Jubal Early: Robert E. Lee’s “Bad Old Man.” by Benjamin Franklin Cooling III (review)

The name Jubal A. Early is rarely mentioned in the same refrain with other great Confederate generals, yet Benjamin Franklin Cooling III’s latest biography of Robert E. Lee’s “bad old man” calls attention to the remarkable, and often controversial, contributions of this overlooked stalwart of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Early was an unlikely Confederate hero. An outspoken pro-Union Whig before the war, he actively opposed his home state leaving the Union at the April 1861 Virginia secession convention. Moreover, Early had deliberately avoided a professional army career, fulfilling his required obligation after graduating from West Point and then resigning to pursue a career in law. But after serving as a volunteer in the U.S.-Mexican War, he quickly discovered that military leadership was his calling. In the Civil War he served capably as a regimental, brigade, and then division commander in the eastern theater, rising to become one of Lee’s most reliable subordinates. Although he garnered a reputation for his strict discipline and cantankerous personality, Early distinguished himself in nearly every major battle from first Manassas through the Overland campaign. This success, however, did not follow Early once he was given an independent command in the Shenandoah Valley in June 1864. His abortive attempt to capture Washington, D.C., in July, followed by the crippling defeat at Cedar Creek in October, transitioned him from trustworthy lieutenant to disgraced pariah. Early ended the war removed from command and professionally ostracized by the Confederate leadership.

The chapters examining Early’s postbellum life and remembrance are easily the most compelling and the most in need of further exploration. After the Confederate surrender at Appomattox, Early refused to submit to Yankee subjugation and fled first to Mexico and later to Canada. From his self-imposed exile he published vigorously, defending the Confederate cause and his own criticized war record while attacking many of his former fellow officers. He also voraciously defended the reputation of Lee, elevating the defeated commander to near saint-like status. Early’s own personal insecurity and fanatical justification of the Confederacy’s righteousness made him one of the very first originators of the Lost Cause mythology. Even after his death, his contemporaries and historians debated his legacy and his contributions to Confederate memory.

Although a slim volume (less than two hundred pages), Cooling’s book is ably constructed. But his frequent use of rhetorical questions throughout the narrative sets a tone of ambiguity, as he habitually offers, literally and figuratively, more questions than answers. His analysis presents more inference and supposition than argument or assertion. This quality by no means makes the book a disappointment. On the contrary, it instead leaves the reader longing for more. Cooling convincingly illustrates Early as far too interesting and meaningful a character not to demand further investigation into his personality and motivations, particularly the reconciliation of his many ideological contradictions and paradoxes. One hopes this commendable work will inspire a more comprehensive and much-needed biography of the belligerent yet influential “Old Jube” (p. xi).