When coming across the announcement of this PBS program late last year, it was with real excitement that I began to look forward to it. DVR'd it last nite and watched it tonite. I was not disappointed.
Lee is presented as a complex individual, not the 'Marble Man' of some historical interpretations. His personal bravery in the Mexican War, his inability to make Arlington a going business concern, his failure in western Virginia in 1861, his amazing command of the Army of Northern Virginia, all were portrayed in good accuracy along with numerous other chapters in a fascinating life. Debate still rages about whether his overall war strategy was the right one or whether he should have assumed the defensive as did Washington. It did seem there were a lot of references to "failure" at the end of the program, but that's the ultimate verdict on the war's outcome, so ...
It did seem so obvious how artillery was a major factor in Lee's most significant battleground defeats, at Malvern Hill and at Gettysburg. How did he not appreciate the effects that such concentrated fire would have on his assaults? He certainly underestimated the impact. Gratifying that Detroiter Henry Hunt was Lee's nemesis on both occasions.
The program mentioned how Theodore Roosevelt described Lee as "the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth." Here we have it in a nutshell; TR finds the general-in-chief who lost to be the greatest of all time. In part, this is because of how TR perceived Lee after surrendering, in the light of reconciliation. TR: the warrior of San Juan Hill and the Great White Fleet whose own heart was later broken by the death of a son in WWI. Would he have admitted changing his mind?
Of such is the stuff of real history, not merely a simple right/wrong equation, because of the fact that people -- complex individuals with contradictory emotions and ideas -- are involved. Without the 3-dimensionality of people, there is no history, only stereotypes and fairy tales. Why, then, do we so frequently try to simplify? Perhaps because we prefer clarity, even if not completely true, over opaqueness. Opaque: now there's a word used to describe Lee, and it's a good one. RE Lee was no saint, in the classical sense. He was, rather, a human being, one who struggled to achieve a certain standard, never felt he had reached it, and who got frustrated when others failed as well. Another revelation in the program is the physical change in Lee over the four years of the war. Not quite comparable to Lincoln's, but dramatic nonetheless. Evidence that the man was human. Shocking.
As a 'kick-off' show during this Sesquicentennial year it was an excellent 90 minutes well worth watching by anyone above the age of 6 or 7. Some of us, after all, were 8 when we first got caught up in this era. And who, for the past half-century, have been enjoying the slow wade into the deep end of the pool.