"What If Robert E. Lee Accepted Command of the Union Army?" Topic

"The United States of America trembled on the brink of her greatest tragedy -- a civil war that would kill a million young men. Seven Southern states had seceded after Abraham Lincoln was elected president as an anti-slavery Republican, with scarcely a single Southern vote. They had been unmoved by his inaugural address, in which he warned them that he had taken a solemn oath to preserve the Union -- and reminded them of their shared heritage, witnessed by the numberless patriot graves in every state.

When Lincoln tried to resupply Fort Sumter, the Federal fort in Charleston, South Carolina's harbor, the secessionists had responded by bombarding it. The president summoned an army of 75,000 men to suppress an unquestionable rebellion -- and asked Colonel Robert E. Lee of Virginia to take command of it. Suddenly Colonel Lee -- and the nation -- confronted one of the most crucial turning points in American history. What would have happened if he had accepted the president's offer?…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The north would have lost the war!!

Just like in the Confederacy, Lee would not have been in a strategy development position. Scott and the General staff developed the Anaconda strategy which had an implementation timeline. The war would have ended sooner not because Lee commanded the Northern forces but because he would not have commanded the ANV.
Lee would not have survived the head chopping done by Lincoln and the Republicans.

I agree with Rudy about the war being shorter because Lee wouldn't have commanded the ANV. Had Lee commanded at Bull Run I doubt much would have changed, McDowell had a sound plan that came close to working. Had Jackson not been there it may have.

Assuming Lee at Bull Run and a similar loss he might have retained command due to his pre war reputation, or he might have been reduced to a corps commander as McDowell was. Either result would have led to a shorter war which would have been better for the south with less death and destruction.

early in the war, i don't think the Army of the Potomac was set up to win…way too political, too close to washington etc. plus i'm not sure lee's style would have worked with the corps commanders he had and the overall offensive need of the north.

I've always been fascinated with the possibility of Lee suffering a defeat at Bull Run and then ending up as a corps commander under McClellan! :)

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

The north would have won and they would not have <potential dawghouse comment removed before hitting the Submit button>.

1863 would be like 1865. There would have been a few months of fighting and the war would end then and there.

I'd not considered that not fighting Lee would have been in the equation but that would be the crux of it. I think he still rises up in 1862…at least as a Corps commander. That would be enough to win some of the closer scrapes and change the complexion of some of the losses.

Lee being on the Union side (or even retired) may have shortened the war. Remember the guy who would have named the head of the ANV was also the guy who thought Joe Johnston and Braxton Bragg were winners.

I've always been fascinated with the possibility of Lee suffering a defeat at Bull Run and then ending up as a corps commander under McClellan! :)

That's an horrific fascination. General Lee serving under 'Little Napoleon': never!

"His [R.E. Lee's] noble presence and gentle, kindly manner were sustained by religious faith and an exalted character." (Winston Churchill)

And Lee becomes disgusted with Little Mac's poor generalship, resigns, and retires to live at Arlington, which never becomes a cemetery. :)

Lee in command of ALL the Union Armies or just the Army of the Potomac?

I agree with earlier posts in that the factor that shortens the war is if Lee does NOT command the ANV. And if he doesnt who does? If its Jackson the war still drags on for a few years. If it was one of the losers then Lee may well have taken Richmond in the first year of war.

Perhaps Heresey, since I share his name, but I think Lee was overrated. Much of his success came from his superb subordinates like Jackson. Remove them from the equation and you get Gettysburg instead of Chacelorsville. Still, the Union Armies commanded by Lee, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan is a scary thought!!

Cheers!

The Army that Lee was going to be given command of was the short term troops that McDowell lead into action at Bull Run. McDowell had a good plan and the initial execution was good. Then he started running into the limitations of his troops and commanders as Confederate resistance stiffened. McDowell foresaw the weaknesses in his army before moving on Manassas Junction but felt compelled to go forward anyways. Lee would have faced the same problem if he took commas in 1861.

Despite its weaknesses at the top the Army of the Potomac after 1861 was at its base a solid fighting force. Much of the credit for making it this properly belongs to McClellan. I am doubtful whether Lee could have done a better job, or even as good a job as McClellan on this. However Lee as commander of the AoP that McClellan created could be a game changer.

Interesting….

Amicalement
Armand