What do you think?
Rate this book
Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command #1-3
Lees Lieutenants: A Study in Command
A towering landmark in Civil War literature, long considered one of the great masterpieces of military history -- now available in a one-volume abridgment.
Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command is the most colorful and popular of Douglas Southall Freeman's works. A sweeping narrative that presents a multiple biography against the flame-shot background of the American Civil War, it is the story of the great figures of the Army of Northern Virginia who fought under Robert E. Lee.
Dr. Freeman describes the early rise and fall of General Beauregard, the developing friction between Jefferson Davis and Joseph E. Johnston, the emergence and failure of a number of military charlatans, and the triumphs of unlikely men at crucial times. He also describes the rise of the legendary "Stonewall" Jackson and traces his progress in the Shenandoah Valley Campaign and into Richmond amid the acclaim of the South.
The Confederacy won resounding victories throughout the war, but seldom easily or without tremendous casualties. Death was always on the heels of fame, but the men who survived -- among them Jackson, Longstreet, and Ewell -- developed as commanders and men. Lee's Lieutenants follows these men to the costly battle at Gettysburg, through the deepening twilight of the South's declining military might, and finally to the collapse of Lee's command and his formal surrender in 1865. To his unparalleled descriptions of men and operations, Dr. Freeman adds an insightful analysis of the lessons learned and their bearing upon the future military development of the nation.
Accessible at last in a one-volume edition abridged by noted Civil War historian Stephen W. Sears, Lee's Lieutenants is essential reading for all Civil War buffs, students of war, and admirers of the historian's art as practiced at its very highest level.
Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command is the most colorful and popular of Douglas Southall Freeman's works. A sweeping narrative that presents a multiple biography against the flame-shot background of the American Civil War, it is the story of the great figures of the Army of Northern Virginia who fought under Robert E. Lee.
Dr. Freeman describes the early rise and fall of General Beauregard, the developing friction between Jefferson Davis and Joseph E. Johnston, the emergence and failure of a number of military charlatans, and the triumphs of unlikely men at crucial times. He also describes the rise of the legendary "Stonewall" Jackson and traces his progress in the Shenandoah Valley Campaign and into Richmond amid the acclaim of the South.
The Confederacy won resounding victories throughout the war, but seldom easily or without tremendous casualties. Death was always on the heels of fame, but the men who survived -- among them Jackson, Longstreet, and Ewell -- developed as commanders and men. Lee's Lieutenants follows these men to the costly battle at Gettysburg, through the deepening twilight of the South's declining military might, and finally to the collapse of Lee's command and his formal surrender in 1865. To his unparalleled descriptions of men and operations, Dr. Freeman adds an insightful analysis of the lessons learned and their bearing upon the future military development of the nation.
Accessible at last in a one-volume edition abridged by noted Civil War historian Stephen W. Sears, Lee's Lieutenants is essential reading for all Civil War buffs, students of war, and admirers of the historian's art as practiced at its very highest level.
912 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1940
About the author
Douglas Southall Freeman
102 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 34 reviews
November 17, 2017
I can recognize this book as a pillar of Civil War history, while also recognizing that the historiography has moved past it, and while the collection of primary source accounts are vital, in terms of research questions, writing style, and place in a larger academic debate, Lee's Lieutenants is obsolete and painful.
Freeman makes a close study of the campaigns of the Army of Northern Virginia in terms of the leading subordinates of Robert E Lee (he had previously written a massive biography of Lee). My dissatisfaction comes from my inability to get a good feel for the period, for why these commanders acted as they did in moment. The section that I read covered the crucial transformation from a mob into a semi-professional army, and I still have little sense of how 'old Army' veterans interacted with political appointees, the energy of ambitious young men, or the masses of common soldiers. The battles of the Civil War were a fascinating last gasp for when the physical courage and strength of a commander could make a decisive difference, for when information moved at the speed of horse messenger and battalions at a quick march, but I have little sense of how generals decided to deploy and attack. Confederate commanders seem to spend as much time sniping at each other in dispatches as they fighting the Federals. I have rarely read so many words and learned so little.
Part of this may come down to political differences. Freeman clearly idolized the Confederate generals. He grew up down the street from General Jubal Early, and his father was a Confederate veteran. I think we should be honest about the causes and consequences and call the war 'The Slavers Rebellion', and remember the Confederates as such, if at all. Freeman thought they should be memorialized, and their crimes covered up. I could forgive an opposing point of view, if it had something interesting to say. For example, I really enjoyed Guderian's memoirs, and Nazis murdered almost all my relatives who stayed behind in Poland.
Freeman makes a close study of the campaigns of the Army of Northern Virginia in terms of the leading subordinates of Robert E Lee (he had previously written a massive biography of Lee). My dissatisfaction comes from my inability to get a good feel for the period, for why these commanders acted as they did in moment. The section that I read covered the crucial transformation from a mob into a semi-professional army, and I still have little sense of how 'old Army' veterans interacted with political appointees, the energy of ambitious young men, or the masses of common soldiers. The battles of the Civil War were a fascinating last gasp for when the physical courage and strength of a commander could make a decisive difference, for when information moved at the speed of horse messenger and battalions at a quick march, but I have little sense of how generals decided to deploy and attack. Confederate commanders seem to spend as much time sniping at each other in dispatches as they fighting the Federals. I have rarely read so many words and learned so little.
Part of this may come down to political differences. Freeman clearly idolized the Confederate generals. He grew up down the street from General Jubal Early, and his father was a Confederate veteran. I think we should be honest about the causes and consequences and call the war 'The Slavers Rebellion', and remember the Confederates as such, if at all. Freeman thought they should be memorialized, and their crimes covered up. I could forgive an opposing point of view, if it had something interesting to say. For example, I really enjoyed Guderian's memoirs, and Nazis murdered almost all my relatives who stayed behind in Poland.
December 10, 2012
A three volume work by Lee’s biographer, which is a study into the command of the Army of Northern Virginia during the American Civil War. Freeman lays out his arguments in his opening chapter of the first book, which concentrates on the development of the army command prior to Lee’s assumption of command. The second book deals with the period highlighted by the Lee/Jackson command team. He states his lessons learned in the opening chapter of his final book and traces the army from Gettysburg through Appomattox. The two chapters at the beginning of the first and third book together are some of the best writing on leadership to be found in any work of any period. This book has also been released as a one-volume abridgement by Stephen W. Sears.
April 15, 2023
I struggled some with whether to give this remarkable book four stars or five. Freeman unapologetically romanticized the CSA military officers and soldiers as gallant and noble, a viewpoint which of course offends modern sensibilities. Yet this amazing chronicle of the general officers of the Army of Northern Virginia is the epitome of military analysis, truly excellent in this regard. Since this is exclusively a history of the Confederate army high command, the focus and perspective is necessarily theirs, which can seem unusual at first to the student of history who has read other Civil War histories that provide a more general or comprehensive overview. But this aspect provided me with the interesting and suspenseful sensation of watching the Confederate general staff try to anticipate and react to the Federals when I already knew what the Federals were doing, would do, and why. General Lee is mentioned when necessary for purposes of narrative or context, but he is not examined or critiqued here. The author sticks scrupulously to his subject matter: the general officers of the ANV, ie Lee's Lieutenants. No where else will you find such detailed examination of these men. And there are enough exciting descriptions of skirmishes and battles to keep the narrative interesting.
All things considered, the research, the writing, the unsparing assessments and critiques all make for an outstanding military history. No wonder it is considered a classic.
All things considered, the research, the writing, the unsparing assessments and critiques all make for an outstanding military history. No wonder it is considered a classic.
October 9, 2011
As it was written in the forties when there were still men alive who fought in the War, it is very complicated. The country still had first hand knowledge and no artistic license is taken. The story is it is a story, more of an account, is astounding, as you read and somehow the numbers of casualties never leaves you mind. Of course we will never know another war like this which is fine by me. Lee had the men and Lincoln had the guns and trains. That is just about it. In this first volume of what turned out to be three the beginning is painfully slow as it must have been for Lincoln. However, it appears that this time was used by Lee and his men for good.
August 14, 2010
This is required reading if you are going to do any study of Robert E. Lee. It is slanted toward Lee's subordinates always making the mistakes, as opposed to Lee himself, but it is a very, very good read.
One caveat. This is not the book for the military or civil war beginner. But it is still required reading to know about Lee, just after you have versed yourself in other CW books (like Shelby Foote's narratives about the Civil War).
One caveat. This is not the book for the military or civil war beginner. But it is still required reading to know about Lee, just after you have versed yourself in other CW books (like Shelby Foote's narratives about the Civil War).
February 9, 2016
Summary: Stephen Sears abridged version of Douglas Southall Freeman's three volume study of the military leadership of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia under Robert E. Lee.
Most of the reading I've done of Civil War history has either focused on the ups and downs of the Union's military leadership, or covered different battles looking at what both sides are doing. The unique thing Douglas Southall Freeman did in this landmark work was study in detail the military leadership of the generals who served under Robert E. Lee, battle by battle throughout the Civil War. Stephen W. Sears, noted Civil War historian abridged this work to one volume, deleting the fourteen appendices Freeman included and condensing the battle accounts, often detailed in other histories. What remains is a focused study of Confederate military history.
We see the rise of Lee, with the patchy, uneven performance of Beauregard, and the conflicts between Joe Johnston and Jefferson Davis. We see the efforts of Lee to weld the leadership of Jackson, Longstreet, Ewell, and cavalryman Jeb Stuart into the powerful fighting force that moved from uncoordinated performances on the Peninsula to a brief shining moment of indisputable glory at Chancellorsville, with Jackson's brilliantly executed flank attack on the Union right.
That brings us to the sad tale that runs through this book, of tragic losses of irreplaceable commanders, foremost of whom was Stonewall Jackson. The army at Chancellorsville was just not the same a few months later at Gettysburg. The butcher's bill continued, with the loss of great commanders like Dorsey Pender, Dodson Ramseur, Jeb Stuart, down to Powell Hill in the final defense of Petersburg. Much of the narrative describes Lee's efforts to cobble together the needed leadership from those who rose within the ranks as shining examples of leadership through the fighting.
We see the rise of leaders like John B. Gordon, William Mahone, Wade Hampton, Robert Rodes and others. Some like Gordon and Mahone made it to the end while others like Rodes met their death on the battlefield. We see the decline of others like Richard Ewell, who after an amputation never was the same. And we have accounts of the "unlucky" commanders, often through no fault of their own, who ended up in the middle of losing actions. Probably the steadiest of all was Henry Heth. The most notable of all was George Pickett whose troops were decimated at Gettysburg through no fault of his own and at Five Corners at the very end of the war, while he was enjoying a shad bake.
The other category of commanders were those who were neither brilliant nor bad but consistently did their duty and led their men. Dick Anderson, Jubal Early, Powell Hill (when he wasn't ill), and most of all, Longstreet, were in this category. All but Hill survived the war.
The other thing this study of war brought out was the tension between strategy and "the fog of war" when commanders have to make decisions on incomplete information. Ewell's hesitation of pressing the attack on Cemetery Hill at Gettysburg on Day One of the fighting was the classic example. Stuart's calvary hadn't returned from its raid and Ewell, not knowing what he was facing allowed the Union to establish its foothold. Others, like Jackson made key decisions to reinforce troops at places like Antietam that made the difference between victory and defeat.
Perhaps the most striking thing about Lee was his ability to weld these different personalities together and, for a season, to overcome the disadvantages facing the Confederacy while maintaining the support of Jefferson Davis, a difficult president at best under whom to serve.
I suspect there are more recent studies that have refined this work. But for its scope, this continues to be a magnificent work, served well by this abridgement by Sears. A must read for any Civil War buff!
Most of the reading I've done of Civil War history has either focused on the ups and downs of the Union's military leadership, or covered different battles looking at what both sides are doing. The unique thing Douglas Southall Freeman did in this landmark work was study in detail the military leadership of the generals who served under Robert E. Lee, battle by battle throughout the Civil War. Stephen W. Sears, noted Civil War historian abridged this work to one volume, deleting the fourteen appendices Freeman included and condensing the battle accounts, often detailed in other histories. What remains is a focused study of Confederate military history.
We see the rise of Lee, with the patchy, uneven performance of Beauregard, and the conflicts between Joe Johnston and Jefferson Davis. We see the efforts of Lee to weld the leadership of Jackson, Longstreet, Ewell, and cavalryman Jeb Stuart into the powerful fighting force that moved from uncoordinated performances on the Peninsula to a brief shining moment of indisputable glory at Chancellorsville, with Jackson's brilliantly executed flank attack on the Union right.
That brings us to the sad tale that runs through this book, of tragic losses of irreplaceable commanders, foremost of whom was Stonewall Jackson. The army at Chancellorsville was just not the same a few months later at Gettysburg. The butcher's bill continued, with the loss of great commanders like Dorsey Pender, Dodson Ramseur, Jeb Stuart, down to Powell Hill in the final defense of Petersburg. Much of the narrative describes Lee's efforts to cobble together the needed leadership from those who rose within the ranks as shining examples of leadership through the fighting.
We see the rise of leaders like John B. Gordon, William Mahone, Wade Hampton, Robert Rodes and others. Some like Gordon and Mahone made it to the end while others like Rodes met their death on the battlefield. We see the decline of others like Richard Ewell, who after an amputation never was the same. And we have accounts of the "unlucky" commanders, often through no fault of their own, who ended up in the middle of losing actions. Probably the steadiest of all was Henry Heth. The most notable of all was George Pickett whose troops were decimated at Gettysburg through no fault of his own and at Five Corners at the very end of the war, while he was enjoying a shad bake.
The other category of commanders were those who were neither brilliant nor bad but consistently did their duty and led their men. Dick Anderson, Jubal Early, Powell Hill (when he wasn't ill), and most of all, Longstreet, were in this category. All but Hill survived the war.
The other thing this study of war brought out was the tension between strategy and "the fog of war" when commanders have to make decisions on incomplete information. Ewell's hesitation of pressing the attack on Cemetery Hill at Gettysburg on Day One of the fighting was the classic example. Stuart's calvary hadn't returned from its raid and Ewell, not knowing what he was facing allowed the Union to establish its foothold. Others, like Jackson made key decisions to reinforce troops at places like Antietam that made the difference between victory and defeat.
Perhaps the most striking thing about Lee was his ability to weld these different personalities together and, for a season, to overcome the disadvantages facing the Confederacy while maintaining the support of Jefferson Davis, a difficult president at best under whom to serve.
I suspect there are more recent studies that have refined this work. But for its scope, this continues to be a magnificent work, served well by this abridgement by Sears. A must read for any Civil War buff!
March 30, 2012
I developed a strong interest in the Civil War four years ago after reading a biography on President Lincoln that touched on how frustrated he was with trying to find competent officers to lead the Army of the Potomac. When I drove to Knoxville, Tennessee I took the audio books Gods and Generals, and The Last Full Measure by Jeff Shaara with me. The descriptions of the battle ground and unfolding battle were so vivid that I could see it clearly in my mind. By the time, I was finished with both audio books I was hooked.
Since I completed both audio books by the time I drove from Utah to Tennessee, I picked up a copy of Grant Moves South (which is the story of the Union's western campaign) by Bruce Catton at Chattanooga,Tennessee when I went and saw the Chickamaga battlefield. After seeing the war from the western point of view on the Union side I wanted to see the war from the Southern point of view on the eastern campaign - that led me to this book.
This book is an abridgement of the original three-volume version (the footnotes have been taken out). It is an incredibly well written book. It is a history of the army of Northern Virginia from the first shot fired to the surrender at Appomattox - but what makes this book unique is that it is a biography of around 150 Confederate officers. The book discusses in depth all the tradeoffs that were being made politically and militarily by the South. The book does an excellent job describing the battles, then at a critical decision point in the battle, the book focuses on an officer - the book stops and tells the biography of that person, and then goes back to the battle and tells what information the officer had at that point and the decision he made. At the end of the battle, the officers decisions are critiqued based on what he could have known and what he should have known given his experience, and that is compared with 20/20 hindsight.
An excellent read.
Since I completed both audio books by the time I drove from Utah to Tennessee, I picked up a copy of Grant Moves South (which is the story of the Union's western campaign) by Bruce Catton at Chattanooga,Tennessee when I went and saw the Chickamaga battlefield. After seeing the war from the western point of view on the Union side I wanted to see the war from the Southern point of view on the eastern campaign - that led me to this book.
This book is an abridgement of the original three-volume version (the footnotes have been taken out). It is an incredibly well written book. It is a history of the army of Northern Virginia from the first shot fired to the surrender at Appomattox - but what makes this book unique is that it is a biography of around 150 Confederate officers. The book discusses in depth all the tradeoffs that were being made politically and militarily by the South. The book does an excellent job describing the battles, then at a critical decision point in the battle, the book focuses on an officer - the book stops and tells the biography of that person, and then goes back to the battle and tells what information the officer had at that point and the decision he made. At the end of the battle, the officers decisions are critiqued based on what he could have known and what he should have known given his experience, and that is compared with 20/20 hindsight.
An excellent read.
February 15, 2020
This book is not for the weekend history buff. It's for someone who wants to get into the interstices of the Army of Northern Virginia and learn what happened with each regiment of each brigade during the many battles Robert E. Lee fought in a vain effort to protect Richmond. Just keeping up with the personnel changes after each battle is intimidating. The Civil War was hard on Generals who, at the time, were expected to lead from the front. Each battle resulted in the loss of several and the author, Douglas Southall Freeman, goes to great length to explain each post-battle reorganization. Since Lee never wrote a memoir, this is the best resource the hard-core Civil War buff is going to have for keeping track of all the players in the major battles that were fought in the Mid-Atlantic theatre.
November 5, 2012
After several book written from the Union perspective, it was interesting (and somewhat jarring) to read a Civil War history so unabashedly worshipful of the Confederacy and its leaders.
The writing was good and the approach interesting. I can't imagine reading the whole five-volume set, though: it started to drag shortly after Gettysburg, and toward the end it was just one paragraph after another of how much Thomas Jackson was missed.
Incidentally I live near a high school named for Freeman. I guess the folks around here got so tired of naming everything after General Lee and his lieutenants that they thought his/their biographer should have his own namesake. Odd, that.
The writing was good and the approach interesting. I can't imagine reading the whole five-volume set, though: it started to drag shortly after Gettysburg, and toward the end it was just one paragraph after another of how much Thomas Jackson was missed.
Incidentally I live near a high school named for Freeman. I guess the folks around here got so tired of naming everything after General Lee and his lieutenants that they thought his/their biographer should have his own namesake. Odd, that.
June 7, 2020
Lee took the sugar out of his lemonade to drink it the way Stonewall liked it. He trusted and empowered his subordinates to make dynamic tactical decisions on the battlefield through decentralized execution.
Lee leveraged dissent among his lieutenants during planning meetings to expose strategy weaknesses from multiple angles before making a command decision.
Lee leveraged dissent among his lieutenants during planning meetings to expose strategy weaknesses from multiple angles before making a command decision.
December 28, 2007
This is just about the best Civil War book, actually three books, written. It looks at the key generals immediately under Lee's command: how they succeeded and how they failed. The book more or less follows the campaigns of the eastern theater chronologically.
March 30, 2022
You will never find a better historian of Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia than Douglas Southall Freeman.
February 18, 2024
This is an excellent history of the Confederate States of America’s Army of Northern Virginia (“ANV”). The original book by this author was written in three volumes during the 1940s. This edition is a one volume abridgement by historian and author Stephen Sears published in 1998. This abridged version is still 816 pages in length in the softback edition I own. It is a top-down history of the ANV with the focus being on the generals of that Army. The focus is on these officers and their personalities, decisions and performance as war leaders. It follows the chronological life of the ANV and its predecessor army, the Confederate’s Army of the Potomac. So, the leaders are covered whenever they impacted or participated in the current event or battle being discussed. According to the Introduction (as written by historian and author James M. McPherson) for this one volume book, Mr. Freeman was born in 1886 in Lynchburg, VA and moved to Richmond in 1892. His father served in the ANV for 4 years. So, Freeman had an interest in this army and this war from a young age. He met many Confederate veterans when he was growing up. You’ll get many insights into the abilities of various Confederate officers, their intra-army disputes and clashes as well as their interactions with Confederate President Jefferson Davis. I strongly recommend this history book to anyone with an interest in the American Civil War, especially if you want to understand why and how the decisions, strategies and tactics were made for the ANV.
November 6, 2020
A good overview of the Army of Northern Virginia from a different perspective. That perspective is the decision making process used by the senior commanders. Freeman reviews the information known at the time and goes inside the heads of Lee, Jackson, Ewell, etc. to divine how critical decisions were made. I have read criticisms of Freeman as a Lee worshipper, but I didn't notice it all that much. When Lee blew it, Freeman points it out. This book helped me to look at a bigger picture in my future readings.
December 11, 2024
Having previously read several histories of the Civil War I did not gain any further insight into that historical period. What I recall of the book is: interminable listings of every officer above the rank of Colonel that was captured, wounded, maimed, or killed after every action; after every campaign the reorganizations the Army of Northern Virginia underwent with listings of officers, Colonel and above, reassigned among the commands; and a tone of adoration for the Virginia Gentility that made up most of the senior ranks of that Army.
September 10, 2024
must read
I have read many civil war books and nothing has the feel and beauty of this one. He nailed so many unanswered questions about Jackson and Longstreet as well as other combat generals. In this 21st century world of political correctness about the war it is refreshing to take a trip back a century and absorb what the south thought about the main players.
I have read many civil war books and nothing has the feel and beauty of this one. He nailed so many unanswered questions about Jackson and Longstreet as well as other combat generals. In this 21st century world of political correctness about the war it is refreshing to take a trip back a century and absorb what the south thought about the main players.
May 16, 2023
I thought it contained views not currently in vogue today and I enjoyed reading the book. There were times I ‘got lost in the weeds “ but nonetheless I would recommend this book to someone already familiar with the Civil War.
December 27, 2023
This book reads like it was published in 1940, which, in fact, it was. It offers psychological insights into some of the major players in the Confederacy. It has been a few years since I read it, but I recall heavy Lost Cause vibes.
January 23, 2018
Parts of this book are captivating; some are mundane. Some reviewers believe no abridgement can do justice to original. Led me to read two books on Chancellorsville.
April 5, 2022
The best Civil War book I have ever read. It gets short shrift nowadays, I suspect because it is not judgmental enough? Against Lee I mean, and the Confederacy in general (pun intended). Masterpiece.
April 23, 2023
A good General history of Lee’s men, except for his treatment of Longstreet who he downgrades to sell “The Lost Cause”
December 19, 2023
A well written and readable study of Lee's lieutenants.
May 7, 2024
very good
The author presents both the good and the bad of the confederate high command. Including Lee. This is well worth reading and I highly recommend this book.
The author presents both the good and the bad of the confederate high command. Including Lee. This is well worth reading and I highly recommend this book.
June 25, 2024
Leadership has an outsized influence in most human activities, the American Civil War especially so. Douglas Southall Freeman’s finest work, Lee’s Lieutenants examines evolution of leaders in the Army of Northern Virginia over the course of the Civil War. Freeman grew up knowing Confederate veterans, and earned a PhD in History from Johns Hopkins University. He was one of the few historians to earn two Pulitzer Prizes for his four-volume R. E. Lee and his seven-volume George Washington. In Lee’s Lieutenants, Freeman argues that the ANV’s leadership grew, developed, and then, due to excessive casualties, declined over the course of the army’s existence, guiding its performance and ultimately sealing its fate.
Freeman follows the army’s campaigns from 1861, when Lee was a commander in western Virginia, military advisor to President Davis, and then Joe Johnston’s successor in command of the ANV in the Seven Days (vol. 1), Cedar Mountain to Chancellorsville (vol. 2), and Gettysburg to final defeat at Appomattox (vol. 3). In each role, Freeman effectively demonstrates that Lee spotted young talent and developed it, moved unsuccessful or incompetent officers out of the ANV, and then tried to stave off the gathering clouds of defeat in the Overland Campaign of 1864-65.
Freeman’s knowledge is encyclopedic. He consults an unbelievable array of primary sources, from the 128-volume Official Records to seemingly every memoir written by anyone connected to the ANV throughout its existence. Being a newspaper editor, Freeman also deftly consults period newspapers. Freeman also consulted a variety of secondary sources, although the body of Civil War literature in 1940 was not as robust as it is today. Freeman’s research omits no useful sources. While serving as the commander of a backwater theater (western Virginia) or as military advisor to the President, Lee surveyed the field, identified promising leaders. When he assumed command of the ANV on June 1, 1862, Lee started directly shaping its leadership, removing incompetent leaders, selecting the promising for promotion, and educating all of his lieutenants by example and coaching. Civil War combat was extremely bloody, especially for leaders, and losses had to be made good. With the massive bloodletting of the summer of 1864, this became more and more difficult and the quality of the leadership suffered. The leadership in the ANV in 1865, especially at corps and division level, was not as effective as it had been in 1862. In the race between spotting and developing effective junior leaders and the need to replace combat losses, the Grim Reaper won in the end.
Some critiques are in order. First, Freeman is a Virginian and writes as a Virginian. He focuses his three-volume set is almost exclusively on the eastern theater of the war. While some argue the Confederacy lost the war in the West, Freeman does not dwell on the Western Theater, merely referring curious readers to the secondary literature on the Army of Tennessee. While Freeman is not unfair to the Union Army of the Potomac, he does not examine it in depth except as a foil for Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. Finally, Freeman does not relate the political issues causing the war, but accepts the war as a given. When politics do enter the narrative, it is usually domestic Confederate politics and only explored in how it influenced the functioning of the army. Freeman hardly mentions slavery at all. This is emphatically a military history.
Within those boundaries, Freeman’s argument is entirely convincing. His narrative flows smoothly, his arrangement of arguments felicitous, and the result is a convincing and highly readable. While Freeman earned Pultizers for the multivolume biographies R. E. Lee and George Washington, Lee’s Lieutenants is probably Freeman’s best work.
Freeman follows the army’s campaigns from 1861, when Lee was a commander in western Virginia, military advisor to President Davis, and then Joe Johnston’s successor in command of the ANV in the Seven Days (vol. 1), Cedar Mountain to Chancellorsville (vol. 2), and Gettysburg to final defeat at Appomattox (vol. 3). In each role, Freeman effectively demonstrates that Lee spotted young talent and developed it, moved unsuccessful or incompetent officers out of the ANV, and then tried to stave off the gathering clouds of defeat in the Overland Campaign of 1864-65.
Freeman’s knowledge is encyclopedic. He consults an unbelievable array of primary sources, from the 128-volume Official Records to seemingly every memoir written by anyone connected to the ANV throughout its existence. Being a newspaper editor, Freeman also deftly consults period newspapers. Freeman also consulted a variety of secondary sources, although the body of Civil War literature in 1940 was not as robust as it is today. Freeman’s research omits no useful sources. While serving as the commander of a backwater theater (western Virginia) or as military advisor to the President, Lee surveyed the field, identified promising leaders. When he assumed command of the ANV on June 1, 1862, Lee started directly shaping its leadership, removing incompetent leaders, selecting the promising for promotion, and educating all of his lieutenants by example and coaching. Civil War combat was extremely bloody, especially for leaders, and losses had to be made good. With the massive bloodletting of the summer of 1864, this became more and more difficult and the quality of the leadership suffered. The leadership in the ANV in 1865, especially at corps and division level, was not as effective as it had been in 1862. In the race between spotting and developing effective junior leaders and the need to replace combat losses, the Grim Reaper won in the end.
Some critiques are in order. First, Freeman is a Virginian and writes as a Virginian. He focuses his three-volume set is almost exclusively on the eastern theater of the war. While some argue the Confederacy lost the war in the West, Freeman does not dwell on the Western Theater, merely referring curious readers to the secondary literature on the Army of Tennessee. While Freeman is not unfair to the Union Army of the Potomac, he does not examine it in depth except as a foil for Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. Finally, Freeman does not relate the political issues causing the war, but accepts the war as a given. When politics do enter the narrative, it is usually domestic Confederate politics and only explored in how it influenced the functioning of the army. Freeman hardly mentions slavery at all. This is emphatically a military history.
Within those boundaries, Freeman’s argument is entirely convincing. His narrative flows smoothly, his arrangement of arguments felicitous, and the result is a convincing and highly readable. While Freeman earned Pultizers for the multivolume biographies R. E. Lee and George Washington, Lee’s Lieutenants is probably Freeman’s best work.
January 27, 2013
Actually a bit disappointing for me, per my expectations. I was expecting a collection of mini-biographies of most of Lee's generals and brigadiers. But instead this book turned out to be more of a retelling of the history of the Army of Northern Virginia, but from the sense of an organization chart. You could almost read this as a history of promotions and demotions, and sort of reads like one. I'm not sure, but suspect that Sears, in his editing to make this an abridged version of the 3 set series may have consciously removed much of the biographical material about Early, Hill, Longstreet, Mosby, etc. But it's possible Freeman never put this information, and what I was seeking, in the books to begin with. Good reference manual, but not sure I'd read again completely or recommend.
September 19, 2014
These are the books my father was reading on the train when his division was ordered from California to England to prepare for the invasion of France. Amazingly well written, and fascinating character studies. Detailed accounts of every civil war battle, but most importantly, terrific insights into the men who led the fight in the civil war for the confederacy.
January 10, 2008
A good review of the battles of the Civil War from the subordinates of General Lee. It explains in great detail the Southern movements before and during the battles. Shows the difficulty of coordination.
May 26, 2014
This book is the first in a two volume series on Robert E. Lee. Even though I thought I knew everything there was to know about Robert E. Lee, many in depth descriptions of events were added knowledge of the great General Robert E. Lee. Great book for Civil War buffs.
February 2, 2022
Sporadic jumps make this historical book hard at times to keep up with but it definitely shows the goo, the bad and the ugly of the generals under Lee's command. By far a book who are civil war enthusiast it definitely isn't a casual read.
August 8, 2013
Read this first in grade school and probably 3 times since then. On my top five list of books to have on a deserted island. Get the 3 volume set and avoid any abridgements.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews