What if Lee had fought for the Union?

Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Location
Indianapolis, IN
I have read that Lee was against both slavery and secession. He was also offered a commission to command Union forces, but he turned it down before joining with his home state of Virginia. However, I cannot help but wonder how things might have turned out if Robert E. Lee had remained loyal to the Union and fought as a Union general. What might have happened in such a situation?
 
REL came by his money the old fashion way. Married into it. His family as well as Mary Curtis owned slaves and the reference you are referring to was quoted from a war time letter to his wife concerning the slavery matter. "slavery as an institution, is a immoral and political evil in any country." but in the times of the big plantation and cotton is was a necessary evil.
 
Lee was happy to be rough on his slaves according to the PBS Lee documentary. One of his former slaves is quoted as saying he had a temper and was extremely tough on his "property".
It should be noted, however, that technically they were not his. They were his father in law's, set to be emancipated within five years of his death. That, of course, did not stop Lee from putting them to the maximum utility possible during that time.
 
I have read that Lee was against both slavery and secession. He was also offered a commission to command Union forces, but he turned it down before joining with his home state of Virginia. However, I cannot help but wonder how things might have turned out if Robert E. Lee had remained loyal to the Union and fought as a Union general. What might have happened in such a situation?
Lee's opposition to secession and slavery were tepid at best. His level of opposition to secession was probably higher than his opposition to slavery. In any case, had be been in command of U.S. forces the rebellion would have been a lot shorter.
 
Lee was happy to be rough on his slaves according to the PBS Lee documentary. One of his former slaves is quoted as saying he had a temper and was extremely tough on his "property".

I don't hold a lot of credence to that, although a lot of people probably relish in it. I have read interviews that said the opposite. I think the truth is somewhere in between. Lee wasn't the only good general in the South and the fighting spirit of those southern boys would still had been strong.......for a while.
 
The ANV was significantly more effective and successful than all other major Conferedate armies, with almost all of the Confederates' major victories to its credit. I'm not aware of any other army commander receiving the level of devotion from his men, the willingness to go anywhere and do anything for the "old man", that Lee did.

Lee on the Union side might suffer from suspicion of his loyalties, particularly if his operations suffered any setbacks. Many politicians were prepared to blame anything short of total success on a general's lack of devotion to the cause. Lee was initially offered command of the army assembling around Washington to advance into Virginia (starting, ironically, from the vicinity of his own home at Arlington), and he would likely have experienced the same pressure to press rapidly "On to Richmond!" that McDowell did. If this led to a Bull Run style defeat or even a stalemate, the same people would say that Lee's heart wasn't in it.

Which brings up another thought - if the Union had Lee to employ, might they do better to send him to another theater?
 
I think Lee had the reputation to where his military advice would have been seriously taken. I think he would have been allowed to move the army when he actually thought it was time to. He would have been like Grant in some ways....Lee would have had the supplies and manpower to successfully conclude the war sooner.

McDowell got the shaft....he didn't have the military reputation....but he knew enough to tell Lincoln the army wasn't ready for battle....but he was basically ordered to attack anyway....it led to disaster then he lost his command over it....kind of a raw deal.
 
If his reputation and support from the General Winfield Scott gives him enough political leverage to take the time to build a proper Army and use it the way he sees fit then I believe General Lee could have achieved a “quick” victory. He certainly would have had the supplies and manpower for such a victory. He also would have been in a better position than any other Union general to understand how weak the South really was. Combine that with his aggressive attitude and you have everything that is needed for a “quick” Union victory.

If General Lee successfully crushes the Confederates in VA leading to a collapse of the Confederacy then you a situation where the greatest national hero of the Civil War is a slave holder and a quick Union victory (especially one lead by a slave holder) would probably mean President Lincoln never issues the emancipation proclamation. Thus the Civil War would not have been the direct cause of the end of slavery.

President Lincoln would have stopped the spread of slavery into the territories, that plus the loss of power/reputation of Southern Democrats in the shorter Civil War probably leads to the ending of slavery over the next 10-20 years. Unless political power does switch back to the South, perhaps lead by a hero General Lee Presidency in 1864, and then perhaps slave power rebounds resulting in the institution lasting anther 20-40 years.

Either way, we would not think about the Civil War being so much about slavery as we do today, since in this case it did not directly result in the freeing of any slaves. Instead we would view it more about preserving the Union which led to later political acts that ended slavery. General Lee would still be viewed as a national hero but with the stain of slavery that so many of our other previous national heroes share: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, etc…
 
Last edited:
.

If General Lee successfully crushes the Confederates in VA leading to a collapse of the Confederacy then you a situation where the greatest national hero of the Civil War is a slave holder and a quick Union victory (especially one lead by a slave holder) would probably mean President Lincoln never issues the emasculation proclamation. Thus the Civil War would not have been the direct cause of the end of slavery.

I'm sorry, I know this is totally off topic but...

:bounce:

No wonder it took the rebs so long to surrender.
 
Lee would have finished the war a lot faster. The main reason it went on for so long was that there were many incompetent generals on the Union side early on. George B. McClellan being the standout since he was at the gates of Richmond and decided to retreat.

The "retreat" and McClellan's movement to a new base of operations are different things. McClellan acted to preserve the campaign after Washington screwed up in the Shenandoah and allowed Jackson to destroy McClellan's base of operations. The retreat happened 5-6 weeks later and was ordered by Washington against McClellan's strong objections.
 
Lee would have finished the war a lot faster. The main reason it went on for so long was that there were many incompetent generals on the Union side early on. George B. McClellan being the standout since he was at the gates of Richmond and decided to retreat.

Yes and Lee would have had many of them as subordinates to start the war. Look at McDowell's army and how many of them didnt last long or did nothing in their service
 
The "retreat" and McClellan's movement to a new base of operations are different things. McClellan acted to preserve the campaign after Washington screwed up in the Shenandoah and allowed Jackson to destroy McClellan's base of operations. The retreat happened 5-6 weeks later and was ordered by Washington against McClellan's strong objections.


Not to get off topic but McClellans "strong objections" were that he needed 50,000 more men.
 
Not to get off topic but McClellans "strong objections" were that he needed 50,000 more men.


Um, when?

"Allow me to urge most strongly that all the troops of Burnside and Hunter together with all that can possibly be spared from other points, be sent to me at once. I am sure that you will agree with me that the true defense of Washington consists in a rapid and heavy blow given by this army upon Richmond.

Can you not possibly draw 15,000 or 20,000 men from the West to re-enforce me temporarily? They can return the moment we gain Richmond. Please give weight to this suggestion; I am sure it merits it."
(McClellan to Halleck, 26th July)

Burnside and Hunter is 21,000 men put together. At most he's asking for about 35-40 thousand, depending on whether you count Burnside and Hunter as not being "in the West" - and since in the past he's used Grand Aggregate when referring to his own army as well as that of the enemy, it might just be him asking for about 40 regiments.


Later, as his army got more healthy and the sick list shrank, his requests dropped and he was actually on the offensive again when ordered off the Peninsula.
In any case, there are three options:

1) McClellan wanted more men than would be necessary for a better general.
2) No possible number of men could have done the job.
3) McClellan could have done it if he'd had the men needed.

If (1) is the case - i.e. McClellan has enough men but not the skill or drive to use them - then the correct action by Washington would have been to replace McClellan and not withdraw him (preferably with one of his corps commanders, because only one of them thought they should be withdrawn and another felt they should stay and be reinforced if possible - the rest wanted to stay).
If (2) is the case, then it's no slight on McClellan that he tried anyway (and was on the offensive when ordered to give up the ground).
If (3) is the case, then of course Washington should have given McClellan whatever force they could. Just being there McClellan is forcing Lee to stay defending Richmond, because the CSA's industrial economy in large part is Richmond (specifically, Tregedar, which includes the best rolling mill in the Americas and most of the machinery they took from Harpers Ferry).


It's worth noting, by the way, that Halleck (IIRC?) was also saying Grant's Overland Campaign was a mistake and that he should be recalled with his army to defend Washington. Plus ca change...



The big win for the Union if Lee fights for them is that Lee's not down south. Lee's big skill was that he was someone Jefferson Davis trusted who also happened to be a good general - take that away and the Confederate Army in the East doesn't have a consistent, good commander (IMO).
 
Halleck was willing to send some men to McClellan and they had settled on a figure. And like the next day Little Mac goes...yeah...I need more.

And that is when Halleck ordered him to abandon the peninsula. Not until that disagreement occurred because that is when Halleck realized this was all a big stall tactic game.
 
If Lee was nothing else, he was a realist. As the commander of the ANV, he knew full well that the odds were stacked against him and that he had to take risks that he may not have otherwise done had he had more manpower and supplies. He was acutely aware that his best chance for independence was to break the will of the northern populace to continue the war. Had he been commander of the Union AOP, he would have fully known and appreciated his advantages over his opponent and would have been relentless.
I do believe that had Lee been in McClellan's shoes in 1862 that he would have certainly captured Richmond during the Seven Days Battles or a version thereof. Had Lee been the Union commander at Sharpsburg I believe he would have annihilated the entire ANV. McClellan had a copy of Lee's orders and troop dispositions and still only fought him to a draw despite the ANV being divided. The war in the east would have been much shorter.
 
Back
Top