Union General Robert E. Lee

I'm sure this question has been posed here before, but what if Robert E. Lee had been commanding general of The Union forces?

In a Civil War movie I once saw, Lee said to Jefferson Davis, "I believe secession is constitutionally wrong, and slavery is a moral wrong in any society." Davis asked Lee why then he sided with The Confederacy and Lee said he could not fire on his home state of Virginia.

What if Robert E. Lee had not been so parochial toward Virginia? What if he had said, "If preserving The Union means firing on Virginia, then so be it," and he had gone with The Union?

My first thought is a shorter and less bloody Civil War.

But what would that have done in terms of slavery and Civil Rights?

Would Lee have gone on to become President of The US as Grant did in OTL? What kind of US President would Lee have made?
 
Well, it's hard to say how things would've gone, but suffice it to say Lee would've been more competent than any general the Union had in the east for the first half of the war.

A shorter war... well that cements Lincoln's reelection. His assassination might well be butterflied away so he lives out his second term. Lee running in 1868? Unlikely due to his age.

As for slavery... heck, Lincoln repeatedly said he'd leave slavery alone if the South didn't rebel. It's possible that by 1862 the war could be winding down and Lincoln feels no need for the Emancipation Proclomation instead trying to advance legislation during his second term to phase it out over time so to say.
 
Assuming he's in command at Manassas/Bull Run (likely first major battle anyway) we could well see a Union victory with the CS armies routed rather than the Union (as OTL). However, he's still dealing with green troops ("...more armed mobs than professional armies..." to paraphrase my old professor Dr. Robertson) so getting them organized to take advantage of the chaos to crush the ANG will be difficult. However, he could conceivably take the opportunity to march on Richmond. Could we see a siege in '61?
 
Lincoln would not be remembered as one of America's greatest President: He is remembered as the President that kept the Union together when others thought it was going 2 be split forever, Slavery with The emancipation proclimation, and sadly his assasination
 
Assuming he's in command at Manassas/Bull Run (likely first major battle anyway) we could well see a Union victory with the CS armies routed rather than the Union (as OTL). However, he's still dealing with green troops ("...more armed mobs than professional armies..." to paraphrase my old professor Dr. Robertson) so getting them organized to take advantage of the chaos to crush the ANG will be difficult. However, he could conceivably take the opportunity to march on Richmond. Could we see a siege in '61?

To be entirely honest with you Irvin McDowell didn't do a bad job early in the war but he commited the one major sin of an Eastern commander of the Union Armies, he lost.

McDowell came very close to scoring a victory at 1st Manassas. What prevented him from doing so was Joe Johnston's skillfull redeployment of the Army of the Shenandoah to the battlefield just in time to swing the battle in the Confederates favor.

Lee isn't nessesarilly, automatically going to do better than McDowell did just because he's Lee. Lee's early war record in command of untrained, inexperianced troops was actually quite dismall. Lee only achieved he success after the troops had some training and had some experiance under their belts.

As long as Winfield Scott remains in position as General in Chief of all Federal Armies, which will be likely as long as McClellan doesn't come east, then Lee will be given some discretion in training and building and Army but if Scott gets removed then he wont. The problems occurs is Lincoln and the politicians in Washington become impatient for Lee to do something.
 
It wasn't just that the first troops Lee commanded were untrained and inexperienced. There was also a learning curve for handling a whole army as Lee showed during the Peninsula Campaign. And Lee's track record on offense (save versus McClellan) was not exactly stellar.

If he had gotten the position McDowell did in OTL, I doubt he would have better and like McDowell would become the first leader of the Army of the Potomac to lose that job.

The question is would he get a second chance like he did with OTL's Confederacy.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
It wasn't just that the first troops Lee commanded were untrained and inexperienced. There was also a learning curve for handling a whole army as Lee showed during the Peninsula Campaign. And Lee's track record on offense (save versus McClellan) was not exactly stellar.

Seemed to do okay at 2nd Manassas and Chancellorsville....

In fact, his record on the offense was very good, but not out of line with other Confederates.
 
Seemed to do okay at 2nd Manassas and Chancellorsville....

And what does that have to do with Lee being on the offensive?

Hint: Read Hattaway and Jones p.723. See who they list as the attacker for the battles. :D

In fact, his record on the offense was very good, but not out of line with other Confederates.

Afraid Hattaway and Jones disagree with you again. (See p.729) For the 1861-63 period that they analyze, Lee won 1 of 2 battles where he was the attacker (thats 50%). Other Confederate commanders won 2 out of 9 battles where they were the attackers (that's 22%)

For contrast Union generals won 6 out of 15 battles where they were on the offensive (that's 40%).
 
What does it have to do with him being on the offensive?

At Chancellorsville, Lee drove a force twice his size off the field. Utterly.

At Second Manasas, the counter attack on the second day when Lee arrived to relieve Jackson was a pretty successful operation. Nearly destroyed Pope's entire command that day.

The only two circumstances I can really think of that Lee got too aggressive was at Malvern Hill and Gettysburg, the 3rd day.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Afraid Hattaway and Jones disagree with you again. (See p.729) For the 1861-63 period that they analyze, Lee won 1 of 2 battles where he was the attacker (thats 50%). Other Confederate commanders won 2 out of 9 battles where they were the attackers (that's 22%)

For contrast Union generals won 6 out of 15 battles where they were on the offensive (that's 40%).

I'd suggest you reread it. In that dataset there is no correlation between the stance and the outcome.
 
I think we need to consider what "being on the offensive" means. It means if your force is marching to the enemy to beat them. It doesn't matter who's territory you're in.

At Antietam, McClellan attacked the ANV, hence he was on the offensive.

At Fredricksburg, Burside attacked Lee, hence he was on the offensive.

At Gettysburg, Lee attacked Meade, hence he was on the offensive.

Lee seemed to do alright when he was the aggressor. Basiclly all the Seven Days battles(Malvern Hill a big exception, though McClellan retreated anyways), Second Manasas, Chancellorsville. Only at Gettysburg did his reach exceed his grasp.

It doesn't take a military genius to dig in behind a stone wall on Marye's heights and stand a good chance at repelling an enemy(though the strategic manuvering to force Burnside to attack was brilliant). I don't think any military force in the world could have taken the stone wall from Longstreet's men that day. I always thought it was odd Lee didn't consider Fredricksburg before ordering Pickett and Pettigrew to attack on July 3rd.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
It doesn't take a military genius to dig in behind a stone wall on Marye's heights and stand a good chance at repelling an enemy(though the strategic manuvering to force Burnside to attack was brilliant). I don't think any military force in the world could have taken the stone wall from Longstreet's men that day. I always thought it was odd Lee didn't consider Fredricksburg before ordering Pickett and Pettigrew to attack on July 3rd.

The position on Maryes' Heights isn't really that strong, all things considered. You can get quite close to the stone wall (which is at the bottom of the hill BTW, in contrast to the film "Gods and Generals"*) using dead ground, and the stone wall isn't much protection at all. Of course, the force at the wall is only really an outpost, and the main force was held over the hill to counterattack the expected breakthrough. It never came because, like most inexperienced troops of all nationalities**, they stopped. Stopping the momentum of an attack is lethal, hence various exhortations to charge with upcapped muskets etc. by various officers during that war.

Lee didn't consider the wall, because he never ordered an attack there. It was supposed to hit Ziegler's Grove some way to the north.


* This draws upon Joshua Chamberlain's self-promoting and largely fantastic memoirs (by which I mean they're largely a work of fantasy)

** To give two obvious examples of the British displaying this behaviour we need look no further than Breed's Hill or 3rd New Orleans. It's part of the natural psycology of poorly trained or inexperienced soldiers.
 
Top