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 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.… (más)

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, 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.… (más)

This book went right to the top of my list after I read Seven Days.
I learned a lot reading this book and had a good time doing it. The author puts a lot of emphasis on the personalities of the central figures which makes his narration an enjoyable story. This was the first major battle fought after the death of Stonewall Jackson and Lee had to work with a revamped command structure. The author shows that this led to some poor decision making and even worse performance. Richard Ewell was afraid to make a decision when just maybe he could have taken Cemetery Hill on the first day. Longstreet was upset because Lee would not take his advice. He showed he was angry by going through the motions at slow speed. Stuart went chasing glory and deprived Lee of his cavalry.
The author reminded me that there was the battle and then there was what was written about the battle. Longstreet became a Republican which made him a good scapegoat for the loss of the battle. Jubal Early is named as one man who spread that idea. This author doesn't believe the oft repeated yarn that Longstreet said "no 15,000 men could succeed" at Pickett's Charge.
Probably my least favorite part of reading about this battle is Pickett's Charge. I just feel for those guys. They tried so hard and according to this author came pretty close. Better use of the artillery and a few more men supporting the charge and it could have been a close contest. At least that is what Dowdey has to say about it. He has a lot of opinions and he often disagrees with many well known authors. What makes his books interesting is that he is able to put facts in support of his ideas. Above all else the book is very well written. The author's use of descriptive language bring to life the scenes that make up his story. He uses a variety of details from the warmth of the breeze to the sounds of combat. These were both very good books and now I feel I need to move on to something different.
Edit | More… (más)

This is the first book by this author that I have read and I was pleasantly surprised. I liked the book very much for a number of reasons. It was well written and full of interesting details. The author's writing had a journalistic style, similar to Bruce Catton. Dowdey wrote a book of military history strictly from the Southern point of view. The actions of the Northern armies were described only as they made an impact on the armies of the South. The only political history discussed was that part that had an impact on the Southern army. The topic of slavery was largely absent, it just wasn't what the author was writing about. Given those restrictions the book was very informative and entertaining. When I say entertaining I mean that listening to the book was truly enjoyable.
At the beginning of the Seven Days battles the troops of McClellan could see the spires of the churches in Richmond. At the end the Union forces had been pushed back to the James River. The author states that this campaign lengthened the war by at least a year and a half. He argues this premise in several places in the book and is very convincing.
I listened to an audio edition of this book and I was glad to find there is a e-book edition at a decent price. Several times I wanted to look back at a portion of the book and I couldn't. The author made excellent use of descriptive language in describing the battles and the people involved. His approach was very direct. One good example is his description of Jackson's behavior during the campaign. He spent a lot of time not doing very much. Many times the call was heard "Where is Jackson?" and he was taking a nap. Dowdey counts the hours Jackson was marching or in the saddle prior to arriving at his assigned position and states that he was suffering from stress fatigue. This book was published almost fifty years ago so this is not some trendy new age diagnosis. Many other authors describe Jackson's strange behavior but this is one of the first I remember using this straightforward common sense description of the problem.
The author's style of writing helped me to follow the action in the battles across the terrain. His description of the position of troops in one battle, three concave rows of rifle pits backed up by artillery, created a mental picture I could easily understand. This almost made up for the lack of maps in the audiobook.
Dowdey did very good biographical sketches of many of the participants. He included thorough biographies of men such as Benjamin Huger and Theophilus Holmes, generals who are often slighted. He followed many of the men to the end of their career. A lot of the interaction between the different generals is included. In one incident James Longstreet made Benjamin Huger's troops wait while Longstreet's troops marched by, even though it was Huger who was supposed to lead the attack. Lee was constantly frustrated by the failure of his generals to carry out his orders.
I am sure I will listen to this book again. I have already found another book by this author and am reading it. I recommend it for all and especially Civil War buffs.… (más)