Robert E. Lee Finances

Robert E. Lee had to live down many aspects of his father. One area was surely finances. Light Horse Harry Lee ended up in debtor’s prison and was universally regarded as a wastrel. The son, Robert, did indeed do better than the father in regard to his finances. As an Army officer, his salary was not great, but it was sufficient. In 1841, he was paid $1,817 for the year. At the time, that was a good salary, but far from wealthy.

Robert did inherit some slaves from his mother. But, as an Army officer, running a farm or plantation, even if he could afford one, was out of the question. He sold his slaves. He probably rented out a few of the enslaved persons. Still the income to be derived from these “assets” was quite limited.

What he did do was live frugally and invest well. When he was posted near Arlington, he could live at home. But, generally, he was posted in places with no military quarters. He rented a room in Brooklyn, New York for $300 per year. In the 1830’s, he bought stock in two Virginia banks. After the Panic of 1837, he diversified. He invested in canal and railroad bonds. He purchased state bonds from Ohio, Virginia, and Kentucky. He relied on investment advice from a friend in St. Louis. By 1846, his portfolio amounted to $38,750, which yielded about $2,000 in income per year. He owned or had a claim to a small piece of land. But, compared to his father, he had done very well with minimal inheritance. Seventeen years after graduating from West Point, he had sizeable assets.

By the end of 1861, many of Robert’s investments were in Northern city, state and railroad bonds. He wrote to his son, Custis that he would likely be a pauper by the end of the war. He knew his investments in northern institutions would surely be forfeit. And, he likely knew his investments in Southern assets would surely depreciate substantially.

And, he knew his wife would likely lose her ancestral home at Arlington. And, indeed, now we know that the former Arlington plantation is now the Arlington cemetery. Robert wrote her telling her Arlington was probably lost. Even by January, 1862, Arlington was occupied by Federal troops.

Emory M. Thomas, Robert E. Lee, (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1995), p. 108-109, 214-215.

Robert E. Lee, Superintendent

Robert E. Lee was a field soldier. So, he avoided the post as Superintendent at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He declined it when the post was first offered. But, in 1852, he was not given a choice. He considered the place to be a “snake pit” of politics from which he could not emerge unscathed. It was a high profile post, to which politicians and stray generals would drop by. Too, his oldest son was then a cadet and Lee feared being accused of favoritism. The son of Light Horse Harry Lee always felt the need to prove he was not his father.

Superintendent is equivalent to the President of a university in today’s time. Some aspects of the job, then Col. Lee enjoyed.

Supervisjng some 50 cadre and 2450 cadets, there were aspects that challenged Col. Lee. One was discipline and dealing with difficult students. One such difficult cadet was James M. Whistler. He was the son of George Washington Whistler, a graduate of West Point. George W. Whistler was a career officer who did in Russia in 1849. The young Whistler accumulated 116 demerits by the end of his first ear in 1852. That was more than the limit which required his dismissal. The Superintendent and the Commandant of Cadets could review such expulsions and consider less punitive measures. Lee chose to delete 59 of his demerits. In 1853, Whistler became very ill. Col. Lee wrote his mother and suggested he go home to recuperate. Col. Lee told his mother that James Whistler had successfully passed an overdue exam. He stood 32nd in his class, but first in drawing.

In his third year, Whistler had to sit for an exam in chemistry. The verbal exam asked Whistler to discuss silicon. The young Whistler responded, “I am required to discuss the subject of silicon. … Silicon is a gas.” It may have been the shortest exam in West Point history. In thirteen words, Whistler failed the exam and flunked out of West Point. Later in his life, Whistler would say that had silicon been a gas, he would have been a major general. Col. Lee then had to perform a duty he considered “the most unpleasant office” he was called on to perform. He had to direct Whistler and eight other young cadets to take a wagon to the dock and eventually home.

Within a week, James Whistler submitted a petition to Lee to take a second exam. Col. Lee once more had to decide a young cadets future. But, again, his demerits were just too high. Lee rued that one so capable of doing well had let himself fail. But, Jimmy Whistler would later paint a picture of his mother and become one of the great masters.

Col. Lee’s most difficult cadet was probably his nephew, Fitzhugh. In the end, Fitzhugh graduated 45^th in a class of 49. But, he graduated only because his classmates supported him and agreed to take a pledge of good behavior in Fitz’s behalf. At one point, Fitz had 197 demerits when he was again caught bringing alcohol on campus.

Every Saturday afternoon, Col. Lee invited the cadets to his home at West Point for dinner. There were aspects which he did enjoy. Col. Lee left his post in 1854. But, he took a good deal of gray hair with him. For the man who avoided confrontation, it was unavoidable at West Point.

See article here about the Father of West Point, Sylvanus Thayer, the first prominent Superintendent.

Emory M. Thomas, Robert E. Lee, (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1995), p. 152, 154-162

Child Rearing Advice from Robert E. Lee

Robert E. Lee had a difficult childhood. His father, the famous “Light Horse” Harry Lee was a fine commander, but a wastrel. Light Horse Harry came from a good family, but he could not hold a job and went through money like water. Even though he served a term as Congressman and governor, he ended up in debtor’s prison. Light Horse Harry did, however, marry well. Robert was two when his father’s creditors took Light Horse Harry to jail. Ann Carter Lee kept the family together by imposing upon relations who could spare room. By the time Robert was 6, the family (sans Light Horse Harry) left the Lee ancestral home to stay with relations in Alexandria. Robert would never see his father, again. At least four times, relations took care in their wills to leave property to Ann or to another Lee, but not to Light Horse Harry.

Perhaps with that background, a mature Robert was a devoted father. He would tell stories to his children, when he was home. They were expected to tickle his feet while doing so, or the story would end. He would set up games for them on the lawn, such as a high jump. He encouraged them to jump in his bed in the mornings. Yet, he had had his parental troubles. His oldest son, Custis was almost evicted from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. His other son, Rooney, was in perpetual trouble at Harvard until he received a commission into the U.S. Army.

Robert Lee was a prolific letter writer. We know much about his thoughts from his many letters to friends and family. Writing in 1857, as his children were entering adulthood, Robert Lee mentioned to his wife that he believed there should be “infant schools.” He believed children should be gathered together at a young age and taught by well-trained instructors in “politeness, gentleness, courtesy and regard for others.” The benefits of self-denial and self-control could be modeled for the young children, he explained. Elsewhere he recorded that he believed physical discipline and verbal abuse were counter-productive. Children, he said, should be “governed by love, not fear. When love influences the parent, the child will be activated by the same spirit.” Lee was generally a man of his time. But, in rearing children, he was ahead of his time.

See more about Light Horse Horse Harry lee and his effect on Robert E. Lee here.

Emory M. Thomas, Robert E. Lee, (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1995), p. 145, 148-149; 171-172.

Did Robert E. Lee Own Slaves?

The Atlantic magazine published an article in 2017 stating Robert E. Lee was not the “kindly” man history has recorded. As one piece of evidence, it pointed to his harsh treatment of “his” slaves. It is true that then Lieut.-Col. Lee inherited slaves from his father-in-law. His father-in-law was George Washington Parke Custis, grandson of Martha Washington and adopted son of George Washington. See the Atlantic article here.

George W. P. Custis named Lee as the executor of his will. George W.P. Custis also freed his slaves in his will. But, Mr. Custis, while a kind man, left his plantations and farms in bad shape. He left one home, Arlington plantation, to LTC Lee and his wife. He also left many personal items formerly owned by George Washington to his daughter and son-in-law.

As the executor, LTC Lee felt duty-bound to make Mr. Custis’ bequests good. But, to keep the home together, he first had to generate income. To generate income, he had to keep the enslaved humans a little longer. The terms of the will required LTC Lee to free Mr. Custis’ slaves within five years. LTC Lee had to take leave from the Army. That leave became longer and longer as the Lieut.-Colonel struggled with the challenge of managing three plantations and returning them to profitability soon enough to honor his father-in-law’s wishes. In March, 1858, Custis’ creditors were owed $10,000, a huge sum for the time.

As one would expect, the slaves gradually learned they were supposed to be freed. They were not happy to still be enslaved. Two men, probably abolitionists from nearby Washington City (now known as Washington, D.C.), were lurking about one of Mr. Custis’ homes encouraging the slaves to leave. Three of the male slaves escaped. They were captured and tossed in jail. The slaves called to passersby to help them, insisting they should be freed. LTC Lee sent them to Richmond to be leased out and generate some income.

In 1859, two other slaves escaped. Lee, the novice planter, had them captured and again sent them elsewhere to generate income.

LTC Lee did not support slavery. But, neither did he oppose it. As a career military officer, his views on most subjects were generally centrist. In 1858-1959, he was simply trying to effectuate the wishes of his beloved father-in-law. By 1858, LTC Lee was a career military officer. He was not comfortable playing the role of a planter. In letters to his sons, he complained about the difficulty of managing slaves. It was not the same as commanding free white men.

It is not likely he had the Custis slaves whipped. Lee generally avoided confrontation. It is more likely he would deal with difficult slaves by sending them elsewhere. That does not make him a kind man by 21st century standards. Sending an enslaved man 60 miles from his home was its own punishment. But, it does suggest the Atlantic article lacks certainty.

Pres. Lincoln issued the final version of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863. Three days before that event, then Gen. Lee finally freed the Custis slaves, barely within the five year deadline. He freed all the Custis slaves, even the ones who had long since been “leased out” in nearby cities. He freed the slaves who were then living in Union occupied territory. He knew they would probably not need freedom papers, but just in case, the General issued them papers all the same.

Robert E. Lee abhorred slavery. Not because he thought it was unfair or abusive of the black man, but because of what it did to the white man. When he executed the papers freeing the Custis slaves, he listed 170 persons by name for all three plantation farms. He sought to make sure he overlooked no one regardless of where they were in late 1862. Soon after, he hired his personal servant, Perry, and his personal cook, George at $8.20 per month. He indicated to them that he hoped they would be able to “lay up” some of their pay for their future.

By 1860, LTC Lee returned to active service in San Antonio Texas. And, in the end, all of Mr. Custis’ creditors were paid, except for one, Robert E. Lee.

Emory M. Thomas, Robert E. Lee, (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1997), pp. 176-179, 183-184, 272-274.

Be Safe.

“Lee to the Rear!”

In the annals of military warfare, it was so extraordinary. There is no record of this happening to Julius Caesar, Hannibal or Napoleon. In May 1864, in a Battle known as the Battle of the Wilderness, Gen. Robert E. Lee tried to lead the charge of the Texas Brigade. Commanding generals do not typically attempt to lead a charge themselves. It just is not done. The commanding general has to keep the entire battle in mind. He has to forecast chess moves three or four moves in advance. He must respond to aides hurrying back and forth with urgent messages seeking aid, warning of supply shortages, and he must press recalcitrant commanders. The heat of battle is “prime time” for a commanding general. Yet, when the Texas Brigade moved up to block a penetration by Union General Winfield Scott’s forces, he knew the moment was dire. He knew too that the Confederates were being pressed in ways they had never been pressed. He wanted to be sure the charge succeeded.

Gen. Lee cheered as the Texans moved into position to plug the gap created by Gen. Scott. The Corps Commander, Gen. Longstreet planned to move one brigade into the gap, followed by a second brigade and then a third. When the Texans first arrived, Gen. Lee urged them, “We must drive these people back.” A man not given to frequent displays of emotion already showed more emotion than his soldiers were used to. “The Texans always drive them,” he added. The commander of the Texas Brigade, Gen. Gregg, told his men, “The eye of Gen. Lee is on you.” The Texans responded with cheers. With a shout of “Forward,” the Texans and Arkansans started forward with a yell.

Immediately, the men noticed Gen. Lee was moving with them. Capt. Bedell noticed the general advancing with them well into the enemy fire. Dozens would later insist they were there and they held the reins of Traveller, pulling Lee back to the rear. Traveller was the name of Lee’s horse, named after the horse used by Gen. Washington during the American revolution. Gen. Washington was Gen. Lee’s step-grandfather.

Capt. Bedell had been wounded twice in prior battles. He was one of the original recruits into Co. “L” of the Texas Brigade. Co. “L” came from Galveston. Capt. Bedell implored Lee to stop. Gen. Lee responded, “I want to lead the Texas Brigade in this charge.” From commander to his men, bypassing three or four layers of command was unusual in itself. But, the overall commander was negotiating with his men. He could have simply told them to shut up and let him do his job. But, he was negotiating, asking them to let him do what he thought he needed to do ensure success.

It is hard for civilians to understand this remarkable military relationship during war. There is an unspoken understanding that each person, male or female, will do his/her best at all times to ensure success of the military unit. That principle is a sacred duty. It stays with you all your life. In this instance, the Commanding General was asking his men to let him do what he believed he had to do to plug this gap. His men were telling him, “no.” They were assuming the responsibility for the success of this charge. They were saying, “sir, we got this.” They were not just assuring him they would ensure the success of this charge, they were insisting. They were telling their boss, “no,” in terms that did not allow for negotiation.

The tender feeling in that moment cannot be overstated. They were also saying the possibility of losing Gen. Lee was too high a price to pay for the success of one charge. That is an extraordinary honor, one probably never made to a general of Robert E. Lee’s caliber. Napoleon’s soldiers respected the general, but they did not love him. I am happy to say my soldiers generally liked me. But, I am very doubtful they would have insisted I minimize risk. It just isn’t done.

Other soldiers joined in. “You will get killed dad[d]y.” “We won’t go forward until you go back,” said another. One soldier watching this unheard of display remarked years later, “I would charge hell itself for that old man.” One soldier in a friendly way kicked at Traveller, saying, “Get out of the Wilderness with General Lee, you old looney!” That alone would merit court martial in today’s army. In the Confederate army, assaulting the general’s horse in other circumstances would have resulted in lashes or worse.

The general finally turned toward the rear, as the Texas Brigade surged forward into the fire. Dozens of Texans fell. But, Gen. Lee lived.

See more about the Battle of the Wilderness here.

Susannah J. Ural, Hood’s Texas Brigade (LSU Press 2017), pp. 212-213.

Confederate Memorials are Veteran Memorials

In the Iraq war, like all wars, we lost a few buddies. Each death carries with it these tremendous ripple effects. For every death, 5, 6 soldiers or more say, “If I had been there SGT Saenz would still be with us. I should have gone out on that patrol.” The guilt, as irrational as it might be, can be devastating. Multiply those ripple effects some 20 or 30 times and you get the U.S. Civil war. The casualty rate in that war was 20-50% in combat units, compared to .02% in the Iraq war for all units. During the Civil War, armies did not collect and bury the dead. There were no funerals back home. There were no honor guarded processions. There were no gifts of a flag to the grieving family. After the war, hundreds of families, North and South, wandered these battle fields looking for lost loved ones. One historian estimated there were 35,000 dead, lying unburied, unmarked between Baton Rouge and Vicksburg. That was just one small corner of the war.

So, after the war, communities across America built memorials to the confederate dead. Northern communities did the same. Those memorials applied a much needed salve to deep, emotional wounds. But, how did a South with its economy in shambles raise the money for memorials?

In her book (“Sacred Memories”), Kelly McMichaels describes the process employed by male veterans and the female United Daughters of the Confederacy in erecting hundreds of veteran memorials across America. Overwhelmingly, most were built by the women. Dr. McMichaels attributes that to the nature or role of women in the 1890-1930 time frame when most of these memorials were built. Women were often the “rememberers.” They tended the graves. They laid aside the old baby slippers and the old worn hat from lost loved ones.

One of the first memorials was the Robert E. Lee statue in New Orleans. Fund-raising started the year of Mr. Lee’s death in 1870. The fund-raising committee included bankers and leading merchants of the city. But, these were banks and merchants who had no money. The economy was reeling. The committee came close to disbanding in 1876. But, they re-organized and added many more merchants and former Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard. By 1884, the committee raised the $36,000 necessary for a very large, beautiful Lee statue.

But, to reach that huge figure, they held hundreds of bake sales and public entertainments. The public entertainments included militias performing close order drill, a play titled “Cinderella,” for the children; lectures on Robert E. Lee and his life. Admission was generally .25 cents for children and .50 cents for adults. In 1877, 98 persons pledged $100 each which brought them close to the stated goal of $30,000. Contributors included Sen. Charles Furlong, a Republican Senator from Mississippi and union veteran.

This author’s ancestor, George P. Crane, supported one such public entertainment as part of his social club. He recorded in his diary for May 16, 1878, that the old Opera House had never seen such a “jam.” Thousands, he said, had to be turned away. From a building that could seat 1,600 souls. Even allowing for some exaggeration, the white folks of New Orleans supported their Confederate memorials. For more information about the beautiful old Opera House, visit this site.

But, the Lee monument in New Orleans was unique. Most memorials were erected by women, usually the United Daughters of the Confederacy. In a time when women could not work, could not vote, often could not own property, they got the job done. Among the 65 Confederate monuments in Texas, two were started by men, but finished by the women. Of the 65 Confederate memorials, twelve were erected by the male veterans. The remaining 50 or so were erected by the UDC. The San Antonio chapter of the UDC relied on hundreds of bake sales and quilting bees to raise the $3,000 necessary for their memorial in 1899. The San Antonio memorial depicted the common soldier. The Grand Army of the Republic, the veterans organization for union veterans, contributed to the San Antonio monument and participated in the unveiling ceremony. The Grand Army of the Republic followed right behind the United Confederate Veterans in the lengthy procession.

Both Union and Confederate veterans generally supported each other’s memorials and attended each other’s reunions. The replacement cost of the San Antonio memorial has been valued at $450,000 in today’s dollars.

Some of the monuments, typically those found in the larger cities, depicted Confederate generals, but most Texas memorials depicted the common solder. All included some words on the pedestal asking the community to remember those who fell. “Lest We forget,” a then recent poem by Rudyard Kipling, was a familiar refrain carved into the base. These memorials filled a void. These were the funerals those families never had.

Dr. McMichael states in her book that the statues were also intended to support white supremacy. But, her citation does not support her assertion. Dr. McMichael points to John J. Winberry’s article, “Lest We Forget: The Confederate Monument and the Southern Townscape.” Mr. Winberry offered four reasons for the erection of Confederate monuments across the South. None of his reasons include sending a message of white supremacy.

Even when the men erected the monument, it was often the women who did the actual work. To some folks today, those memorials represent vestiges of racism. But, in reality, they represent hundreds of bake sales, bazaars (similar to yard sales), public entertainments and thousands of ten, twenty-five and fifty cent contributions. Seeing those beautiful memorials spat on, spray-painted and pulled down unceremoniously deeply saddens this Iraq war veteran.

Kelly McMichael, Sacred Memories, The Civil War Monument Movement in Texas (Denton: Tex. State Hist. Assoc. 2009), p. 8.

New Orleans Daily Picayune, “Amusement This Evening,” May 16, 1878, p. 1

New Orleans Daily Picayune, “Lee Monument Benefit,” May 18, 1878, p. 2

New Orleans Daily Picayune, “An Appreciated Contribution,” Feb. 10, 1876, p. 5

New Orleans Daily Picayune, “Lecture on the Life of Lee,” June 19, 1877, p. 1

New Orleans Daily Picayune, “The Lee Monumental Prospect,” June 5, 1877, p. 1

New Orleans Daily Picayune, “Lee Monumental Association,” May 6, 1876, p. 4

John J. Winberry, “Lest We Forget: The Confederate Monument and the Southern Townscape,” Southeastern Geographer, 23 (Nov., 1983): 107-121.

San Antonio Express News, “Who Paid to have the Confederate Statue in Travis Park Made and Then Placed in the Park?” Aug. 14, 2017

San Antonio Express News, “Union Veterans Joined Confederaste Veterans in Celebrating Monument at Travis Park,” Sept. 2, 2017

Mary Custis Lee, Protester

Stereotypes never work. There are too many exceptions to justify any stereotype. Mary Custis Lee, eldest daughter of Robert E. Lee, did not fit the mold of her time. At a time when marriage prospects were slim after the Civil War, most unmarried young women were expected to stay home and care for elderly parents. She never married. There just were not many men her age who survived the war. Mary chose a different life. She spent decades traveling to Europe and other places.

Coming back to Virginia, passing through Washington, D.C., she had a large collection of bags. Thinking herself fortunate, she sat near the exit, at the rear of the railroad car. A new law had just been passed, effective in Alexandria, Virginia. The new law mandated that blacks, known as “Negroes,” sit in the rear, near the exit. It was the first “Jim Crow” law passed in Virginia. The conductor explained to Ms. Lee her error, but she preferred to remain in her seat. She refused to move.

At the next stop, A Negro man got on board. The conductor again tried to Mary to move to the front. Again, she insisted she would stay. The conductor returned to Mary, trying to persuade her to move. He told her she would be arrested. Ms. Lee remained. Upon arrival in Alexandria, she was indeed arrested. People began to gather on the street, realizing who she was. In the post-war years of 1902, there were hundreds of Confederate veterans or family members in the city. On the way to the station house, the sidewalks were thronged.

The new Jim Crow seating law was not entirely popular among the white voters. It had been passed by James Caton, representative to the state legislature from Alexandria. Mr. Caton was described in a black owned newspaper as a “representative of the poor whites.” According to the Colored American, a Washington D.C. newspaper, the arrest of Ms. Lee stirred up discontent among the “better classes” of Virginia. The white newspapers, Alexandria and Washington, commented that the new seating law was working well. But, the Colored American expressed hope her arrest would lead to revocation of the new law. The editor believed the confederate veterans in Richmond would seek its reversal.

At the station house, gray-haired veterans surrounded Ms. Lee. The officer in charge was prevailed upon to release Ms. Lee with the understanding she would return the next day to face the charge. It was said that when Ms. Lee finally reached her destination in Alexandria, the home of a friend, she collapsed. Modern commentators suggest Ms. Lee was less interested in opposing a strange new law than simply annoyed that she was expected to sit apart from her trusted black maid. But, that seems unlikely. It was a major to-do for the name of a woman to appear in the newspapers of 1902 for any reason, much less for an arrest. The Colored American expressed sympathy for her plight, knowing she must have felt extreme embarrassment. The editor indicated he knew she was embarrassed, but appreciated her efforts. Ms. Lee was, said the Colored American, liberal regarding the rights of man. Meaning the newspaper knew she opposed these “petty racial animosities,” advanced by men of the “Caton stripe.”

More likely, the daughter of Robert E. Lee was aware of this new law and appreciated an opportunity to express her opinion. She likely did not expect to be arrested. According to one report, when she was brought to the doors of the station house, someone in the crowd protested against Ms. Lee being brought within. Ms. Lee responded that she did not believe the people of Alexandria would suffer her to be brought in as a prisoner.

In a time when women had few avenues for public discourse, Mary Custis Lee expressed her annoyance as she saw the opportunity. She was in the end, her father’s daughter.

For more info about this incident, see blog post here.

Washington Post, June 16, 1902, p. 4

Richmond Dispatch, June 14, 1902, p. 1

Washington, D.C, Colored American, June 21, 1902, p. 8

The British Military Observer

It is an old military tradition to send military observers to view a war in a distant country. We learn so much from wars in distant lands about the latest tactics and equipment. During the United States Civil War, Great Britain sent Col. Garnet Wolseley to observe the Confederate army. Col. Wolseley frowned as he watched the First Texas Infantry Regiment march by. Even then, in 1862, as they retreated form the Battle of Antietam, most of the men were barefoot. They limped from the cuts and scrapes on their bare feet. Their lower legs were covered by briar scratches. The cuffs of their sleeves and pants were frayed and ragged. They had tossed their blankets away, because they were shredded by bullet holes.

Col. Wolseley noticed their complete lack of military bearing. But, Gen. Lee assured him, “The enemy never sees the backs of my Texans.”

The truth was the Confederacy could not support its troops. Even into November, 1862, 2,000 men in the Army of Northern Virginia lacked foot wear of any sort. Another 3,000 had shoes that would not last through Christmas. The flour that arrived into the stores of Hood’s Teas Brigade in November had worms an inch long. As the war dragged on, the supply situation grew worse, not better. Yet, these hardy, brave men fought on.

The men of the First Texas Regiment were inspected and found wanting. The Inspector General for the Army of Northern Virginia found their rifles in “very bad order” In modern parlance, we would say they failed the IG inspection. It is likely they simply had not cleaned their rifles adequately or lacked some parts. The Inspector General said the officers were derelict in their duty. But, Gen. Hood was not impressed. He knew his citizen soldiers may not look pretty, but they were combat effective. He ignored the report.

Contemporary observers insist the Southern soldier fought for slavery. It is true that slaves represented material investment to the South. But, if the Southern soldier fought solely for slavery, why did he endure such privation for nothing more than material gain? If he was fighting only to protect his investment, why did he fight with no shoes and socks? It was surely poor investment strategy to protect one’s investments in another human being by serving in an army that could not provide shoes and socks.

Susannah J. Ural, Hood’s Texas Brigade, (Baton Rouge, La.: LSU Press 2017), p. 136-137, 138

Gen. Lee to the Rear

In the annals of military warfare, it was so extraordinary. There is no record of this happening to Julius Ceasar, Hannibal or Napoleon. In May 1864, in a Battle known as the Battle of the Wilderness, Gen. Robert E. Lee tried to lead the charge of the Texas Brigade. Commanding generals do not typically seek to lead a charge themselves. It just is not done. The commanding general has to keep the entire battle in mind. He has to forecast as much as possible chess moves three or four moves in advance. He must respond to aides hurrying back and forth with urgent messages seeking aid, warning of supply shortages, and he must press recalcitrant commanders. The heat of battle is “prime time” for a commanding general. Yet, when the Texas Brigade moved up to block a penetration by Union General Winfield Scott’s forces, he knew the moment was dire. He knew too that the Confederates were being pressed in ways they had never been pressed. He wanted to be sure the charge succeeded.

Gen. Lee cheered as the Texans moved into position to plug the gap created by Gen. Scott. The Corps Commander, Gen. Longstreet planned to move one brigade into the gap, followed by a second brigade and then a third. When the Texans first arrived, Gen. Lee urged them, “We mustdrive these people back.” A man not given to frequent displays of emotion already showed more emotion than his soldiers were used to. “The Texans always drive them,” he added. The commander of the Texas Brigade, Gen. Gregg, told his men, “The eye of Gen. Lee is on you.” The Texans responded with cheers. With a shout of “Forward,” the Texans and Arkansans started forward with a yell.

Capt. Bedell had been wounded twice in prior battles. He was one of the original recruits into Co, L of the Texas Brigade. Co. L came from Galveston. Capt. Bedell implored Lee to stop. Gen. Lee responded, “I want to lead the Texas Brigade in this charge.” From commander to his men, bypassing three or four layers of command was unusual in itself. But, the overall commander was negotiating with his men. He could have simply told them to shut up and let him do his job. But, he was negotiating, asking them to let him do what he thought he needed to do ensure success.

The tender feeling in that moment cannot be overstated. They were also saying the possibility of losing Gen. Lee was too high a price to pay for the success of one charge. That is an extraordinary honor, one probably never made to as successful a general as Robert E. Lee. Napoleon’s soldiers respected the general, but they did not love him. I am happy to say my soldiers generally liked me, in the best sense of that word, but to insist that I not risk my safety would have been just so beyond the pale.

The general finally turned toward the rear, as the Texas Brigade surged forward into the fire. Dozens of Texans fell. But, Gen. Lee lived.

When I was a young company commander in the Louisiana National Guard, we trained with the Fifth Division at Ft. Polk. It was an active duty division and they were very good in the field. My company was not so good in the field, or at least in the past, they were not so good. I was new. I talked with my soldiers all the time. I thought they were a great bunch of men and pretty decent soldiers. We trained and practiced various forms of attack all summer camp. The climax was a battle against an active duty Infantry company. The platoon in the lead found a way through a mine field. There was no direct fire on the mine field. So, we cleared the mines and then burst into a seam in the opposing company. We penetrated into the rear of the “enemy” company. We cleaned their clocks. We whipped them. They under-estimated us and paid a price for their over-confidence. For about a day afterward, my soldiers saluted me right and left. I could not go the latrine without returning a half dozen salutes. But, that experience, however small it was, comes nowhere close to soldiers telling their boss, three or four layers up the chain of command that he could not lead them in a charge. And, he took it. He took it. He accepted their refusal. Yes, there is love between men in battle.

Susannah J. Ural, Hood’s Texas Brigade(LSU Press 2017), pp. 212-213.