Clifford Dowdey (1904–1979)

As I write this review, a controversy is going on about whether the name of Robert E. Lee should be removed from Washington and Lee University. This strikes me as a little strange, because Lee never wanted to leave the Union, was at best ambivalent about slavery (he freed his own family slaves, although there was some legal pressure involved), and after the Civil War used his prestige to try to reunite the two halves of the country. Why should his name be taken down when it was George show more Washington who purchased slaves, and held them in bondage all his life?

And yet, the current low opinion of Lee probably arises as an antithesis to the old opinion held, especially in the Old South, that Lee was not only the perfect general but the perfect gentleman as well. He was certainly a good soldier and a good gentleman, but I'm not sure we can automatically induct him into Valhalla.

This book, however, has no doubts about Lee's genius, and is so intent on that genius that it tells the story of Gettysburg entirely from the Southern standpoint -- there is no insight at all about the Union side.

Indeed, there isn't even much accuracy about the Union side. I'm not sure what sources Dowdey was reading, but they clearly didn't include the Union Order of Battle. Case in point: He refers the the Union's "Iron Brigade" being part of Doubleday's division of the First Corps. But it wasn't, It was part of Wadsworth's Division -- first brigade, first division, first corps, Army of the Potomac. It's not really a big deal, because Dowdey doesn't care who Lee's troops are fighting -- they could be fighting invaders from Saturn for all he cares; not being Southrons, they're clearly less than human in his view. But it grates to see stupid errors like that that no historian of the battle should make.

Or take the organization of the Third Corps after Chancellorsvile. This involved breaking up A. P. Hill's division of six brigades -- four of them becoming Pender's division and two becoming part of Heth's. Dowdey questions why Lee took the two worst brigades of the old Light Division for Heth's division, instead of dividing it more fairly. A little thought shows why: One of the brigades (Brockenbrough's) had been Heth's own brigade at Chancellorsville; it had to be in Heth's Division or else Heth couldn't be promoted. The other brigade was Archer's. This was almost a forced choice. With two of the Light Division's brigadiers promoted to Major General (Heth and Pender), another injured (McGowan), there were only three experienced Light Division brigadiers available, and one had to understudy Pender and one Heth. And Archer had the brigade that was the poorer fit with the rest of the division. It is true that Heth ended up with a much less cohesive division than Pender. But at least one division had to get weaker. By doing what he did, Lee preserved Pender's division as a relatively strong force rather than damaging both divisions.

And Dowdey's hero worship of Lee clearly distorts how Dowdey views events, because he has to create scapegoats. He spends a whole chapter relating how "Jeb" Stuart got off on a sidetrack and left Lee ignorant of what the Army of the Potomac was doing. This is a valid criticism, but it ignores the complicated way in which Stuart got stuck.

And then there is Dowdey's criticism of James Longstreet. As far as Dowdey was concerned, it would appear that Lee's corps commanders, until Chancellorsville, were "Stonewall" Jackson and some other placeholder. This is simply, utterly untrue. If Lee had not recognized Longstreet's substantial talents, he would have set him aside or returned him to divisional command before Fredericksburg. He didn't; he had Longstreet promoted Lieutenant General. When Longstreet was wounded in the Wilderness, Lee was almost frantic about how to deal with the situation.

And, at Gettysburg, when Lee organized the final assault known as Pickett's Charge, he put it in Longstreet's hands, even though two-thirds of the brigades came from A. P. Hill's corps. Logically, Hill should have been in charge. Lee demanded Longstreet do it -- even though Longstreet insisted, correctly, that it could not be done -- because Lee trusted Longstreet.

Did Longstreet argue a lot? Sure. Did he drag his feet on the second day? Yup. Did it matter? Who knows.... What is certain is that Dowdey distorts the history to preserve his hero worship of Lee.

As you can obviously tell, this book bugged me a lot. The good news is, it's a smooth read. You won't have any trouble following what is happening, and you won't get bogged down in heavy prose. I guess it's just too bad that so much of it isn't true. show less

Clifford Dowdey’s 700+ page Lee is a truly hagiographic account of the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Dowdey notes that “Lee towered above all others as the single most perfected product. Indeed, it was the suggested of a total perfection that has tended to dim Lee with a certain remoteness.” It was clear from the forward that this was not going to be a critical view of the general.

Dowdey was not a trained historian, and was a writer of novels of the South. At his death, show more he was eulogized as the “Last Confederate,” and it isn’t hard to see why. In the early part of the book, slaves are usually not referred to as slaves – instead he uses “servant” or “attendant.” In the later part of the book he consistently downplays the role of the Ku Klux Klan in Reconstruction, and only views Reconstruction in a negative light. He seems incapable of understanding why the North simply didn’t restore the South to the way it was before the war.

The chapters on Reconstruction make clear that Dowdey was still of an Old South mindset. When writing about Reconstruction he always places “equality” in quotation marks. The abolitionists are always referred to as evil, always ready to use the newly freed blacks for their own political purposes.

Dowdey’s writing is strongest during the war itself, his narrative flows from battle to battle. But again, when it comes to making judgement on the battles themselves, Lee is never to blame. At times Dowdey reaches for any excuse, including referring to the Battle of North Anna as a significant check to Grant, equal to Lee’s defeat at Gettysburg.

There are balanced accounts of the life of General Lee, which at least attempt to critically analyze his actions. Dowdey’s is not one of these. I would suggest Emory Thomas’ Robert E. Lee. show less

I really enjoyed this book and also thought that it was really bad. I can't wait to read more by this author! He has a totally uncompromisingly opinionated view of all of the events that he writes about. You often find yourself cringing at the jibes delivered at some of the characters involved. That's the thing that will keep you reading it is how blunt and often times brutally honest he is.

The reason why it's bad and not a very helpful account of the events is because quite literally the show more only person who is credited with any osrt of merrit or even a brain in his head is Robert E. Lee. All mistakes occur in his absence and are infact due to his absence. This book liteally worships the man by defaming EVERYONE else involved in asisting or opposing him. By the end if you swallowed all of the authors conclusions you will come to the impresion that if it weren't for all the idiots on his side of events he would have conquered the world. Although most interesting of all was his analysis of the confederate beuracratic system which kept Lee pinned down to a very small sphere of influence while Grant was in control of all armed forces. His argument that this difference in systems alone had a massive impact on Lee's ability to resist Grant's multi-pronged offensive of 1864 is very convincing and something that there is little dialouge about in Civil War literature.

Dowdey makes a point of constantly refering to overwhelming union numbers being their only saving grace and only tactical tool in battle. Grant is an idiot totally unaware of what he is doing most of the time and underestimating our shining god of a genius, Lee, at every turn. Grant just won't learn that things have changed and that new technology makes carrying a fixed position astronomicaly dificult. The entire union command is shown nothing but contempt, Hancock is called "honest and "brave", but through gritted teeth. No mention of grants trouble in overcoming one of the greatest tacticians of all time in a campaign that closely resembles the deadlocked fronts of World War 1. No mention of the fact that Lee over his previous campaigns had exhausted huge amounts of manpower and equipment in bold and costly offensive strokes against the union forces. The worst of these being against a fixed position at Gettysburg. I would love to see how the author manages to justify Picketts Charge without having the same harsh judgment as he slapped onto grant. I could go on forever about the other side of alot of thew ludicrously close minded ascertations made in this thing.

Overall it was a good and informative book although frustrating. I could take the author more seriously if only his southern leaning sympathies and hero worship of Lee were not so obvious as to characterise the book. It seems that more than trying to portray the campaign or even the character of lee he is simply doing Lee's dirty laundry 100 years after the fact (book was published in 1960). Moral of the story, Lee: good, everything else: bad. show less

2119 The Land They Fought For: The Story of the South as the Confederacy 1832-1865, by Clifford Dowdey (read 17 Jan 1988) This is a 1955 book which begins its account in 1832 and ends in 1865. It is very pro-South. The author is very condemnatory of Jefferson Davis, and very laudatory of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. And, of course, almost apoplectic toward Sherman and Sheridan. The book is footnoteless, but it tells the story with verve and I enjoyed it thoroughly. He has nothing show more good to say about Jefferson Davis, nothing. But, as with all these pro-Southern books, I enjoy them because all comes right in the end. The South loses, slavery ends--and now, over a hundred years later, the injustices of slavery are slowly passing from the scene and history is vindicating the North and the abolitionists. show less