee. It begins with Henry Lee II winning the hand of George Washington’s love. The couple (Henry Lee II and Lucy Grimes Lee) became Robert E. Lee’s grandparents. The book ends with Lee’s presidency of George Washington College and a discussion of Arlington and DC based memorials. In between and throughout, you see George Washington looming large in the life of the (essentially fatherless) Robert E. Lee.
“Light Horse Harry”, Robert E. Lee’s father, served in the Revolution under Washington, and later at his side in the Whiskey Rebellion. The childless Washington took a paternalistic interest in young officers (most famously, Alexander Hamilton) but not Light Horse Harry. After the war, Lee invested in land that abutted the Washington’s planned canal. The canal was never built and Light Horse Harry lost the fortune his wife inherited. Lee’s father went into debt and depression and ran away from his problems. With his father in the Caribbean, Lee and his mother and siblings were dependent on the largess of the extended family.
Lee married the much sought after Mary Anne Randolf Curtis, Martha Washington’s granddaughter. Upon the death of George Washington Parke Curtis, the Lees inherited the Arlington Estate where Curtis had kept family and national heirlooms from Mount Vernon. Along with this estate came the slaves ("dower slaves") that due to restrictions set by the Curtis family could not be freed by Washington when he freed his own. The fate of the heirlooms and the eventual emancipation of the dower slaves are an ironic twists of history.
This book sheds no light on reasons Lee left his US Army career for the unknown future of the Confederacy. It does introduce a new variable in showing Lee taking arms against the Union that Washington created. Lee, himself, has trouble explaining this decision at times saying Washington would have done so too. As in other biographies, Mary Anne Randolf Curtis Lee is shown to be a Plantation Princess as she writes to Union generals with special requests. The reason for Lee’s decision could be simple: it may have been made by his highly partisan Confederate wife.
The position of the White House (a Curtis estate, not the POTUS home) and the companionship of John Augustine Washington III (George Washington's brother's grandson) are germane and of interest, but the details on the battles and their strategies are not needed to tell this story and detract from the narrative.
This book is interesting and fills a niche for Civil War readers. It is no substitute for a biography (such as: Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee) It adds dimension to Lee's portrait and can give psychologists something to chew on.
“Light Horse Harry”, Robert E. Lee’s father, served in the Revolution under Washington, and later at his side in the Whiskey Rebellion. The childless Washington took a paternalistic interest in young officers (most famously, Alexander Hamilton) but not Light Horse Harry. After the war, Lee invested in land that abutted the Washington’s planned canal. The canal was never built and Light Horse Harry lost the fortune his wife inherited. Lee’s father went into debt and depression and ran away from his problems. With his father in the Caribbean, Lee and his mother and siblings were dependent on the largess of the extended family.
Lee married the much sought after Mary Anne Randolf Curtis, Martha Washington’s granddaughter. Upon the death of George Washington Parke Curtis, the Lees inherited the Arlington Estate where Curtis had kept family and national heirlooms from Mount Vernon. Along with this estate came the slaves ("dower slaves") that due to restrictions set by the Curtis family could not be freed by Washington when he freed his own. The fate of the heirlooms and the eventual emancipation of the dower slaves are an ironic twists of history.
This book sheds no light on reasons Lee left his US Army career for the unknown future of the Confederacy. It does introduce a new variable in showing Lee taking arms against the Union that Washington created. Lee, himself, has trouble explaining this decision at times saying Washington would have done so too. As in other biographies, Mary Anne Randolf Curtis Lee is shown to be a Plantation Princess as she writes to Union generals with special requests. The reason for Lee’s decision could be simple: it may have been made by his highly partisan Confederate wife.
The position of the White House (a Curtis estate, not the POTUS home) and the companionship of John Augustine Washington III (George Washington's brother's grandson) are germane and of interest, but the details on the battles and their strategies are not needed to tell this story and detract from the narrative.
This book is interesting and fills a niche for Civil War readers. It is no substitute for a biography (such as: Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee) It adds dimension to Lee's portrait and can give psychologists something to chew on.
December 17, 2021
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.
March 26, 2020
Behold the mismatch of a Shakespearean situation and the very dull man placed in it.
January 21, 2015
Interesting biography of Lee, making much of his connection to George Washington through his wife's lineage and his own ancestor's war service. Lee will always be a hero of mine, and I'm definitely looking forward to meeting him in heaven! It was painful to read how Lee, in his tenure at Washington University, "looked beyond the traditional classical curriculum to more practical offerings," a well-intentioned move that has borne bitter fruit in colleges today.
February 14, 2023
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.
July 28, 2016
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...
March 2, 2015
This book is well written and even handed. The author treats Robert E. Lee as a real person, not a legend. I did not know that Lee was the President of Washington and Lee College after the Civil War. Thus he had gainful employment after the Civil War and was well respected by students who came from all across the United States. The book shows that his father was a ne'er-do-well who shackled his family with a lot of debts.
October 18, 2025
I did not like this book and only gave it a 2 because it is about Lee
June 17, 2020
A timely read for an era when statues of Robert E. Lee are finally coming down across the South.
This biography of Lee focuses on his connection with the family and story of George Washington. The Lees and Washingtons were both leaders of Virginia's planter elite, though the Lees were more elite than the Washingtons. Only when George married Martha, the rich widow of Daniel Parke Custis, did the Washingtons enter the top ranks of Virginia families. It was the Custis fortune and connections, John Adams argued, that allowed Washington to become a national leader.
Washington became a leader who was "first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen," in the words of another Revolutionary War hero who gave the eulogy at Washington's funeral.
Those words came from General "Light Horse" Harry Lee, who would later become the father of Robert E. Lee.
Decades after George married Martha, RE Lee married his own Custis heiress, Mary Anna, the daughter of Washington's step grandson, George Washington Parke Custis.
Custis built Arlington House as a shrine to George Washington and a place to showcase relics including a swords that Washington had used in the Revolution.
Marrying Custis's daughter gained Lee wealth and social status, providing him with the same advantages that helped George Washington rise 80 years earlier.
Yet, as history tells us, in the battle for fame and reputation, Lee managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by his fatal decision to take leadership of Confederate troops in the Civil War.
If only Lee had accepted Winfield Scott's invitation in 1861 to lead U.S. forces, Lee too could have gone down in history as "first in the hearts of his countrymen." But Lee declined this federal appointment and resigned from the U.S. Army. Then, instead of just sitting out the war, Lee became a leader of the rebellion against the nation founded by Washington. As a result, after the war, Lee's reputation became a source of division between Southern whites who venerated him as the beau ideal of the Confederate "Lost Cause," a noble fight to preserve a traditional society, and other Americans who rejected Lee as a traitor and fighter to preserve slavery.
This book does an excellent job of connecting Lee to Washington through the Custis family as well as Lee's interaction with relatives of Washington who fought on the southern side during the war. Many Confederate leaders lauded Lee as the new Washington.
What Horn fails to do is to answer the question of why Lee made his fateful decision to fight for secession rather than stick with the Union.
The legacy of Washington and his time in the U.S. Army helped define Lee as a supporter of the American republic. And like many elite Virginians, during the debates that led up to the state's decision to secede in the spring of 1861, Lee expressed his support for the Union. However, once Virginia finally determined to join the Confederacy, Lee stuck by his home state.
Horn fails to explain why Lee chose state over country. After all, many Virginians in the army made the opposite choice. Horn mentions one of them, Winfield Scott, commander of Union forces at the start of the war. But Horn doesn't even name other Virginians who stuck with the U.S., including General George Thomas, as well as some members of the Lee family itself.
Why did RE Lee feel that his loyalty to Virginia had to be expressed through secession rather than through trying to crush rebellion against the nation that Washington had formed and that Virginia had taken a leading role to found?
This is the #1 question that this book should have answered. But unfortunately, Horn provides little or no insight on Lee's motivation. Was it vanity? Because he was a scion of the elite Lee clan who was related to Washington, did Lee's high status incline him to seek the approbation of other Virginia elites who favored secession?
George Thomas, from a more modest background, endured rejection by his Virginia family at the start of the Civil War when they learned that Thomas would stay with the Union.
Yet, Thomas went one way, and Lee went the other. It would have added a lot to this book if Horn had explored the difference between these two Virginia generals.
This biography of Lee focuses on his connection with the family and story of George Washington. The Lees and Washingtons were both leaders of Virginia's planter elite, though the Lees were more elite than the Washingtons. Only when George married Martha, the rich widow of Daniel Parke Custis, did the Washingtons enter the top ranks of Virginia families. It was the Custis fortune and connections, John Adams argued, that allowed Washington to become a national leader.
Washington became a leader who was "first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen," in the words of another Revolutionary War hero who gave the eulogy at Washington's funeral.
Those words came from General "Light Horse" Harry Lee, who would later become the father of Robert E. Lee.
Decades after George married Martha, RE Lee married his own Custis heiress, Mary Anna, the daughter of Washington's step grandson, George Washington Parke Custis.
Custis built Arlington House as a shrine to George Washington and a place to showcase relics including a swords that Washington had used in the Revolution.
Marrying Custis's daughter gained Lee wealth and social status, providing him with the same advantages that helped George Washington rise 80 years earlier.
Yet, as history tells us, in the battle for fame and reputation, Lee managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by his fatal decision to take leadership of Confederate troops in the Civil War.
If only Lee had accepted Winfield Scott's invitation in 1861 to lead U.S. forces, Lee too could have gone down in history as "first in the hearts of his countrymen." But Lee declined this federal appointment and resigned from the U.S. Army. Then, instead of just sitting out the war, Lee became a leader of the rebellion against the nation founded by Washington. As a result, after the war, Lee's reputation became a source of division between Southern whites who venerated him as the beau ideal of the Confederate "Lost Cause," a noble fight to preserve a traditional society, and other Americans who rejected Lee as a traitor and fighter to preserve slavery.
This book does an excellent job of connecting Lee to Washington through the Custis family as well as Lee's interaction with relatives of Washington who fought on the southern side during the war. Many Confederate leaders lauded Lee as the new Washington.
What Horn fails to do is to answer the question of why Lee made his fateful decision to fight for secession rather than stick with the Union.
The legacy of Washington and his time in the U.S. Army helped define Lee as a supporter of the American republic. And like many elite Virginians, during the debates that led up to the state's decision to secede in the spring of 1861, Lee expressed his support for the Union. However, once Virginia finally determined to join the Confederacy, Lee stuck by his home state.
Horn fails to explain why Lee chose state over country. After all, many Virginians in the army made the opposite choice. Horn mentions one of them, Winfield Scott, commander of Union forces at the start of the war. But Horn doesn't even name other Virginians who stuck with the U.S., including General George Thomas, as well as some members of the Lee family itself.
Why did RE Lee feel that his loyalty to Virginia had to be expressed through secession rather than through trying to crush rebellion against the nation that Washington had formed and that Virginia had taken a leading role to found?
This is the #1 question that this book should have answered. But unfortunately, Horn provides little or no insight on Lee's motivation. Was it vanity? Because he was a scion of the elite Lee clan who was related to Washington, did Lee's high status incline him to seek the approbation of other Virginia elites who favored secession?
George Thomas, from a more modest background, endured rejection by his Virginia family at the start of the Civil War when they learned that Thomas would stay with the Union.
Yet, Thomas went one way, and Lee went the other. It would have added a lot to this book if Horn had explored the difference between these two Virginia generals.
August 22, 2015
An interesting biography of Robert E. Lee placing him the context of the son of a American Revolutionary War vet and related to George Washington by marriage to his step granddaughter. His choice to stay with the South in the Civil War is pivotal not only in his life but in the life of the nation. Lee had proven himself in combat as a good leader in the war with Mexico. Had the Medal of Honor been created for that conflict there is a strong chance he would have earned it. The war between the states would have been a different conflict had he taken the reins of the Northern armies under Lincoln and General Winfield Scott. He was offered full control of the US union forces but chose to stay with his state instead.
Lee did not believe in slavery, calling it a moral and political evil. His father in law, the step son of Washington, owned slaves and he had to handle the will when he died. Because the terms on when his slaves were to be emancipated he asked a probate court to review the terms but the war intervened before it could be executed.
As the states were leaving the Union Lee was stationed in Texas. When the Texans entered Federal military installations and demanded they surrender to the state militia the Federal commander over Lee complied. Lee was shocked and dismayed and wrote he would have resisted and fought back. He was called back to DC where he was offered command of all Union forces. He discussed the offer and the situation behind closed doors with General Winfield Scott. No one knows what all was said. But Lee said later he could not have chosen any other course but to follow his state.
It is interesting to note that after a few years of war Lee knew the South was faced by a very difficult mathematical reality, that the North outnumbered them significantly and could continue to replace their losses and field bigger and better armies. When it was suggested that European allies might come to the aid of the South like France came to aid the colonies against Britain, he pointed out the North had won the public opinion war overseas by painting the conflict as only being over slavery. Clearly, the historical record shows Lee was not fighting for slavery though it was central in the minds of some. Lee recommended granting emancipation to the slaves and enlisting them in the Confederate army. While this did happen on a small scale his suggestion was not taken seriously and implemented. As the final year of conflict began and it became clear the South could not resist much longer without some sort of miracle, Lee told his son, "When this war began, I was opposed to it, bitterly opposed to it, and I told these people that, unless every man should do his whole duty, they would repent it; and now... they will repent."
After Lee signed the surrender papers with General Grant, he stepped outside and called for his horse. As he began to ride away Grant stepped outside, walked off the porch to position himself lower than Lee on his horse, and removed his hat as a sign of respect to General Lee. All the Union officers with him followed suit.
Lee was a leader in the South in war, and he led by example in making the peace afterwards. Encouraging veterans and citizens to respect the law and each other and to strive to live in peace. Not discussed or mentioned in this volume, after the war in church one day a black man entered and knelt at the front to pray. Lee moved from his pew and knelt down next to him.
Lee was the Washington of his day and some of the similarities are striking. But, Lee was not to be the victor Washington was. While respected by many in both the North and South, he was not the hero everyone wanted him to be. But, perhaps he was better than what we deserved.
Overall I felt this was a pretty evenhanded biography. It wasn't hero worship as the author also deals with Lee's shortcomings honestly. It's not super long but still does a decent job of telling Lee's story.
Lee did not believe in slavery, calling it a moral and political evil. His father in law, the step son of Washington, owned slaves and he had to handle the will when he died. Because the terms on when his slaves were to be emancipated he asked a probate court to review the terms but the war intervened before it could be executed.
As the states were leaving the Union Lee was stationed in Texas. When the Texans entered Federal military installations and demanded they surrender to the state militia the Federal commander over Lee complied. Lee was shocked and dismayed and wrote he would have resisted and fought back. He was called back to DC where he was offered command of all Union forces. He discussed the offer and the situation behind closed doors with General Winfield Scott. No one knows what all was said. But Lee said later he could not have chosen any other course but to follow his state.
It is interesting to note that after a few years of war Lee knew the South was faced by a very difficult mathematical reality, that the North outnumbered them significantly and could continue to replace their losses and field bigger and better armies. When it was suggested that European allies might come to the aid of the South like France came to aid the colonies against Britain, he pointed out the North had won the public opinion war overseas by painting the conflict as only being over slavery. Clearly, the historical record shows Lee was not fighting for slavery though it was central in the minds of some. Lee recommended granting emancipation to the slaves and enlisting them in the Confederate army. While this did happen on a small scale his suggestion was not taken seriously and implemented. As the final year of conflict began and it became clear the South could not resist much longer without some sort of miracle, Lee told his son, "When this war began, I was opposed to it, bitterly opposed to it, and I told these people that, unless every man should do his whole duty, they would repent it; and now... they will repent."
After Lee signed the surrender papers with General Grant, he stepped outside and called for his horse. As he began to ride away Grant stepped outside, walked off the porch to position himself lower than Lee on his horse, and removed his hat as a sign of respect to General Lee. All the Union officers with him followed suit.
Lee was a leader in the South in war, and he led by example in making the peace afterwards. Encouraging veterans and citizens to respect the law and each other and to strive to live in peace. Not discussed or mentioned in this volume, after the war in church one day a black man entered and knelt at the front to pray. Lee moved from his pew and knelt down next to him.
Lee was the Washington of his day and some of the similarities are striking. But, Lee was not to be the victor Washington was. While respected by many in both the North and South, he was not the hero everyone wanted him to be. But, perhaps he was better than what we deserved.
Overall I felt this was a pretty evenhanded biography. It wasn't hero worship as the author also deals with Lee's shortcomings honestly. It's not super long but still does a decent job of telling Lee's story.
March 16, 2015
This book was quite interesting. I never knew very much about Robert E. Lee beyond his role as the Military Leader of the Confederate Army. I find it interesting how he seemed to blame the Northern States for the War. Something a number of my Southern friends still do. I also wondered why he made his tactical choices at Gettysburg. While there is no way to be certain, I felt the author's surmise was reasonable.
The provides a great background on Lee, his family and his family connections to George Washington. The title of the book is very appropriate. Lee loyalties at the outset were initially with the Union, but in the end he decided to instead support his State of Virginia. Which was the opposite of how President Washington had decided. If Lee had decided to go with maintaining the Union he possibly would have been elected President after the war. Although he would not have been as beloved by the Southern States.
A man of many contradictions (as are we all), I thought the book summarized his loyalties quite well near the end of the book when Lee was quoted, "I need not tell you that true patriotism sometimes requires of men, to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and that the motive which motivates them - the desire to do right - is precisely the same." The circumstances govern the choice. An interesting thought. Not sure I concur...but I understand his point.
After the war he was President of Washington College in Lexington. Under his leadership the school implemented a number of innovative approaches to education. Lee's mentor from West Point General Winfield Scott, said he understood Lee's decision to resign his commission, but "I think you are making the greatest mistake of your life." Turned out to be true.
The provides a great background on Lee, his family and his family connections to George Washington. The title of the book is very appropriate. Lee loyalties at the outset were initially with the Union, but in the end he decided to instead support his State of Virginia. Which was the opposite of how President Washington had decided. If Lee had decided to go with maintaining the Union he possibly would have been elected President after the war. Although he would not have been as beloved by the Southern States.
A man of many contradictions (as are we all), I thought the book summarized his loyalties quite well near the end of the book when Lee was quoted, "I need not tell you that true patriotism sometimes requires of men, to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and that the motive which motivates them - the desire to do right - is precisely the same." The circumstances govern the choice. An interesting thought. Not sure I concur...but I understand his point.
After the war he was President of Washington College in Lexington. Under his leadership the school implemented a number of innovative approaches to education. Lee's mentor from West Point General Winfield Scott, said he understood Lee's decision to resign his commission, but "I think you are making the greatest mistake of your life." Turned out to be true.
February 16, 2018
I thoroughly enjoyed this well researched and documented "entry" biography of Robert E. Lee. I found the author's writing style to be engaging and engrossing on the life, including familial history all the way back to Washington and how that impacted the General.
One side note...In the beginning, I was reading for a review for Netgalley in a digital edition. I found that I had a more difficult time with it. I recently picked the book up from my library and read it in 3 days.
One side note...In the beginning, I was reading for a review for Netgalley in a digital edition. I found that I had a more difficult time with it. I recently picked the book up from my library and read it in 3 days.
March 7, 2023
My hunch was this book would have a pro-Lee/Lost Cause slant, and I was pleased to be wrong. That said, it doesn't seek to demean Lee, just facts.
Overall, I'm underwhelmed by Lee. Quality general who inspired his troops, sure, but his legacy should be disregarding the wishes of George Washington and attempting to undo the work of our Founding Fathers. Footnote given for using his influence to support post-war unity, but that's like lending your garden hose after you started the fire.
Grant hinted at some of Lee's pettiness (my choice of word) in his memoirs. I sensed some of that in Lee's quips to his wife and others. Seemed a bit curmudgeon, even for his time.
Overall, I'm underwhelmed by Lee. Quality general who inspired his troops, sure, but his legacy should be disregarding the wishes of George Washington and attempting to undo the work of our Founding Fathers. Footnote given for using his influence to support post-war unity, but that's like lending your garden hose after you started the fire.
Grant hinted at some of Lee's pettiness (my choice of word) in his memoirs. I sensed some of that in Lee's quips to his wife and others. Seemed a bit curmudgeon, even for his time.
Read
March 31, 2015The Man Who Would Not Be Washington, a complete biography of Robert E. Lee from childhood through death, emphasizes the difficult choice he made at the beginning of the Civil War and its effect on his life and the country. This scholarly, thoroughly researched and engaging account of Lee’s life examines his process in arriving at the fatal decision to ally with his native state rather than accept the offer to lead Union forces. Ironically Lee’s opposition to secession mirrored Washington’s devotion to the union, but his loyalty to Virginia resulted in his leading the rebel forces against the preservation of the United States and eventually losing his home, his land and many family members. The vivid battle scenes make this a must read for Civil War history fans. The strong sense of place and the somber tone of loss and heartache make it appealing to anyone interested in the lives of notable people. -BS
Click here to place a hold The Man Who Would Not Be Washington .
If you like this book, you might like Clouds of Glory by Michael Korda.
Click here to place a hold The Man Who Would Not Be Washington .
If you like this book, you might like Clouds of Glory by Michael Korda.
April 6, 2016
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.
April 27, 2015
I've been wanting to catch up a little on Lee and this book was sufficient for the basics. I learned a few interesting things, but it was more confirmation of insights from other Civil War reading than feeling like I got an in-depth look at his so-called genius and renowned character. I am not a particular fan of Lee's, believing that this one man could have averted much disaster and suffering if he'd simply adhered to his oath to protect and defend the United States of America and stuck to his other professed principles favoring an end to slavery and the importance of the union. He couldn't raise his sword to his beloved Virginia, but had no trouble encouraging the solicitation of and conscription of thousands of other fellow southerners to raise their swords to their own brothers and families. His battleground genius always seemed to me indebted as much to the ineptitude of the Union generals he faced as to his own brilliant planning. This book didn't really offer an instructive nuance to that observation nor give me particular insights to help me understand why and how he was supposedly so great.
April 14, 2024
Four stars for Robert E. Lee, two stars for the author's opinion and three stars for the book, because the author ruined the book with the cheesy ending/opinion. =/
It was going so well.
this book makes me hate the Union and dislike Lincoln and his crooked cabinet.
The government stealing property by paying themselves on the lie that 'back taxes' were owed is sheisty. the deception is what I don't like. The union could have said they were going to confiscate enemy land and I would have more respect for their honesty.
Lee was the better man.
It was going so well.
this book makes me hate the Union and dislike Lincoln and his crooked cabinet.
The government stealing property by paying themselves on the lie that 'back taxes' were owed is sheisty. the deception is what I don't like. The union could have said they were going to confiscate enemy land and I would have more respect for their honesty.
Lee was the better man.
February 7, 2015
I’ve always felt that research, when thoroughly done and applied correctly, is what sets a great author apart from a good one. Horn truly put a lot of effort into this novel and it shows. He gave an open perspective of Robert E. Lee’s life, avoiding minute battle details and giving you more interesting facts about his childhood, marriage and how his choosing Virginia over the Union changed the future of this country. I learned interesting details about Lee’s original plans for his army that could have turned the tides of the war. Horn also tackles the Lee family’s trials and feelings with losing their home in Arlington and the outcome of these sites after the war. Lee generally led a life away from his wife and children which allowed for a lot of correspondence which Horn incorporated throughout the novel. It was a truly fascinating read.
May 22, 2017
Pretty short (for a biography), but still an interesting look at Robert E. Lee, the most famous general of the Civil War and also one of that era's more complicated men. This book takes the (unique?) angle of comparing Lee to George Washington: in their geographic background; family connections (Lee married Washington's step-great-granddaughter); military service; places of residence; etc. Last but not least, author Jonathan Horn analyzes the choices both men make when faced with leading an insurrectionist army (Washington of course led the Continental Army; Lee was the leader of the Army of Northern Virginia on the Confederate side of the conflict). It was interesting to compare and contrast the two men, both in their rationale in choosing sides during their respective conflicts, and in the resulting consequences of their choices. Robert E. Lee is a puzzle of a man...one who was opposed to slavery and pro-Union, yet threw his lot in with the Confederate due to his unswavering loyalty to his home state of Virginia. This decision would ultimately prove his undoing; nevertheless, his coolness and military brilliance still won the respect of people on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.
An interesting "sub-plot" that the author spends much time dealing with is the fate of Lee's home at Arlington, and how this home had strong ties to the Washington family as well. Today, this lovely white house is the centerpiece of Arlington National Cemetary, an important historical location near present-day Washington DC. Tracing the history of this abode was fascinating and provided some interesting insight into both Washington and Lee. This wasn't a very long book, but it was well researched and it had a lot of interesting insights into two important figures in American history, linking them together in ways I had never before considered.
An interesting "sub-plot" that the author spends much time dealing with is the fate of Lee's home at Arlington, and how this home had strong ties to the Washington family as well. Today, this lovely white house is the centerpiece of Arlington National Cemetary, an important historical location near present-day Washington DC. Tracing the history of this abode was fascinating and provided some interesting insight into both Washington and Lee. This wasn't a very long book, but it was well researched and it had a lot of interesting insights into two important figures in American history, linking them together in ways I had never before considered.
July 3, 2025
It's not easy in 2025 to find contemporary works of Civil War history that are not partisan polemics against Confederate figures, nor pollyannish mythmaking. Horn takes an approach that threads the needle, aided by the book's differentiating focus: Lee's multitudinous connections and parallels with George Washington.
The connection is under-appreciated these days. That may be a function of Washington's own diminished status in the American imagination, or a simple ignorance on the part of the public. Either way, the connections were implicit and impossible to ignore to the American people of the early 1860s. They help color out Lee and his decisions, the world the made him, and the conflict that made him a quintessential figure in American history.
For the either the Northern or Southern partisan, the connections can be both affirming and confounding. The vexations experienced by Federal loyalists who felt Washington's spirit of Union was offended by Lee's willingness to take up arms against the US were probably more weighty than the modern anti-Confederate's for a key reason: the modern American feels no filial affinity for Washington and is pleased to cast him aside along with Lee. This is a mistake that gives life to the ugliest forms of Neo-Confederate thinking.
Southern sympathizers who grew up with the mythical Lee will be frustrated with his lack of perceived self-determination, his feet-dragging in the manumission of the Custis estates' slaves, and his own assessment of secession as a stupid and unnecessary decision that bore almost no chance at success. His lack of "Southern patriotism" before and after the war should be noted by all.
Highly recommend.
The connection is under-appreciated these days. That may be a function of Washington's own diminished status in the American imagination, or a simple ignorance on the part of the public. Either way, the connections were implicit and impossible to ignore to the American people of the early 1860s. They help color out Lee and his decisions, the world the made him, and the conflict that made him a quintessential figure in American history.
For the either the Northern or Southern partisan, the connections can be both affirming and confounding. The vexations experienced by Federal loyalists who felt Washington's spirit of Union was offended by Lee's willingness to take up arms against the US were probably more weighty than the modern anti-Confederate's for a key reason: the modern American feels no filial affinity for Washington and is pleased to cast him aside along with Lee. This is a mistake that gives life to the ugliest forms of Neo-Confederate thinking.
Southern sympathizers who grew up with the mythical Lee will be frustrated with his lack of perceived self-determination, his feet-dragging in the manumission of the Custis estates' slaves, and his own assessment of secession as a stupid and unnecessary decision that bore almost no chance at success. His lack of "Southern patriotism" before and after the war should be noted by all.
Highly recommend.
March 31, 2018
This is perhaps one of the best biographies I've ever read. The author treats the complex and challenging figure of Robert E. Lee with appropriate care and detail; he neither worships nor decries Lee but rather presents a nuanced, detailed, and contextually aware review of his life and the forces that compelled him. Lee unquestionably held unforgivable opinions on race and race relations; however, much about American history, the legacy of slavery, and the formation of the country America would become can be learned by studying his life. The author, Jonathan Horn, executes this superbly.
Horn chiefly considers the dueling nature of Lee's life and personality: Lee was against secession yet followed Virginia into rebellion...he was morally opposed to slavery, yet felt compelled to rely upon slavery to fulfill the will of his profligate father in law...he was known as the perfect general and soldier yet claimed his military education was the worst mistake of his life...and on and on. The study of this man that was so completely torn by duty and devotion (and then self-restraint and self-denial) and the dueling forces that drove him was fascinating and deeply educational.
This would be a book for someone interested in learning about Lee, certainly, but would be good reading for anyone wanting to learn about the Civil War, the significance of the battles, and the strategy employed by both sides. Horn does a good job of setting the stage without being dry or tedious. Horn's style is readable and compelling -- the story he makes of Lee's life is immensely entertaining.
Horn chiefly considers the dueling nature of Lee's life and personality: Lee was against secession yet followed Virginia into rebellion...he was morally opposed to slavery, yet felt compelled to rely upon slavery to fulfill the will of his profligate father in law...he was known as the perfect general and soldier yet claimed his military education was the worst mistake of his life...and on and on. The study of this man that was so completely torn by duty and devotion (and then self-restraint and self-denial) and the dueling forces that drove him was fascinating and deeply educational.
This would be a book for someone interested in learning about Lee, certainly, but would be good reading for anyone wanting to learn about the Civil War, the significance of the battles, and the strategy employed by both sides. Horn does a good job of setting the stage without being dry or tedious. Horn's style is readable and compelling -- the story he makes of Lee's life is immensely entertaining.
January 19, 2021
In the current times of political upheaval, reading a book about an individual, highly vilified by some, yet highly regard by others could be quite controversial. However, it may also be the most appropriate time. Frankly, this book should be required reading for anyone discussing the topic of Robert E. Lee. Best of all, it leaves it up to the reader to decided their own view point on General Lee’s actions.
For starters, this book provides a very high bird’s eye view on the civil war and a much more in-depth view of an indispensable individual of American History. Love him or hate him, nobody can deny that Robert E. Lee had a major impact both during his life and afterwards. In fact, this book is not solely based on General Lee’s war time efforts and focus more so on his philosophy for life that lead him. Although, it can be strongly argued that General Lee’s strategic ability far out shined all other generals during the Civil war and that is well noted in several chapters.
Overall, this book is great for anyone interested in learning more about an individual who went from a strong supporter of the union, to the commanding general of the confederacy, then back to a strong supporter of the union. Moreover, this book does a wonderful job of explaining how Robert E. Lee was a factor in creating Abraham Lincoln’s legacy as the man who saved the union. Finally, the title tells it all, as the books does explore the connection between Washington and Lee, which, as explained, goes beyond the more commonly known familial ties.
For starters, this book provides a very high bird’s eye view on the civil war and a much more in-depth view of an indispensable individual of American History. Love him or hate him, nobody can deny that Robert E. Lee had a major impact both during his life and afterwards. In fact, this book is not solely based on General Lee’s war time efforts and focus more so on his philosophy for life that lead him. Although, it can be strongly argued that General Lee’s strategic ability far out shined all other generals during the Civil war and that is well noted in several chapters.
Overall, this book is great for anyone interested in learning more about an individual who went from a strong supporter of the union, to the commanding general of the confederacy, then back to a strong supporter of the union. Moreover, this book does a wonderful job of explaining how Robert E. Lee was a factor in creating Abraham Lincoln’s legacy as the man who saved the union. Finally, the title tells it all, as the books does explore the connection between Washington and Lee, which, as explained, goes beyond the more commonly known familial ties.
September 15, 2022
This is a tremendous work that explains Lee very well. In today's world, he is represented as the leader of evil in the US that, but reality is more than people who are all evil or all good.
Horn excellently presents the predicament in which Lee found himself as the civil war was brewing. His engineering background and clever strategies were discussed, and the opportunities open to him provide an understanding for the demeanor with which he approached problems.
In the movie Gladiator, Russell Crowe's character Maximus was asked a political question by Commodus. He deftly chose to avoid the question and remain faithfully a soldier. Lee tried that same strategy by passively being anti-slavery and yet defending the political state that supported it. He chose state over nation, believing the country was formed by states united. The complicated environment is presented well and should challenge those to learn more about those they consider heroes or villains.
Lee's ties to the Washington family are explored and recall a time when family status and honor were more important than today.
This is an important book that explains history in a manner that makes sense. It makes history make sense. Horn is an author whose histories should be consumed.
Horn excellently presents the predicament in which Lee found himself as the civil war was brewing. His engineering background and clever strategies were discussed, and the opportunities open to him provide an understanding for the demeanor with which he approached problems.
In the movie Gladiator, Russell Crowe's character Maximus was asked a political question by Commodus. He deftly chose to avoid the question and remain faithfully a soldier. Lee tried that same strategy by passively being anti-slavery and yet defending the political state that supported it. He chose state over nation, believing the country was formed by states united. The complicated environment is presented well and should challenge those to learn more about those they consider heroes or villains.
Lee's ties to the Washington family are explored and recall a time when family status and honor were more important than today.
This is an important book that explains history in a manner that makes sense. It makes history make sense. Horn is an author whose histories should be consumed.
August 21, 2017
I read this book because I wanted to know more about Lee, and to make a more informed judgement about his statues, etc. The book was a well-researched short biography that presented a full picture of a man who was basically good, but made one huge mistake. It is fairly evident that if Lee had chosen to fight for the Union, the Civil War would have been very much shorter, and less costly in lives. Lee was a great general and the early Union generals were not so great. Lee did commit some of the bad acts that are attributed to him--such as delaying the freeing of the slaves that had belonged to his father-in-law, but there were some reasons for that delay. He was a slave-owner, but only to a small extent because his father had lost most of his family'e money. In the long run, I like him as a person, but do not feel that his statues should hold a place of honor. I do not believe that it is appropriate to deify people who rebelled against their country. But we should remember that they were very human with good and bad sides.
This book compares Lee with Washington, and to the writer there is no comparison.
This book compares Lee with Washington, and to the writer there is no comparison.
August 20, 2021
A very good in depth book about Confederate Henry E. Lee, who married into George Washington’s family and lived at Arlington. He resigned as Army officer when it was clear that the Union & Confederate militaries would go to war. As result of the Civil War, Lee lost his home, and the USA government turned into the renown Arlington National Cemetery.
There is a lot of twists snd turns so much so that I feel quite badly for General Robert E Lee. His famous wife sounds like an unpleasant harpy. His children floundered, tethered to their father and the tumultuous results that followed from Lee’s decisions. From beginning to end, Lee lived a difficult and tad unhappy life. Rightly so, Winfred Scott’s declared prophecy rang true, Lee made the biggest mistake of his life.
Jonathan Horn, the author, wrote a compelling story about General Lee, and his decision which did indeed change the United States history. Lee was part of a splintered country, as it was only 75 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and Lee was caught in the crosshairs of the politics of slavery in free states and slavery states. Horn presents a well rounded, if oft told, story of how things unfolded as Lee made series of impactful decisions. A very good read ending with General Lee’s death in Virginia.
There is a lot of twists snd turns so much so that I feel quite badly for General Robert E Lee. His famous wife sounds like an unpleasant harpy. His children floundered, tethered to their father and the tumultuous results that followed from Lee’s decisions. From beginning to end, Lee lived a difficult and tad unhappy life. Rightly so, Winfred Scott’s declared prophecy rang true, Lee made the biggest mistake of his life.
Jonathan Horn, the author, wrote a compelling story about General Lee, and his decision which did indeed change the United States history. Lee was part of a splintered country, as it was only 75 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and Lee was caught in the crosshairs of the politics of slavery in free states and slavery states. Horn presents a well rounded, if oft told, story of how things unfolded as Lee made series of impactful decisions. A very good read ending with General Lee’s death in Virginia.
April 30, 2018
Jonathan Horn has written an intriguing biography of Robert E. Lee. It is fascinating to see how many ways in which Lee's experiences paralleled the experiences of George Washington as well as the close family ties between the two generals. I was also struck once again by how history can be changed by small events that do not seem to be that momentous at the time. Horn does a good job of showing his readers how Lincoln would probably have selected Lee over a series of generals including Grant to head the Union Army had the former decided that preserving the union was more important that supporting his state of Virginia. We probably would have had a President Lee instead of a President Grant had the decision been different in supporting the Confederacy. Makes me think that the title of the book should have been "The Man Who Almost Became President."
February 14, 2023
A fascinating and riveting account of Lee’s life and his most important civil war battles. Fortunately, the author is not too in love with his subject to present the many, many flaws in Lee’s life and thinking and actions. Unfortunately, he doesn’t really answer the central question that the book purports to address: WHY did Lee choose to side with the Confederacy against the Union which he swore to love. He chose loyalty to his home state, Virginia, which he barely lived any of his life in at all (Arlington was a part of DC for most of Lee’s life there). The reader is forced to conclude that Lee was a liar or a fool, perhaps both, and likely had more motives than outlined here. Anyway, Lee’s life is fascinating, though he is stilled viewed as far more of a hero than he deserves. This book paints a seemingly honest picture.
November 6, 2018
I really dislike when a book is written that does not cover any new ground and is written for the sole purpose to make the author some money. This is the case here. A short 250 page book on Robert e Lee that tries to tie George Washington and Lee together by pointing out similarities and differences.
If you are a student of the civil war and the founding of America and George Washington, this is not your book. There so many better choices to read on Lee or Washington that are much more detailed and better written.
This book just angered me because I was expecting some big revelation but it was a basic bio of Lee.
Pass
If you are a student of the civil war and the founding of America and George Washington, this is not your book. There so many better choices to read on Lee or Washington that are much more detailed and better written.
This book just angered me because I was expecting some big revelation but it was a basic bio of Lee.
Pass
April 22, 2018
A fascinating character study of one the United States' most famous and controversial military figures. I learned so much from this book. Before reading it, I had been aware that Lee had married Mary Custis, the great-granddaughter of Martha Washington, but I had no idea just how closely connected Lee and George Washington actually were.
The book is not a huge, in-depth biography of Lee, but rather a look at one large aspect of Lee's world that dominated, in one way or another, nearly every decision he made in his adult life.
Absolutely fascinating.
The book is not a huge, in-depth biography of Lee, but rather a look at one large aspect of Lee's world that dominated, in one way or another, nearly every decision he made in his adult life.
Absolutely fascinating.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews