Robert E. Lee as President of Independent CSA

Robert E. Lee as President of Independent CSA

  • Yes, Lee would probably be the second President of the CSA

    Votes: 26 31.7%
  • No, Lee would probably not be the second President of the CSA

    Votes: 46 56.1%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 10 12.2%

  • Total voters
    82

Anaxagoras

Banned
One of the staples of Confederate victory AH is that Robert E. Lee is almost certain to be elected the second President of the Confederacy in 1867. While I agree that he would surely win the election if he were to run (unless the POD involves a victory before Lee came to the fore or created some other particular circumstances), I question whether Lee would want to seek the presidency. He had no particular interest in politics before the war. His father's reputation and prosperity were virtually destroyed by political ambition, giving Lee a lesson in the dangers of seeking political office. On the other hand, he revered the example of George Washington, who became President after leading his country's army to victory.

What does the board think?
 
I don't see that Lee would seek presidency. He was more soldier than politician. And if he seek anyway, I am not sure, that him has still very big changes to be elected. But it totally depends about his political views. But Lee wasn't very pro-slavery what might be problem. And Lee joined to army of CSA because Virginia joined to CSA, not because of CSA.
 
I think that he wouldn't run due to both health issues and lack of interest but if he runs he wins. There was probably no one as popular as RE Lee in the entire CSA. His political views wouldn't matter much because they wouldn't come up much. He probably wouldn't have much of a platform other than "Vote for me because I am RE Lee". Who are you going to get to run against him? Since he would appear unbeatable he would almost certainly be running against a 2nd or 3rd rate candidate who is running more for the attention than to win.
 
President Lee? PREPARE for Abolition.

Lee was no abolitionist. He had some doubts about the wisdom of slavery but many men did. He was a large slave owner who never freed any of his slaves. The MOST Lee would try to do is to maybe have some reforms such as making it a crime to kill your own slave or forbid the sale of children under the age of 10 or something.
 
President Lee? PREPARE for Abolition.

Nathan Bedford Forrest freed more of his slaves than Robert E Lee. Lee's army enslaved free black civilians and Lee did nothing about it. Lee was no abolitionist, that's one of the great myths of alternate history.
 
If Lee were to be talked into doing it, which is possible, he would almost certainly try and pick a VP that could handle the country after he was gone.

Then again, FDR ran for a fourth term believing he was essential and didn't really prepare Truman for anything.

So...I suppose if in 1867 the Confederacy devolves into bickering as the states don't get along very well, and the threat of the Union starting the war up again forces Lee into taking the Presidency for unity's sake. I am curious as to who the VP choice would be in that scenario. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Alexander Stephens sticks around to assume the Presidency.
 
The Confederacy will not gain independence unless one or more western generals start performing on a level that equals or exceeds Lee. In that timeline Lee will not be the lone shining hope, he will be sharing the limelight with other men and he may not even have center stage.

Other than slavery, the Confederacy was deeply divided.

William C Davis’ history of the Confederacy, Look Away, points out there were four main political camps - Nationalist (favoring a stronger central government), Moderates (generally opposed to the power of the Davis government), Fire Eaters, and Reconstructionists. The Reconstructionists lack political figures to rally behind. Leaders of the other three factions are deeply divided, sometimes over the issues, but just as often over personal animosities.

Since they’re all nominally Democrats, I see a couple likely possibilities for the election of 1867. They hold a party convention where no candidate receives a majority and the Democrats fracture into separate Nationalist, Moderate, and Fire Eater Parties. Less likely, one faction wins out and gets to keep the Democrat name, the other two split and form their own parties. Either way it’s a three way contest that will probably need to be decided by the House of Representatives, if it can. Alternatively, candidates might publicly nominate themselves, short-circuiting the whole party convention process. This will lead to a minimum of three candidates, there could easily be half-a dozen or more, and the House gets to decide between the top three candidates – if it can.

Since the Confederacy was founded with the idea that any state could leave at any time for any reason- like your candidate not getting elected. There’s a good chance the Confederacy will lose some states over the 1867 election. It could even disintegrate.
 
Nathan Bedford Forrest freed more of his slaves than Robert E Lee. Lee's army enslaved free black civilians and Lee did nothing about it. Lee was no abolitionist, that's one of the great myths of alternate history.

Even if he wanted to, there's still no way he's going to be able to change a fundamental part of the Confederate constitution without support so widespread that would call into question why the CSA even continues to exist at all.
 
Nathan Bedford Forrest freed more of his slaves than Robert E Lee. Lee's army enslaved free black civilians and Lee did nothing about it. Lee was no abolitionist, that's one of the great myths of alternate history.

Hell, the whole misunderstanding comes from mangling a quote of his on the evils of slavery--to Lee, it's the whites who are suffering the evils. Black people, he insisted, were benefiting.

So, yes, evil scum, at the heart of it.
 
On a somewhat related note, would the CSA be able to hold "free" elections? I wouldn't put my money on it.
 
On a somewhat related note, would the CSA be able to hold "free" elections? I wouldn't put my money on it.

Oh, for a certain value of "free". And with a pretty good chance that if things get too... out of line, some general will take it upon himself to "save the nation".
 
Even if he did run, which is unlikely as he didn't show much interest in politics, his health would likely get the best of him; heart issues. The stress of the battlefield was enough, politicians of that era, would have sent him to an early grave.

It could be worked in as propaganda, he gave his life for the country he loved so much.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I secretly hope Cleburne or Beauregard do so :p

I could see Beauregard doing something like that in extreme circumstances, but not Cleburne. He had a highly developed sense of authority and was not one to push the envelope. When told by the President and his commander to shut up about his emancipation proposal, he shut up so thoroughly that historians didn't discover anything about it for decades.
 
Top