Clouds of Glory audiobook

”His place in history is unique: a Caesar without his ambition; a Frederick without his tyranny; a Napoleon without his selfishness; and a Washington without his reward.” Another one of those fascinating things about General Robert E. Lee is that the only insignia of rank he ever wore was the three stars of a Colonel. This was the final rank he achieved before resigning as an officer in the American Army.The South certainly conferred sainthood upon Robert E. Lee during the war, after the war, and onward into perpetuity. It wasn’t just the South. Even while the war was still raging many in the North looked on him with more than just respect, but something more like reverence. There were many that wished he had taken the commission that the old warhorse Winfield Scott offered him in 1861. Someone else may have emerged from the South, but Lee is possibly the perfect example of where one man can make a difference. Has there ever been a point in history where one man is offered the top command on both sides of a conflict? I have a feeling that is a very unique occurrence. Lee was an engineer by trade and proved to be a very able strategist while serving under General Winfield Scott during the Mexican-American War. In fact there were many cases where Lee’s timely advice prevented Scott from making what could have been disastrous decisions. Scott never forgot the calmness of his demeanor nor the well formed arguments Lee made while under his command. When the Southern states began to succeed Scott knew the man he wanted immediately. The Mexican-American War proved to be a valuable training ground for future Civil War Generals. ”No fewer than seventy-eight of them would become generals in the Union Army, including Ulysses S. Grant, Winfield Scott Hancock, Joseph Hooker, George Meade, and George McClellan. Fifty-seven of them would become Confederate generals, including Lewis Armistead, P.G.T. Beauregard, Thomas J. ‘Stonewall’ Jackson, Joseph E. Johnston, James Longstreet, and George Pickett. Hardly any senior officer on either side of the Civil War was a stranger to Lee.” The dashing Lieutenant Robert E. Lee. Women young and old looking forward to receiving some attention from this young manIt is easy to tell that while he was serving in the military that he was always weighing up his fellow officers, putting chalk marks in his mind beside their strengths and notating their weaknesses. He never intended to having to fight against them or with them as a “Rebel” leader, but on the slippery slope of military advancement he wanted to understand his competition. When he found himself looking across a line of butternut and blue men to see Hooker, Meade, McClellan, and eventually Grant on the other side he had a good idea of the decisions those men would make sometimes before they themselves knew what they would do. The same held true with the officers under his command.And:”In audacity, which is the mainspring of strategy as it is of tactics, Lee has few equals.”He also had something few commanders have experienced since maybe the Crusades. He had an army of men who believed that God was on their side and that their faith in their cause would carry them to victory. This all become personified in Lee. If Lee believed they could break the Union line then the men from his generals to the lowliest private believed it too. Even after the disastrous third day at Gettysburg, when the final Confederate charge is repelled the men coming back down that hill, most wounded in some fashion, begged Lee for another chance. One more run up that hill and the Yankees would break. For all intents and purposes the war was over on July 3rd, 1863, but it would take the Union almost two more years to force a surrender. Lee had survived this long by pushing the Union back and capturing their supplies to feed his men, to arm his men, to provide his men with bullets. Many of the men of The Army of Northern Virginia where never issued boots or rifles. Those they had to find on the battle field. When Lee surrenders at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9th,1865 one of his fears was that General Ulysses S. Grant would see how many of his troops would be surrendering barefoot. It is a scary thought to think what might have been the result if Lee had been supplied with as much food, bullets, rifles, boots, and men as Grant. What might have happened? Some of us right now might be reading this review as citizens of the Confederacy and others as citizens of the Union. The bigger ramifications might have come during WW1 and WW2 when the wars in Europe needed the help of The UNITED States of America. Robert E. Lee was not perfect. He had faults that led to inefficiencies, misunderstandings, and lost opportunities. This was the first modern war and the armies were massive and spread over a huge amount of terrain. One man could not oversee everything. Lee’s personal staff, though good, was too small. Information was not relayed from Lee quickly enough to the Generals that he was expecting to understanding the changing scope of a battle in the same way as himself. He also lacked:”What Lee needed was a chief of staff like Eisenhower’s Major General Walter Bedell Smith: ‘Ike’s hatchet man,’ whose job was telling people what they did not want to hear and what Ike did not want to say to them himself. But Lee preferred to act as his own chief of staff, which did not suit his nature and added to the strain on him.”There are similarities between Eisenhower and Lee also I see parallels with President Obama who was weakened considerably when Rahm Emanuel left his staff to run for Mayor of Chicago. Like Lee and Eisenhower, Obama is uncomfortable with direct confrontation, and needs a man like Emanuel who doesn’t mind baring his knuckles and knocking heads together. It has proved detrimental in his second term. Lee was a gentleman and any theatrical displays of emotion made him extremely uncomfortable. To avoid those scenes he went to great lengths not to have open conflicts with his top officers. ”The reason lay in the very heart of Lee’s personality, the mysterious factor that so often outweighed his skill and audacity, as well as in the bravery of his ragged, poorly supplied troops. Although a thriving cottage industry has grown up, particularly but not exclusively in the South, to eradicate Lee’s mistakes and turn him into a kind of military secular saint, the real man was not always right, and his generalship was often hampered by his reluctance to enforce his will on his own generals.”His other mistake, that I agree with Michael Korda about, was his stubbornness to always share the same hardships as his troops by staying in a tent even when a perfectly habitable house presented itself. He was in his middle fifties and suffering from angina (it would eventually kill him). There were many times when he felt unwell that sprung more from being underfed and sleep deprived than from his ongoing health issue. He had this brilliant mind for strategy and for seeing the scope of a battle clearly. It would have been in the best interest of his men if he had elected to take better care of himself. General Stonewall Jackson, a brilliant tactician in his own right, but he always deferred to Lee.General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, in his late thirties, was suffering from similar issues, mostly sleep deprivation. There were several moments in early battles where his inability to get his men where they needed to be could be attributed to his foggy mind. The greatest blow to Lee was the loss of Jackson in 1863. He relied heavily on him because with only a few words Jackson perfectly understood what Lee wanted him to do. He was aggressive and strict on discipline. He was almost as adored by his men and the South as Lee. General James Longstreet, the perfect soldier who will disagree, but when overruled will carry out his orders.To balance Jackson, Lee also had General James “Old Pete” Longstreet. ”Longstreet was as good a soldier (as Jackson), but he was an instinctive contrarian and stubbornly insisted on making Lee think twice, and to separate what was possible from what was not.” Longstreet and Jackson both received a lot of criticism after the war for what went wrong, mostly because of the inability of people to find any fault with Lee. Longstreet, in particular, spent the rest of his life defending himself over the third day of Gettysburg. Even though he disagreed with Lee on tactics he always attempted to follow Lee’s orders to the best of his abilities. He respected Lee and even in disagreement never raised his voice to his commanding officer. (view spoiler)[ The South Lost. (hide spoiler)]After the war Lee was asked to be the President of what was then called Washington College in Lexington, Virginia. Enrollment increased from around a 100 students to over 400 students with his involvement with the college. After his death in 1870, the college was renamed Washington and Lee College. Mary Anna Custis Lee was never the prettiest girl, but she was well loved by her soldier husband even though she was spoiled, scatterbrained, and obstinate.I’ve always had a bit of a fascination with Robert E. Lee because we share the same birthday on January 19th. (I came along a little later.) He was a notorious flirt throughout his life yet would never even consider stepping out on his wife Mary Anna Randolph Custis (the ultimate collectible for the discerning Washington collector). She was the step-great grandchild of George Washington. Washington was Lee’s hero, so there is an odd relationship between his veneration for the man that fought to create this union and his decision to fight for the side that was trying to tear it asunder. Or maybe Lee was fully embracing what he felt his hero would do, fight for the right to escape “tyranny”. Celebrated photographer Matthew Brady convinced Lee, shortly after his surrender, to pose for a series of photographs.Certainly there is a uniqueness about Robert E. Lee, a man born, unfortunately, during interesting times. His health finally caught up with him only a few short years after the end of the war, but it was easy to tell from his final words that he was preparing for yet another campaign. ”Strike the Tent.”["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>

The problem in much historical writing is that the writing comes second to the research and therefore the most prominent books are by researchers rather than writers. In other words you get a 500-800 pages of dull prose with a story trying to escape. Those kinds of books might hold new revelations and ideas, but you have to trudge through a lot of pedestrian prose to get there. I hate research so I can respect the amount of work that goes into nonfiction writing, but I'm also just a guy that wants to enjoy reading so I often avoid important works. Therefore, Michael Korda is a breath of fresh air. He understands history and he is a great writer. After reading Paul Johnson's book Heroes I earmarked a couple of his subjects for further reading with Robert E. Lee being at the top of the list. Going in I realized that so many of my impressions of Lee came from the Martin Sheen portrayal in the movie Gettysburg, which I have seen a dozen times despite the length and a wife that would rather watch a pedicure than the Civil War as entertainment. Korda's writing is about a man with the feelings and struggles of a real person rather than an abstract figure that will invade Pennsylvania some day. He makes me imagine Lee as a guy raising kids and watching his daughters court charming rogues. Lee is a guy trying to overcome a famous but flawed father by setting a better example. So when you want him to dress down a subordinate or firmly order his men into attack you also understand that he doesn't want to be a win-at-any-cost general. He wants to win but he isn't going to be Sherman or even Vince Lombardi. He's going to be a gentleman. Without any prompting from Korda the reader contemplates whether Robert E. Lee is a tragic figure destined to lose because of his birthplace and ancestry or if Lee is an unnecessary martyr because of the grip of history. If his wife was not a descendant of Martha Washington and his own father wasn't a revolutionary general would Lee care so much about Virginia? What kind of life would he have lived had he accepted Lincoln's offer to command the union army? These are the questions I was asking as I read the book and that is a tribute to Korda who makes you keep reading the story despite a dark house past midnight. That is my criteria anyway for great writing. This was a great book.

This is an other great read. The history is very sound and the author brings it to life on the pages. I recommend this to all American history buffs. Enjoy and Be Blessed. Diamond

http://openbooksociety.com/article/cl...Brought to you by OBS reviewer JoAnneFirst off, let me say that I love anything to do with The Civil War, and will read nearly any book regarding it. I have been highly anticipating this book, and dove into it with both feet. I must say that it is the most comprehensive account of Robert E. Lee that I have read to date.The book begins with the Harper’s Ferry fiasco, wherein John Brown expected to cause a slave rebellion; but of course, it all ended quite differently, and John Brown lost his life and that of his sons. We are given the history of General Lee‘s upbringing; from birth on, and the type of father he had – a wastrel and scoundrel to be sure – and his mother, from whom he learned his frugality and nearly everything else, and they were very close throughout his life.He was lucky enough to marry a woman he truly loved, even though her father, George Washington Custis, opposed the match. They had seven children and he completely doted on them, giving them everything he could while still being parsimonious about himself. He felt he could get by ‘on very little,’ but never refused a reasonable request from them. Indeed, we learn that General Lee was a wonderful, loving, and generous parent.Mr. Korda deals extensively with General Lee‘s military career, from it’s early beginning to the end. It is a very detailed account, and he intersperses throughout the letters from Robert to Mary about his feelings regarding the situations he was thrust into.Although I may not agree with everything that has been written about him, feeling personally that some of it may have been extraneous, I found this a fascinating biography of a great General who gave everything he had to the service of his country, and even more so, to the family he loved so well.A highly recommended book.

Clouds of Glory is a very interesting introduction to Robert E. Lee. While I've read a number of books about the Civil War and Biographies of various Union notables, this was the first Bio I've read about Lee.The book provides a preliminary basis of Lee's youth and military career up to the Mexican American War. The section dealing with the Mexican American War was absolutely phenomenal. I've read several good books on that war (A Wicked War, So Far from God, and A Glorious Defeat and the synopsis contained herein was one of the best one's I've encountered. Of course, this book put Lee at the forefront of the Mexican American War. This actually helped explain a lot of issues unanswered in other books. The other books mention that Lee garnered great fame and accumen during the war, but didn't really explain his exploits. Other books on the Mexican American War make leaps which make more sense when you understand Lee's role. This section alone makes the book worthwhile.The book then explores the period between the Mexican American War and Civil War. Again this period was very interesting as it helped to explain Lee's persona and why he ended up fighting for the Confederacy during the Civil War. The last half of the book deals primarily with the Civil War. Excellent synopsis. Korda attempts to explain why/how Lee became so idolized in American Culture. Despite losing the War, he became an American hero. In both the North and South he was idolized. Korda tries to explain this phenomenon without falling into apparent idolization himself, but sometimes he fails. I do have a literary gripe with the book: The author sometimes uses the same phrases over and over again. After talking about what other historians have said (pro or con), he would often say, "And there is some truth to this." Another frequently used phrase was after talking about a battle plan, "a quick glance at a map" would prove/disprove the logic of the plan.

Often times biographies paint the subject in either a completely positive or negative light. Michael Korda does a fantastic job in his painting of Robert E. Lee as not only one of the greatest generals this world has ever seen but also a human who made mistakes like everyone else. You can question a lot of Lee's decision but his character in making those decisions was always consistent and fell back on his belief in the sovereignty of God. A lot of faults that Korda and other biographers find in Lee would not be faults when looking at Lee with a Christian worldview. Overall this is one of the most entertaining and captivating biographies that I have read."Robert E. Lee's place in history is unique: a Caesar without his ambition; a Frederick without his tyranny; a Napoleon without his selfishness; and a Washington without his reward."

Please, let me vent and find some relief from my thoughts and impressions that threatens to strangling and overwhelm me!!!After reading "Clouds Of Glory" by Michael Korda, for me its like coming from the battle with the sharp and cutting odor of gunpower still lingering in my nostrils and hearing the cries of the wounded and dying soldiers scattered on the bloody battlefield..A great job by Michael Korda, he has given anew life and vigor to the American civil war..He has recreated the times of General Lee with his legends like Stonewall Jackson and president Davis, the reader cannot avoid being caught in the whirl of this turbulent and unsafe times!!Kordas lively description of R. E. Lee as an evangelical Christian, with a profound faith in his redeemer and Scriptures, also as the best warrior and strategist ever, and as a man of honor and high moral values has won me over--I must confess--Lee was highly loved and even glorify by his soldiers, because of his great victories over the federal troops, with an army with less powerful weaponry and also with less soldiers, the confederates under his leadership managed to inflict severe wounds on the Yankees!!But also a R. E. Lee isn't infallible..So, Gettysburg is not only the turning point of the American civil war, but it also exposes Lees shortcomings in his character brutally clear wich his soldiers must then pay at a high bloody cost!! When it comes to books about the American civil war, I'm a sucker..And I'll tell you why!!A deep divided country, charismatics personalities, and a society struggling to preserve and protect the way of life and his traditions and also values;Then you have a liberal president such as Lincoln was, trying to impose his worldview even with force over his countrymen!!Sounds familiar to you??I must say that despite all the wrong views from the South about slavery, the more I learn about General Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and so many others..I feel that I have more in common with them as with the Yankees!!Well, a very good written biography and thoroughly researched by Korda..The reading never feels dull or burdensome, despite having nearly 800 pages.I also strongly recommend the audio book from Audible read by Jack Garrett!!I could continue to write and speak a lot more about it, but..Better you read it for yourself!!!If you are interested in the American civil war, then.. GO FOR IT!!!Dean;)PS:And happy reading to all my goodreads family..

This is a very fine biography of General Robert E. Lee. It traces his life from his ancestors to his death while serving as President of Washington College (later, Washington and Lee College, accounting for his valuable contributions in the development of the college). One signal event that affeced him was his status as the son of "Light-horse Harry" Lee, a major figure in the Revolutionary War. Afterwards, he led an up and down life, ending up in great debt and dying as largely disgraced.Lee's childhood is discussed and his career as a cadet at West Point is well detailed. He was a top notch student--who experienced no demerits for bad behavior (an extraordinary achievement). He became an engineer upon graduation, and he had a number of major achievements. He married Mary Custis, daughter of the adopted son of George Washington. Lee inherited property--including the family home (later taken over by the United States government after the outbreak of the Civil War--now a part of the Arlington Cemetery).The book nicely summarizes his years as an engineer, his important role in the Mexican War, his career as a cavalry officer later on. . . . His knowledge that his growing family was constrained by his limited income as an officer and the difficulty of advancement in the "old army." He was given command of the military forces designated to return order to Harper's Ferry after John Brown and a small band captured works at the Armory there. Then, the Civil War. . . .The book does an excellent job describing his role, his strengths (and weaknesses) as a commander. Minor issues do arise: Porter Alexander was a Colonel at Gettysburg--not a general (page 597). Was Joeseph Hooker really an incompetent general (page 504)? He was pretty adept as corps commander and did some nice things as commanding General of the Army of the Potomoc. He did badly at Chancellorsville, and may have been in over his head. But to term him as more incompetent than Ambrose Burnside does not seem justified. On pages 646 and 647, we see General Ulysses Grant ordering an attack all along the Petersburg-Richmond line. Not noted is that this followed bad defeats of the Army of Northern Virginia at Fort Stedman and Five Forks, when the weakness of the Confederate forces became all too clear to Grant and Lee.And so on. This is a fine biography, with a nice discussion of Lee's life after the end of the Civil War.

A comprehensive and enjoyable biography of Lee, touching on all of the historical controversies that surrounded and still resonate about the man and his role in the Civil War. Korda does a man's job examining Lee as a complete person, not an easy job considering that his subject was famous for his equanimity and good manners under conditions of almost unbelievable stress. Lee was not a god or a marble statue, but he was a very great battle commander, even if his command style probably should have been more forceful, considering just how many head cases there were in the upper ranks of the Army of Northern Virginia. A worthy addition to your Civil War bookshelf.

I liked the fact that the author made the effort to get behind the mask. He showed Lee as a warm human being, and he also showed him as a work in progress. He had to LEARN to command large groups after having spent his career in other roles.

It has been many years since I have read anything about Robert E. Lee. I saw this new biography by Michael Korda and grabbed it. Michael Korda is the son of English actress Gertrude Musgrove and film production designer Vincent Korda. His uncle was Sir Alexander Korda the famous British film producer and director. In 2004 he wrote “Ulysses S. Grant: The Unlikely Hero” and in 2008 “Ike: An American Hero”.In this exhaustive study Korda examines the life and times of Robert E. Lee from birth to death, illuminating not just the man, but his extended family and the society which produced him. The book traces Lee’s life from relationship with his father, the famous light cavalry leader light horse Harry Lee to his marriage to Mary Custis and his own relationships to his seven children. Lee’s mother was Ann Hill Carter; she was raised at the famous Shirley Plantation on the James River. Ann was from one of the wealthiest and oldest families of Virginia. Lee graduated second in his class at West Point. He was one of the rare cadets that graduated without a demerit. Lee was commissioned into the engineers and spent several years building coastal fortification. Lee became famous for diverting the course of the Mississippi river at St Louis, improving the port and allowing for river navigation from New Orleans to St Paul.Korda provides a crisp and concise account of Lee’s major engagements. The author is good at explaining Lee’s strategic thinking, maneuvering of armies and the sometimes crippling limitations imposed by logistics, bad maps and worse roads. Korda has a knack for describing the complex unfolding of Civil War battles in lucid prose. Most of the book consist of gripping, if perhaps, excessively lengthy, accounts of Lee’s military campaigns. Korda clearly has command of the life and times of Lee. All three of Lee’s sons fought for the confederacy and General Lee would run into them periodically on an off the battlefield, including his son Rooney as he was being carried from the field with a serious leg wound. Michael Korda’s mastery of such details adds texture to his account. The reader learns that none of Lee’s four daughters married and his sister sided with the Union for which his nephew fought. Lee lost his two homes, Arlington the Union confiscated and the White House (Martha Curtis Washington home), the Union burned to the ground. Lee’s wife was Martha Washington granddaughter. The war’s devastation did not spare lee’s family.“Clouds of Glory” is unfortunately marred by more than a few annoying errors of fact that should have been picked up in editing. For example, Northern politicians with Southern leaning were called “doughfaces” not “doughboys”. At the time of the Nat Turner rebellion in 1831, the enslaved population of the United States was two million not four million. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed in 1854 not 1845. This is a very long book and it suffers on occasion from redundancy and inadequate organization. The book suffers for the want of good editing.As its subtitle suggest, one of Michael Korda’s aims in “Clouds of Glory” is disentangling Lee for his myth. In this he mostly succeeds. Although it appears Korda greatly admired Lee, he challenges the image of a man who could do no wrong. I read this as an audio book downloaded from Audible. Jack Garrett did an excellent job narrating the book.

I taught US History at a Private School for 15 years, and have always found the Sectional Crisis, Civil War and Reconstruction periods the most interesting in our national history. American was never really a nation until its most fundamental principles became real after the massacre of 640,000 of our own citizens in the Civil War. Whether or not we would be a nation dedicated to the principles of our Founding documents was postponed for a few decades because our Founders could not find a way to make us a nation "all free." And, as Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I've never found military history particularly interesting because I see the battles of the war simply playing out a much larger drama that is, at its core spiritual. I have never found a more fascinating person in human history than Abraham Lincoln, and my consistent answer to the question: Of anyone in history, who would you choose to spend an evening with, he is my choice. I have also always found Robert E. Lee to be a source of great interest because he is such an enormous study in contrasts. A man who strongly disliked slavery and thought secession insane; a man of deep religious conviction who was perhaps never as animated as he was when crafting military strategy and seeing it play out on the battlefield; a man who loved his family deeply and yet, given his choice of career spent precious little time with them. Michael Korda's book on Lee has the feel of what will be for a very long time, the definitive work on the man. He is a masterful writer that deals with many of the earlier treatments of Lee, referring often to the hagiography by Douglas Southall Freeman that stood for many years as the definitive work on Lee for those who worshipped him. Korda picks the man apart, acknowledging him for his absolutely masterful use of a variety of military tactics that have become the source of many books on military strategy. He deals with his personal life as a husband, father, and man of religion. He plumbs the history of his antecedents and the considerable embarrassment that his father, Light Horse Harry Lee brought down on the family. And though the book does a fair amount of treatment of battlefield tactics, it is done in a way that adds considerably to an understanding of the man without becoming ponderous. There are many discussions about flanking movements, building defensive fortifications, fording rivers, etc., but they do add a physical dimension to battles that for those of us not particularly drawn to those things is helpful. I finished this book with a very powerful sense that Lee is not a transcendent character but is so emblematic, so thoroughly the embodiment of the animating spirit of the South that he serves as a perfect symbol of a man of some considerable depth, who was, at base, a provincial, small minded man who could not see anything beyond the fate of his own family and his own state. His constant professions about doing the work of God on the battlefield; of how, though he felt motivated by his religious faith to bring his considerable skills to the task, he would begin a battle and then let "God" carry it through to its proper end. My sense of him was almost completely diminished after reading this book because of the horrors that he was the Confederate architect of--the only man in the South that could guarantee that the war would go on much longer than necessary. And because he never felt or wanted to take credit for what he was doing because it was "God's handiwork." The man was so fundamentally flawed that he stands as the perfect symbol of everything that was wrong with the antebellum South. A slaveholding region that had a massive inequality in the distribution of resources due to the plantation system; that was fundamentally organized not around cities or states as much as organized around Plantations, each one a relatively isolated fiefdom with its own harbors, enslaved labor force and very little public education or meaningful work for those without slaves. (Only 5% of the Southern population had slaves and the vast majority of them were owned by the Plantation aristocracy which also controlled the political establishment). So Robert E Lee, who hated slavery; who opposed secession; who was trained at West Point and was its commander for a number of years; who undertook a number of engineering projects like rerouting the Mississippi around St Louis to benefit the shipping industry; who was offered the command of Union forces after South Carolina seceded and fired the first shots at Ft Sumter, starting the military conflict: That man refused to take the command of Union forces because he could not raise his sword against his "country" (Virginia) or his people (Virginians.) And, during the war, save for his two disastrous excursions into the North (Antietam and Gettysburg) refused to take up command in any other state when others deemed it might be more beneficial to the Confederate cause, refused to because to defend Virginia was to defend what he thought most worthy of defending in the Confederacy. This man commanded forces with thousands of men with no shoes or adequate clothing for warmth in the winters who suffered horribly from starvation illness and deprivation; this man who loved horses, commanded men on horseback whose horses were horribly emaciated due to inadequate forage, many of which starved or froze to death due to his ruthlessness in battle. This man, this embodiment of the South that was the architect of one of the most flawed and ill-conceived wars ever undertaken found solace in his God and felt that he deserved little or no credit because all of what he had accomplished he owed to his God. After years of studying Lee I have come to a settled view of the man. I never understood why he was not tried for treason (giving aid and comfort to the enemy) and found it inexplicable that he was revered after the war by the South AND the North. It comes down to this simple principle: "The sins of the fathers are visited upon their sons." What Korda's book brought me to (indirectly, because he does not really deal with the issue) was the belief that the nation had a huge debt to pay for the Faustian bargain it made when it forged a Constitution that combined a belief in universal human freedom and slavery into the same contract. When you make a pact with the devil, the devil will always come to get his due. The Civil War was, as Lincoln so brilliantly stated in his Second Inaugural Address, a spiritual battle at its source: In his view God had ordained that the war would have to go on until the 200 years of sweat from unrequited toil (of the slaves) would by paid, and where all the blood of the lash would have to be equally paid by blood drawn by the sword. In that sense I can now see that Lee WAS an essential actor in a much deeper drama; the war with the most brilliant political leaders on one side (North) and most brilliant military leaders on the other (South) was guaranteed to be a long one. The war would have to go on for a long time because there was a moral and spiritual debt to pay for the nation's hypocrisy. WE, America, had to pay the debt with our own blood, and if there is such a thing as the karma of a people, then the war was our karmic debt, so perfectly crafted to make us pay for the crime we had committed by making a pact with evil. I give this book 5 stars--it was exceptionally written, a true "can't put it down" read. In places I grew weary of the narrative that said over and over: Lee COULD have won the battle IF J.E.B Stuart/Stonewall Jackson/Longstreet et.al. had arrived when they were supposed to and possibly ended the war to the benefit of the Confederacy. Those points are, to my mind, utterly pointless unless you are ONLY dealing with the military dimension of the war. But what Clouds of Glory brought me even more firmly to is the belief that there was absolutely NO way the South could have won the war when the conflict is seen on the much larger stage of deeper animating principles underlying our existence. I was reminded of Martin Luther King's quote that, "The arc of the moral Universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Though the war saw so many battles won by the South due to the military genius of Lee, they feebly pulled against the larger arc of the moral Universe. As brilliant as Lee was, he was engaged in and brought his enormous skills to a conflict doomed to fail from the start. But as the embodiment of all of what the South thought was most noble and true about itself, he simply brought those massive and irreconcilable structural flaws that existed there onto a battlefield which predetermined absolutely that their suicide would be a long and painful one, and that the new nation birthed from that conflict would have many struggles to overcome for a very, very long time to come.

It is interesting that the author had previously written a book about Grant, as Grant and Lee form a natural pair when it comes to examining generals.  The author has the chance to note strengths and weaknesses of the two generals, pointing out that the logistical strength of the North was used best by Grant and did not make much of a difference when Lee was so much more tactically superior to many of the commanding generals of the Army of the Potomac.  That said, the duel between Lee and Grant is only a small part of this particular book, far smaller than one might think when one is beginning the book and reading the slow pace that the author covers the beginning of the Civil War.  It is possible that the author's knowledge of Lee's heart problems means that he focuses more on the time when Lee was comparatively young before his angina and hardening of the arteries made it more difficult for him to act like the younger people in the war that he was surrounded by and opposed to.  Even so, the author spends a great deal of time and attention talking about Lee's flaws, far more than many readers might expect.This hefty book of around 700 pages consists of 12 fairly large chapters.  The author begins his preface in media res with a look at Lee's efforts to quell the rebellion of John Brown just before the beginning of the Civil War.  After that the author looks at Lee's childhood and the effect of his father's unreliability on his early life (1) as well as his education as a soldier in West Point (2).  The author then looks at Lee's experience as an engineer in the military (3) as well as a decorated and celebrated officer in the Mexican War (4).  After that the author discusses the long peace and Lee's frustration at a lack of advancement in the prewar army (5).  From this point the pace of the book slows dramatically as the author discusses Lee's efforts in West Virginia and Port Royal in 1861 (6), his takeover of the Army of Northern Virginia and the Seven Days battles (7), his experiences at Second Bull Run and Antietam (8), Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville (9), and Gettysburg (10).  At this point the author breezes through the rest of the material, discussing the campaign between Lee and Grant that ended in Lee's surrender (11) as well as the last few years of Lee's life as his health declined (12), after which there is an acknowledgements, notes, bibliography, map and art credits, and an index.In reading this book one gets a sense of the sort of minefields that exist for a contemporary writer in writing about Robert E. Lee.  For example, there is still enough fondness for Lee and his tactical brilliance as well as his reserve and diplomacy to make this sort of revisionist biography a difficult one.  Also, the author finds it necessary to deal with the question of not only Lee's ability and his struggles to enforce his will on occasionally recalcitrant generals (see Ewell on Day 1 of Gettysburg, for example), but also the postwar fights between people like Longstreet and Early.  And then there are the people who will not appreciate any praise of Lee, even praise as guarded as this author gives such praise, because of his behavior as a slaveowner and a rebel.  All of that makes this sort of book a difficult one to write, and one wonders if the author would have taken on such a thankless task as a New York Times hack writer had he not already written about Grant in the first place.

This is a very well written biography of R E Lee. I say that because the author does a great job of staying unbiased and presenting the facts as they are written. He tries to get an understanding of the person of Lee rather than the myth of Lee. Though he does a very good job of articulating how he became a mythical figure in the US - before, during and after the war. His explanations of events and circumstances of his upbringing and early life in the academy and Mexican/American war help to set the stage for the happenings of the Civil War and his leadership style. While a decent General, it seems to me that his successes in the Civil War have been amplified for glory. With major victories in the early years ending with the failure of Gettysburg, one can only realize that his inability to motivate and get his soldiers and officers to get better results falls directly on his shoulders. His failures and inability to properly delegate to his commanders lead to his major failures. However, there were times he was able to get results when outnumbered and get positive results at times - Chancellorsville / Fredericksburg. His ability through engineering to slow down the Union army and extend the war should not be overlooked. Whether this is success or not is up for debate. He does seem to give quite a bit of critique to Freeman's earlier work and does get a bit repetitive throughout. I'd like to have seen more inclusion of his writings on slavery and the personal documents he kept regarding how he treated those in bondage to him and generally his overall view.This book gives a really good insight into the times and history of the Civil War and the largest character of the rebel side. His achievements, successes, failures and objective accounting of his actions are laid out in an easy to follow and interesting read. It's a nice complement to any Civil War shelf.

Listened to this on Overdrive and it did a great job of retaining my full attention from start to finish. I particularly enjoyed the introductory chapter on Lee’s part in quelling the John Brown Raid, the background of his family history including his father’s friendship with George Washington, and the chronological covering of his military actions in the American Civil War. The most interesting section of the book runs from the Seven Days battles of 1862 up thru Gettysburg in the summer of 1863. Each major battle is approached from an operational standpoint within the larger scope of the war and key tactical moments, blunders, or controversies are touched on when necessary. Lee’s position and limitations as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia are framed well, and the analysis of his choices and his subordinates abilities seem logical and thoughtful. The overall tone of the book was balanced and while the author recognized the many of Lee’s strengths, his weaknesses are not ignored. I came away with the satisfaction that I learned and expanded my understanding of Lee as general and person. Additionally, I did not feel like there was a major Lost Cause agenda here and previous biographers are called out for their particular slants. However, I was disappointed by what seemed to be a rushed ending to the story. I anticipated a chapter solely dedicated to interpreting Lee’s complicated place in our history, but there isn’t much of that. The legacy of Lee, depending on who might have been asked, varied between hero and ultimate traitor the day he died. Those same perceptions from either side of the aisle still exist today but are also ever changing and evolving as our history is re-interpreted. I think the author did a disservice to the reader by not ending on that note.