Could Robert E Lee have lost on purpose?

[Horace Porter]

You could say that the "Lee to the rear" episodes at the Wilderness and Spotsylvania were moments when he put it all on the line and could have lost ... his life. Risking much, he had to be aware that if those moments didn't work, he'd be in serious trouble, and serious trouble for him meant serious trouble for his army.

 

[Al Murray]

I don't think Lee wanted to go out of the Union. His last conversation with Gen. Scott at the beginning is really sad - he told him that his children and their property were in Virginia. Staying in the US service meant attacking them. The poor guy was forced to chose between his country and his service on one hand and his family and neighbors on the other. If he left the US service to keep from attacking them he would not throw the fight and help in their defeat.

 

[hanna260]

I don't want to be rude but I'm afraid I don't quite get the point of this thread. The question seems to be whether if Robert E. Lee was born a totally different person with totally different goals, would he have deliberately sabotaged the South's success? This "what-if" question just doesn't seem rooted in history. Perhaps I have this wrong?

 

[matthew1961]

He didn't fight to lose, but eventually he figured out that to continue to fight would result in losing more. More interesting is to speculate when he thought it was over.

I'm sure Lee knew, by Thanksgiving of 1864 - that it was over. His first inkling was when Pickett told him, "Sir, I have
no Division..." when Lee inquired to as where Pickett's men were, after the Gettysburg charge....

 

[K Hale]

That time when you click on the What if section and you got a blinding headache and wondered what you had been drinking that day and remembered you had not.

That's every day in the What If section.

 

[dlofting]

Definitely not. Just look at the way Lee fought at 2nd Manassas, Antietam, Gettysburg and throughout the overland campaign. If that was a general trying to lose I'd hate to see what a general trying to win would have done.

 

[diane]

In some ways I think the point where Lee knew the war was lost was at the very beginning. However, that did not prevent him from fighting to win, and part of that was creating a legendary little army in the ANV. He came to believe, and said so himself, that this army was invincible...and that he had been wrong at the beginning. He became fatally over-confident. But never could he have done anything but his duty and his duty was to do his best. If somebody was fighting to lose, I'm ready to nominate Bragg for that spot!

 

[R. Alex Raines]

In some ways I think the point where Lee knew the war was lost was at the very beginning. However, that did not prevent him from fighting to win, and part of that was creating a legendary little army in the ANV. He came to believe, and said so himself, that this army was invincible...and that he had been wrong at the beginning. He became fatally over-confident. But never could he have done anything but his duty and his duty was to do his best. If somebody was fighting to lose, I'm ready to nominate Bragg for that spot!

Diane,

Have you been reading the Dunning school lately?

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

At the risk of being off thread would like to point out I'm not sure how much Lee's loyalty to Virginia was tied up in Arlington. It wasn't his ancestral home. Arlington was Mary Custis Lee's birthright; early in their marriage R.E. became irritated with Mary's attachment to Arlington, disliking her loyalty away from her marriage. Meig's personal vendetta over the home was waging war on a woman,. It was R.E.'s home but Mary's birthright.

Yes, you would hope Lee was fully committed. Just listened to Sear's version of Pickett's assault again on audio. A dreadful enough miscalculation and loss of life for Lee as a fighting-to-win general, there's just no possibility the man would do what would amount to murder, sending so many over that field without his heart in it.

 

[fldinosaur]

It is easy to speculate on such possibilities, but often impossible to "disprove" them. However, spectacular claims require spectacular evidence. The burden does not lie upon others to "prove you wrong," but upon you to give others cause to take your suggestion seriously.

I hate when people say that. Just like the non believers of UFO's and the paranormal. It's a cop out.
Plus, the OP's question had nothing to do with yes or no, right or wrong so no "burden of proof" either way is required.

 

[fldinosaur]

I'm not saying I think Lee did this, but what if all along he didn't want the south to secede, and when Virginia seceded he used "I'm going with my state" to side with the union and then he put up a good fight but eventually surrendered because that's what he felt should happen? Just prove me wrong in this thread please.

There was only one "Benedict Arnold" in military history that I know of. I believe people back then had more character than to join one side or the other just for the sake of defeating one side over the other. Did he surrender because "that's what he felt should happen"? Most probably, but not because he was a Union sympathizer.

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

I hate when people say that. Just like the non believers of UFO's and the paranormal. It's a cop out. Plus, the OP's question had nothing to do with yes or no, right or wrong so no "burden of proof" either way is required.

LMAO. My first post was so predictive:

I'm not saying Lee was an alien from outer space, but what if all along he didn't really want either the USA or Virginia to win? But just prove me wrong

But leaving that aside, the OP stated, "Just prove me wrong in this thread".

 

[unionblue]

I'm sure that he didn't. That would have taken someone with far less integrity and professionalism than Lee had, by all accounts I've seen. I may disagree with his priority of loyalties, but I don't doubt his sincerity.

Mark,

Agreed.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[R. Alex Raines]

If Lee was trying to lose on purpose, he'd never have launched the Seven Days Campaign. He would have set back and let Richmond be beleaguered.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Would Lee have invaded Pennsylvania as a general trying to lead a failing army? Out of all reasons for the invasion, feeding his army has always struck me as so vital. Anyone interested in losing surely would have continued to keep his army in blockade-starved Virginia and deeper south. I don't know- perhaps generals can not allow themselves compassion for men but practicality would state an army on full rations is stronger than one subjected to the South's shortages.

 

[ole]

Quite simply, Lee was not the kind of guy to lose on purpose. That's almost as sinful as saying that Grant would give up just because. Tain't happening, McGee.

 

[krvaldovinos]

Thank you for all the kind replies! I just had a random idea and wanted to check with the experts.

 

[ole]

Thank you for all the kind replies! I just had a random idea and wanted to check with the experts.

Love your dog. Looks like he/she loves you.

 

[krvaldovinos]

Love your dog. Looks like he/she loves you.

Old lab mixes may be some of the greatest things on this earth.

 

[ole]

Old lab mixes may be some of the greatest things on this earth.

Agreed. Nothing like a lab. What's its name?