Do you think the Civil War might have been shorter had Lee kept his post in U.S. Army? Explain.?

Answer 1

Yes, because Lee was the best General that the US Army had at the beginning of the Civil War. In fact Lincoln offered him control of the Union Army. When Lee declined, Lincoln appointed Gen. McClellan. McClellan was a training officer; not a fighter. He was indecisive during the crucial beginning of the war. He didn't fight!
After McClellan, Lincoln appointed others, but couldn't find an effective leader for the Union Army, until he settled on U.S. Grant.

I would think that historians would speculate that Lee would not have wasted any time prosecuting the war. He would have attacked the south, relentlessly, from the beginning. This would have shortened the war.

Answer 2

The U.S. army had bad generals at the beginning of the war. U.S. Grant was just a major when the war began. All the other generals were trying capture the CSA capitol of Richmond. Lee blocked just about every attempt except for the final one Grant was able to achieve. As soon as Richmond fell the CSA disintegrated.

Answer 3

Oh, I don't know if it would have been shorter. Because Lee was a very determined General, he might have even extended it somewhat; look at Gettysburg; Longstreet knew it wouldn't work at Pickett's Charge but Lee insisted. And both regretted their decisions. I think the whole Civil War was a sad clash of differences that should never have happened; especially in this country.

Answer 4

Absolutely, he was the best best general of the war(in my opinion). All he needed was supplies, men and the right equipment. The union would have supplied him that and I guarantee that if he was given the opportunity, he would have raced across the south, holding the enemy by the nose and kicking them in the ***, just like Patton did during the Normandy breakout in 1944.

Answer 5

Definately. if he didnt leave the US army the war would have been a lot shorter and still a Union victory

Answer 6

maybe.Lee might be their best general but one must not forget stonewall Jackson and Longstreet.both are good generals and Lee depended heavily on Longstreet remember?
war is not fought by generals but by the soldiers themselves.good generals only help but there are many occasions in the previous war where people just fight by their spirit and will power not on generals/leader consent e.g:afghan vs soviet in the 80s.

Answer 7

Almost certainly. If he'd been in charge, the South would've been robbed of their best general. He was a military genius.