Customer Reviews

The Marble Man

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is not just a revisionist look at Robet E. Lee but also an objective evaluation of the Southern Lost Cause Syndrome that utilzed Lee as their flagship for a just cause. Thomas Connelly is a great writer of the western theater notably the history of the Army of the Tennessee and of the western Confederate cabal that had conflicts with Jefferson Davis. Connelly offers what southerners and partiucularly Virginians may find as a harsh evaluation of Lee during the war. This book also includes some psycho-analysis that offers some reasoning for Lee's very formal demeanor which is in far contrast's to Joe Johnston whose troops would pat him on the head on occasion but not dare approach Lee in such an informal manner. In my opinion the book demonstrates that Lee was simply not infallible like amy man who has overall responsibility, he must accept some of the blame for failure. There is also the question of whether Lee was too aggressive with limited manpower (Gary Gallagher has referred to this as crucial, that the Confederacy was in serious need of military victories for morale). The Lost Cause contingent made up of Jubal Early and company always gave Lee total credit for victory but not in defeat, Early & company always made someone other than Lee a scapegoat in their version of history. Gettysburg serves as the grand indictment of this philosophy where Longstreet becomes the total goat at Gettysburg in the 1870's while one of his accusers, Early, covers his own lackluster performance by publicly hanging Longstreet. Early raps himself with the cloak of Robert E. Lee to deflect criticism of his own actions and post war exile. To my mind, Connaly expolores better than anyone else the self serving relationship of Jubal Early to the Lost Cause syndrome in Early's attempt to rewite history. Connelly brings out that Jackson was the south's great hero until Lee's death and the emergence of Lee's rise among southern writers. He also argues that Lee lacked a national picture of how to best serve the Confederacy by his opposing transferring troops west to bolster those failing armies with limited resources. He argues that Virginia was Lee's first and main focus. Highly reccommend this book, whether you agree or not, Connelly makes you look at the facts presented and while not meaning to destroy Lee's image of a competent and charismatic general, it tends to show him as human and mortal who like everyone made some mistakes. We all have to look at historians presentations carefully, even Douglas Freeman in Lee's Lieutanents slightly diminishes Jackson's role and he makes Longstreet shorter, fatter and a plotter of self grandization. This is an intellectually challenging book best appreciated by those that have an open mind. This book most likely helped foster Alan Nolan's "Lee Considered."

I generally enjoy anything written by Thomas Connelly and this book was no exception. It is a very academic approach to dissecting the reasons why we revere Lee as a great leader of the "Lost Cause" for Southern Independence.

Many of Connelly's assertions will be unsettling for those hardcore fans of R.E. Lee. I myself was uncomfortable with some of what Connelly serves up as the reasons for Lee's eventual canonization in American culture.

But it is also hard to ignore some of the well argued reasons for Lee's place in history. I was particulary intriqued with Jubal Early's role in creating the "legends" surrounding Lee. Early was certainly one Southern General who might have been expected to despise Marse Robert. And indeed, Connelly paints a portrait of a man driven to place Lee on a pedestal to in some small way, regain his commander's affection.

And of course there were deeper seated needs that Southerners had for enobling the "Lost Cause" by revering a leader, whose moral character and leadership were unchallenged.

Connelly does a good job of making the reader really think about the motivations of those people who created some of the myths surrounding Lee. In the end, they needed to believe in the greatness of Lee, because the greatness of the cause was so suspect in the end.

Connelly's treatment does not diminish Lee. Instead, the real man begins to emerge from the marble of time and history. And indeed, the real R.E. Lee was a very great man indeed.

I must say that the Marble Man is a good read. I can say this from two perspectives. First, I read the book and thouroughly enjoyed it. Second, Dr. Connelly was my professor and advisor at the University of South Carolina from 1986 until 1988. I cannot express enough what an experience it was to sit in one of his classes and listen to his lectures. It was like being transported back in time to the battle or period we were covering that day. The students would wait with anticipation before he arrived and didn't want to leave when the class was over because the transportation back in time would end when we'd leave the classroom. I remember Dr. Connelly's assessment of Lee quite well. While Lee was a good general, he did tend to be wasteful with resources and has become overrated with time. I strongly encourage the reader of this review to read anything written by Dr. Connelly. He was an amazing man.

Connelly argues that Robert E. Lee's heroic image was largely created post-war by a small group of Virginians, and goes on to give what he regards as a more accurate assessment.

While agreeing that the post-war canonization of Lee imposed some distortions upon historians which modern scholars do well to avoid, several things about this study didn't convince me. Firstly, Connelly spends little time analyzing Lee's popularity during the war, which rose after the Peninsula campaign and remained high through the end; Lee and his army were a significant image and source of morale to all Southerners, not just Virginians, at that time.

Secondly, Connelly makes various statements about personalities and psychological quirks -- Mary Custis Lee was "unpleasant", Lee was morbid and death-obsessed -- in the presence of limited supporting evidence and of no discussion of the mentalities, religious faith, and social norms of the time. (His idiosyncratic assessment of individuals includes a characterization of Fitz Lee as the worst of Lee's cavalry commanders -- even considering the shadbake incident, that seems like too strong a statement when one considers that Fitz' competition for the worst would include candidates such as Grumble Jones and the luckless Lunsford Lomax.)

This study does reveal the ugly post-war squabble for the portrayal of history in all its inglory.

This book might be approached as an examination of how a well-known personality is transformed for a human being into a cultural icon. Sequentially and chronologically Connelly takes his readers through that process using Robert E. Lee as the item of investigation. Along the way, Connelly makes commentary on the differences between the cultures of the north and south and how Lee's legion spread because of those cultural differences. That context has been well-established by numerous writers. Connelly simply uses it for a closer examination of Lee. For example, on page 102 he quotes another historian, Bradley T. Johnson in writing "Environmental factors had forced North and South to develop contrasting socieites. The North, 'invigorated' by constant struggle with nature, became materialistic, grasping for wealth and power. The South's 'more generous climate' had wrought a life-style based upon non-materialism and adherence to a finer code of 'veracity and honor in man, chastity and fidelity in women'"
This book helps a person to understand how history evolves in the process of retelling over a period of several generations.

whether Connelly admits it or not he too is enamoured by the Lee mystique but than again which Lee historian wouldn`t be. Initially it might be a hard swallow for most Lee enthusiast but to his credit Connelly engages the reader into a rarely seen and understood facet of the Lee mythology.In the book we get to see not only the construction of the Lee legend but the reason for it`s longevity as well. In truth this was the first book on Lee I`d ever read and glad to say it was a good choice as it is an articulate and informative primer to a world filled with honor,duty,religion,love,ideology, romance and tragedy. I highly recommend it to any reader who wishes to explore the most loved general on either side of the american civil war,the man,the soldier,the legend that is Robert Edward Lee.

thomas connelly's book on r.e. lee is quite simply one of the best studies of the man that i have ever read. in stark contrast to southern lost cause scholars such as douglas s. freeman, bob krick and clifford dowdy, connelly has presented an objective approach to the historical status of r.e. lee. this book is not, strictly speaking, a biography, but rather a comprehensive study of how r.e. lee fits neatly into the mythos of the "lost cause" fashioned by southern propagandists in the decades follwing the civil war. in order to glorify the dubious confederate cause, it became necessary to virtually deify r.e. lee, the south's most famous general. connelly shows how not only southerners, but northerners as well, bought into the elevation of r.e. lee to superhuman dimensions. hence the title of the book. the mortal man, with all his fallibilities, became obscured by the legend.

connelly has succeeded in stripping away the lost cause veil covering lee's humanity in a most dignified fashion. there are no polemics here. the biographical data on lee is revealing. the fact that he was a "party animal" as a young man, and perhaps a repressed one in middle age, came as a revelation. lee's icy sense of duty had complex psychologocal dimensions that freeman and dowdy did not fully explore. connelly's scholarship does just that. what emerges from connelly's work is a complex, brilliant and flawed human being, and not the "god" of the south that is still worshipped today. all students of the civil war and military history should read this book, regardless of their respective views on lee.

the other icon of the confederacy, stonewall jackson, could use a connelly-like approach to his life and place in american history, especially in the wake of james robertson's slobbering salute to this other "christian warrior." are you listening, alan nolan?

thomas connelly's book on r.e. lee is quite simply one of the best studies of the man that i have ever read. in stark contrast to southern lost cause scholars such as douglas s. freeman, bob krick and clifford dowdy, connelly has presented an objective approach to the historical status of r.e. lee. this book is not, strictly speaking, a biography, but rather a comprehensive study of how r.e. lee fits neatly into the mythos of the "lost cause" fashioned by southern propagandists in the decades follwing the civil war. in order to glorify the dubious confederate cause, it became necessary to virtually deify r.e. lee, the south's most famous general. connelly shows how not only southerners, but northerners as well, bought into the elevation of r.e. lee to superhuman dimensions. hence the title of the book. the mortal man, with all his fallibilities, became obscured by the legend.

connelly has succeeded in stripping away the lost cause veil covering lee's humanity in a most dignified fashion. there are no polemics here. the biographical data on lee is revealing. the fact that he was a "party animal" as a young man, and perhaps a repressed one in middle age, came as a revelation. lee's icy sense of duty had complex psychologocal dimensions that freeman and dowdy did not fully explore. connelly's scholarship does just that. what emerges from connelly's work is a complex, brilliant and flawed human being, and not the "god" of the south that is still worshipped today. all students of the civil war and military history should read this book, regardless of their respective views on lee.

the other icon of the confederacy, stonewall jackson, could use a connelly-like approach to his life and place in american history, especially in the wake of james robertson's slobbering salute to this other "christian warrior." are you listening, alan nolan?

THE MARBLE MAN is a brief biography of General Robert E. Lee and an obsession to prove that Dr. Jekyll was Mr. Hyde. Connelly see's toothless sociopaths and pathology behind every tree, but has no convincing or demonstrable evidence that Lee was dysfunctional.

For example, Connelly asserts that Lee was unqualified to run Washington College, based on professional experience, yet totally ignores Lee's term of office as Superintendant of West Point.

Both Jefferson Davis and Lincoln knew that the show in Virginia was no place for 2nd stringers. Washington and Richmond were the brains of each government. Capture Washington and the war was over. Capture Richmond and the war was over, which is what happened. After Sherman captured Atlanta, he left, and the Rebels moved back in.

Lee was a meat-grinder the North had to insert its hand into to conquer the rebellion. Grant never defeated Lee in combat. Every time Grant put his arm into the grinder, Lee made more hamburger; but Grant had a long arm, and said as much when he said that his Cheshire cat had a longer tail than Lee's. In the last 12 months of the Civil War, Lee killed more Yankees than had died in the first 3 years of fighting. The only choice Grant had was to stick his arm into the grinder and grab the handle Lee turned.

The whole book is an effort to discount Lee and give him clay feet.

I found the book "The Marble Man" to be disappointing in several ways. The author, Thomas L Connelly, attempts to illustrate that the modern notion of Robert E. Lee as a selfless leader, great general, noble gentleman, and devoted family man is the result of a vast Virginian conspiracy.
Connelly's composition leaves something to be desired. The prologue, chapters, and epilogue seem to be thrown together in a way that shouldn't be described as "seamless". He is repetitive with quotes, often using the same quote from the same person several times (sometimes to convey different meanings). Throughout the book, one is waiting for the big "hook", or the "zinger" where Connelly will finally show his indisputable truth that Lee is not what he seems to be. This never arrives.
Connelly is certainly a well known historian, but not much of a Theologian. The "God thing" is throughout the book and really bothers/baffles Connelly. At various times he identifies Robert E Lee as a Calvinist, an Episcopalian, and a Puritan. Lee was a very devout Christian and attended the Episcopalian denominational churches most of his life. Connelly describes many of Lee's beliefs as "other-worldliness" and a "fixation on death". No time here to go into this in depth, but Connelly scratched the surface of something his just doesn't get.
One huge goal of many post modern historians is to bring the great down (no evidence necessary) and to elevate the base. "Lincoln was a homosexual"..."Clinton a great leader for his time" The beat goes on.