What do you think?
Lee: An Abridgment by Richard Harwell of the Four-Volume R.E. Lee by Douglas Southall Freeman
A condensation of Freeman's definitive biography of the Confederate hero
601 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1935
About the author
Douglas Southall Freeman
243 books100 followersThe son of a Confederate veteran, Douglas Southall Freeman was long interested in the Civil War. A man of intense work ethic, he earned his PhD at 22, then balanced a journalist's demanding schedule with a historian's, as he churned out Lee's Dispatches (1915), the Pulitzer-Prize-winning four-volume R. E. Lee: A Biography (1934-35), Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command (1942-44), and finally, the multi-volume George Washington (1948-54). A respected historian, renown for his research, he garnered fame in his native Virginia and the friendship of major military figures.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews
July 12, 2012
Let us not put too fine a point on it...Douglas Southall Freeman simply LOVES Robert E. Lee. If you have also read Freeman's equally exhaustive biography of Washington, you can debate which man Freeman loves more. At times the prose, though beautifully written, can get positively gushy. There is no way the reader can consider this an objective biography.
No doubt D.S. Freeman was a great writer. No doubt that Freeman was even a good historian. However, every Civil War historian worth his salt knows that while Freeman's biography of Lee may be the place to start to read about the General, it is not the place to finish. While there probably isn't still a definitive biography of Lee, one should be wary of just reading Freeman's work. While Freeman did spend almost his entire life researching Lee, his idol worship of Lee gets in the way of serious scholarship. Surely Lee is not quite the imperfect person that later biographers set out to prove, nor was he the perfect person that Freeman wrote about. He was a person, with great things about him, faults, and all the rest. While Lee does not deserve to be run through the mud just to tarnish his image, one should probably read Freeman's bio, T.L. Connelly's The Marble Man, and Emory Thomas' bio of Lee to get a fuller picture. Freeman's work is exhaustively researched and is very well written, but reads more like idolatry than biography.
It is not unbiased. Lee is practically shown as infallible, the Yankees are portrayed as malignant, vile creatures that cheerfully trample the Constitution underfoot, and Lee's mistakes are written off to the bumbling incompetence of his subordinates. While the biography abounds with detail (which makes it an indispensable part of any good bibliography), there is definitely an agenda at work here. This is work which needs to read in concert with more recent scholarship.
One thing I found unsettling is the erroneous descriptions of Lee's relationship with Montgomery Meigs, the army engineer who worked for Lee on the Mississippi River projects when they were both young officers. Meigs ultimately grew to become a force in the founding of Arlington National Cemetery, on the property where Lee's mansion was located. It is well known that although Lee and Meigs worked well together on the early project, and parted friends at the time, they developed a very hostile relationship later when Lee decided to cast his lot with the South. Meigs even advocated that Lee should be sentenced to death if caught. Having been made Quartermaster General of the Federal army, Meigs led the way to appropriation of the Lee estate, its conversion to a cemetery for Union dead, and ultimately the establishment of the Arlington National Cemetery on the site. After the war, Meigs advocated the deportation of Lee, and fought the Lee family's effort to regain title to the Arlington property. The Lees regained the property nevertheless, and sold it back to the government which could not at that stage abandon the well established burial place.
In contrast to these facts, Freeman states that after leaving the Mississippi projects, "Lee parted from Meigs when they reached Washington and was not again fortunate enough to have him as an assistant, but he was always affectionately remembered by the younger man, even when war divided them". This conclusion doesn't result from lack of information, because the facts were known in 1934 when Freeman wrote the book, and it leads you to wonder what else is incorrect in the book.
This biography of General Robert E. Lee would have you believe that he was the ultimate Southern gentleman: dutiful, handsome, brave, pious, generous, and nearly faultless practically from the day he was born. It may be so. There's no doubt that he exhibited all of these qualities, but many of the observations no longer ring true. For instance, the author's assertion that because Lee spent very little time in Virginia after going off to West Point, he saw only the "good" side of slavery is a hollow argument in my opinion. Likewise, Lee's own statement that slavery was not only good for the negro (his term) race, but also God's will (and one dare not defy the will of God) is spurious at best. God's will must have mellowed late in the war because Lee himself forwarded a plan to Jefferson Davis to offer emancipation to slaves who would fight for the Confederacy. The apparent contradiction in these views goes unquestioned. His care for the common soldier (even captured Federals) is oft quoted; the state of Union prisoners in the South goes unmentioned (I am being a bit unfair here, as Lee had nothing to do with the administration of POW camps, but you get the point).
Lee was most emphatically not a brilliant field marshal, all the Southern mysticism surrounding the man notwithstanding. Lee was an utter fool on the battlefield, whose feckless leadership very nearly single-handedly destroyed the Confederate Army at Gettysburg.
Pickett’s Charge, the frontal assault on the heart of Union defenses arrayed on Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg could not have been a more militarily foolhardy undertaking. The Confederates were outnumbered and the Union was defending the high ground which it had held and fortified for the two previous days. Every military strategist knows full well that defending a perimeter requires fewer troops than attacking; even more so when the defensive perimeter enjoys some geographical advantage, such as elevation. The general rule is that it takes 3-4 times as much offensive man- and firepower to successfully attack a fortified defensive position, and perhaps double that multiple when attacking a position that also enjoys some geographic advantage. Yet Lee, thinking not with his head, but with his heart, ordered the assault anyway, sending thousands to their immediate deaths, and ultimately, the Confederacy to its military demise.
Yet Southerners romantically mythologize and revere Lee for the assault, thinking it to be one of the finest expressions of the Southern ideal that no folly is too great in the service of intensely-felt emotion. For the antebellum Southerner, suicide in the service of holding back modern impulses pushing against traditional ways of life, which is a more or less apt description of Pickett’s charge in particular and of secession in its entirety, expressed the depth of feeling one had for the cause, which in turn, sanctified the cause and the emotion felt for it, as worthy and just .
Likewise the common soldier of the Army of Northern Virginia is second only to Lee in valor and duty. In fact, 40% of all Southern armies had gone AWOL by 1863. There is hardly any mention of them ever being taken prisoner. Lee had strict standing orders against looting by his soldiers while in the North. Strictly true, but they still took what they wanted and "paid" for it with worthless Confederate currency.
Also, contrary to popular belief, Lee did, in fact own slaves, and he wasn't very humane or gentle with them.
Lee's lieutenants get more even treatment, but even here their rougher edges are polished off. For instance Dick Ewell is said to use "quaint" language; a better description would be "blisteringly profane."
The real treasure of these books is to the planning, maps, movements, and thought processes behind the conduct of the War by the Army of Northern Virginia. I know of no better source for information of the engagements of Lee's Army. Great care is taken to present only the information that Lee had available at the time of each, which makes his victories all the more remarkable. His ability to balance chance and reward in the face of long odds is equally remarkable. The book is also relentlessly footnoted and provides insight into the author's conclusions on topics that are not universally accepted.
No doubt D.S. Freeman was a great writer. No doubt that Freeman was even a good historian. However, every Civil War historian worth his salt knows that while Freeman's biography of Lee may be the place to start to read about the General, it is not the place to finish. While there probably isn't still a definitive biography of Lee, one should be wary of just reading Freeman's work. While Freeman did spend almost his entire life researching Lee, his idol worship of Lee gets in the way of serious scholarship. Surely Lee is not quite the imperfect person that later biographers set out to prove, nor was he the perfect person that Freeman wrote about. He was a person, with great things about him, faults, and all the rest. While Lee does not deserve to be run through the mud just to tarnish his image, one should probably read Freeman's bio, T.L. Connelly's The Marble Man, and Emory Thomas' bio of Lee to get a fuller picture. Freeman's work is exhaustively researched and is very well written, but reads more like idolatry than biography.
It is not unbiased. Lee is practically shown as infallible, the Yankees are portrayed as malignant, vile creatures that cheerfully trample the Constitution underfoot, and Lee's mistakes are written off to the bumbling incompetence of his subordinates. While the biography abounds with detail (which makes it an indispensable part of any good bibliography), there is definitely an agenda at work here. This is work which needs to read in concert with more recent scholarship.
One thing I found unsettling is the erroneous descriptions of Lee's relationship with Montgomery Meigs, the army engineer who worked for Lee on the Mississippi River projects when they were both young officers. Meigs ultimately grew to become a force in the founding of Arlington National Cemetery, on the property where Lee's mansion was located. It is well known that although Lee and Meigs worked well together on the early project, and parted friends at the time, they developed a very hostile relationship later when Lee decided to cast his lot with the South. Meigs even advocated that Lee should be sentenced to death if caught. Having been made Quartermaster General of the Federal army, Meigs led the way to appropriation of the Lee estate, its conversion to a cemetery for Union dead, and ultimately the establishment of the Arlington National Cemetery on the site. After the war, Meigs advocated the deportation of Lee, and fought the Lee family's effort to regain title to the Arlington property. The Lees regained the property nevertheless, and sold it back to the government which could not at that stage abandon the well established burial place.
In contrast to these facts, Freeman states that after leaving the Mississippi projects, "Lee parted from Meigs when they reached Washington and was not again fortunate enough to have him as an assistant, but he was always affectionately remembered by the younger man, even when war divided them". This conclusion doesn't result from lack of information, because the facts were known in 1934 when Freeman wrote the book, and it leads you to wonder what else is incorrect in the book.
This biography of General Robert E. Lee would have you believe that he was the ultimate Southern gentleman: dutiful, handsome, brave, pious, generous, and nearly faultless practically from the day he was born. It may be so. There's no doubt that he exhibited all of these qualities, but many of the observations no longer ring true. For instance, the author's assertion that because Lee spent very little time in Virginia after going off to West Point, he saw only the "good" side of slavery is a hollow argument in my opinion. Likewise, Lee's own statement that slavery was not only good for the negro (his term) race, but also God's will (and one dare not defy the will of God) is spurious at best. God's will must have mellowed late in the war because Lee himself forwarded a plan to Jefferson Davis to offer emancipation to slaves who would fight for the Confederacy. The apparent contradiction in these views goes unquestioned. His care for the common soldier (even captured Federals) is oft quoted; the state of Union prisoners in the South goes unmentioned (I am being a bit unfair here, as Lee had nothing to do with the administration of POW camps, but you get the point).
Lee was most emphatically not a brilliant field marshal, all the Southern mysticism surrounding the man notwithstanding. Lee was an utter fool on the battlefield, whose feckless leadership very nearly single-handedly destroyed the Confederate Army at Gettysburg.
Pickett’s Charge, the frontal assault on the heart of Union defenses arrayed on Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg could not have been a more militarily foolhardy undertaking. The Confederates were outnumbered and the Union was defending the high ground which it had held and fortified for the two previous days. Every military strategist knows full well that defending a perimeter requires fewer troops than attacking; even more so when the defensive perimeter enjoys some geographical advantage, such as elevation. The general rule is that it takes 3-4 times as much offensive man- and firepower to successfully attack a fortified defensive position, and perhaps double that multiple when attacking a position that also enjoys some geographic advantage. Yet Lee, thinking not with his head, but with his heart, ordered the assault anyway, sending thousands to their immediate deaths, and ultimately, the Confederacy to its military demise.
Yet Southerners romantically mythologize and revere Lee for the assault, thinking it to be one of the finest expressions of the Southern ideal that no folly is too great in the service of intensely-felt emotion. For the antebellum Southerner, suicide in the service of holding back modern impulses pushing against traditional ways of life, which is a more or less apt description of Pickett’s charge in particular and of secession in its entirety, expressed the depth of feeling one had for the cause, which in turn, sanctified the cause and the emotion felt for it, as worthy and just .
Likewise the common soldier of the Army of Northern Virginia is second only to Lee in valor and duty. In fact, 40% of all Southern armies had gone AWOL by 1863. There is hardly any mention of them ever being taken prisoner. Lee had strict standing orders against looting by his soldiers while in the North. Strictly true, but they still took what they wanted and "paid" for it with worthless Confederate currency.
Also, contrary to popular belief, Lee did, in fact own slaves, and he wasn't very humane or gentle with them.
Lee's lieutenants get more even treatment, but even here their rougher edges are polished off. For instance Dick Ewell is said to use "quaint" language; a better description would be "blisteringly profane."
The real treasure of these books is to the planning, maps, movements, and thought processes behind the conduct of the War by the Army of Northern Virginia. I know of no better source for information of the engagements of Lee's Army. Great care is taken to present only the information that Lee had available at the time of each, which makes his victories all the more remarkable. His ability to balance chance and reward in the face of long odds is equally remarkable. The book is also relentlessly footnoted and provides insight into the author's conclusions on topics that are not universally accepted.
September 1, 2017
On 22 January 1861 Colonel Robert E. Lee wrote: “I wish to live under no other government, and there is no sacrifice I am not ready to make for the preservation of the Union save that of honour. If a disruption takes place, I shall go back in sorrow to my people and share the misery of my native State, and save in her defense there will be one soldier less in the world than now. I wish for no other flag than the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ and no other air than ‘Hail Columbia’ I still hope that the wisdom and patriotism of the nation will save it.” On 19 April 1861, the Commonwealth of Virginia seceded from the Union, he stated previously that “I am one of those dull creatures that cannot see the good of secession.” Later, following the surrender at Appomattox, General Lee would state that “General Grant has acted with magnanimity” to the terms that were offered and accepted.
“First in War, First in Peace, First in the hearts of his Countrymen” would be the last effective effort that General Lee’s Father would have on the impact of his country as stated at the funeral of President Washington by Henry Lee III (aka “Light Horse Harry Lee”), 9th Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, strong Federalist, and man of perpetual bad luck following this last national public appearance 18 December 1799. Later, when two year old Robert was forced to move with his family to Alexandria Virginia it was a financially difficult time for the Lee family. His mother would be the force behind his being raised in a Christian home based on frugality of want and lack of financial resources as a result of Henry Lee III having to have left the family for a period of time, and not just once. Later, the young man with no resources would discover an opportunity to attend the Military Academy at West Point; it was here that he discovered his talents and the beginnings of a strong character would begin to evolve.
The newly minted U.S. Army Engineer was of sound mind, strong spirit, determined will, and a professionally focused United States Army Officer. His work in the Western Frontier in Missouri and Texas would prove his metal and challenge his capabilities but he never gave in, and always continued to find a “better way” to attempt to solve problems of both Engineering calculations and/or of Courts Martials he had to conduct out west. During the Mexican-American War General Winfield Scott would provide written words of commendation for a then Captain Lee to the War Department on his after action report.
Dr. Freeman provided a detail account of the life of General Lee and his writing style didn’t always work with my own ability of ebbed weave and reading flow. For example, the use of exclamation points I could not “feel” as the contextual text led to the crescendo intended within the framework. This by no means takes away from the prose of the author, nor the subject – it is merely one small iota of discovery I made on myself and is likely my own inability to “read” in a more critical form. Still, I would chuckle at myself during those few moments where the point attempted to be made by the author had relatively no impact on my sense of “feeling” during those specific passages.
The Battles of the War Between the States are well covered in this abridged version, but this is a book (again) about General Robert E. Lee and not the individual soldier. Following the conclusion of this war General Lee did encourage those surviving soldiers to write their own stories of experiences for the sake of History. Some of them did as we know, as did individual soldiers of the Union. The most important parts of this work in my opinion are the ante-bellum and post-bellum periods of the time. While serving as President of Washington College, former General Lee was out riding with Professor White and in a quiet manner and the only known time he spoke of Gettysburg he stated, “If I had had Stonewall Jackson with me, so far as man can see, I should have won the Battle of Gettysburg.” One can surmise that the darkest days of Gettysburg had fallen by fate on the picket lines of Chancellorsville in this matter of speaking.
Lastly, this abridged version of the four-volume set by Dr. D.S. Freeman in my opinion is a work of historical significance to the most beloved General in the History of the United States of America. Robert E. Lee was born an American and died as an American. Following the conclusion of the American War Between the States, General Lee used his notoriety (what we today would call “celebrity”) to bring people together and encouraged all Americans to work toward a more perfect union of the nation. He didn’t fight for a cause; he fought for the choice that his beloved Commonwealth of Virginia had decided upon without his specific input. His fame was without vanity and even his property that was confiscated in a tax scheme by the U.S. Government was not something he held against the Government after the war. If anything was proven during the final 5 years of his life it was that General Lee kept the tragedy of war from becoming a national calamity. The retribution placed against the Southern States after this war as reported to President Roosevelt on 25 July 1938 were damning to say the least.(http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearch...) Regardless of what schools teach in American History, the truth be told that Reconstruction ended on 7 December 1941 and not as taught in 1877. Modern American History begins in 1941 as much as modern European History begins in 1914. Arlington National Cemetery is consecrated with the War Dead of American Service Members, to include the sanctity of the Confederate War Dead. History cannot be changed and should always be taught to the time to which it occurred free of modern day opinions and emotions.
Author William Manchester once wrote “Americans are experts at everything” and in this he was correct – this was stated by him in the fact finding and commissioned work by Jackie Kennedy and Robert Kennedy in “Death of a President” – it remains as much a fact to History as does Dr. Freeman’s work on “Lee” or “Washington.” History cannot be changed.
“First in War, First in Peace, First in the hearts of his Countrymen” would be the last effective effort that General Lee’s Father would have on the impact of his country as stated at the funeral of President Washington by Henry Lee III (aka “Light Horse Harry Lee”), 9th Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, strong Federalist, and man of perpetual bad luck following this last national public appearance 18 December 1799. Later, when two year old Robert was forced to move with his family to Alexandria Virginia it was a financially difficult time for the Lee family. His mother would be the force behind his being raised in a Christian home based on frugality of want and lack of financial resources as a result of Henry Lee III having to have left the family for a period of time, and not just once. Later, the young man with no resources would discover an opportunity to attend the Military Academy at West Point; it was here that he discovered his talents and the beginnings of a strong character would begin to evolve.
The newly minted U.S. Army Engineer was of sound mind, strong spirit, determined will, and a professionally focused United States Army Officer. His work in the Western Frontier in Missouri and Texas would prove his metal and challenge his capabilities but he never gave in, and always continued to find a “better way” to attempt to solve problems of both Engineering calculations and/or of Courts Martials he had to conduct out west. During the Mexican-American War General Winfield Scott would provide written words of commendation for a then Captain Lee to the War Department on his after action report.
Dr. Freeman provided a detail account of the life of General Lee and his writing style didn’t always work with my own ability of ebbed weave and reading flow. For example, the use of exclamation points I could not “feel” as the contextual text led to the crescendo intended within the framework. This by no means takes away from the prose of the author, nor the subject – it is merely one small iota of discovery I made on myself and is likely my own inability to “read” in a more critical form. Still, I would chuckle at myself during those few moments where the point attempted to be made by the author had relatively no impact on my sense of “feeling” during those specific passages.
The Battles of the War Between the States are well covered in this abridged version, but this is a book (again) about General Robert E. Lee and not the individual soldier. Following the conclusion of this war General Lee did encourage those surviving soldiers to write their own stories of experiences for the sake of History. Some of them did as we know, as did individual soldiers of the Union. The most important parts of this work in my opinion are the ante-bellum and post-bellum periods of the time. While serving as President of Washington College, former General Lee was out riding with Professor White and in a quiet manner and the only known time he spoke of Gettysburg he stated, “If I had had Stonewall Jackson with me, so far as man can see, I should have won the Battle of Gettysburg.” One can surmise that the darkest days of Gettysburg had fallen by fate on the picket lines of Chancellorsville in this matter of speaking.
Lastly, this abridged version of the four-volume set by Dr. D.S. Freeman in my opinion is a work of historical significance to the most beloved General in the History of the United States of America. Robert E. Lee was born an American and died as an American. Following the conclusion of the American War Between the States, General Lee used his notoriety (what we today would call “celebrity”) to bring people together and encouraged all Americans to work toward a more perfect union of the nation. He didn’t fight for a cause; he fought for the choice that his beloved Commonwealth of Virginia had decided upon without his specific input. His fame was without vanity and even his property that was confiscated in a tax scheme by the U.S. Government was not something he held against the Government after the war. If anything was proven during the final 5 years of his life it was that General Lee kept the tragedy of war from becoming a national calamity. The retribution placed against the Southern States after this war as reported to President Roosevelt on 25 July 1938 were damning to say the least.(http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearch...) Regardless of what schools teach in American History, the truth be told that Reconstruction ended on 7 December 1941 and not as taught in 1877. Modern American History begins in 1941 as much as modern European History begins in 1914. Arlington National Cemetery is consecrated with the War Dead of American Service Members, to include the sanctity of the Confederate War Dead. History cannot be changed and should always be taught to the time to which it occurred free of modern day opinions and emotions.
Author William Manchester once wrote “Americans are experts at everything” and in this he was correct – this was stated by him in the fact finding and commissioned work by Jackie Kennedy and Robert Kennedy in “Death of a President” – it remains as much a fact to History as does Dr. Freeman’s work on “Lee” or “Washington.” History cannot be changed.
February 1, 2008
Loved it. They don't come better than Robert Lee.
September 19, 2012
Well written, definitive portrait of Lee.
July 10, 2018
Read a long time ago. It was a good book but is now somewhat dated. The deification of Robert E. Lee after the Civil War covered up mistakes. He remains one of the greatest generals in US history but he did have flaws, in spite of what Jubal Early said. See this; https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...
September 8, 2014
My four-star rating of this book is not due to a perfection of scholarship; this is absent. Other reviewers have commented on Freeman's ability to excuse Lee's mistakes, such as Pickett's charge or Grant slipping away after Spotsylvania, as the result of his subordinates' mistakes. They are correct to point this out. Lee made a number of strategic and tactical blunders, from his obsession with the Virginia front even as the Confederates lost the Mississippi and the Atlantic coastlines, to his relentless obsession with the offensive in 1862-1863, to his absolutely confounding inability either to control Longstreet on July 2, 1863, or to make a sensible decision on July 3 with Pickett's charge. Freeman neglects all of this.
The reason it rates four stars is because there are passages that reach the sublime: the description of Gettysburg, for instance, even when it ignores Lee's mistakes, is absolutely magnificent for its treatment of the men who went in in that last terrible charge under George Pickett. Lew Armistead comes closer to life here than he does in Shaara's "The Killer Angels," and Armistead's death was one of the most moving parts of that book.
It would be easy enough to tear Freeman apart for writing in a "fog of war" style that reveals information to the reader as Lee himself knew it, yet not applying that same fog of war, say, to Grant at Spotsylvania; Grant ordered a surprise predawn attack that, through the bumbling and dilatory action of staff officers and subordinates, turned into the slaughter at the Bloody Angle, but to Freeman, it was a clear indicator that Grant was nothing but a butcher who bragged about how he never maneuvered. Granting one side the excuse of not having absolute control, but expecting the other to do so, is a fairly basic piece of bias, and the book echoes with this kind of thing. What saves it from being complete garbage is first, abridgment, and second, Freeman's occasionally soaring prose.
The reason it rates four stars is because there are passages that reach the sublime: the description of Gettysburg, for instance, even when it ignores Lee's mistakes, is absolutely magnificent for its treatment of the men who went in in that last terrible charge under George Pickett. Lew Armistead comes closer to life here than he does in Shaara's "The Killer Angels," and Armistead's death was one of the most moving parts of that book.
It would be easy enough to tear Freeman apart for writing in a "fog of war" style that reveals information to the reader as Lee himself knew it, yet not applying that same fog of war, say, to Grant at Spotsylvania; Grant ordered a surprise predawn attack that, through the bumbling and dilatory action of staff officers and subordinates, turned into the slaughter at the Bloody Angle, but to Freeman, it was a clear indicator that Grant was nothing but a butcher who bragged about how he never maneuvered. Granting one side the excuse of not having absolute control, but expecting the other to do so, is a fairly basic piece of bias, and the book echoes with this kind of thing. What saves it from being complete garbage is first, abridgment, and second, Freeman's occasionally soaring prose.
November 1, 2015
A truly wonderful book for the great general of the Confederates. A lot of details of all the famous battles and a lot of things about his personal life as well. A must read for all the friends of the American civil war or the admirers of this great personality. I am not American, but i love history and this is a piece of history everybody owns to know.
Want to Read
August 30, 2026Part of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s personal library according to Scott Fitzgerald: Romantic and Realist by John Richard Kuehl 1958
*These were books NOT given to Princeton. They were returned to Zelda and Scott Fitzgerald’s daughter, France Scott Fitzgerald Lanahan
*These were books NOT given to Princeton. They were returned to Zelda and Scott Fitzgerald’s daughter, France Scott Fitzgerald Lanahan
April 7, 2012
One of the best histories of the civil war I've read. Emphasizes the importance of the disparity between the strength of north and south, and its effect on strategy.
Outstanding portrait of R.E. Lee's character, especially in the section after the war and conclusion.
Five star rating!
March 9, 2016
An excellent single volume about Lee. Written with a very pro-Southern slant but that is to be expected from a book that was published in 1935 by an author from Richmond. This book does not touch on slavery but is more focused on Lee's performance as the greatest Southern General in the Civil War.
December 3, 2019
Before I found this particular book, I was only confined to the small amount of knowledge I had about Robert E. Lee. I knew him as a Confederate general who must have been racist towards the African-American people and eventually ended up in the losing column of the American Civil War. After the book though, I now know the true R.E. Lee. A man of great compassion and a man who loved his family just as much as he loved his soldiers, R.E. Lee is not the man of my previous assumptions. Lee and his men, almost always outnumbered by at least 2-to-1 odds, always seemed to hold their own. Even though they had less rations, less clothes, less guns, less ammunition, and less men overall, the Army of Northern Virginia always had the highest morale on the entire battlefield. Just on their morale alone, they may have added 2-3 years on to the Civil War. Even in their first battle of the war, heavily predicted as a Union rout, was quite the opposite as the Union forces were routed instead. The most important thing about Lee though is the respect he held for others and the respect he ended up receiving in return. Even though he lost, the nation regarded him as an American hero. Even Union officers including Lieutenant-General Ulysses S. Grant himself tipped his hat and saluted Lee after Appomattox. Turns out that there is some form of beauty in war after all.
November 1, 2025
Let’s just address the elephant in the room. This book makes Robert E. Lee into a borderline biblical character. His mistakes, whenever they are mentioned, are most often attributed to his ”bumbling underlings”, and the defeats he suffered are exclusively due to ”the bludgeoning tactics” of Grant and Meade. This book is by no means an ”unbiased” biography, which one shouldn’t even expect given the author.
That being said, as a history and a Civil War buff, this book is an amazing and perhaps the best one-volume look into the life of General Lee, one of the most celebrated and simultaneously controversial characters of US military history. The book reads as if from Lee’s own perspective, keeping the reader guessing as to what’s to come. This isn’t a book about military strategy. It is one about a conflicted man who did what he felt was right as a soldier and foremost, as a Virginian.
That being said, as a history and a Civil War buff, this book is an amazing and perhaps the best one-volume look into the life of General Lee, one of the most celebrated and simultaneously controversial characters of US military history. The book reads as if from Lee’s own perspective, keeping the reader guessing as to what’s to come. This isn’t a book about military strategy. It is one about a conflicted man who did what he felt was right as a soldier and foremost, as a Virginian.
August 3, 2018
Wanted to read this after visiting Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA for the first time in many years. Absolutely beautiful sculptures I wanted to see again before they get demolished (the Jeb Stuart in particular looks royal on sunny days) and replaced with local 'art.' Art in apostrophes because outside of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (which has an excellent Napoleon exhibit right now) my experience at other venues has been things like monkeys carved into soap and bicycle wheels bent into the shape of an engorged benis.
July 22, 2025
Beautifully written. Lee was a foremost military strategist and Freeman expertly chronicles how he matures as a young colonel and later as the confederate general with the many obstacles he faced. I especially enjoyed the detailed battles of the Army of Northern Virginia, written from Lee’s perspective. You could feel the intensity in the pages and the depth of sorrow Lee carried for his men. The years after the war and his contribution to southern education are interesting too. He was a true Virginia gentleman and often misunderstood today.
A basic knowledge of the major civil war battles and accompanying geographical locations would be helpful for anyone reading this.
A basic knowledge of the major civil war battles and accompanying geographical locations would be helpful for anyone reading this.
May 7, 2017
"What he seemed, he was- a wholly human gentleman, the essential elements of whose positive character were two and only two, simplicity and spirituality."
I have to highly recommend the Harwell abridgment of Freeman's classic and monumental biography of Robert E. Lee. A truly good biography will stir the reader's emotions at the end by making him miss the person studied after he is gone, and so it is with this book. Lee's military prowess during the Civil War will be well known to most people who pick up this book (those who are not should start elsewhere; I would recommend Shelby Foote if you can spare the time). What this book adds is the man himself who existed for 59 years outside of the war. The son of a Revolutionary War hero and the son-in-law of George Washington's only (adopted) son, Lee is steeped in the Washingtonian ideal of a Virginia gentleman. His life up until the Civil War is one of duty well executed and devotion to his family. The former is put to the test by the secession of Virginia: is his duty to the Nation or to the State? Lee reluctantly sides with Virginia and his family, where for the next four years he outshines all other American generals in talent, determination, and personal virtue.
This book exemplifies why biographies are worth reading: they bring to life virtues we wish to inculcate into the readers. The last few pages of this book summarize those virtues magnificently, but one cannot just skip to those last few pages. To understand those words, the whole story has to be digested first. The ethos and pathos cannot be summarized. Lee standing at Sayler's Creek holding the battle flag to rally the tattered remnants of the Army of Northern Virginia speaks as much as any human words ever could, but even to understand that event, one must know how powerful the ANV had been at its height and how it became so dangerous despite all odds. In my own experience, I believe it is impossible to go to Appomattox and understand what happened there without first having gone to Gettysburg.
The only reason I docked this review one star is the treatment of Longstreet. This is not to say the man did not make mistakes, but at least in this abridged version, there is no apparent reason why Lee would put so much faith in his "old war horse." Lee himself had reasons, and as a biography, those reasons should be made manifest, but they are not. Apart from that, though, I would absolutely recommend this work to anyone. It was a joy to read and profitable to the intellect.
I have to highly recommend the Harwell abridgment of Freeman's classic and monumental biography of Robert E. Lee. A truly good biography will stir the reader's emotions at the end by making him miss the person studied after he is gone, and so it is with this book. Lee's military prowess during the Civil War will be well known to most people who pick up this book (those who are not should start elsewhere; I would recommend Shelby Foote if you can spare the time). What this book adds is the man himself who existed for 59 years outside of the war. The son of a Revolutionary War hero and the son-in-law of George Washington's only (adopted) son, Lee is steeped in the Washingtonian ideal of a Virginia gentleman. His life up until the Civil War is one of duty well executed and devotion to his family. The former is put to the test by the secession of Virginia: is his duty to the Nation or to the State? Lee reluctantly sides with Virginia and his family, where for the next four years he outshines all other American generals in talent, determination, and personal virtue.
This book exemplifies why biographies are worth reading: they bring to life virtues we wish to inculcate into the readers. The last few pages of this book summarize those virtues magnificently, but one cannot just skip to those last few pages. To understand those words, the whole story has to be digested first. The ethos and pathos cannot be summarized. Lee standing at Sayler's Creek holding the battle flag to rally the tattered remnants of the Army of Northern Virginia speaks as much as any human words ever could, but even to understand that event, one must know how powerful the ANV had been at its height and how it became so dangerous despite all odds. In my own experience, I believe it is impossible to go to Appomattox and understand what happened there without first having gone to Gettysburg.
The only reason I docked this review one star is the treatment of Longstreet. This is not to say the man did not make mistakes, but at least in this abridged version, there is no apparent reason why Lee would put so much faith in his "old war horse." Lee himself had reasons, and as a biography, those reasons should be made manifest, but they are not. Apart from that, though, I would absolutely recommend this work to anyone. It was a joy to read and profitable to the intellect.
September 12, 2023
This book gets dismissed a lot for hero worshiping Lee. He does that, but it’s not a 600 page love letter. It’s like 585 pages of really interesting civil war history told from a “fog of war” perspective from the south (something often missing in civil war books which are usually told from the northern perspective) and 15 pages of love and admiration.
So I think you can safely ignore all the passages about Lee’s religious sainthood and stick to the extremely well researched history (like extremely well researched….like 20 years of reading primary documents) and gain a perspective on how things played out from the southern perspective that is not easily found elsewhere. I thought it was extremely interesting that most northern versions discuss McClellan’s incompetence and slowness, but this makes it sound like the south considered him their biggest threat and most competent enemy.
Similarly, you appreciate all the logistics that went into planning a campaign. Like feeding tens of thousands of people wasn’t easy.
But most importantly, I think the reason this book is so fascinating is because you hear very little about Lincoln or grant. It’s completely told from the perspective of the confederacy. It brings the civil war to life in a new way. And the fog of war (I.e. you learn about things the same way Lee did, not from an omnipresent narrator) is a method I think more historians should employ. It forces the writer to actually cite how things were know. “Lee received a telegram from Davis telling him they’d received intelligence that Grant had sent half his army to cross the James River” versus “Grant crossed the James River and Lee quickly moved to stop his approach.”
Highly recommend if you’re a civil war buff.
So I think you can safely ignore all the passages about Lee’s religious sainthood and stick to the extremely well researched history (like extremely well researched….like 20 years of reading primary documents) and gain a perspective on how things played out from the southern perspective that is not easily found elsewhere. I thought it was extremely interesting that most northern versions discuss McClellan’s incompetence and slowness, but this makes it sound like the south considered him their biggest threat and most competent enemy.
Similarly, you appreciate all the logistics that went into planning a campaign. Like feeding tens of thousands of people wasn’t easy.
But most importantly, I think the reason this book is so fascinating is because you hear very little about Lincoln or grant. It’s completely told from the perspective of the confederacy. It brings the civil war to life in a new way. And the fog of war (I.e. you learn about things the same way Lee did, not from an omnipresent narrator) is a method I think more historians should employ. It forces the writer to actually cite how things were know. “Lee received a telegram from Davis telling him they’d received intelligence that Grant had sent half his army to cross the James River” versus “Grant crossed the James River and Lee quickly moved to stop his approach.”
Highly recommend if you’re a civil war buff.
September 29, 2026
“Lee” by Douglas Southall Freeman has long been considered one of the foremost biographies of Robert E. Lee, and one of the most acclaimed books to be written about the Civil War. Decades later, new editions are still being printed with new introductions from leading scholars such as James McPherson, keeping this book relevant in historical circles. Despite this long history of high regard, I believe that this book has heavily propped up the Lost Cause mythology it actively promotes, and even helped establish it upon its publication. Because of the negative, real-world implications of the Lost Cause myth, I believe this biography serves more as a fanfiction of Robert E. Lee than as a fair, unbiased, and truthful recounting of history, and should be considered as such as opposed to the pedestal it currently sits perched on.
To be clear, I have no issue with the writing of this book. Freeman is a talented writer, and he makes what would otherwise have been bland campaign recounts into generally stimulating prose. In particular, I enjoyed the first 100 pages of the book, which focused on Lee’s antebellum career, for I felt it was the least bogged down by the author’s heavy bias towards the Confederacy. In addition, the pictures scattered throughout the edition I read were fine, but not necessary and usually unrelated to what was happening in the book at that point. They seemingly were placed at random, with portraits of figures like George B. McClellan appearing long after his part in the narrative had passed. The pictures are also of a lower quality, making some of them hard to fully make sense of. One final positive is the introduction by James McPherson, which is the least biased writing in the entirety of the book, and does a slight mention of Freeman’s biased look at history, but still exonerates him and defends the book.
My problems with this book are primarily found in the author's tone towards just about everything. First and foremost, Robert E. Lee can do no wrong to Freeman. Whenever anything went wrong, Freeman would compile a list of who the true culprits were, ranging from faulty maps to the weather to every other general, to name a few. Genuinely, everything and everyone gets blamed at least once for things that were at least partially Lee’s fault, even other Confederate heroes such as Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart. Again, Robert E. Lee can do no wrong. Many chapters conclude with Freeman listing off all the positive traits Lee possessed, from his charm with young women, his treatment of soldiers, his trusting nature, and so on. When I said this book is a fanfiction for Robert E. Lee, I was not joking. He is portrayed as a Jesus figure, especially in the final chapter when his demise finally does come. It is covered in a biblical way, and concludes with, of course, a listing of all his admirable deeds and traits for the twentieth time. There is nothing wrong with liking the subject of your biography, but problems arise when this admiration turns into devotion and shifts what is labeled as a historical work into something primarily relying on outdated myths meant to entrench a movement dedicated to the preservation of slavery.
Did I say slavery? The book sure doesn't. Despite covering Robert E. Lee and the Civil War for the majority of its large size, slavery is only mentioned during the short section discussing the slaves Lee owned, as well as trying to defend his position on it. Freeman never concedes the Civil War was fought over slavery, instead commonly alluding to the lie that it was about states' rights and an oppressive federal government, which can be disproven by looking at any of the Confederate states’ secession speeches, as well as Alexander Stephens's “Cornerstone Speech”. Freeman also makes a horrible attempt to defend Lee by claiming he did not support the institution of slavery by using a quote in which Lee says that without slavery, Africans would still be barbarians. Again, that is meant to support Lee. He also conveniently forgets to mention the harsh punishments Lee would administer on his slaves, as well as his attempts to keep them after his father’s promised abolition date for them. Robert E. Lee can do no wrong.
Predictably, the ire of Freeman is instead turned to James Longstreet, just as Lost Cause promoters have been doing for decades. Whenever Lee messes up, Longstreet is there to take the blame. Gettysburg? Longstreet waited too long to attack. Wilderness campaign and siege of Petersburg? Longstreet took too long. It is almost laughable how many times Freeman pushes the blame onto Lee’s marshals and other subordinates, conveniently never considering that the leader of the army may have been responsible for the same problems that happened over and over again. Freeman also takes repeated swings at the superior general Ulysses S. Grant in an effort to discredit him, brushing aside his success as being because of his superior numbers only. He fails to mention that Grant lost fewer men in proportion to army sizes than Lee, as well as his success in the Western Theater with smaller armies. Everything about this book is an attempt to frame the outcome of the Civil War as a tragedy, and a product of the North’s superior production, population, etc. Again, all ideas that have long been disproven. But this book still remains relevant for some reason.
This review is primarily negative, but my rank still gives the book 3 stars. Why? Because I can respect that Freeman was a good writer, and I did learn things from this book. That does not, however, free this book from the guilt of being a propaganda piece meant to entrench the idea that the nation that existed for the sole purpose of preserving slavery was morally greater than the Union, and its loss was a tragedy. This idea has been around for a while, and is generally built upon Robert E. Lee and his marble reputation, which Lost Cause sympathisers have fought to preserve for over a century. This book is a large piece of that. That is why I can only recommend this as a supplementary work to someone already knowledgeable about the Civil War and what it was fought over. To give this book to someone unaware of the true history is unfair and misleading, for this book paints the Confederacy in a rosy shade that never existed in real history, and does not give any of the actual facts that illustrate the moral depravity of the Confederates and their movement.
To be clear, I have no issue with the writing of this book. Freeman is a talented writer, and he makes what would otherwise have been bland campaign recounts into generally stimulating prose. In particular, I enjoyed the first 100 pages of the book, which focused on Lee’s antebellum career, for I felt it was the least bogged down by the author’s heavy bias towards the Confederacy. In addition, the pictures scattered throughout the edition I read were fine, but not necessary and usually unrelated to what was happening in the book at that point. They seemingly were placed at random, with portraits of figures like George B. McClellan appearing long after his part in the narrative had passed. The pictures are also of a lower quality, making some of them hard to fully make sense of. One final positive is the introduction by James McPherson, which is the least biased writing in the entirety of the book, and does a slight mention of Freeman’s biased look at history, but still exonerates him and defends the book.
My problems with this book are primarily found in the author's tone towards just about everything. First and foremost, Robert E. Lee can do no wrong to Freeman. Whenever anything went wrong, Freeman would compile a list of who the true culprits were, ranging from faulty maps to the weather to every other general, to name a few. Genuinely, everything and everyone gets blamed at least once for things that were at least partially Lee’s fault, even other Confederate heroes such as Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart. Again, Robert E. Lee can do no wrong. Many chapters conclude with Freeman listing off all the positive traits Lee possessed, from his charm with young women, his treatment of soldiers, his trusting nature, and so on. When I said this book is a fanfiction for Robert E. Lee, I was not joking. He is portrayed as a Jesus figure, especially in the final chapter when his demise finally does come. It is covered in a biblical way, and concludes with, of course, a listing of all his admirable deeds and traits for the twentieth time. There is nothing wrong with liking the subject of your biography, but problems arise when this admiration turns into devotion and shifts what is labeled as a historical work into something primarily relying on outdated myths meant to entrench a movement dedicated to the preservation of slavery.
Did I say slavery? The book sure doesn't. Despite covering Robert E. Lee and the Civil War for the majority of its large size, slavery is only mentioned during the short section discussing the slaves Lee owned, as well as trying to defend his position on it. Freeman never concedes the Civil War was fought over slavery, instead commonly alluding to the lie that it was about states' rights and an oppressive federal government, which can be disproven by looking at any of the Confederate states’ secession speeches, as well as Alexander Stephens's “Cornerstone Speech”. Freeman also makes a horrible attempt to defend Lee by claiming he did not support the institution of slavery by using a quote in which Lee says that without slavery, Africans would still be barbarians. Again, that is meant to support Lee. He also conveniently forgets to mention the harsh punishments Lee would administer on his slaves, as well as his attempts to keep them after his father’s promised abolition date for them. Robert E. Lee can do no wrong.
Predictably, the ire of Freeman is instead turned to James Longstreet, just as Lost Cause promoters have been doing for decades. Whenever Lee messes up, Longstreet is there to take the blame. Gettysburg? Longstreet waited too long to attack. Wilderness campaign and siege of Petersburg? Longstreet took too long. It is almost laughable how many times Freeman pushes the blame onto Lee’s marshals and other subordinates, conveniently never considering that the leader of the army may have been responsible for the same problems that happened over and over again. Freeman also takes repeated swings at the superior general Ulysses S. Grant in an effort to discredit him, brushing aside his success as being because of his superior numbers only. He fails to mention that Grant lost fewer men in proportion to army sizes than Lee, as well as his success in the Western Theater with smaller armies. Everything about this book is an attempt to frame the outcome of the Civil War as a tragedy, and a product of the North’s superior production, population, etc. Again, all ideas that have long been disproven. But this book still remains relevant for some reason.
This review is primarily negative, but my rank still gives the book 3 stars. Why? Because I can respect that Freeman was a good writer, and I did learn things from this book. That does not, however, free this book from the guilt of being a propaganda piece meant to entrench the idea that the nation that existed for the sole purpose of preserving slavery was morally greater than the Union, and its loss was a tragedy. This idea has been around for a while, and is generally built upon Robert E. Lee and his marble reputation, which Lost Cause sympathisers have fought to preserve for over a century. This book is a large piece of that. That is why I can only recommend this as a supplementary work to someone already knowledgeable about the Civil War and what it was fought over. To give this book to someone unaware of the true history is unfair and misleading, for this book paints the Confederacy in a rosy shade that never existed in real history, and does not give any of the actual facts that illustrate the moral depravity of the Confederates and their movement.
October 5, 2015
It was a challenge to read all 4 vols. It was the best profile of Gen Robert E. Lee I have yet to find. Freeman's details of Lee's youth is invaluable. There is so much there that explains what and how his adult was formed. I would recommend it to anyone that would wish to see and understand the American experience. Lee's life time spans from America's founding fathers to the start of the concept of Modern America.
Last, Lee did help end the American Civil War. He could have kept fighting in a horrible Guerrilla warfare that would have ruined the chances of a United America. He did tell the Confederate Army to stop fighting and become "good citizens". Thank God he did try to make the transition a good one. He could have sabotaged this but he did not. He did not start the Civil War but I believe he did end it. For that, I say God Bless Robert E. Lee.
Last, Lee did help end the American Civil War. He could have kept fighting in a horrible Guerrilla warfare that would have ruined the chances of a United America. He did tell the Confederate Army to stop fighting and become "good citizens". Thank God he did try to make the transition a good one. He could have sabotaged this but he did not. He did not start the Civil War but I believe he did end it. For that, I say God Bless Robert E. Lee.
March 24, 2019
“History is written by the victor” has never been truer than in this case. From a time when men had honor and were statesman comes the biography of one who towered over the rest. Slandered by decades of falsities taught to our children, this portrait of Lee shows none of the cruel vitriol put forth by schools of modernity. Rather, we see the man who lead West Point, who lead our forces in Mexico, whose virtues were espoused by men of his time. This is required reading for those who want to understand who Lee was and what he really stood for - and stood against.
February 18, 2020
Basically a 600 page love letter regarding his life. Was an interesting read and am glad I did. But a great foundation in Civil War history beforehand is required. There are virtually no maps to reference nor any larger context of the war. I know a decent amount about the war and found myself constantly referencing timelines and battle maps from other sources.
Want a good perspective of Gen Lee’s life, this is your book. Want a good, broad perspective of him and how he affected the war look elsewhere.
Want a good perspective of Gen Lee’s life, this is your book. Want a good, broad perspective of him and how he affected the war look elsewhere.
May 12, 2015
Harwell's abridgment of Douglas Freeman's 4 volume biography entitled "Lee" was published in 1961. Freeman's history of General R.E. Lee was published 1934-35 and won a Pulitzer. The abridgment faithfully captures Freeman's writing, presents a remarkable flow, and is inspiring. This is a "must" read for students of the Civil War and for those who love biographies of exceptional people.
June 4, 2020
This was a tough slog for me - can't imagine reading the original 4 volume work - as the battles were hard for me to follow geographically & strategically. However, I enjoyed the parts about Lee, the man, his family life etc.
July 31, 2021
I read the abridgement (600 pages) of what was originally four volumes of near a million words. This version is 80% battle narrative from the Confederate viewpoint with Lee biography bookending it. Those bookends are awesome. Freeman's detailed research shines.
July 21, 2026
I read this because I finished the Ken Burns documentary on the civil war, and was interested in how Lee came to be known as a military genius and tactician. I think this is one of the only biographies I’ve ever read, and I have to say as dry as it could have potentially been it was pretty engaging, especially the battle scenes. It was pretty cool to get into the details of how the battles were fought and the fun facts about how things came to be. Overall satisfied my interest in this particular facet of the civil war.
Big downside here is it really seems like this book contributes to a lot of the deification of the man himself. A lot of times in this depiction he get painted as infallible, and there a number of times the author really is trying to convince you if everything would have happened the way Lee wanted to, the south would have had a better chance. Thankfully, I already went into this book reminding myself as much as this guy did some things right by people in his immediate vicinity, he still ultimately supported a government that wanted to keep slavery around. There’s even some language addressing black people where I was like “wow, for real?”, did not like that. And that’s beside the fact that even reading the book itself you’re like “why didn’t he do this instead?” but hindsight is 20/20.
I honestly would read another biography of his, perhaps by someone who’s father wasn’t in the army of northern Virginia. I think there’s a lot to unpack about Lee’s life and legacy, and the implications for his cultural impact is pretty interesting to me.
Also, I think I’m done giving stars to stuff, I’m just gonna tell y’all what I think of it in the post. I don’t have a reliable rating system for books lol
Big downside here is it really seems like this book contributes to a lot of the deification of the man himself. A lot of times in this depiction he get painted as infallible, and there a number of times the author really is trying to convince you if everything would have happened the way Lee wanted to, the south would have had a better chance. Thankfully, I already went into this book reminding myself as much as this guy did some things right by people in his immediate vicinity, he still ultimately supported a government that wanted to keep slavery around. There’s even some language addressing black people where I was like “wow, for real?”, did not like that. And that’s beside the fact that even reading the book itself you’re like “why didn’t he do this instead?” but hindsight is 20/20.
I honestly would read another biography of his, perhaps by someone who’s father wasn’t in the army of northern Virginia. I think there’s a lot to unpack about Lee’s life and legacy, and the implications for his cultural impact is pretty interesting to me.
Also, I think I’m done giving stars to stuff, I’m just gonna tell y’all what I think of it in the post. I don’t have a reliable rating system for books lol
June 10, 2025
This book was recommended to me by a licensed battlefield guide at Gettysburg who told me it was the best biography on Lee ever written. After reading it myself I'm inclined to agree with his expert opinion. Anyone who picks up this book should read it with the context that Freeman was a partisan of Lost Cause historical revisionism, and this bias surfaces repeatedly. To Freeman, Lee is still the Marble Man, the archetype of southern honor and manhood who was nearly blameless in his conduct.
Despite the Lost Cause revisionism, it's hard to argue with Freeman's assertion that Lee was the most exceptional general of the Civil War. The Army of Northern Virginia under Lee's leadership repeatedly defeated much larger and better equipped foes, and Lee inspired such confidence in his men that they were willing to make such terrible sacrifices on Cemetery Ridge and the trenches of Petersburg.
Even as an abridged version this book is a daunting read. It will likely only be of interest to committed history buffs. However, Freeman's narrative style is both engaging and entertaining despite the general syntax belonging to a different literary era. Despite it's ideological shortcoming and its convenient white-washing of Lee as a scion of Virginia's slavocracy (even after the war Lee used his influence to ensure that Virginia would not be dominated by "Negros and carpetbaggers" in Freeman's words), it should still be on the reading list of any serious student of the Civil War.
Despite the Lost Cause revisionism, it's hard to argue with Freeman's assertion that Lee was the most exceptional general of the Civil War. The Army of Northern Virginia under Lee's leadership repeatedly defeated much larger and better equipped foes, and Lee inspired such confidence in his men that they were willing to make such terrible sacrifices on Cemetery Ridge and the trenches of Petersburg.
Even as an abridged version this book is a daunting read. It will likely only be of interest to committed history buffs. However, Freeman's narrative style is both engaging and entertaining despite the general syntax belonging to a different literary era. Despite it's ideological shortcoming and its convenient white-washing of Lee as a scion of Virginia's slavocracy (even after the war Lee used his influence to ensure that Virginia would not be dominated by "Negros and carpetbaggers" in Freeman's words), it should still be on the reading list of any serious student of the Civil War.
September 9, 2025
When I first came across this book, I thought I’ll pass on reading the abridged version. However, after considering that the abridged version was itself nearly 600 pages long, I decided to give this book a go. A fascinating and detailed biography of a Robert E. Lee, best known as the Confederate General who commanded the Army of Northern Virginia. A gentleman and soldier, Freeman and Haskell provide a great account of his life and how his upbringing, Christianity, and spirit of noblesse oblige led him down his path. Lee, with help from timid Union commanders, kept the Confederacy alive much longer than it otherwise should have given the South’s disadvantage in both men and material. One interesting insight was that in Lee’s antebellum career he frequently had postings in and around Virginia, which helped instill the loyalty to his home state. He was first in the mind of the South, both in war and in peace, and his example helped with the reconciliation between North and South for the short time he remained alive after the Civil War. I highly recommend for history fans and Civil War buffs. Freeman tells the events based on the information known to Lee at the time, not based on hindsight, which helped explain the decisions he made. I also don’t think I missed out by Haskell cutting out pages and pages of notes and correspondence from each battle.
November 26, 2025
This is an abridged version of a four volume Pulitzer Price winner biography from 1931. It is so complete it is hard to imagine what was in the three volumes that were eliminated.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. It is well written, thorough, thoughtful and interesting. It is also one of the first books I’ve read that looks at the events of the 19th century from the perspective of a southerner.
Lee was an extraordinary man. This book brings him to life. Unfortunately, Freeman clearly idolized Lee and at times his descriptions defy belief. Lee probably couldn’t really walk on water but Freeman might not have doubted it.
Things I learned from this book include the fact that Lee felt McClellan was his most able adversary; that Andrew Johnson was consistent with Lincoln’s approach to the south during reconstruction and it was the radicals in Congress who were full of righteous vengeance; that Longstreet was extremely reluctant at Gettysburg and Jeb Stuart was missing the whole week leading up to Gettysburg; that Lee’s wife was directly related to Martha Curtis Washington and Lee’s father was Light Horse Harry Lee, one of Washington’s favorite Generals.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. It is well written, thorough, thoughtful and interesting. It is also one of the first books I’ve read that looks at the events of the 19th century from the perspective of a southerner.
Lee was an extraordinary man. This book brings him to life. Unfortunately, Freeman clearly idolized Lee and at times his descriptions defy belief. Lee probably couldn’t really walk on water but Freeman might not have doubted it.
Things I learned from this book include the fact that Lee felt McClellan was his most able adversary; that Andrew Johnson was consistent with Lincoln’s approach to the south during reconstruction and it was the radicals in Congress who were full of righteous vengeance; that Longstreet was extremely reluctant at Gettysburg and Jeb Stuart was missing the whole week leading up to Gettysburg; that Lee’s wife was directly related to Martha Curtis Washington and Lee’s father was Light Horse Harry Lee, one of Washington’s favorite Generals.
July 9, 2017
Robert E. Lee embodied everything that was good about the South. He was a perfect Southern gentleman and hands down the best general on either side of the Civil war. He did more with less men who were always under equipped and often barefoot and half starving than should have been possible. Those that served under him loved him and would and did follow him anywhere he led them. The people of the South admired him for the good man he was.
This book is an abridgment of the four volume series. It is very well written and gives a detailed account of all of the battles of the Civil War the army of Northern Virginia participated in. It is sometimes hard to follow because of the detail but the immersion gives you a feel for the brilliance of the man who led the army. Robert E Lee was a good man in the best sense. I highly recommend this book.
This book is an abridgment of the four volume series. It is very well written and gives a detailed account of all of the battles of the Civil War the army of Northern Virginia participated in. It is sometimes hard to follow because of the detail but the immersion gives you a feel for the brilliance of the man who led the army. Robert E Lee was a good man in the best sense. I highly recommend this book.
September 12, 2017
Finished reading "Lee" by Douglas Southall Freeman. This was a biography of Robert E. Lee. It was interesting to me to see some of the key moments of the Civil War from the Southern perspective. Strangely, most of the history books I've read on the subject--even if written by Southerners--seemed to key in on the North's point of view.
I was also very interested in the events in Lee's life after the war, a time that is rarely discussed. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get a good recommendation on books about the Reconstruction; some are better than others, but no one has recommended any as being "good". That was a harsh time in US history and I can only imagine how much smoother it could have gone had Lincoln lived to oversee it. President Johnson tried to keep some of Lincoln's vision, but Congress was less than cooperative (go figure).
I was also very interested in the events in Lee's life after the war, a time that is rarely discussed. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get a good recommendation on books about the Reconstruction; some are better than others, but no one has recommended any as being "good". That was a harsh time in US history and I can only imagine how much smoother it could have gone had Lincoln lived to oversee it. President Johnson tried to keep some of Lincoln's vision, but Congress was less than cooperative (go figure).
January 26, 2026
Very detailed description of the war and Lee’s life. Some chapters were boring. Some I was on the edge of my seat. Gets too dug into the weeds at times. But an abridged version of the seminal work on Lee, worth the work for anyone interested in going deeper on civil war history.
A godly man, worthy to learn from.
Winston Churchill praised Robert E. Lee in his writings, notably describing him as “one of the noblest Americans who ever lived, and one of the greatest captains known to the annals of war.” This assessment appears in Churchill’s “A History of the English-Speaking Peoples,” reflecting his admiration for Lee’s character and military prowess.
A godly man, worthy to learn from.
Winston Churchill praised Robert E. Lee in his writings, notably describing him as “one of the noblest Americans who ever lived, and one of the greatest captains known to the annals of war.” This assessment appears in Churchill’s “A History of the English-Speaking Peoples,” reflecting his admiration for Lee’s character and military prowess.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews