"History has given Mary Custis Lee a bad rap," writes John Perry in the opening sentence of LADY OF ARLINGTON: THE LIFE OF MRS. ROBERT E. LEE. "I'm out to change that."

And change that he does. Perry rehabilitates Mary Custis Lee from a whining, neurotic invalid whose weakness and selfishness made everybody around her miserable and demonstrates that she was, in fact, a charming, attractive woman who turned heads in the Supreme Court chamber as a teenager and who almost certainly received a marriage proposal by no less a man than Sam Houston.

"Over her sixty-five years," writes Perry, "friends, relatives, and perfect strangers consistently described her as cheerful, smiling, welcoming, and industrious. She read Latin and Greek, and when she ordered a copy of LES MISERABLES, she wrote the bookseller to send it in either English or French, whichever was more readily available."

True, had not her great-grandfather been George Washington, and had she not have married Robert Edward Lee, the greatest of Confederate generals, we probably would never have heard of Mary Anne Custis. But Perry shows that she was a fascinating and inspiring woman in her own right.

Mary Custis Lee was an excellent painter, a published author, a legendary hostess, a tireless fund-raiser for charities, a devout Christian, staunch patriot, the mother who cared for seven children when their father was away from home for years at a time, and a devoted wife who nurtured her beloved husband's career even as arthritis crippled her body and the ravages of the Civil War drove her from the only home she had ever known.

Through diligent and dedicated research, John Perry has tracked down false rumors, half-truths, and conflicting claims about his subject and, by bringing the real Mary Custis Lee into the light, has set the record straight.

"Certainly the most exciting discover was Mary's prayer journal at the Virginia Historical Society in Richmond," writes the author. "As far as I can learn, none of it has ever been published or even examined before. Filled with her innermost thoughts, hopes, and fears, it casts new light on every word we have from her."

Was the discovery of Mary's prayer journal a blessing or a curse? Although some readers may rejoice in Mary's expression of religious emotions (concerning which Perry puzzlingly writes, "No one would ever read this"), others may find her diary to be overwrought, tedious, repetitious, and ultimately boring.

Be that as it may, Perry's diligent and dedicated research has tracked down false rumors, half-truths, and conflicting claims, and, by bringing the real Mary Custis Lee into the light, has set the record straight.

3.5 Stars

I was attracted to this book as a result of reading, "April 1865". I found General Robert E. Lee to be a particularly fascinating person, both militarily and in his personal life, and so a biography of his wife seemed to be an appropriate progression. I had never read material on this historical figure, so this books promise of the inclusion of her diary for the first time was also an attraction. The book was less than I had hoped for, while Mrs. Lee certainly held a unique place as a result of The Civil War and her relationship to George Washington, this book did not seem to justify its necessity.

Mrs. Lee like many women of the southern wealthy families lost virtually everything she ever called her own as the result of the war. She also was a beneficiary of the provision of a new home, and a more rapid return to a form of normalcy due to her husband's appointments, and then her son taking his father's place as a college president after the war. This was a return that was measurably longer for other families. The transition she did not make with her husband was the progressive acceptance of what had happened, and acknowledging the new reality that post war America would offer to those of the losing side of the conflict.

Mrs. Lee came from a family that was very progressive with regard to abolition and many other issues typically credited to The North. Unfortunately these thoughts did not carry through the war, and when compounded by her illness and the confiscation of the family homestead, she spent the balance of her life growing progressively angry. The US Government did return the title to her Arlington home after her death, and after it had thoroughly been destroyed as a family home. This home was also the site of many of George Washington's belongings, including the bed he had passed away in, his carriage, silver, literally rooms of possessions. This estate that had been the calling place of successive presidents and dignitaries like Lafayette was turned into a deforested piece of land, a squatter's village numbering several thousand people, and a national cemetery that encroached to the edge of her families graves.

The offerings from the diary are fairly slim in their variety and information they share. They are deeply personal notes of a devout Christian woman, however they do not offer great and original insight to her life.

This book is about much more than Mrs. Lee; it could have been called, The Families of Arlington. There is much that is of interest regarding her relations, and details of General Lee's correspondence, however she alone does not fill this book. Other work has been written about Mrs. Lee, and has received high praise; a reader might be better served to read other work prior to setting out with this offering by Mr. Perry.

I love everything about this book. They way it traces Mrs. Mary Custis Lee's family all the way back to George Washington and takes it forward from their. The way it describes the acquisition of Arlington. I have never seen a biography written better and keep my attention word for word till the end prior to this book.

Mr Hallsey is too generous is his review of this book. McKenzie would have us believe this is a serious treatment of a serious issue. Wrong! McKenzie fails miserably to support his assertions with probably this and probably that chapter after chapter. To re-examine Lee's career, we really do not need a play-by-play of every battle. A direct approach to Lee's faults and detailed evidence of such would have served the purpose. Instead the reader is given a flimsy statement and referred to footnotes. One footnote citation is not even listed with the footnotes - I had to check the bibliography to find the full title of that reference. Lee's victories at Second Manassas and Chancellorsville are taken from him by this faux historian while he fawns over the immortal Jackson. Historical context is ignored or twisted in McKenzie's stories of Confederate Command failures and the retention of Lee in command over his own proposed resignations. Additionally, the book has inexcusable typos - the aftermath of the Seven Days left the armies EAST of Richmond, not west. The publisher, Hippocrene Books, should be ashamed of itself to put out this shoddy product at such an outrageous price.

Comical is the best word to describe John D. McKenzie's book Uncertain Glory. It should be considered a work of creative fiction and not a serious history book. The research is shallow, the review is cursory and assumptions are never fully developed. The accuracy in the book is also in question since on page 254 Mr. McKenzie has the battle of the crater taking place on "July 30, 1964." This book could have been a remarkable treatise had any serious time been spend exploring artillery placement, troop deployment and southern economic conditions. It would have also been useful to use the opinions of modern military experts to bolster his position. Having studied the Civil War seriously for many years, I find the book to be bankrupt of any serious historical fact (that has not already been discussed) is not worth serious academic consideration.

Southern historians, the author feels, have had it all their way, denigrating Union leadership and enshrining Lee in a mythos of superb generalship he doesn't deserve.
In this trenchant analysis of the Confederate defeat, McKenzie's criticisms of Southern arrogance, disorganization, corruption, military errors, and dubious ideology are difficult to refute, but considering the 5:2 manpower and 10:1 industrial advantages of the North, his belief that a defensive strategy and greater Southern dedication might have prevailed is less persuasive.
With bibliography, a good index, and wonderfully clear action-maps which lack only scale to be perfect, McKenzie's work is recommended as a highly readable, if tendentious catalyst for further discussion.

(The "score" rating is an ineradicable feature of the page. This reviewer does not willingly "score" books.)

When I brought this book, I expect to read about the modern pro and con of actions of Robert E. Lee. Instead, what I got was a superifical biography on Lee and some summary judgement of his actions based on the author's say so. So where is that debate of Lee's critics?? Many people like to dismissed Lee's critics as revisionists but they got it backward. While Lee was alive, he was soundly critized in many circles by veterans of Confederacy and by his foes. It was only after Lee's death did this mythology of Lee's greatness took on a godly scale as the reconstruction period was ending. This period of Lee's mythology is the true period of revisionism which did not really end until Thomas Connelly came out with the Marble Man which brought Lee back to Earth and where author critized without merit. This book lack any depth and appears to be pretty shallow work. If the author wanted to back up Lee, do with so with evidence and logic. Just saying so don't mean much. This book will probably go back to the used book store soon......

Taylor's book is a satisfactory survey of Lee's life. Unfortunately, that is not how the book is billed. Taylor purports to answer Lee's critics. I'm squarely in his camp; I find much of the criticism of Lee to be scholarly opportunism: an attempt to make a name through iconoclasm. Taylor is right when he notes that the attempt to puncture the Lee myth went too far, but he fails to convincingly demonstrate why. He brings up specific criticisms infrequently, inadequately lays out the critic's argument, and often dismisses the criticism without having made a convincing case of his own. His arguments concerning Lee's attitudes toward slavery are never fully convincing, for example. This is particularly distressing when one can see that, in most cases, the convincing counterargument is there, waiting to be made. By constructing his book in the format of a chronological narrative, Taylor lost the opportunity to level a blast at academic graverobbers. A book aimed at answering Lee's critics needs to spend a great deal more time and effort on the critics and their arguments. To Taylor's credit, he never attempts to whitewash information damaging to one of his points. He tries to be complete in his portrayal, and that alone makes this a worthwhile read.

I used this text in my Western Civ course. While it is solid in historical content, it averages at least one typo per page. Obviously it was never even spellchecked. I tried to ignore the first hundred or so but they just keep on coming. Inexcusable.

Potential readers should know that this book isn't a scholastic history of Robert E. Lee. Like Dwyer's "Stonewall," this book is historical fiction. Furthermore, interposed within its "story," is ultra-conservative-Texan-Christian rhetoric... I'm shocked that Amazon.com doesn't state this in the book description.