Robert E. Lee and the Fall of the Confederacy, 1863-1865
By Ethan S. Rafuse
(April 2009 Civil War News)

Illustrated, maps, endnotes, bibliographic essay, index, 282 pp., 2008. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 4501 Forbes Blvd., Suite 200, Lanham MD 20706, $34.95 plus shipping.

Reviewer: David F. Riggs
David F. Riggs is a museum curator at Colonial National Historical Park, Yorktown. He has a BA in history from Lock Haven University and MA in history from Penn State. His publications include Embattled Shrine: Jamestown in the Civil War and Vicksburg Battlefield
Monuments.

Review:
Despite the suggestive title, this is not a revisionist diatribe that assaults Lee’s aggressive tactics.  Nor is it a defensive plethora of praise.

 Ethan Rafuse, a history professor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, has written one of the most objective, balanced and perceptive accounts of Lee’s strategy and tactics that one could wish for. It is a masterful blend of narrative and analysis.

 Following an introductory chapter that summarizes the war through the Battle of Chancellorsville, eight chapters follow Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia from Gettysburg to Appomattox. A final chapter takes the war to its conclusion and offers an assessment.

 Explanations for Lee’s actions are clearly delineated. When Lee reached the field at Gettysburg, for example, he found the opportunity he desired, namely to fall upon a segment of Meade’s army. But without Stuart’s intelligence reports it became Antietam in reverse as the Union army had time to concentrate its entire army and use compact, interior lines.

Lee’s bold operations in 1864, Rafuse contends, were inspired by the general’s belief that his only chance for Southern independence was to destroy not the Army of the Potomac but the North’s will to continue the war.

He could accomplish this only by retaining the tactical offensive; otherwise, he would be reacting to adverse situations created by a larger and stronger foe.

How has Dr. Rafuse packed so much into this volume, and why does it deserve a place with full-length Lee biographies and lengthier narratives of the Army of Northern Virginia?

One reason is that Lee and his army are not examined in a vacuum. Military events in the East are placed in context with the Western Theater, politics, and economic and social issues.

Furthermore, Rafuse does not ignore the impact of Lee’s opponents when assessing his success or failure. And, as the author of major works on McClellan and Meade, Rafuse is well-versed on the two generals who opposed Lee for the majority of the war.

The last chapter asks the question, “How could Robert E. Lee, who less than two years earlier at Chancellorsville had achieved such a magnificent military success that the scene inspired one man to proclaim him nearly elevated to the level of a god, end up surrendering his army in April 1865 and giving up on the cause for which he had fought so hard and sent so many young men to their deaths?”

The last 12 pages of the book provide a concise and insightful answer.

 In part, it was the South’s decision to fight a conventional war of exhaustion against the North’s will to preserve the Union, backed by superior resources. Lee’s generalship was a major reason why the Federals’ victory was more difficult in the East than it was in the West.

Lee was assisted by the Lincoln administration’s insistence upon fighting a defensive war in Virginia. Lincoln denied Eastern commanders a free hand to approach Richmond from the James River, a strategy implemented by McClellan until his recall that finally was brought to fulfillment by Grant.

Even Grant, the author notes, had to placate the administration and begin his campaign with his army situated between Washington and Richmond. When Butler’s simultaneous operations on the James failed, Grant gradually maneuvered his own army to Petersburg, a move that Lee accurately predicted made his ultimate defeat “a mere question of time.”

Dr. Rafuse’s succinct narrative and keen analysis are a clearly articulated appreciation of Lee’s capabilities and provide an intriguing interpretation of the war in the East.