Which Confederate general staying loyal to the Union would have been of the greatest military advantage to the US government?
Keep One Confederate General Loyal to the Union
- Thread starter Marius Mazzini
- Start date
If he could gain a position of power.. i would prefer Longstreet. He was i think the better overall general for all situations. Lee was good but part of his rep was fighting bad Union generals. Once he encounter a Union General that wouldn’t run he was only Average. That being said if Longstreet is just going to be another General vs playbig a significant role then I want Lee. Simply because lee would be a LOT better at overall command then anyone the north had until Meade/Grant.
Longstreet OTOH also had bad days where he could be outfoxed by Ambrose Burnside of all people, against whom Longstreet repeated the same mistakes he had earlier criticized Lee for.
For Lee to swerve it would probably take Virginia to swerve to the Union as well since loyalty to his state is why he joined the confederacy. After the war I imagine he would want to retire. Maybe if Lincoln is still assassinated and reconstruction mishandled. He would step in to run for President in 1868. Serving two terms. His campaign would likely use his albeit by marriage relationship to George Washington as well as his successes as a general.
Forrest is one of the least likely people to fight for the Union, he was a leader KKK and in my opinion is wildly over hyped.
I would have go to with Robert E. Lee, as he is the senior-most officer of the three. This means he can get to the top quickest, and thus serve more effectively quicker. Both Jackson and Longstreet do have their merits, but I suspect both of them (especially Longstreet), would suffer from the same mentality that plagued other Southerners, most notably George H. Thomas, of "Let the Virginian wait" and promoting northerners over their heads. As Lee has more of an established reputation within the army, and a champion in the form of Winfield Scott, I suspect he would better be able to navigate those political waters.
As much as I believe Lee is greatly overrated by most people, he's still probably the prime choice for a rebel general staying loyal to the Union simply because his seniority, his aggressive tactics being better suited for Union command, and most importantly just to deprive the South of one of their better (but arguably not best) generals.
Still, I might just go with a dark horse option and pick Brigadier General Gabriel Rains, head of the Confederate Torpedo Bureau and pioneer in the development of land and sea mines. Plus, if he goes Union his younger brother who OTL was crucial to the rebel Ordnance Department and critical to their production of gunpowder among other things might stay loyal to the Union as well. Besides bringing their scientific techniques to the Union side this deprives the South of some major logistical capabilities.
Still, I might just go with a dark horse option and pick Brigadier General Gabriel Rains, head of the Confederate Torpedo Bureau and pioneer in the development of land and sea mines. Plus, if he goes Union his younger brother who OTL was crucial to the rebel Ordnance Department and critical to their production of gunpowder among other things might stay loyal to the Union as well. Besides bringing their scientific techniques to the Union side this deprives the South of some major logistical capabilities.
Longstreet, he knew how the war for the south should be fought. Pair him up with Grant and watch the rebellion disintegrate.
Keeping Virginia loyal is pretty hard. Virginia was one of the major Southern States dominated by its planter elite who all wanted to maintain slavery.
Clearly Lee. While Thomas Jackson was an excellent independent commander, it is unlikely he would have had the opportunity to distinguish himself in the way he did in the Shenandoah Valley Campaign, nor is it likely he would be able to rise to high command like Lee could. While James Longstreet was a brilliant subordinate, when he held independent command, the results were lackluster. And I doubt he could have risen far enough to make a massive difference. Lee, unlike the other two, was in a position to become a top leader in the Union Army, and has a generally good record in independent command. Also, like Grant and unlike many Union generals, he had the will to both take the initiative and not lose his nerve in face of reverses.
Lee is the obvious. Starting off with respect of subordinates and an aggressive tendency would go a long way in the early conflict.
To mix it up, how about Kirby Smith?
Career Military
Early promotion to general
Parents both from Connecticut, moved to Florida shortly before he was born.
To mix it up, how about Kirby Smith?
Career Military
Early promotion to general
Parents both from Connecticut, moved to Florida shortly before he was born.
Rattenfänger von Memphis
Donor
I agree that this would be the greatest benefit to the Union, even if they never used Lee as one of their main commanders. And it would be the biggest loss to the South whether they realized it or not.