Elizabeth Brown Pryor (1951–2015)

This biography of Lee sets out not to supplant previous biographies, but to complement and correct them, largely on the basis of more than a thousand letters that somehow survived the ravages of the Civil War and have never been collected and published in full. Along the way, Pryor casts doubt on some enduring myths, for example, the oft-repeated claim that Lee passed up numerous lucrative business offers after the war to take on the presidency of Washington College in Lexington. The evidence for such offers is scanty, as Pryor drily puts it. Yet hers is not a work to be shelved with the debunkers; she comes away from her research with a plain admiration for the formidable qualities of this American hero. Yet it is clear that she feels that it is the hagiographers, not the debunkers, who have done the greater disservice to our memory of Lee.
Her book is carefully-structured. The twenty-six chapters are loosely arranged over a chronological understructure: the first chapter treats the heroic, flawed father Lee barely knew, the last deals with Lee’s post-mortem reputation. Yet the chapters themselves are topical. The occasion of his wedding to Mary Custis, granddaughter of Martha Washington, for instance, is the point of departure for a chapter on the couple’s marriage. Then comes a chapter on Lee as a father, soon followed by a chapter on the place of slaves in Southern households in general, with particular emphasis on the Custis-Lee family. This is entitled, with only a slight hint of irony, The Family Circle. Each chapter opens with one or more letters, cited in full, in keeping with Pryor’s thesis that it is only through his correspondence that we can get beyond the marble facade to the complex human that was Robert E. Lee.
Along the way, Pryor points out many phases in Lee’s life that were less-than-successful. Among them are his stint as superintendent of West Point, his service as cavalry officer on the Texas frontier, and his performance as slavemaster after the death of his father-in-law put him in that position. Most poignant is his decision to resign his army commission and thereby violate his oath of allegiance to the United States. It is a commonplace among Lee biographers that the decision to resign and refuse the offer to lead the Union forces was the “answer he was born to make,” as D.S. Freeman put it. Pryor however maintains that it did not come easily to him. “This poignant moment, when a strong, steadfast man paced and prayed in despair, is a scene worthy of Shakespeare precisely because it so palpably expresses the contradictions in his heart” (p. 291).
Nor does Lee’s post-war career escape Pryor’s criticism, notably for his revision of the reasons for resigning and casting his lot with the South. Lee’s was also one of the most persuasive voices purveying the pernicious sophistry that the South was not defeated, but surrendered to superior force.
Yet Pryor is also quick to praise unreservedly Lee’s successes, such as his service in the Mexican War, which brought him to the attention of his commander, Winfield Scott, who came to view him as the ablest officer in the army. Other actions she lauds are his flawless apprehension of John Brown at Harper’s Ferry, the strategical and tactical brilliance of his victory at Chancellorsville, the manner and dignity of his surrender at Appomatox, and his decision to become president of Washington College with the progressive stance toward education. Above all, she clearly admires many traits of his character, for instance his dignity and his diligence, as well as traits less-frequently associated with the man, such as a light-hearted gift for friendship. He even turns out to have been quite the flirt, while remaining faithful to his wife, on the basis of all evidence.
Along the way, there were many insights new to me. For instance, I always knew that Grant had the reputation of a relentless warrior, heedless of casualties, but I wasn't aware that this was Lee's strategy as well, even though in his case, he was using up limited resources of manpower. In a way, it was in Grant that Lee finally was confronted by someone willing to play the game the same way.
There are ample grounds for interpreting Lee’s life from psychological approaches. While Lee’s insistence on honor and duty, for instance, is typical for his class and region, one wonders if there is not also a compensation here for the indignities his family suffered through the scandals of his father and eldest brother. While aware of these possibilities, Pryor shies away from speculation, which I found sensible.
This is a book of many strengths, with only one weakness in my estimation, namely, the author’s failure at times to consider regional and class variations in some of the trends she discusses, such as the treatment of children or the evangelical revival of the early 19th century.
I have mentioned Pryor’s concern to rescue Lee from the hagiographers. Toward the end of her book, she has this to say on Lee’s apotheosis: “The disturbing point about this is not that Lee was portrayed in such an idealized light, but that so much was lost as man was turned into monument. . . . The truth is, Lee lived an all too human existence, fraught with dilemmas and decisions that would challenge the sturdiest soul. He handled some of these situations well, others with disastrous error. Never did he turn away, however, and even his sharpest critics never questioned his steadfastness. . . . The greatest honor we can give Lee is to admire him for who he actually was, rather than as an imaginary creature, which only insults him by implying that the reality was inadequate” (pp. 470–1).
A very good read, highly recommended.… (plus d'informations)

The third book for our Less Stupid Civil War Reading Group, and the one I looked forward to with the least pleasure -- though a fair amount of curiosity. What I knew about Lee before reading this book could barely fill a thimble.

I did appreciate Pryor's style, and her contextualization of Lee's early life. Pryor gave a lot of background information on current mores around marriage, roles of women -- particularly in slave-holding society, changing economic behavior, etc., that we hadn't really gotten in the other books. And Pryor deliberately takes on common myths about Lee -- that he opposed slavery and secession most notably.

The whole thing -- especially the post-war period, had me constantly ruminating on the ways our stupid meat-brains work, and how much of Lee's post-war behavior was governed by his brain striving to reconcile to itself and to create a narrative of Lee's life that justified all the bloody and brutal losses he had been a part of -- that he'd led his men into -- with nothing, in the end, to show for it. How does anyone make peace with that and find a way to make forward?

I have so many thoughts about Lee, and this book, and we had excellent, juicy discussions over it, but I won't go on with this review forever.

I enjoyed this book more than I expected and learned a lot.… (plus d'informations)