WI: Robert E. Lee as Union General

[Pokemon Master]

As you may or may not know, President Lincoln asked Robert E. Lee to command the Union Army during the American Civil War. He rejected the offer, saying that accepting would be treason against his home state of Virginia.

But what if Robert E. lee had accepted the offer? How would the war have turned out?

 

[LSCatilina]

Wouldn't have been put in more westwards, more minor fronts in order to prevent him to confront Virginian forces that he could have fought with less...confiction?
If it's the case, I wonder if he would have been able to demonstrate fully his skills...

 

[Lord Grattan]

As you may or may not know, President Lincoln asked Robert E. Lee to command the Union Army during the American Civil War. He rejected the offer, saying that accepting would be treason against his home state of Virginia.

But what if Robert E. lee had accepted the offer? How would the war have turned out?

The only way this happens, minus ASBish things occurring to pave the way, is for Virginia not to secede from the Union. Lee would definitely not ever accept Lincoln's offer otherwise. If Virginia doesn't secede, then neither (probably) would Tennessee. With those 2 states remaining in the Union, the secession movement in Kentucky would be weaker. As a result, there might not be an armed conflict between the Union and the seceding states in the deep south.

 

[Huehuecoyotl]

Wasn't North Carolina also influenced by Virginia's secession? If Virginia doesn't go, then NC might not, either.

 

[AtriumCarceris]

Forget the "Virginia doesn't secede" thing. That's not fun and wanders away from the OP because it's not necessary.

Instead, the obvious way is to have Lee fight for the Union before Virginia secedes. The late Robert Perkins pointed out that Robert E. Lee was stationed in San Antonio in February of 1861, when Texas had voted to leave the Union. In OTL, David E. Twiggs was in command of The Department of Texas, but at the time he was having health issues. If he was too sick, then Robert E. Lee would be in command, and when Texas votes to secede and attempts to take the Alamo, Lee would not have just given up and let Texas take the installation. By the time Virginia secedes, he's already cast his lot in with the Union.

As it happened, later, Harry Turtledove wrote a short story about this.

So now that we have that out of the way, I'd be interested in hearing opinion on a Union Lee.

 

[Zorqal]

It would be interesting to see what happens to Lee after the war. He was a much better man in general than Grant was, so maybe we get President Robert E. Lee.

 

[wcv215]

Lee's tactics, temperament, and overall command style are far better suited to a larger, well supplied army that is on the offensive than for fighting a defensive war. He will likely end up doing g well in whichever theater he is placed into, likely the western front to keep him away from fighting other Virginians unless the situation there deteriorates too much.

 

[Just a Rube]

It would be interesting to see what happens to Lee after the war. He was a much better man in general than Grant was, so maybe we get President Robert E. Lee.

The fact that he was a major slaveholder will probably play against him somewhat. No matter the specifics of the war, that's likely to leave a bad taste among Republican decision-makers.

And I don't see him as likely to go along with the Radical Republicans and their plans for Reconstruction, so he seems unlikely as a Republican nominee for some time, and as a Democrat he would die too early to have a reasonable shot at winning.


I make no comment about which of Grant or Lee was a better man, since that's in many ways unknowable (and really depends on what you choose to value).

 

[mrmandias]

The only way this happens, minus ASBish things occurring to pave the way, is for Virginia not to secede from the Union. Lee would definitely not ever accept Lincoln's offer otherwise. If Virginia doesn't secede, then neither (probably) would Tennessee. With those 2 states remaining in the Union, the secession movement in Kentucky would be weaker. As a result, there might not be an armed conflict between the Union and the seceding states in the deep south.

I wonder if there could be a way to do this where Virginia effectively secedes but Lee can in conscience claim that it hasn't. Like, dunno, pro-secession hotheads tampering with the ballot boxes or interfering with the secession vote in the convention, or spontaneous cross-border military action from down south. Or even some kind of fighting breaking out around the federal installations that leads to a state imposition of martial law and secession under those conditions where Lee could believe it was illegitimate.

 

[mrmandias]

It would be interesting to see what happens to Lee after the war. He was a much better man in general than Grant was, so maybe we get President Robert E. Lee.

I reckon he'd be a Democrat and maybe not all that interested in grubbing for office.

 

[Roger II]

I wonder how Lee would fare working with other Union generals-who would he work well or poorly with?

 

[Blackfox5]

I think Lee would be fast tracked to take over the entire US Army very soon. Winfield Scott was obviously grooming him. Lee might not command troops on the battlefield for very long.

Without him leading the Army of Northern Virginia, I think the Union takes Richmond in 1862 and begins the march into the Carolinas to eventually take Charleston and Atlanta. Combined with Grant in Tennessee and the Mississippi River campaigns, the war is likely over before end of 1863 or spring 1864 at latest.

Lincoln likely issues some kind of ultimatum in late 1862 for the Confederacy to submit, and if it does not then he issues an Emancipation Proclamation (which is effectively limited to the Deep South still outside Union control).

The 1864 elections likely determines what kind of universal emancipation will be made. Probably some kind of extended compensated emancipation in the Upper South.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Well If Lee commands the Union Army during the 7 days the war is probably over on day 8 and if he stands the Dems win the 64 election with no emancipation proclamation.

 

[Zorqal]

The fact that he was a major slaveholder will probably play against him somewhat. No matter the specifics of the war, that's likely to leave a bad taste among Republican decision-makers.

And I don't see him as likely to go along with the Radical Republicans and their plans for Reconstruction, so he seems unlikely as a Republican nominee for some time, and as a Democrat he would die too early to have a reasonable shot at winning.


I make no comment about which of Grant or Lee was a better man, since that's in many ways unknowable (and really depends on what you choose to value).

He didn't own slaves. For the most part he was opposed to Slavery. He went with the CSA only on his loyalty to the state of Virginia.

Reconstruction wasn't the idea of Radical Republicans, but Andrew Johnson., and Lee supported the idea. The Radicals wanted to give former slaves the vote and take it away from the plantation owners.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Reconstruction wasn't the idea of Radical Republicans,

Err...what?

 

[Evan]

Instead, the obvious way is to have Lee fight for the Union before Virginia secedes. {{snip}}

As it happened, later, Harry Turtledove wrote a short story about this.

Here's the (rather good) story, incidentally. I agree, this's the best way - aside from Virginia not seceding - to get Lee fighting for the Union.

I wonder if there could be a way to do this where Virginia effectively secedes but Lee can in conscience claim that it hasn't.

If he really wants, he can always support the Restored Government of Virginia sitting in Wheeling. Still, it'd be best to give that government more legitimacy. Like, for instance, more legislators supporting it? Unionist legislators being excluded from the convention before the final vote, perhaps by the militia the secessionist governor had already mustered?

Err...what?

I think he's saying that reconstruction as actually practiced for most of 1865 was Johnson's idea, not the Radicals in Congress, which was adjourned at the time. Of course, after that, Congress vigorously outmaneuvered the President, with popular sentiment clearly behind it for a couple years.

 

[Just a Rube]

He didn't own slaves. For the most part he was opposed to Slavery. He went with the CSA only on his loyalty to the state of Virginia.

Reconstruction wasn't the idea of Radical Republicans, but Andrew Johnson., and Lee supported the idea. The Radicals wanted to give former slaves the vote and take it away from the plantation owners.

He most certainly did own slaves (ok, technically they may have been in his wife's name, but he profited from them, used them and effectively owned them, only emancipating them when required to by law). His position on slavery seems to have been fairly typical of many antebellum slaveholders, viewing it as a necessary evil. But I don't want to get into a Lost Cause argument; merely that Lee's history would certainly sink any chances at a Republican nomination (and indeed, historically post-war he supported the Democrats).

I wasn't talking about Reconstruction as a concept, which existed in one form or another basically since the war began; I was talking specifically about Reconstruction as envisioned by the Radical Republicans, who once again would certainly be able to sink any chance of Lee becoming president on their ticket. Since Lee died in 1870 (and I doubt he would live much longer in an alternate timeline, especially if he were running for president), that's too early for a Democratic president (especially since Reconstruction of some sort would still probably happen).

tl;dr: no President Lee.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Here's the (rather good) story, incidentally. I agree, this's the best way - aside from Virginia not seceding - to get Lee fighting for the Union.

Someone needs to do a spinoff of that story. Literally, a folowup/timeline if you will of the aftermath.

 

[Mikestone8]

I wonder if there could be a way to do this where Virginia effectively secedes but Lee can in conscience claim that it hasn't. Like, dunno, pro-secession hotheads tampering with the ballot boxes or interfering with the secession vote in the convention, or spontaneous cross-border military action from down south. Or even some kind of fighting breaking out around the federal installations that leads to a state imposition of martial law and secession under those conditions where Lee could believe it was illegitimate.

Any way VA could have a pro-Union governor, like Sam Houston in Texas? Only in VA such a governor need not accept deposition, but could move to Wheeling and maintain a government there.

 

[Mikestone8]

Instead, the obvious way is to have Lee fight for the Union before Virginia secedes. The late Robert Perkins pointed out that Robert E. Lee was stationed in San Antonio in February of 1861, when Texas had voted to leave the Union. In OTL, David E. Twiggs was in command of The Department of Texas, but at the time he was having health issues. If he was too sick, then Robert E. Lee would be in command, and when Texas votes to secede and attempts to take the Alamo, Lee would not have just given up and let Texas take the installation. By the time Virginia secedes, he's already cast his lot in with the Union.

I ran into that as a teenager. Bruce Catton mentioned it in Vol 1 of his Centennial History of the Civil War.