Posted by
Big Mo on Saturday, November 04, 2006 7:34:12 PM
Note: the following three entries are interconnected. Title: The Marble Man: Robert E. Lee and His Image in American SocietyAuthor: Thomas Connelly
Publisher: Louisiana State University Press
Date: 1978
Rating: 4 starts out of 5
What this book is / is not This fascinating study examines the admirers, fans and supporters of Gen. Robert E. Lee who all but deified him as the icon of the noble South and the Lost Cause mythology. However, it’s not an in-depth biography of Lee (a really good one has yet to be written that neither damns him nor fawns over him).
Main thesisThe “Lee Cult,” while seeking to elevate Lee, trashed the reputations of men such as Gen. James Longstreet who disagreed with the Lee Cult or dared to defend themselves. Lee’s reputation as a great American general survives to this day almost intact, despite the fact that he fought vigorously against the United States.
What the “Lee Cult” accomplished is the exception to the rule that the victors write the histories.
Jaw-DropperOne of the most amazing expositions in this book is the persistent Lee Cult charge, led by Jubal Early and S. Pendleton, that Longstreet lost Gettysburg. Longstreet, Lee’s “old war horse” and his second-in-command, may not have been at his absolute best in July 1863 – neither was Lee – but he did not lose the battle. The lasting and untrue charges of the Lee Cult revolved around Lee ordering Longstreet to attack at sunrise on July 2, the second day of the battle. By not attacking until 4 p.m., the charge goes, he cost the South the battle and the war. But there was no such order given. After the war Longstreet secured testimony from Lee’s three top aides (Taylor, Marshall and Venable) who wrote that they knew of no such “sunrise” attack order. Besides, such an order was impossible for the 1st Corps commander to fulfill, because much of Longstreet’s corps was not yet on the field at sunrise. Nevertheless, the charge persisted because of Longstreet’s unpardonable “sins” of criticizing Lee, hinting wrongly that he was the genius behind Lee and joining with his old friend Ulysses S. Grant and the Republicans after the war. Many modern analyses of the war still repeat the charge that Longstreet lost Gettysburg—even a century after Lee’s top aids, who would know, testified that no such order was given. (Note: the testimonies of Taylor, Marshall and Venable are reprinted in Longstreet's memoirs,
From Manassas to Appomattox.)
Does the author succeed?For the most part. He’s on firmer ground when concentrating on the Lee Cult than on Lee himself.
Criticism Robert E. Lee is actually a polarizing figure. There is a battle in Civil War circles over whether he actually caused the South’s defeat by fighting costly battles that the Confederacy could ill afford. Connelly’s book, published in the late 1970s, is considered the first “Lee bashing” book. While I think Connelly’s book is brilliant, I sometimes think he wrote it to pick a fight.
Main takeaway lessonsMore than any other book, this gave me a critical eye toward not only how history is shaped by events and personalities, but also how it can be
manufactured to fit an agenda. The Lee Cult and the largely mythological Lost Cause dominate studies—and even entertainment—of the Civil War to this day, 140 years later.
Do I recommend this book?Absolutely. Even if you aren’t at all interested in the Civil War, you should read this book because it will give you a lot of insight into how people will twist, bend, turn and distort words and events to fit their reality—even if that reality never existed. The modern equivalent to the Lee Cult is the leftmedia and liberal Democrats’ “reality-based” version of Iraq, which flies in the face of what most of the soldiers who are there in the field repeatedly say.