What if Robert E. Lee. said Yes

What if Robert E. Lee decided Country over state and accepted Lincolns offer to lead the Union Army, would he lead the union to an easy victory?
 
What if Robert E. Lee decided Country over state and accepted Lincolns offer to lead the Union Army, would he lead the union to an easy victory?

Not exactly a easy victory, but one that will result in much more Union victories with him replacing the disaster that is McClellan.
 
What if Robert E. Lee decided Country over state and accepted Lincolns offer to lead the Union Army, would he lead the union to an easy victory?

One big advantage he might have over other men who held the top Union command in Virginia is his personality. He had a knack of being able to persuade political leaders to see things his way. So instead of being forced to march on Richmond with a virtually untrained and undisciplined mob, like Irvin McDowell was forced to do, Lee gets the time he needs to get his army properly organized and trained before he sets out on his march to Richmond. This, in and of itself, means he is more likely to win once battle is joined. An early capture of Richmond might not immediately end the war, but it would pretty much end any hope of European recognition...any nation which can't defend it's own capital is going to be seen as a sinking ship. And without the hope of European recognition, I think the war ends pretty quickly.
 

Teleology

Banned
What if, instead of Virginia not seceding or Lee making the hard decision to serve the Union even if it means raising his sword against his home state, Lee agrees to serve but not as the overall commander (and instead says he'll serve as long he's not put into action against Virginia?)?
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Eh ...

67th Tigers will Probably Point out McClellan's Skills are Strategic, While's Lee's are More Tactical in Nature ...

But, Maybe he'll have More to Say himself?

:D

Very similar battle management styles, but McClellan's OODA loop was tighter.

On the initial post, Lee would be another of the failed early war generals. He was never offered overall command (as I've point out ad infinitum) but command of Eastern Dept and the Washington defences. He was junior to McClellan and if history is convergent becomes McClellan's 1st Corps Commander.
 
Well, Lee would have support amoung the Northern Virginians (Which were a big part of his army), with the Confederates loosing their best General, he, Grant, and Sherman would be the big three dealing with the war, which would be over in half the time.

Lincoln would be President till 1868, possibly a Grant/Lee run, or Lee becomes President.
 
What if, instead of Virginia not seceding or Lee making the hard decision to serve the Union even if it means raising his sword against his home state, Lee agrees to serve but not as the overall commander (and instead says he'll serve as long he's not put into action against Virginia?)?

I agree fully. It is hard to change a person's personality (...) without throwing in a huge number of butterflies, and I'm assuming we don't have Virginia secede.

In fact, I posted this in an unrelated thread some months ago. Lee uses a technicality to set his mind at ease: he refuses to recognize the CSA as more than individual states, feels heartbroken that Virginia is acting unlawfully, and refuses to serve either for or against Virginia, but instead takes command of some or all Union forces in the west.

Seniority being what is, I see him taking over either Sherman's or Buell's job, Dep. of the Ohio or similar - if Sherman he will manage the 1861 recruiting much better, and let Thomas advance on Mill Springs before Zollicoffer and Crittenden do, thus the Union has an 1861 vicory. Perhaps leads a force against Bowling Green?

But anyway the Union war effort in the west goes very well, Grant still takes Henry and Donelson, advances southwest but with Lee leading the Army of the Ohio at a more rapid pace, thus disabling the Confederate surprise attack at Shiloh, and by the middle of 1862 Tennessee is almost all occupied by Union forces - if Lee recognizes Buell's incompetence then he asks Thomas to take command of the XIVth corps earlier and Bragg never gets to invade Kentucky either. Better yet, he pushes on Knoxville earlier.

Meanwhile, though, in the east, I doubt McClellan would *not* win in W. Virginia with no Lee, so he gets AotP command, and no obvious reason to not proceed as in OTL. But if Johnson is still wounded at Seven Pines, who takes command for the Confederates?

Given the failures of the Union intelligence system, if the Confederate commander attacks McClellan at all, and not necessarily over Seven Days, I think he still will withdraw. No reason to not have Jackson's splendid Strategic victory in the Valley. With no Lee to put a stop to Jackson's aggressiveness, I can see him driving on Washington before Pope re-organizes the Army of Virginia.

If that happens......how strong exactly were the Washington defenses in the middle of 1862? Because I can forsee Lee leading a drive on Chattanooga/Atlanta and/or Vicksburg in the Middle of 1862 for the north, at the same time as Jackson leads all or part of the AoNV in a successful invasion of Washington DC.:eek:
 
Not exactly a easy victory, but one that will result in much more Union victories with him replacing the disaster that is McClellan.

People forget that Lee's track record on offense was unimpressive. He failed in in West Virginia as well as the Maryland and Gettysburg Campaigns. The the only general he managed to beat by taking the offensive was McClellan.

McClellan's plan for the Peninsula Campaign was good and in Joseph Johnston he faced a general almost as cautious as himself. Unless a general with Lee's aggressiveness can be found, McClellan can probably slowly grind down the defenses at Riichmond. If we assume McCellan only takes 50% longer than OTL's Siege of Petersburg, then Richmond falls to him in June of 1863.

Of course, Joseph Johston will withdraw with most of his army intact and McClellan will decline to pursue.
 
Top