A Comparison Of Robert E. Lee

1199 Words 5 Pages
Confederate General Robert E. Lee is possibly the most controversial and yet widely respected out of all the Civil War commanders. Historians have held different views about the beloved General for over a hundred years, such as Robert W. Winston in his book Robert E. Lee; A Biography (1934), Michael Fellman in The Making of Robert E. Lee (2000), and Margaret Sanborn’s Robert E. Lee: A Portrait (1966). Winston’s theme in his book created a different outlook on General Lee than the latter two historians; he vigorously wrote mainly about the perfection of Lee whereas Fellman and Sanborn saw him more as a human being with flaws and mistakes. Though Winston placed Lee at the highest respect as the great general, Sanborn regarded the man as someone …show more content…
She went as far as to say that Lee “had looked on while others less deserving received promotion and glory, while he remained relatively unnoticed.” Thus Lee is given off an air, according to Sanborn, that he wanted again to experience war like he once did in the Mexican War. He did not, Sanborn wrote, become the great leader that many people believed him to be. Sanborn states that because of this mistake, the civil war trotted on. Fellman, however, agreed that Lee was a great commander and one of the best Generals the world has ever seen. But, according to Fellman, after the war Lee “became increasingly antiwar.” Fellman agreed with Winston in saying that Lee wanted to be remembered as Christian, but only as the servant of Christ. In truth, it was the people of the former Confederacy who wanted Lee to be ‘exalted.’ Fellman stated that after the General had …show more content…
Considering all of the commanders and officers that were going into the Civil War, General Lee was the most sought out of them all. He was asked to lead the armies on both sides of the war. Winston stated that “at first he was an military advisor to the President. Then almost overnight, became the General of the Confederate Army.” Fellman’s writing agreed as he writes that there was “no soldier that brought a more sterling reputation into the Civil War. Sanborn wrote that General Scott, even though he knew of Lee’s attitude towards Virginia, in Washington, sent for him, “hoping to keep him loyal to the Union, and wished to enlist his services before Virginia made her decision.” I disagree in saying that he was very important in the Civil War, because there is evidence that suggest that Stonewall Jackson was more important than Robert E. Lee.
Based on the analysis drawn from these three authors, there can be conclusion that Winston overly praised Lee in all of his actions and that the other two authors uncovered his faults. Sanborn was more harsh on the famed General while Fellman was in the middle of the two opposing

Related Documents