Mr President and Gentlemen of the Convention: Profoundly impressed with the solemnity of the occasion, for which I must say I was not prepared, I accept the position assigned me by your partiality. I would have much preferred had your choice fallen on an abler man. Trusting in Almighty God, an approving conscience, and the aid of my fellow citizens, I devote myself to the service of my native State, in whose behalf alone will I ever draw my sword."

Delivered to the Virginian Convention on his appointment in the spring of 1861, this was "just about the only speech Robert E. Lee ever made". In its stress on duty, humility and determination, the speech reflected Lee's character. Much of the skill of Emory Thomas's biography is deployed in interweaving his analysis of the personality of this most private of men with his scholarly and judicious account of his very interesting life. Thomas traces Lee's character to the impact of his upbringing, especially the role of his father, a very different hero to the one his son was to be: no one has compared "Light Horse" Harry Lee to Jesus in Gethsemane, nor is likely to do so. In reaction, and guided by his pious mother, Robert grew up convinced of duty and sin, and without the self-confidence to pursue personal conflict. Indeed, Thomas suggests that one reason why he accepted his position in the Confederacy was that he would not have wished to defy his wife who was zealous in the cause.

As for many other men the structures and ethos of the army appeared to offer a career that was psychologically appropriate. In practice, Lee found his career as an engineer officer limiting and his cavalry command no better. Despite his valuable staff work in the Mexico war, Lee's command and war experience was distinctly limited prior to the civil war. However, he looked the part, always important in the military, and had attracted attention by being in command against John Brown at Harper's Ferry, and reimposing order there.

Lee did not want civil war, but he was convinced that the North had abused the South and was not willing to offer the conciliation necessary to maintain the union. Lee believed in social hierarchy and was politically conservative. He believed slavery evil but owned slaves and resented criticism of the institution. Lee did not approve of secession, which he wrote was "nothing but revolution", not a term of approbation for him, but, once secession had taken place, he was determined to stand by his relatives, his people.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

Lee's resilience was tested hard during the war, especially with the loss of those he admired and felt close to and the grinding attrition of the trench warfare round Petersburg. Much of Thomas' book is devoted to the conflict and he offers vivid accounts of the major engagements, but he is also concerned to underline his strong sense of Lee as a moral beacon. For example, Thomas writes of Lee after Chancellorsville: "Fame was fleeting; reality was flawed; life involved making the best of finite circumstances. Virtue consisted of bringing grace into adversity and giving selflessly among the multitude of takers. This was Lee's larger greatness." In many works such a passage might appear platitudinous. It is part of the power of Thomas's biography that his moral reflections seem appropriate. Thomas emphasises that Lee's belief in sin was matched by a faith in redemption, and it is part of the great humanity of his work that he shows how the frustrations and pain of Lee's life were controlled so that he could strive for the independence to do good. In a work that he correctly terms "postrevisionist", Thomas sees Lee as great not so much because of what he did but because of the way he lived. He was a tragic hero, his heroism dependent on the tragedy, but the product of Lee's response to it.

Gary Gallagher's substantial collection, though expensive (it costs only $45 in the United States), is a usefully diverse volume on Lee. It begins with a series of revealing postwar conversations in which Lee commented on the war, and criticised some of his generals. In 1868, for example, Lee "claimed that he knew the strength of the United States Government; and saw the necessity at first of two things: a proclamation of gradual emancipation and the use of the negroes as soldiers, and second the necessity of the early and prompt exportation of the cotton."

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

The essays in the second part, most reprinted but two new, cover major themes in Lee's generalship. Gallagher offers an important and positive re-evaluation arguing that southern armies almost certainly lacked the capacity to defeat decisively their northern counterparts, but that a protracted conflict with confederate victories threatened to destroy the north's will to continue the war. Thus, Lee had both a national strategy and one that was not unrealistic. William Davis sees the relationship between Lee and Jefferson Davies as that of a model civil-military team that achieved a synergy that helped to keep the Confederacy alive.

The third part concentrates on specific campaigns, especially Gettysburg. Of the new essays, Carol Reardon uses the Seven Days campaign as the basis of an important reinterpretation that argues that the indecisiveness of the confederate effort stemmed from factors Lee had had scant time to correct during his first days in command. Scott Harting defends Lee's decision to enter Maryland in 1862. Robert Krick stresses Lee's daring decisions at Chancellorsville. Gallagher considers the second day at Gettysburg and Lee's predilection for aggressive action. Noah Trudeau assesses the last stages of the war in Virginia.

Finally, the fourth section of the book is a valuable annotated bibliography of 200 essential books on Lee's military career. Gallagher is to be congratulated on a varied and important volume that is a major advance in Civil War military studies.

Jeremy Black is professor of history, 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Exeter.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ