The Great Partnership: Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and the Fate of the Confederacy

by Christian B. Keller

The story of the unique relationship between Lee and Jackson, two leaders who chiseled a strategic path forward against the odds and almost triumphed.

Why were Generals Lee and Jackson so successful in their partner- ship in trying to win the war for the South? What was it about their styles, friendship, even their faith, that cemented them together into a fighting machine that consistently won despite often overwhelming odds against them?

The Great Partnership has the power to change how we think about Confederate strategic decision-making and the value of personal relationships among senior leaders responsible for organizational survival. Those relationships in the Confederate high command were particularly critical for victory, especially the one that existed between the two great Army of Northern Virginia generals.

It has been over two decades since any author attempted a joint study of the two generals. At the very least, the book will inspire a very lively debate among the thousands of students of Civil War history. At best, it will significantly revise how we evaluate Confederate strategy during the height the war and our understanding of why, in the end, the South lost.

Genres: History, Civil War, Nonfiction, War, American Civil War, American History

456 pages, Hardcover

Published July 2, 2019

Reviews

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 2 out of 5]

In the foreword to “The Great Partnership”, the author tells the reader that while there have been many books written about Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and even dual biographies, his is unique.
My track record with authors who feel compelled to tell me why their book is special is spotty at best. However much like General Pickett at Gettysburg, I charged on despite my foreboding.
How is this book different?
First, he believes that approaching Lee and Jackson’s partnership through the prism of Christian faith is an unexplored field of study.
This may in fact be true. Yet as I read, I couldn’t help but feel that there wasn’t that much to explore here. Yes Lee was a devout Christian. His letters are filled with references to God’s will and due to his ill health, often lamented the fact that he could not attend church services.
If Lee was devout, Jackson’s faith was something that was all consuming to the point that he would be exhausted on the morning of an important battle from staying up all night in prayer.
While the author argues this was an important part of the two generals bond, they were certainly not alone in their beliefs in the South, or even the Confederate army. Most of the Confederate leadership were devout Christians, so to say this was something special between Lee and Jackson is like saying they were close because they both had brown hair.
Second, the author believes that Lee and Jackson’s ability to see battles on what he calls a “strategic level” and “operational level” or for the layman, micro and macro levels. It’s certainly a gift they shared and they were perhaps more skilled at it than most but most successful generals have the ability to see battles in the larger context of a military or political battle.
Third, he believes their friendship made them better generals and won them battles. In short, men who are on friendly terms with each other work better than those who don’t. Not exactly an earth shaking insight.
A weak thesis however does not necessarily doom this or any book to failure. While I abhor Jackson the defender of slavery, I am endlessly fascinated by him as a supremely talented and innovate military mind. What sunk this book for me more than the premise was the author’s insistence on reading the minds of the protagonists in and out of battle, as well as deifying Jackson while crucifying others.
To the first point one needs only look to the following passage:

“Jackson could breathe easier now, even as his anticipation grew. So the Yankees had finally started the ball, he must have thought. So be it. The Lord’s will be done. Too bad we did not move first.”

Or:

“Stonewall hurriedly dressed in his brand new uniform, pulled the kepi cap down low over his forehead, and embraced his wife and child one last time before scurrying down the stairs to prepare his corps for battle. His mind immediately went into action, prioritizing the sequence of events that must occur.”

Did Jackson hug his wife on the way to battle? Possibly. Did his mind “go into action” early in the morning? Maybe. Or maybe like the rest of his his brain was foggy until he had some coffee. Who knows. We don’t, and neither does the author.
These are images that the reader of any book of history perhaps recreates in their mind as they scan the pages. However to have the author suppose for the reader what he believe might of occurred is a sign of someone too close to their subject. In fairness, the author says in the foreword that he will do this for the sake of “narrative”, but it seems forced and jarring to the point that it actually takes the reader out of the narrative and into he author’s head instead. Wonderful and colorful fiction perhaps, but not exactly a work of history.
The second point is that the author seemingly has some scores to settle.
He opens the book by rightly criticizing Lost Cause scholarship (among its many beliefs is the idea that the South fought a valiant fight, that the war was about states rights and not to maintain slavery, and without the incompetence of certain leaders the war could’ve been won).
From this point on however he pillories one of the Lost Cause’s main bogeyman, James Longstreet. He does so in a bizarrely alternating game of blame and exoneration which is difficult to follow. He will in one paragraph say that Longstreet was one of Lee’s most trusted generals (something Lee himself said on multiple occasions) and then quickly add that Longstreet was incompetent and insubordinate for having doubts about the wisdom of invading Gettysburg, particularly that final charge.
To be clear, Longstreet had serious misgivings about that invasion, that ended in disaster for the Confederacy. Longstreet’s cautiousness, which the author repeatedly criticizes in contrast to the bold and borderline reckless swagger of Lee and Longstreet, was proved to be well founded. In spite of that, he still followed Lee’s orders and sent the the final charge he knew would fail, forward. Doubt does not equal insubordination and if there is anything that Longstreet could be justly criticized for it would be not following his conscious and allowing the charge to take place at all.
Longstreet was also according to the author, often discussing military matters and his ideas with Confederate politicians in hope of getting them adopted. This apparently is outside of accepted military behavior, drawing the ire and incredulity of the author. Except that he also concedes that Jackson often did the same. But those were “exceptions” and therefore acceptable, because Jackson and Lee often agreed on strategy. There doesn’t seem to be much difference between the two behaviors other than the author’s deification of Jackson and antipathy toward Longstreet.
If there is any doubt to this last point one only need look at this paragraph describing Jackson’s funeral, which succinctly incapsulates the author’s lack of objectivity:

“Possibly he (Longstreet) quietly celebrated the removal of his colleague and rival, predicting that he, Longstreet, would now be Lee’s primary adviser and operator, or perhaps, as his words forty years later insinuate, he recognized the blow that befell his commander and the Confederacy. In all likelihood it was probably some of both”

Just to confirm, the author is saying Longstreet was so ambitious that he celebrated the death of his colleague. If that completely unfounded assumption is repugnant to you, he quickly says its possible Longstreet didn’t think that at all. Well, on third thought, he probably did think it a little.
Leaving aside the character assassination of a man not able to defend himself, it’s just sloppy and muddled writing that allows the author to slander Longstreet while in the next sentence covering his ass. Sort of.
If you’re interested in the Civil War, love Stonewall Jackson hagiography, and think James Longstreet was an incompetent and latent psychopath, then this is probably the book you want to start with.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

At once both a dual biography and also a monograph on the Army of Northern Virginia's greatest triumphs, this book delivers in a big way. The author tells the story of the relationship between T.J. Jackson and Robert E. Lee and expands upon previous historians' assertions that, had Jackson survived his accidental wounds, Gettysburg may have had a far different outcome. While the book did have religious undertones, it was well written and the narrative was brisk and lively. I would recommend the book to anyone studying the Army of Northern Virginia and also to those looking to learn more about command relationships during the Civil War.

[Daniel P. Boyd · Rating 3 out of 5]

I originally gave this a two but raised it to a three. Two and a half would be appropriate. I was very disappointed over his treatment of Longstreet. Keller refers to the "great and good" (a phrase oft repeated) Jackson almost as a deity while being very unfair and biased against Gen. Longstreet. For example, after Jackson's death, Keller apparently goes back in time to read Longstreet's mind and states that "Perhaps he quietly celebrated the removal of his rival (Jackson)" now that Old Pete would be Gen. Lee's primary advisor. This statement is unsupported by the historical record and in my view highly inappropriate.

[Mark Blanchard · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent analysis of the strategic impact (and import) of the relationship between Confederate generals Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. While still following a linear timeline of events in the Eastern Theater of the Civil War, Keller provides thoughtful and relevant analysis of how the operational, strategic, and tactical decision-making within the senior leadership structure of the Army of Northern Virginia and how that was impacted by the relationship between the two commanders. He leads the reader well through how the relationship was formed, the manifestation in battle of their partnership, the contrasts with a other leaders (notably Longstreet, Ewell, and AP Hill) and the consequences of Jackson’s death. Though I enjoy generally Civil War history and specifically anything about Stonewall Jackson, I most benefited from the appendix, which shared relevant and applicable “distinctive attributes” which may be applied by today’s organizational leaders. In short, loved it and am already thinking through how to affirm what I am already doing and course correct where I may need to do so.

[William Morris · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is one of very few books that has bugged me enough to warrant a 2 star rating. The author’s writing style is boring, and the material is almost devoid of actual substance. Many pages are spent repeating claims of the two’s faith increasing the depth of their relationship, quoting every newspaper in the south’s response to Jackson’s death, and attributing everything positive for the Confederates in the Eastern theater to a product of Jackson and Lee’s partnership. I was excited to read this book, but it was thoroughly uninteresting.

[Jim Becker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautifully written story of a friendship that had immense effects on the War. Loved it.

[Deborah Keller · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is half conjecture about what would’ve happened if Jackson had not died and the other half is blaming Longstreet for the Confederacy’s failing when they should be blamed on Lee.

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very disappointed in this. Aside from portraying Longstreet as some of sort of Machiavelli character-“quietly celebrating” Jackson’s death the author bizarrely speculates- it excuses the errors of Lee in a hagiographic manner. Acknowledging the tactical error in engaging the Union at Antietam, the author nonetheless asserts “he wouldn’t have been Lee” if he had not. I’m sure that too can somehow be blamed on Longstreet in the author’s mind.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

What an insightful examination of this very brief partnership between these Confederate legends. A little skimpy on the battle tactics but informative about this successful relationship.

[Lloyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

This work of nonfiction examines the relationship between Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jonathan (“Stonewall”) Jackson during the American Civil War. The author put a lot of research into this work, and many insightful points are brought forth about the working and personal relationships in the Confederate high command. In addition, he explains how those relationships impacted the South’s war effort. At the beginning of the Civil War, these two men did not know each other nor had they ever worked together. Yet they went on to develop a partnership that immensely and positively impacted the Confederate military’s ability to sustain the war in 1862 and early 1863. The author stresses that their similarities in personal traits enabled the bonds of friendship to grow into a successful military team. Both men favored offensive military tactics, they both were strong believers in the South’s War against Northern Aggression and they both had firm, dedicated Protestant religious beliefs. The author stresses their collaboration on strategic as well as tactical planning of military campaigns at Second Manassas, the 1862 invasion of Maryland and Battle of Chancellorsville as proof of the effectiveness of their teamwork. While the author does include General Longstreet in the discussion of all these campaigns, he gives very little credit to Longstreet’s contributions to the strategic and tactical planning of these campaigns. I felt the author almost treated Longstreet’s involvement as a hinderance more than a help to Lee and Jackson. I thought that treatment was most unfair and untrue. The author goes on to strongly suggest that Jackson’s death in May of 1862, all but doomed the chance for Southern Independence. However, by the time of Jackson’s death, the South was already in deep trouble due to poor leadership and poor results in the Western Theater of the war and Jackson’s impact in the west had always been negligible. But the author does go on to present a scenario that if Jackson had lived and participated in the Battle of Gettysburg in July of 1863, the South would have won that battle and very much strengthened their hand for a negotiated settlement with the North. But then again, if wishes and buts were apples and nuts, it would be Christmas every day.

[Robert Hobbs · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book sets out to explore more than just battles or command decisions — it examines the unique relationship between Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and how their mutual trust, shared worldview, and near-devout devotion to one another shaped the Confederate war effort in ways that prolonged its survival far beyond what many believed possible.

Keller presents a well-written and thoughtfully argued case. The narrative is clear, the storytelling solid, and the book is filled with intriguing observations and lesser-discussed moments that highlight how rare the Lee–Jackson partnership truly was. Their complementary leadership styles — Lee’s strategic vision and Jackson’s aggressive execution — are presented as a force multiplier that repeatedly allowed the Confederacy to punch well above its weight.
What makes the book compelling is not that it claims absolute answers, but that it invites the reader to seriously consider the “what ifs.” Keller is careful not to drift too far into fantasy, acknowledging that the Civil War was shaped by countless variables beyond any single relationship. Still, the argument that the Confederacy’s longevity was deeply tied to this partnership feels plausible, and at times, convincing.

The book also benefits from its attention to personal dynamics. Lee and Jackson are not portrayed as mythic figures, but as men bound by faith, discipline, and a shared understanding of command. That bond — part professional, part personal — is shown to have real consequences on the battlefield, especially during moments when unity and decisiveness mattered most.

Overall, The Great Partnership is an engaging and intellectually honest read. It doesn’t rewrite Civil War history, but it adds meaningful texture to it. For readers interested in Confederate command relationships, leadership dynamics, or the deeper reasons the war unfolded as it did, this is a worthwhile and thought-provoking addition to the shelf.

[Quinn Lavender · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the first book I've read on the Civil War, and full disclosure: I picked it because it was at the top of the list of available "new release" audio books from my library. I clearly don't have any idea how this books stacks up to the many tomes written on the subject.

What I did realize rather quickly is that the author really pushes this book as a 'new angle' from which to view Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee: their devout Christian beliefs. Yet, I didn't really feel like there were any amazing connections or revelations made on this subject. Yes, they were God-fearing and Jesus-loving men. Perhaps they read the same Christian newspaper, and they attended Sunday services. But the book ultimately failed (for me anyway) to make a viable connection between the two on this front. It seemed like a "forced" connection that was trying to be made.

Aside from this, however, I found the book extremely informative. The personalities of these men, and other key players in the Northern Virginia army and the Army of the Potomac, were intriguing. Lee's leadership style and Jackson's role as chief adviser and "right hand man" were eye-opening. I scratched my head when Jackson's death was described 3/4 of the way through this book -- how can the subject of the book be dead 3/4 of the way through? But the last 1/4 of the book focuses (maybe even a little too much) on the reaction to his death. Spoiler alert: the South was devastated and the North was relieved. :)

[Frank Minich · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pretty-good read, imparting some concept of what it is that generals do in war.
It felt a little weak in two regards:
- neither Jackson nor Lee seemed all that concerned to develop and bring-along understudies. As a result, Gettysburg.
- it felt like Jackson was regularly engaging in "risky behavior" with regard to his utilization of his forces - and perhaps that mind-set contributed to his becoming a casualty.
The author's appendix includes a bullet list of take-aways for (supposedly) business or military leadership, but without taking into account the above two bullets, it seems very incomplete.

[Kuruwin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Audiobook version.

Considering that words 'slave' and 'slavery' were not mentioned even once in this book, it's pretty hard not to see this as part of southern revisionism, which make's it hard to take it as credible source. The book also meanders and on and on after the real end point and like two hours is spent just repeating again and again on how everyone mourned the loss of Jackson, which could have been easily summed up in a short chapter instead. Then the book procceeds to talk about "what if's" and that section wasn't really boring but was it nesessary either?

But it's honestly the "noble south" image that this book oozes, what really feels disgusting.

[Eric Burroughs · Rating 4 out of 5]

The often repeated story is that while Jackson and Longstreet both held the same rank, Longstreet was Lee’s preferred subordinate. This is why Longstreet was one day senior. This book suggests that while it may have begun that way, Jackson became the preferred subordinate prior to his death. He also hypotheses that Stuart would have been prone to mental lapses due to the loss of Jackson and other factors like Brandy Station.

[Alex]

I can’t say enough good things about this book. One of the finest works of history I have ever read, and probably the best book I have read in the past few years. Simply incredible. It impacted me greatly as a student of history, as a military officer, as a Christian, as a Southerner, as an American.

[Stephen Durrance · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read, and clearly I realise religion was important at that particular time & most folk were religious, though the continued fairly heavy emphasis on these two individuals' religious beliefs & that pretty well everything revolved around God et al was wearing, if not tedious. As was, somewhat, the Author's.

[Jarrett Foster · Rating 5 out of 5]

gave great Insite into Jackson and Lees relationship truly Jackson dying changed the war for Lee.

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Audiobook) 4.5 stars. A great analysis

[Stephen Tubbs · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too much time is spent on the love letters between the two generals and Jackson's obituary is never-ending.

[Heather Bennett · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Great Partnership is a interesting take on the relationship of the Generals and although there is much of this information on hundreds of books out there, it gives us a different take on it. Keller has done a great job.