What do you think?
Rate this book
Lee
Very slightest of wear to the dust jacket, pages nice and clean, no writing or highlighting. A very nice copy. All our books are individually inspected, rated and described. Never EX-LIB unless specifically listed as such.
781 pages
First published January 1, 1965
149 people are currently reading
209 people want to read
About the author
Clifford Dowdey
85 books10 followersClifford Dowdey was born in Richmond, Virginia January 23, 1904 and died there May 30, 1979. The Richmond Newspapers, the Richmond Times Dispatch and the Richmond News Leader eulogized him as The Last Confederate. His father was descended from immigrants surnamed O'Dowda of County Galway, Ireland, and his mother from an English settler of Jamestown. His father worked for Western Union and his mother was a housewife. Four of his grandmother’s brothers were Confederate soldiers. His grandmother lived with his family until she died when Dowdey was age 19. Her reminiscences spurred his lifelong interest in the American Civil War and the history of Virginia.[1]
He attended Columbia University from 1921-1925. He worked for about a year as a newspaper reporter and book reviewer for the Richmond News Leader. He returned to New York City and worked as an editor for various pulp magazines (Munsey’s, Argosy and Dell) from 1926 to around 1935. About 1933 he started writing seriously on what eventually would become his first novel "Bugles Blow No More.” Leaving the magazines, he and his wife moved to Florida for a season and then to Richmond, Virginia where he finished the novel. For the rest of his life, he lived in Richmond and worked as a writer of historical fiction and history. He reviewed others' historical works in academic journals, such as "The Journal of Southern History" and " The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography." Even though he had no formal training as an historian several of his works received critical acclaim by noted historians. His historical novels were popular as evidenced by their being reviewed in "The New York Times."[2]
The circumstance of his first marriage is unknown. In an interview published in The New York Times July 13, 1941, he made reference to a wife as early as 1934 or 1935. On July 13, 1944, he married Frances Wilson, a clinical psychologist; she died July 1970.[3] He was the father of two daughters, Frances and Sarah.
He attended Columbia University from 1921-1925. He worked for about a year as a newspaper reporter and book reviewer for the Richmond News Leader. He returned to New York City and worked as an editor for various pulp magazines (Munsey’s, Argosy and Dell) from 1926 to around 1935. About 1933 he started writing seriously on what eventually would become his first novel "Bugles Blow No More.” Leaving the magazines, he and his wife moved to Florida for a season and then to Richmond, Virginia where he finished the novel. For the rest of his life, he lived in Richmond and worked as a writer of historical fiction and history. He reviewed others' historical works in academic journals, such as "The Journal of Southern History" and " The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography." Even though he had no formal training as an historian several of his works received critical acclaim by noted historians. His historical novels were popular as evidenced by their being reviewed in "The New York Times."[2]
The circumstance of his first marriage is unknown. In an interview published in The New York Times July 13, 1941, he made reference to a wife as early as 1934 or 1935. On July 13, 1944, he married Frances Wilson, a clinical psychologist; she died July 1970.[3] He was the father of two daughters, Frances and Sarah.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
April 23, 2019
A thorough review of Lee’s life
I was more interested in finding out about Lee before and after the Civil War. This book did not disappoint. I did find it interesting that he thought the best Union general in the Civil War was McClellan.
I was more interested in finding out about Lee before and after the Civil War. This book did not disappoint. I did find it interesting that he thought the best Union general in the Civil War was McClellan.
August 23, 2018
I started this extensive biography of Robert E. Lee well before the recent events in Charlottesville (and now ESPN removing Asian-American play-by-play man Robert Lee from a UVA football game broadcast) primarily to serve as a counterpoint to the 2016 biography of Ulysses Grant that I raved about last year and because, frankly, I only knew what I learned in school or read in history books. Considered by some to be a quintessential Lee biography, this book by Clifford Dowdey, first published in 1965, is the perspective of a Virginia writer of both fiction and non-fiction history….and clearly, a fervent admirer of Lee (albeit surprisingly clear-eyed).
You can divide the book into four parts of varying lengths: The history of the Lee and Custis families in Virginia, Lee’s life prior to the Civil War (West Point, army engineer, Mexican-American War vet, ran the US Military Academy), the war years, and then the post war years. The least compelling to me, because I’ve read enough accounts to be fairly knowledgeable, were the Civil War years. But even here, I was surprised to read scathing criticism of Lee’s generals, Jefferson Davis (he comes out of this book looking really bad), and, even at times, Lee himself…. who was burned more than once by his “hands-off” tendency to let his generals take their own initiative. Except for Stonewall Jackson, who himself failed miserably during the Seven Days campaign (Lee’s first as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia in 1863), and Jeb Stuart, who’s cavalry failed to show up at Gettysburg, most of his generals come off as borderline incompetent much of the time. Also surprising to me was that Lee never commanded all CSA forces until the last five months of the war...Jefferson Davis acted (badly) as Commander-in-Chief for most of the war. What comes off clearly is Lee’s brilliance as a tactician and his devotion to (and reciprocated by) all the members of the Army of Northern Virginia. The battle passages could be mind-numbing to the casual reader…. I did make use of Google to pull up campaign maps.
The other sections of the book are more than enlightening and well worth the read. Most interesting to me were the post-war years which began with a long section on the excesses of Radical Reconstruction but also focused on Lee’s efforts to rebuild tiny Washington College (now Washington & Lee) as a peaceful means to resuscitate the war-torn South through education and training. A failing heart and, finally, a stroke ended his life in 1870.
You could arguably say there were numerous tragedies surrounding the Civil War. Perhaps, the first was Lee’s decline of the offer to command all U.S. forces at the outset of hostilities….it would likely have led to a shorter conflict. His belief, as he testified to a post-war Congressional sub-committee was, that as a citizen of Virginia, he felt compelled by his loyalty there…I’m not sure his boyhood hero, George Washington, would have done the same. Lee wrote about the inherent evil of slavery (he personally owned none) and opposed secession. He certainly was NOT racially enlightened by today’s standards but his pre-war belief in emancipation and repatriation mirrored Lincoln’s own. He emancipated the 200+ slaves his wife inherited in 1857 from her father by 1862 (as dictated by his will). If only Lee could have put the United States before his home state….
Secondly, was Lincoln’s assassination. Had he lived, he might well have been able to form a coalition to prevent what became the Radical Republican reconstruction agenda of retribution which disenfranchised moderate voices in the South (like Lee’s in the context of the times) and which likely gave rise to the Southern extremist post-Reconstruction regimes that set the South back decades socially and economically…. the results of which we live with, to an extent, today.
You can divide the book into four parts of varying lengths: The history of the Lee and Custis families in Virginia, Lee’s life prior to the Civil War (West Point, army engineer, Mexican-American War vet, ran the US Military Academy), the war years, and then the post war years. The least compelling to me, because I’ve read enough accounts to be fairly knowledgeable, were the Civil War years. But even here, I was surprised to read scathing criticism of Lee’s generals, Jefferson Davis (he comes out of this book looking really bad), and, even at times, Lee himself…. who was burned more than once by his “hands-off” tendency to let his generals take their own initiative. Except for Stonewall Jackson, who himself failed miserably during the Seven Days campaign (Lee’s first as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia in 1863), and Jeb Stuart, who’s cavalry failed to show up at Gettysburg, most of his generals come off as borderline incompetent much of the time. Also surprising to me was that Lee never commanded all CSA forces until the last five months of the war...Jefferson Davis acted (badly) as Commander-in-Chief for most of the war. What comes off clearly is Lee’s brilliance as a tactician and his devotion to (and reciprocated by) all the members of the Army of Northern Virginia. The battle passages could be mind-numbing to the casual reader…. I did make use of Google to pull up campaign maps.
The other sections of the book are more than enlightening and well worth the read. Most interesting to me were the post-war years which began with a long section on the excesses of Radical Reconstruction but also focused on Lee’s efforts to rebuild tiny Washington College (now Washington & Lee) as a peaceful means to resuscitate the war-torn South through education and training. A failing heart and, finally, a stroke ended his life in 1870.
You could arguably say there were numerous tragedies surrounding the Civil War. Perhaps, the first was Lee’s decline of the offer to command all U.S. forces at the outset of hostilities….it would likely have led to a shorter conflict. His belief, as he testified to a post-war Congressional sub-committee was, that as a citizen of Virginia, he felt compelled by his loyalty there…I’m not sure his boyhood hero, George Washington, would have done the same. Lee wrote about the inherent evil of slavery (he personally owned none) and opposed secession. He certainly was NOT racially enlightened by today’s standards but his pre-war belief in emancipation and repatriation mirrored Lincoln’s own. He emancipated the 200+ slaves his wife inherited in 1857 from her father by 1862 (as dictated by his will). If only Lee could have put the United States before his home state….
Secondly, was Lincoln’s assassination. Had he lived, he might well have been able to form a coalition to prevent what became the Radical Republican reconstruction agenda of retribution which disenfranchised moderate voices in the South (like Lee’s in the context of the times) and which likely gave rise to the Southern extremist post-Reconstruction regimes that set the South back decades socially and economically…. the results of which we live with, to an extent, today.
October 14, 2022
General Robert E. Lee, or Marse Robert, my favorite nickname of him, was one those instances of people whose deeds elevated him into quasi-deity status. One of the greatest tactical geniuses America has ever had, Lee was able to gain reputation as fearsome tactician even though he was leading the Confederates’ Army of Northern Virginia, which was often at disadvantageous position (similar to other Confederate Armies’ situations) due to the ineptitude of President Jefferson Davis and other politicians which put obstacles for the Confederate States to mobilize into state of total war, or his subordinates, James Longstreet was in the forefront of my list, for he was most responsible, in my opinion, for Lee’s battlefield mishaps, although there were sterling officers like or “Stonewall” Jackson or Jeb Stuart (both of whom, unfortunately, killed in action).
However, what fascinates me the most about Marse Lee is his personality. Hailed from one of patrician families of Virginian Dynasties, he brought in him the aura of a gentle, but stern, father, whose soldiers adored very much and willing to die for him. Although he was opposed to secession, his loyalty to state of Virginia put him in Confederates’ camp, pitting him against the likes of McClellan, Meade, and most famously, Grant. Given an uphill struggle, nevertheless he persevered, doing things as to the best as he could.
After the war ended, his thoughts were focused on persevering the humiliations dumped on the South by the Northern Radicals and their carpetbaggers and scalawags, accepting the presidency of Washington College, Virginia in order to plant the seed for the time when South will rise again. Of course, during the war he suffered defeats. However, his insistence to put the whole responsibilities on his shoulders, coupled with his legendary reputation and magnificent personality, turn him into someone who seemed to simply could not do anything wrong.
Although this is a voluminous book, I found myself drawn into reading more and more. The only problem I had was simply imagining what those battlefields looked like, for I simply lack the imagination in want for more illustration in this book, which sadly lacking.
However, what fascinates me the most about Marse Lee is his personality. Hailed from one of patrician families of Virginian Dynasties, he brought in him the aura of a gentle, but stern, father, whose soldiers adored very much and willing to die for him. Although he was opposed to secession, his loyalty to state of Virginia put him in Confederates’ camp, pitting him against the likes of McClellan, Meade, and most famously, Grant. Given an uphill struggle, nevertheless he persevered, doing things as to the best as he could.
After the war ended, his thoughts were focused on persevering the humiliations dumped on the South by the Northern Radicals and their carpetbaggers and scalawags, accepting the presidency of Washington College, Virginia in order to plant the seed for the time when South will rise again. Of course, during the war he suffered defeats. However, his insistence to put the whole responsibilities on his shoulders, coupled with his legendary reputation and magnificent personality, turn him into someone who seemed to simply could not do anything wrong.
Although this is a voluminous book, I found myself drawn into reading more and more. The only problem I had was simply imagining what those battlefields looked like, for I simply lack the imagination in want for more illustration in this book, which sadly lacking.
April 26, 2021
This book, despite its publishing date, is still the best biography in existance about Robert E. Lee. All other attempts (including Douglas Southall Freeman's) suffer from being much too hagiographic. Dowdey, a Southerner, likes his Lee very much, but alone among biographers he's also interested in finding out what made Lee tick. This book would be better if some editor could add new information to it but as it stands, this is still the one to go to.
Available at the Internet Archive:
https://archive.org/details/lee0000unse
Available at the Internet Archive:
https://archive.org/details/lee0000unse
April 30, 2012
Dowdey commits the ultimate sin of biography. Those who have problems with Lee are painted as selfish and conniving (Longstreet, Beauregard) and Davis is blamed for Lee's ultimate defeat and portrayed as a psychopath. Jackson and Stuart, the dead heroes of the Lost Cause, are painted with bright colors. It is all too convenient. Also, Dowdey does what most Virginians do when they consider Lee: he genuflects far too much.
November 15, 2017
Clifford Dowdey’s 700+ page Lee is a truly hagiographic account of the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Dowdey notes that “Lee towered above all others as the single most perfected product. Indeed, it was the suggested of a total perfection that has tended to dim Lee with a certain remoteness.” It was clear from the forward that this was not going to be a critical view of the general.
Dowdey was not a trained historian, and was a writer of novels of the South. At his death, he was eulogized as the “Last Confederate,” and it isn’t hard to see why. In the early part of the book, slaves are usually not referred to as slaves – instead he uses “servant” or “attendant.” In the later part of the book he consistently downplays the role of the Ku Klux Klan in Reconstruction, and only views Reconstruction in a negative light. He seems incapable of understanding why the North simply didn’t restore the South to the way it was before the war.
The chapters on Reconstruction make clear that Dowdey was still of an Old South mindset. When writing about Reconstruction he always places “equality” in quotation marks. The abolitionists are always referred to as evil, always ready to use the newly freed blacks for their own political purposes.
Dowdey’s writing is strongest during the war itself, his narrative flows from battle to battle. But again, when it comes to making judgement on the battles themselves, Lee is never to blame. At times Dowdey reaches for any excuse, including referring to the Battle of North Anna as a significant check to Grant, equal to Lee’s defeat at Gettysburg.
There are balanced accounts of the life of General Lee, which at least attempt to critically analyze his actions. Dowdey’s is not one of these. I would suggest Emory Thomas’ Robert E. Lee.
Dowdey was not a trained historian, and was a writer of novels of the South. At his death, he was eulogized as the “Last Confederate,” and it isn’t hard to see why. In the early part of the book, slaves are usually not referred to as slaves – instead he uses “servant” or “attendant.” In the later part of the book he consistently downplays the role of the Ku Klux Klan in Reconstruction, and only views Reconstruction in a negative light. He seems incapable of understanding why the North simply didn’t restore the South to the way it was before the war.
The chapters on Reconstruction make clear that Dowdey was still of an Old South mindset. When writing about Reconstruction he always places “equality” in quotation marks. The abolitionists are always referred to as evil, always ready to use the newly freed blacks for their own political purposes.
Dowdey’s writing is strongest during the war itself, his narrative flows from battle to battle. But again, when it comes to making judgement on the battles themselves, Lee is never to blame. At times Dowdey reaches for any excuse, including referring to the Battle of North Anna as a significant check to Grant, equal to Lee’s defeat at Gettysburg.
There are balanced accounts of the life of General Lee, which at least attempt to critically analyze his actions. Dowdey’s is not one of these. I would suggest Emory Thomas’ Robert E. Lee.
May 24, 2019
A Defense of Lee and of the South
This book does provide a very interesting and detailed history of Civil war battles, worth reading except for the pervasive Southern bias that ranges from subtle to extreme. Overall, Lee is portrayed as a hero, a victim of other's incompetence. The South is portrayed as righteous, the victim of oppression. The South's cruel legacy towards blacks and abuse of Federal prisoners is ignored; the North's rough treatment of the South during and after the war -- especially by Sheridan -- is emphasized. While viewing history from different perspectives can be interesting, in this case more objectivity would have been useful. Lee was a strong military strategist and a loving son, husband and father. He was also weak leader of people, ineffective at influening Confederate politics, and a poor judge of character. Within that context, he waged war against the United States and actively contributed to the killing of thousands of Americans -- an undeniable and inexcusable historical truth.
This book does provide a very interesting and detailed history of Civil war battles, worth reading except for the pervasive Southern bias that ranges from subtle to extreme. Overall, Lee is portrayed as a hero, a victim of other's incompetence. The South is portrayed as righteous, the victim of oppression. The South's cruel legacy towards blacks and abuse of Federal prisoners is ignored; the North's rough treatment of the South during and after the war -- especially by Sheridan -- is emphasized. While viewing history from different perspectives can be interesting, in this case more objectivity would have been useful. Lee was a strong military strategist and a loving son, husband and father. He was also weak leader of people, ineffective at influening Confederate politics, and a poor judge of character. Within that context, he waged war against the United States and actively contributed to the killing of thousands of Americans -- an undeniable and inexcusable historical truth.
March 16, 2019
Pretty mixed at best, fatally compromised by bias at worst.
First, while it's a given that any bio of Lee is going to focus a great deal on the Civil War, this one really "yadda yadda's" over much of his life from West Point to the Civil War. So much so that, if this were the only book on Lee you ever read, you wouldn't really get any sense of why this man was picked for such a prominent position in the CSA army.
The book's treatment of Lee is quite gentle. It's entirely true and worth mentioning that he was badly let down by other generals (Longstreet in particular), but Lee's own shortcomings were glossed over and spun in the best light possible.
The author likewise has, at best, a romantic view of the South and downplays the South's role in its own destruction - glossing over slavery and so on. Granted, the Radical approach to Reconstruction was extreme, but portraying the South as pitiful victims was a bit "much".
First, while it's a given that any bio of Lee is going to focus a great deal on the Civil War, this one really "yadda yadda's" over much of his life from West Point to the Civil War. So much so that, if this were the only book on Lee you ever read, you wouldn't really get any sense of why this man was picked for such a prominent position in the CSA army.
The book's treatment of Lee is quite gentle. It's entirely true and worth mentioning that he was badly let down by other generals (Longstreet in particular), but Lee's own shortcomings were glossed over and spun in the best light possible.
The author likewise has, at best, a romantic view of the South and downplays the South's role in its own destruction - glossing over slavery and so on. Granted, the Radical approach to Reconstruction was extreme, but portraying the South as pitiful victims was a bit "much".
June 11, 2020
An excellent biography of General Robert E. Lee written at a time when biographies did not expose every wart or failing of the subject. You learn how Lee's life molded him into the man that was loved, adored, and respected by many people. The research needed for this book is astounding and it does not create a dull and dry read. Fortunately the author had access to people that had first hand or second hand knowledge of Lee, his family, and his life. This makes the book even more interesting. I highly recommend this biography for your library.
December 12, 2018
If you're going to read a biography on Lee, read Douglas Southall Freeman's 4 volume biography, R.E. Lee (or an abridged version).
Dowdey's work is impressive and captures the political landscape of the time period (although his bias is rather obvious). It focuses less on the battle strategy than Freeman's biography. Although not a bad biography, it pales in comparison with Freeman's incredible work on the life of Robert E. Lee.
Dowdey's work is impressive and captures the political landscape of the time period (although his bias is rather obvious). It focuses less on the battle strategy than Freeman's biography. Although not a bad biography, it pales in comparison with Freeman's incredible work on the life of Robert E. Lee.
October 4, 2019
Author didn't stick to the plot and deviated a lot and at some point i felt like i am reading about civil war than Lee's Biography. I would have loved it more if it has more details about Lee than the war.
September 2, 2019
Well researched, insightful, and the version I believe.
June 10, 2023
Great book with too much detail
March 14, 2024
This review contains trigger warnings, as I try and illustrate my disbelief with what the author actually got away with saying in this book.
I’m not going to lie. This book is a bad, bad book. It made me so angry that I spent the last 20% thinking “Nope, that’s not generally held” all the time. The first 80% of the book had me thinking things like “The author can’t bring himself to say slaves”, or that “This book is so hagiographic that the word hagiography is embarrassed.”
Ok. So this book is about Robert E Lee, the confederate general of Northern Virgina, which was on the front line of the American Civil War, because of its proximity to Washington DC. Lee was apparently to “perfect Southern gentleman,” the most gifted general, not racist (for the times, he was trying to move slaves into meaningful employment), and could’ve won the Civil War (which wasn’t anything to do with slavery, if the author is to be believed), if he’d been listened to. In contrast, Grant was dumber than a sack of spanners who hadn’t the gifts to beat Lee, and only won because he had more men, and material than Lee, and was prepared to use it.
While you’re reading the book, you’ll be expected to forget about the fact that elements of the Confederate Army had pushed as far North as Pennsylvania, because while that happened, it’s not explained, or discussed, because this is about Lee, goshdarnit, and the greater context of what’s going on in the war should be of no interest to you.
After the war, the author claims that freed slaves weren’t ready (or able) to be fully participating citizens (and were only being rabble roused by Republicans anyway), the Klan weren’t that bad, that the Union Army was a leading cause of difficulties, and that everything would have been fine and dandy in Virginia, had the “governing class” were left to do their thing.
So I hope that you can see you might think there… might be issues with the book? As a consequence of how much it irritated me, I did some digging about the book, and author. He lived in Virginia during segregation, and the book was published in 1965, when interpretations of history were clearly different. He was supposed to be fairly liberal, but how you can get away with some of the things said he, and still be liberal is beyond me.
Hopefully you can see why this book is an unpleasant read now.
I’m not going to lie. This book is a bad, bad book. It made me so angry that I spent the last 20% thinking “Nope, that’s not generally held” all the time. The first 80% of the book had me thinking things like “The author can’t bring himself to say slaves”, or that “This book is so hagiographic that the word hagiography is embarrassed.”
Ok. So this book is about Robert E Lee, the confederate general of Northern Virgina, which was on the front line of the American Civil War, because of its proximity to Washington DC. Lee was apparently to “perfect Southern gentleman,” the most gifted general, not racist (for the times, he was trying to move slaves into meaningful employment), and could’ve won the Civil War (which wasn’t anything to do with slavery, if the author is to be believed), if he’d been listened to. In contrast, Grant was dumber than a sack of spanners who hadn’t the gifts to beat Lee, and only won because he had more men, and material than Lee, and was prepared to use it.
While you’re reading the book, you’ll be expected to forget about the fact that elements of the Confederate Army had pushed as far North as Pennsylvania, because while that happened, it’s not explained, or discussed, because this is about Lee, goshdarnit, and the greater context of what’s going on in the war should be of no interest to you.
After the war, the author claims that freed slaves weren’t ready (or able) to be fully participating citizens (and were only being rabble roused by Republicans anyway), the Klan weren’t that bad, that the Union Army was a leading cause of difficulties, and that everything would have been fine and dandy in Virginia, had the “governing class” were left to do their thing.
So I hope that you can see you might think there… might be issues with the book? As a consequence of how much it irritated me, I did some digging about the book, and author. He lived in Virginia during segregation, and the book was published in 1965, when interpretations of history were clearly different. He was supposed to be fairly liberal, but how you can get away with some of the things said he, and still be liberal is beyond me.
Hopefully you can see why this book is an unpleasant read now.
June 28, 2022
This book was interesting and informative. It has a fair amount of military maneuvers, which I didn't follow well, but it was interesting to learn about the people, personalities, and events. One aspect that I particularly found interesting was the point of view from Lee, and probably the author, that Lincoln, Grant, and the Northern Cause were no angels. It didn't demonize them, but it pointed out perceived faults and errors. Also showed the character of Lee and the good that he tried to do. So much of our history of this era is very black and white, with the South and Lee particularly demonized right now, that it was interesting to see goodness on both sides and errors on both sides.
February 7, 2012
Of all the books about Lee I've read in the last few years, this is one of the best. A must for anyone interested in Lee and the Civil War.
June 30, 2016
Super info and insights
I learned as much about the civil war from this book than countless previous books and movies. So well researched. Highly recommend
I learned as much about the civil war from this book than countless previous books and movies. So well researched. Highly recommend
Read
July 18, 2019Probably the best biography of Lee I have ever read.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews