In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK REVIEWS261 The Marble Man: Robert E. Lee and His Image in American Society. By Thomas L. Connelly. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977. Pp. xv, 249. $10.00.) This is not an anti-Lee book. Neither is it pro-Lee. And it is not a Lee biography. It is really two books; one a psychobiography, the other a study of the efforts of Confederates in the years following the war to canonize the general. Apparently the author felt it necessary to ferret out Lee's human frailties in order to demonstrate how those who came after him conspired to disguise these same weaknesses in their quest to immortalize the general. In theory the concept is fine; in execution it falls down. While the study of the manipulation of Lee's image is outstanding, the psychoanalysis of Lee the man is not entirely acceptable. The evidence presented is insufficient , and frequently taken out of context. We are told that Lee's was a "repressed personality," that he felt himself a failure as a father, as an officer, and as a man. His marriage was a failure, by the 1850's his personality had changed from vibrant to morose, and by the later stages of the Civil War he actually entertained a death wish. But many of the arguments are unconvincing. Several pages treat of Lee's sense of failure as a father, though in fact all of the evidence cited contains nothing more than behavioral admonitions such as any absent father might offer. Only one citation actually contains a stated fear of paternal shortcomings and this is in reference to a specific situation in which one of his sons went against his wishes. Connelly also suggests that Lee's efforts to compensate for his shortcomings as a father warped his children. Witness Agnes Lee's plaintive, "Why I am so miserable I can't find out ... I have such longings, sometimes, such yearnings for something I know not what." This is offered to indicate the effects of Lee's failure as a father. Since Agnes was twelve at this writing, her thoughts could just as easily result from something far more inscrutable —the pangs of adolescence. The case is the same with Lee's sense of failure as an officer. All of the evidence cited and quoted supports only the obvious conclusion that he was troubled by the long absences from his family. As for his sense of worthlessness as a man, we are given numerous examples in which he speaks of "my faults," "my sins," and "how thankless and sinful I have been." One passage from an 1861 letter is regarded as so revealing that it is quoted in full twice, just two pages apart (pp. 182 and 184). "You see what a poor sinner I am," writes Lee, "and how unworthy to possess what was given me; for that reason it has been taken away." Connelly sees this as an admission by Lee of his "moral estrangement from God." If the quotation is considered within the context of the letter from 262 CIVIL WAR HISTORY which it was drawn, however, it is plain that Lee is merely speaking in reproach of himself for spitefully wishing that his Arlington plantation might be wiped from the earth rather than quarter Federal troops. It is a judgment of a momentary impulse, not a lifetime pronouncement. (Incidentally, on page 182 the quotation is incorrectly footnoted; on page 184 the citation is correct, but the quotation is in error.) Indeed, the matter of context is the central deficiency in Connelly 's portrait of Lee. Twentieth century interpretations are read into nineteenth century expressions. It has to be remembered that Lee was born into the tail-end of a generation that signed its correspondence "Your worthless servant," and that well into his century self-deprecating phrases about worthlessness, sinfulness, and the like, were conversational idioms, as much parts of speech as articles of faith. To conclude that Lee felt himself a failure as a man on the basis of such analysis simply does not stand up. Connelly is on much better ground in his analysis of Lee's generalship , and particularly, regarding his sense...

pdf

Share