Crucible of Command: Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee--The War They Fought, The Peace They Forged

by William C. Davis

A dual biography of two iconic leaders: how they fought a bloody, brutal war, and then forged a lasting peace that fundamentally changed our nation.

They met in person only four times, yet these two men determined the outcome of the Civil War and cast competing styles for the reunited nation. Each the subject of innumerable biographies, Generals Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee have never before been paired as they are here.

Exploring their personalities, their character, and their ethical, moral, political, and military worlds, William C. Davis finds surprising similarities between the two men as well as new perspectives on how their lives prepared them for the war they fought and influenced how they fought it.

Davis reveals Lee's sense of failure before the war, Grant's optimism during disaster, and the sophisticated social and political instincts that each had when waging a war between democracies.

Genres: History, Civil War, Biography, Nonfiction, American Civil War, American History, Military Fiction

544 pages, Hardcover

First published February 15, 2015

About the author

Currently professor of history at Virginia Tech, William C. Davis has written over fifty books, most about the American Civil War. He has won the Jefferson Davis Prize for southern history three times, the Jules F. Landry Award for Southern history once, and has been twice nominated for the Pulitzer Prize.

For several years, he was the editor of the magazine Civil War Times Illustrated. He has also served as a consultant on the A&E television series Civil War Journal.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Generally, I’m not a huge reader of dual-biographies, for the simple reason that I don’t think a single volume is big enough for even the simplest life, much less the lives of two (or more) complicated, historically-resonant people. I mean, if we’re being honest, it’d take five volumes just to cover my life so far. And I’ve only been to the Moon once.

I am always willing to make exceptions, though. William C. Davis has the master’s touch when it comes to multi-life bios. In Three Roads to the Alamo, he did an excellent job tracing the lives of David Crockett, William Travis, and James Bowie, as their life’s journeys took them to a death and immortality in a decrepit Spanish mission in San Antonio. The key, obvious as it seems, was to focus on the striking aspects of their lives that caused them to make the choices that led to Texas. In the case of Crockett, Travis, and Bowie, those aspects were failure and thwarted dreams.

In Crucible of Command, Davis once again proves his deft touch with the multi-life biography. Here, he juxtaposes the two great leaders of the American Civil War: the Union’s Ulysses S. Grant, and the Confederacy’s Robert E. Lee.

Grant is one of the most underrated Americans in history, his generalship demeaned, his presidency dismissed. In the epic prologue to Ken Burns’ The Civil War, narrator David McCulloch intones of Grant: “a failure in everything except marriage and war.” It’s sort of a harsh assessment (though he was transcendent as a general, and devoted as a husband). He was born into a family we’d recognize as solidly middle class. He went to West Point, graduated, and served with distinction during the Mexican War. He struggled financially after Mexico, and also battled alcohol abuse, though Davis dismisses the extent of Grant’s drinking problem. (A voracious researcher, Davis carefully notes in the book when stories about Grant’s drinking arose. Many of them came to light only after Grant began achieving success, and were authored by men who did not necessarily want to see him succeed). With the outbreak of the Civil War, Grant offered his services to the governor of Illinois, raising volunteers. He parlayed that into the command of a regiment. Under the command of lesser men, he managed a string of remarkable successes in the Western Theater. In 1864, he was promoted to Lieutenant General, making him commander of all the Union Armies. He attached himself to the Army of the Potomac and finally, after a series of bloody battles – the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, Petersburg – ran down the Army of Northern Virginia. Commanded by Robert E. Lee.

Lee was born with a famous name that belonged to a famous and dissolute father, Henry “Lighthorse Harry” Lee. Lighthorse Harry was oft light in the wallet, and abandoned his family to deal with his debts. Lee went to West Point, where he excelled, and helped mark the path to Mexico City for Winfield Scott’s army. When hostilities arose between North and South, General Scott offered Lee command of all the Union Armies. Lee chose to side with Virginia, offering his services to the Confederacy. Initially, President Jefferson Davis preferred Joe Johnson. But when Johnson was wounded, Lee took command and – during the Seven Days – thwarted George McClellan’s attempt to invest Richmond. Lee rattled off an impressive series of victories against difficult odds. He whipped John Pope at Second Bull Run. He ground Ambrose Burnside to dust at Fredericksburg. He thrashed Joe Hooker at Chancellorsville. Ultimately, he surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. Yet in defeat, he achieved beatification. He has been immortalized for his chivalry, his courtliness, his daring, and for the loyalty he instilled in his troops. In the words of novelist Michael Shaara, he died “perhaps the most beloved general in the history of American war.”

Davis does not spend a great deal of time on the prewar or postwar lives of Grant or Lee. The bulk of the ink here is spilled on comparing these two men as generals. With that said, it is worth noting this non-war fact about Lee: he liked bigger women.

In time [Mary Custis’] tone changed, confidences became more personal, and the endearments more heartfelt. Lee even felt secure enough to begin writing about her weight – he wanted her to weigh more. He spoke of her becoming “fat & rosy,” happy that “you are getting so fat,” asking “are you perfectly fat,” scolding her when she failed to put on pounds and telling her at their next meeting “I do expect to find you very fat.” In a letter to her mother he spoke of a friend whose fiancée weighed 140 pounds, saying, “Oh bountiful nature what a quantity of love the fellow will have.”

I don’t know about you, but I find these personal touches in biographies to be absolutely delightful. And now I am absolute convinced that Lee ordered his disastrous charge at Gettysburg because his head was dancing with images of Botticelli nudes.

In terms of his treatment of Grant’s and Lee’s military capabilities, I don’t think Davis says anything too unexpected with regards to Lee. Lee’s reputation has always been Teflon-coated, and Davis doesn’t do anything to disprove the wisdom of that. He points out Lee’s obvious weaknesses, specifically his inability to give clear and precise commands to his subordinates, but at the end of the day, you can’t argue with his record. (Though I might argue that he achieved much of that record against the Single-A minor leagues of the Union Army officer corps. Lee didn't choose his opponents, obviously, but if he could have chosen his opponents, he definitely would’ve picked McClellan, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker).

Davis gives Grant a nice boost. Since we’re in the middle of a mini Grantissance, this is not particularly earth shattering. It is, however, wonderful to have an esteemed historian like Davis using his bullhorn to shout this from the rafters. Grant was a great general. End stop. He was a hero in his own time, perhaps the hero of his time; yet when he died, his righteousness was soon forgotten. Lost Cause historians stole the Civil War from its context. They – along with Jim Crow – took back all the South lost during the War. With regards to Grant, this meant a reputation left in tatters. He became a drunk and a butcher. A man without talent or skill, save the ability to order thousands of his troops into the maw of death. He didn't beat Lee; he drowned him in blood. (It is amazing how insidiously well the Lost Cause ruined Grant. To this day, books – that have been edited! – keep repeating fallacious casualty statistics for Grant’s admittedly catastrophic encounter at Cold Harbor).

The historical Grant was not perfect. He was unprepared at Shiloh. He should have made a better reconnaissance at Cold Harbor. He had to rely on other humans, which meant his brilliant thrust at Petersburg came up just short. But he knew how to command men. He had a keen grasp of the grand strategy. And unlike every other Union Army commander in the Eastern Theater, he wasn’t awed by the specter of Lee.

The most surprising (in a good way) thing about Crucible of Command is not in the presentation of Grant and Lee as military men, it’s in Davis’s harsh criticisms of Lee the person. Believe me, this made me giddy. Lee owned slaves. He fought for slavery. His army re-enslaved black men and women. He betrayed his country. All this is obvious and should go unsaid. The myth of Lee is strong, though, and it often goes unsaid, or is explained away.

(There is an anti-revisionist argument that we must allow Lee his sainthood because "he was a man of his times," and we can't judge him from the 21st century. To which I say, no. No. NO. Frederick Douglass. Sojourner Truth. Harriet Tubman. John Brown. William Lloyd Garrison. I could go on. Seriously. Susan B. Anthony. Harriet Beecher Stowe. Charles Sumner. The evils of slavery were not something discovered by liberal professors of the middle to late 20th century. It was right there in Lee's face).

Despite my respect for Davis’s abilities as a historian, I also realize that he’s won three Jefferson Davis Awards for his writings on the Confederacy. One of his books is a big biography of Jefferson Davis himself. Thus, I had a bit of trepidation when I opened this book. I had nothing to fear. This is not a totally unbiased biography, but it is unbiased in a way I hadn’t expected from a guy who lives in Virginia.

Overall a very good book. Well written, filled with keen details (check out the endnotes, because there is a wealth of stuff there as well), and another stone in the great Grant rehabilitation project.

[Barbara K · Rating 5 out of 5]

Because this new GR format puts author profile information above reviews (not my preferred approach, but whatever), I just learned that William C. Davis is a professor at Virginia Tech and has written extensively about Southern history. Had I known that in advance I might have anticipated that this dual biography of Grant and Lee would have something of a Southern bias.

It definitely does not. If anything, Davis seems to like Grant, with his persistent optimism, a bit more than Lee, who is presented as having a religiously-informed fatalism throughout the conduct of the war.

Overall, it's a remarkably even-handed book. Before reading this I knew much more about Grant's life prior to the war, thanks to Chernow's Grant, than Lee's, but Davis paints clear-eyed pictures of them both. He stops short of attempting to tie their behavior as generals directly to their childhoods, but he does call out personality features that recurred, or developed, throughout their lives. Grant, for instance, routinely attempted to make the best out of any situation or predicament, whether it was being stationed by the Army in a remote area of California, or finding his battle plan thwarted by bad weather. Of course that buoyancy could backfire if it led to unnecessary risks. Lee's sense of self was rooted in being a (patrician) Virginian, which caused him to take up arms in a cause that he understood, almost from the start, to be doomed to failure. The risks he took came from desperation.

I can recommend this to anyone with an interest in U.S. Civil War history. My own curiosity about the war and its aftermath has grown through the years, in part as it becomes increasingly clear the extent to which the pernicious "Lost Cause" myth still permeates our culture, and in part because living in Virginia, I now routinely encounter political and battlefield locations or memorials related to the war. That makes it more real than it ever was before.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

Crucible Of Command: Ulysses S. Grant And Robert E. Lee--The War They Fought, The Peace They Forged, by William C. Davis

William C. Davis is an able contemporary historian who has won notable awards for his even-handed writing about Confederate history, and this book is no exception to his usual excellence. It is a considerably sizable work at about 500 pages of core text, along with voluminous endnotes which demonstrate his usual strong attention to primary sources and his worthwhile suspicion of secondary accounts. The author's aim here is a rather complex one, and that is a comparative discussion of the Civil War's two most accomplished generals in their approach to leadership, a comparative biography of sorts that emphasizes the pivotal role of the Civil War in making the reputations of both. Not only does the author accomplish this task with considerable flair, showing a great deal of insight into the stresses that both felt in dealing with the confluence of political and military affairs, but the author also shows that the best way to deal with the problem of myths about both leaders is not to be heavy-handed about it but to present the historical truth and then use that portrayal as a means to correct mistaken ideas about Lee being a marble saint who never viewed the Union as "the enemy" or that Grant was a mere butcher who won through attrition and not through any genuine generalship.

This particular volume begins with a list of maps, a preface, and an introduction that comments on the status of Lee and Grant as icons who have had varying reputations based on the currents of the time. The book then presents Lee and Grant as parallel lives account in the manner of Petrarch, starting with the complicated relationship that both Grant and Lee had in dealing with the overwhelming influence of their troublesome fathers (1). This is followed by a discussion of their experience as students at West Point, where both attended (2). This is followed by a discussion of the experience of both men, who met once in Mexico (3), as well as their shared trials in the aftermath of that war as both faced financial difficulties (4). The author makes the sound point that the Civil War was the crisis that made both of their reputations (5), and that the beginnings of the War offered a strange contrast between Grant coming to the attention of a larger public and Lee being seen as somewhat of a disappointment (6). This is followed by a discussion of Grant's initial triumphs and Lee's frustrations (7) in early 1862, a pattern which is reversed in the summer of that year (9), along with a study of Shilo and the Seven Days Battles (8). The next three chapters show Grant's long and slow process of conceiving of a way to strike at Vicksburg on the one hand while Lee defends at Antietam and Fredericksburg, wins on the offensive at Chancellorsville, and strikes out at Gettysburg (10, 11, 12). This is followed by a discussion of Chickamuga and Chattanooga and the ways that people started to hint at the inevitable clash between Grant and Lee that was about to take place (13), which was brought to pass when Grant was brought East to command the Union armies as a whole and began the Overland Campaign (14). As Lee correctly thought, the Confederacy's days were numbered once Lee's army was forced to defend Richmond and Petersburg in an increasingly difficult siege (15), which resulted in Lee's surrender. The last three chapters then examine the postwar lives of both men, and their struggles to deal with the political aftermath of the Civil War while also maintaining their personal honor (16, 17, 18), a task the author views as being successful for both men. The book ends with notes, a bibliography, acknowledgements, and an index.

It is striking that for the shared importance that Grant and Lee both have as the premier officers of the Civil War on each side, that they only met in person four times over the course of their lives. Still, the author makes a convincing case that both of them had a lot of similarities in the importance both placed on the key role of logistics and their preference for indirect moves and flank attacks and seizing the initiative where possible. Grant appears to be the better manager of people and, in the author's eyes, more in control of a more amiable and honest temper. Lee comes off as being far more cagey, far better at guile than the generally trusting Grant. Still, the author even manages to find that both had remarkably similar political instincts and a similar concern for following the principle of the subordination of military power in the United States to civil authorities, even if civil authorities were generally proud and prickly politicians. If this book is by no means the first of the last book on Grant and Lee, it is a worthwhile volume that will lead the reader to ponder the factors that forge people into greatness, and how even people of different backgrounds and personalities and temperaments can nonetheless share strikingly similar approaches to the art of war and to their general political philosophies. Even if the pairing of Grant and Lee as parallel lives shaped by the Civil War seems obvious (almost as obvious as the pairing of Presidents Lincoln and Davis), this book is no less accomplished if its concept is obvious.

[Mike Studdard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good, fair account of leadership qualities of Grant and Lee

Well written. Willing to dismiss stories about both men as untrue when the facts warrant it. The author has created a mostly highly readable account of two leaders shaped by war and propelled by peace. This is almost too fair an attempt to color both generals as equally strong and both with similar number of faults. Most interesting was my desire to like them both and try to pick one man as the better General. The rebellion was fought on secessionist ground in the main and leaves the loser with little to crow about and much to rue. Grant clearly was a risk taker and plainly spoken and Lee was a man of character of will and duty politically constrained. Of the two, Grant was ever the entrepreneur in thinking, management and pragmatism. Having history on his side over the issue of emancipation and forthright action makes me like him more.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting concept. A comparison of Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant (although that was not his real name--and error at West Point gave him a new name).

The juxtaposition of the two warriors is nicely done. They were quite different in their approach to war, but both shared one characteristic--they fought hard and they fought to win. Grant, early on, showed aggressiveness--e.g., at Belmont. His campaigns at Forts Henry and Donelson also exemplified this early on. Lee? Audacity was his name, as another officer once said. His Seven Days campaign was, on the one hand, hard on his command. But he won a strategic victory against the "over his head" George McClellan.

It is a fascinating read to see the arc of their careers--up to the point where they became adversaries. Two very different styles of leadership. . . .

A nicely rendered dual depiction of Grant and Lee.. . . .

[Allison Anderson Armstrong · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed learning more about Lee and Grant's backgrounds and their personal lives, but thought the writing was a bit confusing, mostly in the sections that detailed battleground events. I agree with Seth's thought that I would have liked to know more about them after the war - Grant's US presidency and Lee's college presidency. The comparisons about their character and life choices were very interesting though, and I was happy to learn that Lee was a Christian. Grant seems to have been a solid, disciplined and faithful person, and it seems like he wasn't quite the drunk that time and history have made him out to be. Overall, I enjoyed this book and the interesting look at the Civil War from both sides and the struggles faced by all.

[Jeffrey McDowell · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic comparison and contrast of two of America's most iconic figures.

[Natalie Laclede · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome! Long but exactly what I thought it would be!

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Crucible of Command: Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee--The War They Fought, The Peace They Forged, by William C. Davis. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2015.

Summary: This is a dual biography of Grant and Lee that studies their contrasting origins and yet similar qualities of command through back and forth narratives covering similar periods leading to their climactic confrontation, the peace they established, and its aftermath.

Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee have been the subjects of numerous biographies, including Grant's own memoirs. What distinguishes this book is that it attempts, and I think, succeeds in rendering parallel accounts of these two men's lives who met first in Mexico and finally at Appomattox Courthouse (and once later when Grant was President).

Davis traces their contrasting childhoods and characters. Lee was the Virginia patrician who loved his home state and rarely traveled from it except on assignments. By contrast, Grant was the merchant's son who moved around, wanted to see the world and was a failure at everything except leading men in battle. Both were educated at West Point, Lee at the top of his class, Grant in the lower half. They briefly encountered each other in the 1840's during the U.S. invasion of Mexico. In the years leading up to the Civil War Lee struggled with resolving the Custis estate while Grant struggled through a series of failed business ventures, finally working in his brother's store in Galena, Illinois.

When war comes, Grant re-joins the army, commanding troops in Kentucky and Tennessee. Lee resigns his commission, and after serving as an assistant to President Davis, eventually gains command of the Army of North Virginia, which he leads for the remainder of the war. We see both learning to command large forces. Grant in his tactical defeat at Belmont, his victories at Forts Henry and Donelson and near disaster at Shiloh. Lee's first command is in western Virginia where he is defeated at the battle of Cheat Mountain. What is clear about both is that they learn from mistakes, develop command staffs around them they can trust and win a series of striking victories that ultimately bring them opposite one another in the campaigns of 1864-1865 where the Union's overwhelming superiority eventually outflanks and surrounds Lee. We discover hardening resolves, of Lee against the Union even while he extricates himself from slave-holding, and Grant from an indifference to the issue of slavery to increased support of emancipation and the capabilities of black soldiers.

The author also explores the political realities each faced and their skill in handling this. Lee learned through constant communication to win the trust of Davis who easily could have micromanaged the war. Grant had to deal with political generals and a sometimes hostile press. Part of the success of both men was their skill in navigating the political realities that military leaders cannot be ignorant of.

While reading this book, I forgot the last phrase in the subtitle--"the peace they forged." This book does not stop with the dignified surrender of Lee nor the magnanimity of Grant in allowing the Confederates to return home with their horses and side arms. It explores the subsequent years and the efforts both made to promote reconstruction, efforts subsequently frustrated. And both men die in their early 60s, after serving as Presidents, Lee of a college, Grant of a country.

William C. Davis interweaves the narratives of the two lives skillfully, and while we see differences between the two men, we see two great military leaders, formed by common training and experience, coping with similar exigencies of war. Davis observes that in some ways, Lee has fared the better of the two, mostly because of the corruption in Grant's administration. But it seems that, while on opposite sides, they were a pair of shining stars of equal brightness. And for the reader interested in biography who thinks they must choose between these great lights, Davis has provided the alternative of discovering them together.

[Idril Celebrindal · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fairly balanced look at the two generals [ETA men; Lee was never a general]. I appreciated Davis's reliance on primary sources. I still think Lee gets more credit than he deserves, but this might be due to Davis's tendency to write from his subject's point of view, making him sound more like an advocate at times than an evaluator.

Lee's interactions with Jefferson Davis, for example, are called a "model working relationship," but that seems to be because Jefferson Davis ended up satisfied with Lee; whereas based on the evidence William Davis provides, Jefferson Davis was jealous of any perceived encroachment on his prerogatives and Lee avoided direct interpersonal conflicts, not just with J. Davis but with everyone (it seems except his wife), becoming the world's most passive-aggressive operator up and down his chain of command (why fire someone incompetent when you can just shunt him off to another part of your organization, so he's still a problem but not your problem?). J. Davis may have been satisfied, but the disfunction seems clear from an outside viewpoint.

I also appreciated the casualty figures from the Seven Days and Antietam. Southern lost causers have sure done a number on history with their portrayals of Grant's casualties versus Lee's.

To be sure, I am not without bias here myself. This is probably as much of Lee as I can take, liberally intercutting his moaning with refreshing doses of Grant. I do feel sorry for Lee; he seems to have never been happy in his life. His childhood was stifled by his mother, in adulthood he missed his family when away from them and felt even more isolated when he was with them. No sooner did he marry his wife than he found her falling short of the Lee family standard (and sending her some truly obnoxious letters trying to change her); perhaps this feeling of family legacy unfulfilled underpinned the rest of his dissatisfaction. He seems to have spent his entire life performing a part for an audience that included everyone he ever met. Grant on the other hand seems to have pretty thoroughly himself at all times, and I find that much more appealing and admirable, any other accomplishments aside.

[patrick Lorelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this would be a good book for anyone whether you are a civil war buff, or just someone who wants to get an over view of the commanders. This book goes back into the early life of both men, and all the way to their deaths. What I liked about this book is you get to see how during the war each man had to deal with critiques. Robert E. Lee were men from the Carolinas because they thought he came to fight for the South to late. He was also looked down upon by some because of being from Virginia. Grant always had to deal with people brining up his drinking which really for the most part was not true. You get a good sense of how they both worked well with certain Generals, and for Grant he also worked well with the navy especially Admiral Porter who helped with the Vicksburg campaign. The author also shows you how they picked there staff these are some things that other books I read don’t even touch on. He does go into some of the problems each had with men not carrying out orders when given, especially during battle. Lee very seldom did anything about it, where Grant would get that person transferred somewhere else. You also get a look at how Lee really looked for Stonewall Jackson for leadership of the troops, and how his death many believed along with Johnston at the battle of Shiloh really changed the course of the entire war that is another book. You get a look at Lee’s surrender which I have read many different accounts on, and this one is a little different. In the book the author speaks of Lee’s home of Arlington and having to leave it. A side note the Arlington cemetery the land was once the property of General lee’s and his family, it was confiscated by the government during the war and not returned, just a little tid bit of info. Overall a very good book. I got this book from netgalley. I gave it 4 stars. Follow us at www.1rad-readerreviews.com

[Michael Denham · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you've ever wondered what Grant was doing while Lee was doing something else (or vice-versa), this is the book for you! It charts an interesting path through the history of these two men - telling, first, the story of what one was doing during a given time, then the other. In comparing and contrasting their lives, Davis comes across somewhat as a Grant apologist and a Lee realist (if not an outright rejectionist). I've always admired Grant and this book only enhanced his esteem in my eyes. But, I must admit that I found Davis' portrayal of Lee to be in contrast with what I've grown to believe and it was somewhat uncomfortable to read - as if Lee were not the deity we hold him to be! I'm quite sure this was Davis' intent - to pierce the aura that has surrounded Lee for over 150 years and paint him as, not only human, but on comparison with Grant, a lesser general and less respectable man.

[victor harris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thorough and very readable. Evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the main figures. The intrigues in the Union ranks to undermine Grant - both political and military, make his achievements all the more remarkable. I was mildly surprised at some of the Longstreet bashing on matters I thought had been put to rest.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a dual biography of Grant and Lee that focuses on their military careers. The first half of the book documents each of their early lives, their West Point experiences, and their service in the Mexican War. The second half is spent on the Civil War. It is a well written and fair assessment of both Generals.

[Erik · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book's generally positive treatment of Robert E. Lee feels dated, but the dual biography format makes for a memorable comparison and contrast with Grant that helps illuminate both men and the war that both commanders brought to a conclusion.

Since this book came out in 2014, so much has happened to the reputation of Lee and America's tolerance for those who view Confederate generals as heroes. From the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017 to the removal of the Lee statue there in 2020, which also saw the taking down of the Lee statue in Richmond, along with the other Confederate statues on Monument Avenue. Lee's stock has not dropped so far since 1865 as it has in the last few years. And recent histories, especially Ty Seidule's "Robert E. Lee and Me" reflect the change in contemporary opinion.

A historian like Davis might not have worried much about contemporary views of a Civil War subject, choosing to focus mostly on what Lee did to try to win the war, but Seidule and other more recent writers on Lee contend that you can't separate the war from its cause -- slavery -- and that that you can't separate Lee's record in the war from his dedication to fighting a treasonous war against the United States to expand slavery.

You can imagine that Seidule wasn't expecting his book to sell many copies to members of Civil War Roundtables in Mississippi or Texas or to win the Jefferson Davis Award, as "Crucible of Command" did in 2014. Davis's bio on the book explains that he's the only four-time winner of the award, which was given out by the American Civil War Museum (formerly the Museum of the Confederacy) in Richmond until the award was quietly allowed to die in 2018. I wonder how much longer publishers will continue to tout this award on the covers of their civil war titles, as an honor named for Lee's boss has certainly already become a liability for many readers.

If you can overlook all that, Davis's book does offer a useful comparison and contrast of the two leading commanders of the war. Despite so many differences in background and position in society, Grant and Lee share much in common. "Rarely in history were two combatants more event matched," Davis writes.

"Both looked to preparation, careful planning, and especially supply to frame victories, yet remained ready on the instant to capitalize on unanticipated exigency. Both preferred the indirect approach and surprise to frontal combat. Both sought to follow up victory by pressing the foe for further gain, and more important, each reacted to unexpected setbacks with quick thinking and opportunism to regain initiative. Their views were hardly identical, and their personalities scarcely intersected, yet if ever they had fought side by side there would have been instant harmony."

Though he admires Lee as much as he does Grant, Davis is not afraid to criticize each figure as a general and as a man. Grant comes in for letting himself be caught by surprise at Shiloh and for drinking, though less than in many Grant biographies. Lee catches blame for failing to supervise subordinates like Richard Ewell, who failed to follow up on success and take Cemetery Ridge in Gettysburg. But when it comes to slavery, Davis lets Lee off very easy, finding that charges were overblown against Lee for harsh treatment of slaves at Arlington or for seeking to defer the manumission granted to enslaved people there in the will of George Washington Parke Custis.

Lee didn't have much connection to slavery and didn't care about it much one way or the other, Davis claims. He agrees with the Lost Cause mythology that Lee raised his sword against the Stars and Stripes not at all for slavery but only out of loyalty to Virginia.

After more recent accounts by Seidule and others, such conclusions are hard to accept. Davis claims that his account is based almost entirely on primary sources rather than other biographies of Lee and Grant, which does seem like it would make "Crucible of Command" more accurate. I'm not a historian, so I didn't check into Davis's use of sources. What I do know is that the trend in history writing is moving away from the kind of "balanced" view of Lee and Grant as morally equivalent and towards putting Lee's accomplishments as a general and his character as a "Christian gentleman" into the context of his actions leading an enslavers' rebellion against the United States.

Perhaps more negative accounts of Lee these days suffer from excessive presentism, and Davis's approach is indeed more fair and accurate than the kind of activist history represented by Seidule. For now, I'm reserving judgment.

[Rodney Harvill · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the parallel lives genre of biography can provide some interesting insights into the backgrounds of prominent historical figures, I think its use in this dual biography of Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee is a bit overblown. That said, this book proved to be a good overview of Civil War history that held my interest quite well.

Prior to reading this book, I had heard repeatedly that Lee had been offered the overall command of U.S. Army forces but had turned the offer down. The book confirms this and provides more detail in the matter. Lee turned down the offer and resigned his commission after his home state of Virginia seceded. He didn’t want to fight against his own state and family, and I can’t really blame him. He is most famous for his role as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, but the Confederacy initially had him in a staff role of organizing and coordinating units in Virginia and elsewhere. It wasn’t until General Joseph Johnston was wounded while fending off General McClellan’s Peninsular Campaign that General Lee took field command and so aggressively and repeatedly attacked Union forces with inferior Confederate numbers that McClellan was convinced that he faced overwhelming enemy strength and retreated. Although Lee chose to fight for the Confederacy, President Lincoln had rightly judged him to be a competent commander in his early decision to offer him command of Union forces.

An interesting point about Lee was the mockery and vilification he received in the northern press during the war. Because he was such a prominent and successful Confederate general, the northern press attempted to discredit his character with lurid and most probably false accounts of his dealings with slaves on family plantations. Furthermore, there were occasional rumors of conflicts between him and Confederate President Davis that the northern press regularly repeated in its hope for a speedy and easy victory, which was pure and unadulterated wishful thinking. Such character assassination by the press when it choses sides in an issue continues to this day. There is nothing new under the sun.

In describing the hardening of Lee’s attitude toward the North over the course of the war, the author shows good insights into the dynamics of human psychology. Lee’s attitude hardened with steady exposure to the death, destruction and human suffering caused by the war. Interestingly enough, the antebellum culture wars between abolitionists and slavery advocates ultimately escalated into a shooting war because of the hardening of attitudes. I can’t help noticing the hardening of attitudes in the culture warring of my own day and wonder where it will lead.

Grant is known for his bulldog tenacity, without which he could not have succeeded against wily Confederate generals such as Robert E. Lee. For example, he made numerous failed attempts to outmaneuver the Vicksburg defenses, but he succeeded because he never gave up. However, the author explores another attribute essential to his success, his background as a quartermaster. Robert Hilliard Barrow once said, “Amateurs talk about strategy and tactics. Professionals talk about logistics and sustainability in warfare.” Part of his genius lay in maintaining an adequate and secure supply chain and in knowing when to tighten the belt and live off the land.

Because both the Union and Confederate armies were staffed by officers trained at West Point, they employed similar tactics and had a lot of the same problems, and Grant and Lee had their own unique ways of resolving them. When I was younger, I was fascinated by the battle histories, etc. As a middle-aged engineer, I find issues of logistics and personnel management to be quite fascinating and consider the exploration of them to be a strength of the book.

[Melanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I started reading this book because I wanted to know why it is that there are so many statues of Robert E. Lee littered around the United States. I mean, he was a traitor and the South did lose the war, so what's up with that. Was he really such a great general and all-around wonderful guy?

No. But neither was Grant. If the book is a valid representation, it seems like the both might have been a bit on the incompetent side. Nothing really special about them. In fact, the thing that stands out the most for both Grant and Lee is that they could not get the other generals in their command to obey orders. If it'd only been one of them to have this problem, the other would have won.

As for being a pillar of Southern culture and morals, I suppose he was. He was a rabid Christian and pro-slavery. I am always amazed at how these things go together, but they do. Lee basically did not think the slaves were smart enough to be free. And, of course, god made black people to be servants to white people so in a way, he was doing them a favor.

In my mind, the answer to the question of whether their should be statues to Lee, the answer is no. The statues are not erected for the man but rather what he symbolizes, which isslavery.

As to the book itself, I finished it. I learned a few things.The writting isn't terrible, but it is certainly not good. Parallels are drawn between the two generals where there is no commonality except that they are different. At one point, the author writes something like, "It was a meeting neither one of them would ever forget." I suppose that is a valid parallel but, you know, Lee surrendering to Grant does seem like something a whole lot of people probably remembered. So three stars, although 2.5 would have been better.

[Ross Anderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Honestly, the reason I craved learning from Davis' research is for clarity on the character of Robert E. Lee. More than one friend have shared with me the monstrous stories from the New York Tribune of "Woman Whipper" Lee as his statues are being torn down. I was ready to believe the accounts of him thrashing a 16-year-old runaway and pouring salt brine on her wounds, and looking the other way as his students at Washington and Lee killed and raped black citizens, but only if it was backed by more than tabloid sensationalism of its day.

These two men have been the subject of mythology, and I was glad to see Davis leads with that acknowledgement from the start. It is a discredit to either man to make them into plaster-saints, or similarly into demonized representations of racism. This book humanizes both.

In recent days of 2020, Grant's statue was likewise torn down, and hearing more about this coarse, unassuming, trusting, honest general was an added bonus for me. The similarities between Lee and Grant were strangely pleasing to hear. There was never a friendship between the two of them, but perhaps a strong respect.

What did Davis show me about Lee's (and Grant's) moral virtues or failures? Was he more the monster as advertised in the Northern papers or the perfect man the South needed him to be? Davis' work discredits both myths. To see how, I'd strongly recommend reading.

[Chad Manske · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having read a fair amount of bios and history of the Civil War, I had never come across a dual biography such as this featuring Grant and Lee. Author William Davis created this comprehensive tome that compares and contrasts the upbringing and rise of both Civil War military commanders—which I would go out on a limb to say has never been done before. In his thoroughly researched book we see the character, ethics, morals, fears and failures of both—in time of peace and war and the peace following the war. Though they would only meet 4 times ever, their love of country was never in question in pursuit what they thought was best. Lee could have gone either way but his siding with the Confederate cause came down to the Union soldiers coming through his beloved Virginia. Grant was gracious in the post-war treatment of Lee, who went on to lead a university and a railroad before passing away at 62. Grant would have a successful political career, by most measures, but fell destitute after leaving public life. And only with the assistance of Mark Twain to help publish and sell his memoirs, which are still read widely today, there would have been nothing for his family. He would also pass at age 62. Interestingly, Lee had a negative foreboding before the war, while Grant, in the midst of his handful of failures, often saw silver-lining optimism. Civil War buffs who’ve read this volume will want to add it it to their reading list!

[Tim Armstrong · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting concept for a book, but there is really nothing new covered here. It's perfect if you want to learn more about two of the most important figures in the Civil War, however this is basically a "greatest hits" of the two subjects lives, with great emphasis on their Civil War service. Not terrible by any means, and I enjoyed reading it, but I learned little from it.

My biggest criticism was the author's treatment of Lee as a slaveowner. It was a little too apologetic, Lee was not a benevolent slave owner as this author makes it seem. Other biographers have written extensively on Lee's views and actions towards slaves and slavery and he was decidedly more brutal than what was presented here. Not sure if it was idolism, hagiography or Lost Cause-ism creeping in.

Serviceable but not great. You'd be better to check out Robert E. Lee: A Life, Grant, or American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant.

[Jim Gallen · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Crucible of Command” is a dual biography of Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, focusing naturally enough on the war they fought but also contrasting their divergent backgrounds and briefly following their post-war lives.

The paths that led them to Appomattox varied. Grant was from a middle-class family with reasonable prosperity while Lee hailed from one of the first families of Virginia embarrassed by his father’s financial dissipation. Both graduated from West Point, Lee at the top of his class, Grant significantly lower. Lee was considered the most promising officer in the Army, while Grant resigned after drinking problems on the West Coast.

Author William C. Davis alternates between the two men as they lived their parallel lives and fought against each other. This provides interesting perspectives as to the strengths and weakness each brought to their battles and how each approached the field. At the end of the war each faced an uncertain future. Grant entered politics and Lee found a home at Washington College, now Washington & Lee University. Davis’ writing style keeps the reader engaged and facilitates understanding of which subject is being considered. This is a helpful part of the Civil War canon.

[Brett's Books · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm begining to read a number of books about the Civil War, Lee and Grant, and it is interesting how each author has a slightly different focus from the last, a twist that makes their books different. Unlike Chernow's "Grant," Mr. Davis's "Crucible" is not an exhaustive recounting of the life of either general. Instead, Mr. Davis compares and contrasts the too, glossing many Mexican-American War, and Civil War battles, except where Lee and Grant's approaches to battle are contrasted. Lee always surprising his larger foe with daring strategy, Grant the relentless pursuer. Similarly, the personal lives of the two men is largely glossed, except where the author can directly contrast them, Lee reserved, embarrassed of the family legacy and reluctantly drawn to defend Virginia, Grant quiet and determined to make something of himself through his own sweat. Lee gracious, but quietly bitter in defeat, Grant magnanimous but ambitious for more wins, this time on the political stage. Interesting, but not enough time is spent on either man to be truly engaging.

[Michael Philliber · Rating 5 out of 5]

The point of this dual biography is that it is "an exploration of the origins and development of Grant's and Lee's personalities and characters, their ethical and moral compasses, and their thinking processes and approaches to decision making -- in short, the things that made the kind of commanders they became" (xi). William C. Davis, a prolific writer on the Civil War and Southern history, has accomplished what he aimed for.

It's not necessary for a reader to have much background in the battlefields and movements of Union and Confederate forces, though it wouldn't hurt. Yet, there are maps, descriptions and photos that will aid all who dive into these pages. But the book is primarily about the two main characters. The battles are where the qualities of each often showed themselves. As the author notes, a "great general in history is often defined less by the battles he wins than by the defeats he can survive" (395). I definitely recommend the work.

[Angel Hatfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

Grant was from a middle class family. Grant went to West Point and graduated. He served in the Mexican War. Financially he struggled after the Mexican War and there were rumors of alcohol problems. Then the Civil War broke out and Grant went to the governor of Illinois and offered his services. In 1864 Grant became the commander of all the union armies. Lee also went to West Point where he did very well. Lee was offered command of the union armies but Lee sided with Virginia and the south. Originally Joe Johnson was the head of the confederacy. But when Johnson was hurt Lee took over and orchestrated a lot of victories against very tough odds. But in the end Lee surrendered to Grant.
This was well written and showed the contrasts and likenesses of both generals. But I did get confused at times. Also it dragged for me at times. But I did enjoy this and I recommend this book.

[William Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best Civil War book I have ever read. The back and forth of the life, command challenges, and perspectives of Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee is amazing. There is no better way to get a perspective on leadership and the human characteristics of leadership than this book. I highly recommend reading The Autobiography of General Ulysses S Grant: Memoirs of the Civil War and The Life and Letters of Robert E. Lee. These three books together is amazing experience that I would challenge any historian or military officer to read.

[Mikel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love Ulysses S. Grant. He was so human and so humble. There was greatness in him and great weakness. He acknowledged the latter but never gave himself enough credit for the former.

Rober E. Lee on the other hand is easy to respect but harf to love. This boom paints him as being often depressed and staunchly committed to 'duty'. He always did what he believed was his duty. Strangely that sometimes meant his own actions were in contradiction to eachother.

The book was well written. Some knowledge of major battles and generals in the civil war would be helpful before reading this book. Having lived in the South, I read a lot of civil war histories and visited several battlefields. So while I didn't find most of the battle passages too troublesome, that might not be the case for someone without some knowledge on Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Johnston, and Stonewall Jackson.

[Scott Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Audiobook) This comparative biography is mainly focused on the military backgrounds of both men, with just enough personal details to offer the back-story to each man's service. The bulk of the work focuses on the Mexican-American War and Civil War, which was the primary area of military service for both. It tries to steer a somewhat neutral course about the life and actions of both men. Davis does much to dispel some of the worst rumors about and his actions against his slaves, but Lee was hardly a paradigm of abolitionism. Grant had his issues with the bottle, but many of the rumors of his drunkenness are also dispelled.

Overall, a decent military-centric overview of the men. However, look to other sources for a more complete biographic sketch of the individuals. The rating is the same regardless of format.

[Saklani · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazingly excellent book, with a deep examination of both men, their strengths and weaknesses. Because the Local Cause mythology blotted truth from history for a long time (and too many people still want to cling to today), much of Grant's greatness was fogged and Lee was vastly overrated. However, of the two, Grant was the more optimistic, flexible and progressive. Lee grew to hate the Union and only agreed with the Southern states reunifying with the rest of the US to alleviate being under Union control. Grant, meanwhile, wanted a peaceful reconciliation and did all he could while President to protect the freedmen (and Native Americans, too). They really were the other's most difficult opponents.

[Paula Yerke · Rating 3 out of 5]

After a recent visit to Gettysburg, I thought to brush up on my civil war knowledge. This book is a mammoth study of that war and the two renowned generals who fought it. It was a challenging book to get through. The battle scenes are tough to follow. (Maps seemed necessary) The idea of a dual biography, though, was interesting. I do feel like I know these 2 men much better than I did. The book only gets 3 stars from me because of the effort it took to get though it. It was definitely my challenge book of the year but worth it!

[Michael Ramirez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read in that the focus was less in actual events than Grant and Lee’s changing perspectives, but at times the timeline used in the book was confusing. I am glad that Lee’s falsified image as a “noble warrior” was somewhat attacked in the book (as it should be). The author sometimes misattributed certain decisions on the Union side to Grant when they were in fact the particular general in the field, and additionally could have taken a harder stance in pointing out that Lee and the South were morally inferior, but a close, impartial read should nonetheless reveal that outcome.