Robert E. Lee on Leadership Teaches Forgotten Lessons

It appears to be a sacrosanct duty of Leftist college professors at America's colleges and universities to "debunk the myth" surrounding Robert E. Lee. History professors at schools located in the South seem particularly devout in their observance of this knee-jerk ritual, which is one more example of academe's determination to destroy American heroes, one brave soul at a time. That won't happen to Robert E. Lee...not if H.W. Crocker has anything to say about it. And he does. In fact, Crocker's Robert E. Lee on Leadership not only stands boldly athwart the revisionist bent of the radical historicists; it also locates nuggets of wisdom on the leadership style of America's greatest military genius.

This is a book for businessmen seeking guidance on how to run their enterprises efficiently, and as gentlemen. For this, one would be hard-pressed to find a better man to study than Robert E. Lee.

In an age when management gurus are focused solely on the bottom line, it is refreshing to read a book that focuses on the "whole man." As one of Lee's biographers, Emory Thomas, has noted, "Lee was a great person, not so much because of what he did (although his accomplishments were extraordinary); he was great because of the way he lived, because of what he was."

Crocker takes an honest and admittedly favorable look at the man Winston Churchill called, "one of the noblest Americans who ever lived, and one the greatest captains known to the annals of war."

What made Lee a great leader? Two things: his Christian worldview and his belief that people matter.

Lee was a firm believer in original sin. As Crocker writes, "He expected men to fail, because, by nature, men usually did. He knew the challenge of leadership was to understand the fallen nature of man and succeed in spite of it."

Such an approach is rare in the world of business, where one misstep can land an employee out of a job. Leading the Army of Northern Virginia in the Civil War was perhaps the greatest challenge in management of the last century. Lee was often forced to deal with the larger than life egos of Stonewall Jackson, A.P. Hill, Jeb Stuart, and James Longstreet, some of whom happened to be feuding with each other while serving under the same flag.

All of these generals failed Lee in some way, the most famous of which was Longstreet's refusal to proceed with Lee's plans at Gettysburg. Had Longstreet undertaken his orders more quickly, the war would quite possibly have turned out differently. Yet, rather than dismiss Longstreet, Lee accepted the blame, as he believed it was his fault for not motivating Longstreet in a way that would have led to success.

As a soldier, educator, and businessman, Lee believed in "governing with an easy hand." He turned on its head Machiavelli's famous dictum "it is better to be feared than loved." Lee disagreed with this management style.

As a Christian gentleman, Lee believed in forgiveness of a person's mistakes, but he did not tolerate disrespect. Crocker cites the post-war example of how one student at Washington College came into Lee's office to review disciplinary reports. The student had a wad of tobacco in his mouth and Lee ordered him to "Go out and remove that quid, and never appear before me again chewing tobacco." When the student returned, he still had the tobacco in his mouth. Upon seeing this, Lee immediately expelled him for "disrespect to the President."

Lee wrote of student punishment, "When it is necessary, true kindness requires it should be applied with a firm hand, and not converted into reward." If only modern college presidents were so bold with radical leftists who, by taking over student buildings, disrupt the education of the majority of students and show disrespect for the purpose of the institution.

One of the principal maxims that governed General Lee's life was self-denial. In an age in which entire philosophies are based on the principle that "greed is good," it is refreshing to learn about a man who placed service to others above his own welfare. Effective leadership requires much sacrifice. It was this very commitment to service coupled with his devotion to the belief that people matter that compelled Lee to accept the command offered by President Jefferson Davis of the Confederate States of America.

Despite the popularly held notion that the South fought to retain the right of slave ownership, Lee fought to "leave us what we are, plain Virginia farmers." Lee was a professional U.S. Army officer until the Civil War, but his devotion remained to the people he loved, his fellow Virginians.

Throughout Robert E. Lee on Leadership Crocker emphasizes that the South fought to preserve a way of life. He writes, "If the South could produce such a man [as Robert E. Lee], how could the North consider Southern civilization benighted?" Lee was a product of his surroundings; he embodied all that made the South strong, unique, and good. In modern times such a statement may seem odd, as relatively few in America carry with them the idea of being from anywhere.

Everything he did, from his gentlemanly demeanor to the clothes on his back, represented a civilization that valued customs and traditions. Lee "assumes heroic stature because he was a product of an age in which men held heroic concepts of life and its meaning," says Clifford Dowdey, another of Lee's finest biographers.

His gentility did not end on the battlefield. Lee did not shrink from sending thousands of troops into battle against overwhelming odds during the Civil War, but he refused to bring the war to the civilians of the North as Union generals John Pope and William Tecumseh Sherman did to civilians of the South. When General Lee marched across the border into Maryland in 1862, he issued a statement promising "no intimidation will be allowed within the limits of this army." While this may have been poor strategic strategy, as the citizens of Maryland refused to harbor Southern troops, fearing future retribution by the Unionists, Lee insisted on treating all non-soldiers with dignity and compassion.

Lee fought the war so that others could live their dreams: a quiet life farming one's own land. Many incorrectly assume that such an existence would require the services of slaves. Only six percent of the Southern population owned any slaves at all, as there were few large plantations. The defining characteristic between the two regions was economic-one was agrarian, one was industrial. But the victor writes history, these distinctions have receded in the public consciousness.

Historian Frank Lawrence Owsley wrote that, "Unfortunately for the South, the leaders of the North were able to borrow the language of the abolitionists and clothed the struggle in a moral garb. It was good politics, it was noble and convenient, to speak of it as a struggle for freedom when it was essentially a struggle for the balance of [economic and social] power."

By reading this work, one not only learns a great deal about the Civil War, but also how to live as a gentleman. Crocker fills Robert E. Lee on Leadership with anecdotes. His summations of the lessons of each chapter into concise bullets titled "Lee's Lessons" make the book a fine reference work.

Also useful is an appendix with short summaries of the lives of Southern generals Stonewall Jackson, A.P. Hill, Jeb Stuart, and James Longstreet. Crocker's bibliography suggests the best scholarship on each man.

This book should be read by anyone who believes, as the late economist Wilhelm Röepke said, that "the vital things are those beyond supply and demand and the world of property." Such a lesson is valuable to us all, as changes in supply and demand dictate that many of us will lose our jobs during our lifetime. Though Lee lost both his beloved Arlington and his military career during the Civil War, he never lost his soul. It was the way General Lee lived that mattered most. The same goes for the rest of us.