What if Lee had accepted Lincoln's command offer?

[1stMN]

I see a few very old questions of a similar nature but opinions change and new members come and go...so I'll ask this: What does everyone think would have changed if Lee had taken command of the Army of the Potomac instead of commanding the Army of Northern Virginia?

I've been thinking about the "what ifs" of the ACW and they are certainly interesting to ponder!

Imagine if Lee hadn't been with the South to command at Chancellorsville...Does that mean Virginia never seceded? Likewise think how different Gettysburg would have been. Would it have even happened?

Anyway, food for thought...let's see your opinions...ready go!

 

[TinCan]

The only "what if" I like to ponder upon is what if Lee had had the resources the Union had through out the war. Plenty of men, plenty of ammo, etc, would that have changed anything?

 

[1stMN]

If he had the resources of the North, I believe the war would have been no contest. As it was, the South did well until they started to string things a little thin as the war went on. If they had the man power of the North, holy cow can't even imagine that!

 

[Carronade]

If he had the resources of the North, I believe the war would have been no contest. As it was, the South did well until they started to string things a little thin as the war went on. If they had the man power of the North, holy cow can't even imagine that!

When the South had population and resources, i.e. political and economic power, comparable to the North, as in the early years of the Republic, the question of secession did not arise. It was only when they felt themselves being outnumbered and overpowered by the rest of the Union that they sought to separate.

"Does that mean Virginia never seceded?" Valid question, but I think the more likely hypothesis would be that Lee, like a fair number of Southern-born officers, considered that his primary loyalty was to the Union. Also like many of those officers, it's possible that his loyalty might be questioned by the radical politicians in Washington. Presumably they would press him for early action as they did McDowell, with the added complication that any "excuses" about training or preparation could be attributed to disloyalty. Lee might well have met the same fate as McDowell. Circumstances like another Union commander failing to hold Johnston's army in the Valley wouldn't be any different if Lee was the one commanding at Bull Run. We should also recall that Lee's combat experiences in 1861 were generally unsuccessful.

It's certainly possible that Lee would have been a winner from the start, or that circumstances would give him an opportunity to shine a little later in the war as they did historically for the other side; but I don't think we can take for granted that he would rise to the same prominence in the Union army as he did the Confederate.

The greatest impact of this scenario might not be what Lee might do for the Union, but the loss of his services to the Confederacy. I don't mean to put him on a pedestal, but who else on the Confederate side might have been as successful as both a combat commander and a leader of men?

 

[1stMN]

The greatest impact of this scenario might not be what Lee might do for the Union, but the loss of his services to the Confederacy. I don't mean to put him on a pedestal, but who else on the Confederate side might have been as successful as both a combat commander and a leader of men?

I absolutely agree. While there were several very good subordinates under Lee, no one really truly compared to him as far as what he was able to accomplish. The South did have Albert Sidney Johnston until the battle of Shiloh when he was killed. Pres. Davis considered him the best general they had...of course that was before Lee took the field.