What if . . .General R. E. Lee wore blue?
President Abraham Lincoln would’ve replaced General R. E. Lee; or the Union would have lost the war. Don’t start throwing rotten tomatoes from your garden, yet—hear me out.
Let’s say Lee replaced Lieutenant General Winfield Scott in 1861. For one, Lee was unwilling (not unable) to really take command over his senior generals. He thought if he confronted any of their inappropriate behavior his generals wouldn’t listen to him. That’s not the case. Leaders should show justified anger at the right time and place.
Reluctant to correct his generals, there’s no way Lee could’ve taken command over Major General George McClellan or John Pope. Both were aggressive ego maniacs. Lee was a humble, compassionate, albeit passive-aggressive leader. It would’ve gotten ugly quick. Lee would’ve gotten extremely frustrated. McClellan and Pope would’ve bullied their way over their commander. Then, Lincoln would’ve reshuffled his military personnel. Lee goes and supports Quarter Master Montgomery C. Meigs.
Let’s start over with a completely different scenario. Lee is given the same billet as U.S. Grant in 1864. This is all pretend, remember. Union Lieutenant General Lee is in charge of all the Union armies and moves out with the Army of the Potomac. Lee has the same A-team Grant tapped: William T. Sherman, George Meade, Philip Sheridan, and George “Old Pap” Thomas. We’ll even give Lee wins at Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor; and Sherman gets his win at Atlanta. But the war bogs down.
Major General William T. Sherman sends Lee a telegram in September 1864. “I want to drive a large contingent through Georgia and up into the Carolinas with the intent of making its inhabitants feel that war and individual ruin are synonymous terms.”[1] Lee’s eyes get big. The telegram clatters back with his response: “You will do no such thing. We must mitigate the evils of the war. Civilian and military property must be protected and no burning of the infrastructure.”[2] So now Sherman’s army holds up near Atlanta. And Lee, with the Army of the Potomac, stalls at Petersburg.
With the Union war effort bogged down on both fronts, there are grave political consequences. President Lincoln loses his re-election. George McClellan wins the White House. He then sues for peace with the Confederacy. The Union is divided and slavery prevails. Most likely, America would have a second Civil War.
Robert E. Lee was a great person, a capable and hardworking engineer and staff officer in the ante-bellum years. He wasn’t a consummate strategic leader in the Civil War. He possessed an intransigent personality. He wouldn’t confront senior officers. This in turn compromised his command over them; and it compromised his ability to control battles (case in point A.P. Hill and Henry Heth at the start of Gettysburg). His sincere philosophy of tempering the violence toward the civilians is noble. But it’s the opposite of what has to occur.
In a civil war, the conflict is between two societies and their armies. The people wage the war; their armies fight it. You have to thus break the will of the people, make them suffer, not just destroy their military’s capabilities. Yes, it’s horrific. It’s sadistic, and gross; it’s heart-wrenching. Lee knew this. He’d studied the widespread devastation seen during the Peloponnesian War, Athens versus Sparta (431–404 BC). He wanted to avoid this at all cost. So, whether Lee wore grey or blue, he would’ve inadvertently compromised the strategy.
What say you? Would Lee have won the war for the North? Don’t forget the South still fielded top notch generals. Lee would’ve had to contend against them.
[1] Michael Fellman. Citizen Sherman: A Life of William Tecumseh Sherman. New York: Random House, 1995.
[2] William J. Jones, Life and Letters, 129–30. During the American Revolution, the British mitigated the destruction in America, see Mackesy, The War for America, 32–7.
If Lee had remained loyal and joined the Union high command, he might have still be reluctant to make war on his native state and requested to best given a command in the West. He might have served instead of Fremont or Halleck as overall commander in the Western theater. It is interesting to think of him face Albert Sidney Johnston at Shiloh.
I disagree with a number of the pre-set conditions put out in this, such as that slavery would have prevailed among other things.
Also I disagree with some of the statements about Lee’s generalship style beyond a certain point; he certainly did like subordinates who thought for themselves and he would have certainly had problems with the likes of Pope and McClellan.
But in my personal opinion, with the Union resources of men and supplies, he would have destroyed the Confederate armies he faced. Some aspects of the outcome may have varied but he would have defeated the foe he faced.
I recognise fully the topic is hypocritical in nature.
Robert E. Lee. “What if he wore Blue?” This possible state of affairs is not as outlandish as it seems. After all, Winfield Scott is supposed to have advocated for Robert E. Lee to assume command of the Union Army in April 1861. But, Colonel Lee turned the offer down, claiming “He would follow his native State with his sword.” For me, the development that may have swung “the Virginian’s insistence to remain with his State” …was the location of his Home at Arlington. Because, the early years of its existence found the Custis Mansion sited within the District of Columbia. Had the Retrocession of 1846/47 not occurred, Robert E. Lee would have been a resident of the District of Columbia… and his cut-and-dried rationale for resignation from the U.S. Army would have become decidedly murky.
Correction: Phone autocorrect err above.
My last line ought read, ‘This topic is HYPOTHETICAL in nature’
you’re on solid ground with the probability and plausibility that Lee stayed in blue as 30 percent of his brother officers from VA remained loyal to the United States — i am with you so far … not too sure about what happens next however … so, with Lee as General in Chief, how does McClellan and Halleck ever figure in the equation … and your assessment of Lee seems a bit odd — passive aggressive, not a strategic leader, intransigent personality, poor leader, reluctant to confront subordinates — i would argue just the opposite … and plugging Lee into the war in place of Grant in Overland Campaign assumes the war takes exactly the same course … that’s a big assumption, but i am holding my rotten tomatoes 🙂
PS — forgot to thanks … enjoyed reading your essay — good work.
With Lee in blue, where does that leave Thomas Jackson? Without Lee does the capturer of so many B&O rail engines, and hero of Bull Run get promoted faster? If he leads the Army of Northern Virginia, does the entire ANV get put under arrest for not marching to TJ’s standards, with Jeff Davis issuing a presidential pardon of them all? After Bull Run 2, while Pope recouped in Centerville, was it Lee’s idea or Jackson’s to try to march an army up Gum Springs Road around Centreville and onto the rear of Pope. It may matter in the event Lee in blue faced TJ in gray.
The joint committee would have eaten him up and spit him out.
FYI Robert E. Lee was neither in favor of Secessionism or of slavery. His main reason for turning down Lincoln’s offer was his devotion to the STATE OF VIRGINIA. He feared, rightly, that the 75,000 volunteers Lincoln summoned would mainly be used against his state. If Virginia had not seceded (and the western half of the state was against secession). Lee would never have joined the Confederate Army. Thomas Jackson was also not a fan of slavery, and he probably would have joined the Union Army also had Virginia not seceded. The entire war would have been fought further west had Virginia remained in the Union. General Beauregard would have probably filled the role Lee had in which case. So, Tennessee & Kentucky would still have been the Dark & Bloody Ground of the war, only more so. As for specifics, that would be hard to guess, but my gut feeling is the Rebellion would have collapsed a lot sooner, perhaps in late ’63/early ’64.
Lee couldn’t betray his family & the State of Virginia. I agree. Lee’s dad abandoned the family. And I believe Robert E. Lee would always remain Loyal to his family. Agree, Lee was not a fan of slavery nor was Jackson. Unfortunately, many CSA politicians were. There are so many variables that would have been different. By the way, I deeply admire Lee. He has taught me a lot.
Maybe not a fan of slavery but Jackson did possess slaves.
No one can dispute that. As Frederick Douglass put it in the 8 June 1849 copy of the ‘Liberator’, all Americans together with the very structure of the constitution enabled slavery. A great deal of his pre-war statements and arguments do not correspond with those of the post-war.
All Americans were responsible for slavery, North and South. The former had agreed to create and live in a country wherein they knew the institution existed and agreed to the constitutional terms enabling it on their part.
That didn’t mean that individuals were not responsible for their actions. It meant there as a core responsibility that could not be disavowed, as Douglass made the point then, and Abraham Lincoln would echo 16 years later in his 2nd Inaugural Address.
At the start of the war, Jackson did make statements to the effect of defending slavery. He did take Black Americans into slavery on his Northern invasion in 1862, as Abraham Lincoln did veritably the same as when he countermanded the emancipation orders of Generals’ Butler, Fremont and Hunter and remanded the Black Americans affected back into bondage. As recounted in his surgeon’s memoirs, (Hunter Holmes Maguire), due to the experiences that Jackson had during the war, his beliefs underwent a profound change and he became open to Emancipationism.
Hugh, thank you for that of 8/15 12:47pm. It’s hard to accord the statement “Jackson was not a fan of slavery” with the fact he possessed slaves and fought for that continued status quo. The “what if” had to do with making your decision at the start of the war. It appears at the time of making the decision whether to fight for blue or gray, he was supportive of slavery. Glad to know he died wiser than that, but the what if supposition was at the time of having to decide, so maybe the statement “Jackson was no fan of slavery” was too general, ouch on the pun, and thank you for looking at both sides by saying he made slavery supportive statements at the start of the war. What if fervent Jackson had changed his mind on who to fight for after he changed his mind on slavery? Wouldn’t that be a story. Oh, I digress. Thanks again.
I would put it to the point that one could own no slaves, but could readily believe in the right to own them, or being willing to make this an irrevocable right in America, and being willing to fight to reconvene those rights for all time to come.
That is exactly the position of Abraham Lincoln at war’s start and before, such as his agreement to sell the slaves of his father in law’s estate.
Or, how Ulysses S. Grant declared that if the war turned to ending slavery rather than just restoring the Union as it had been, he’d quit fighting.
What is to be explicitly stated in any writings of him? The fact he said that or he changed his mind?
A: BOTH.
One can easily make the argument that SWJ did not fight the war as an individual to perpetuate slavery but given the typical Southern views of the constitution and American federalism he embraced.
The reality is, both North and South begin the war with declared intentions of fighting for slavery; but the course and events of the war change this in and for both.
And SWJ is an example of this.
And the evidence implies, or at least it’s overall timeline roughly accords with, that SWJ changed his mind about slavery as an institution after thinking about the 1862 Confederate Emancipation Treaty.
Jackson’s story is a window into the complexities arising from interpersonal relationships within slavery and the tension that produced ambivalence within some white southerners. Yet, regardless of the affection he may have shown toward enslaved people, and as politically ambivalent as he may have been about slavery, Jackson fully participated in a larger initiative intended not to end or undermine slavery, but to make slavery and racial inequality work.
https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-stonewall-jacksons-sunday-school/
So,NYgiant1952…
The fact SWJ changed his views about slavery is not proof he changed his mind about slavery…
The fact he challenged slavery fundamentally and deliberately with full knowledge of what he was doing by teaching Black Americans literacy, (no matter how this was conveyed, once Black Americans possessed this ability, it couldn’t be controlled as they could apply it to learning laws, reading maps and sign posts and other key geographical enabling information, forge/tamper with freedom passes/paperwork), etc, etc, in no way, shape or form means he challenged slavery in any meaningful way…
THIS is the problem with not only your views as an individual but in the manner the war is taught these days, PERIOD!!!
That depends on the omission of certain evidence from open critical reflection that is absolutely pertinent to the matter.
In other words, it’s lying by omission!!!
Trying to say that about SWJ is totally dependent upon NOT conceding the plain truth; the American Union from which he had lived and served his entire life and career was itself founded upon racism and genocide! Just ask what Aboriginals or French Canadians what the 1763 Royal Proclamation and 1774 Act protected them FROM! And what the DOI conveyed thereby by putting these as ‘Intolerable Acts’.
How the Constitution of the USA since 1789 had given slavery and the racism against Black Americans by it national sanctions!
To understand that, just ask the Black Americans whom fled to Canada or Mexico; want yo see the historical evidence they left behind? I’ll gladly post it here.
Remember I mentioned Santiago Vidaurri…?
That view of SWJ DEPENDS on simply not admitting what the evidence clear as a bell shows in piece after piece of primary evidence-
The Confederates were willing to end slavery!
Remember the challenge I put to you? I repeat it here now-
I dare you to stare that’s not true. I dare you to state there is no evidence to that. I challenge you as one historian to another to not ‘shift’ but come up to the figurative scratch line in full view of one and all on here and put that.
If you do, I will post one after the other every single one of the ballpark 50 pieces of primary evidence to show it is true!!!
Everyone here who reads the chain of it will see it and can never again fail to concede it exists!
So I say, w/o hagiographing SWJ in any context of any kind, w/o failing to apply a fair and balanced measure of criticism to his life where warranted, those 50 pieces of primary evidence destroy the argument above CW Memory makes of SWJ, and they destroy yours!
You’ll be the one who has to reckon publicly with what Kevin M. Levin, Alan T. Nolan, etc, made serious flaws in their works, or lied about through omission of evidence.
Ill post every single bit of every particle of evidence here.
And I’m a man of my word…