Lee as a Union commander?

Question

In "Lincoln and His Generals" T. Harry Williams argues that Lee's "most audacious plans were as much the product of the confederacy's inferior military position as his own fine mind," and that "had Lee been a Northern general with Northern resources behind him, he would have improvised less and seamed less bold."

In other words, the only reason Lee was so bold and daring was because he had to be. This author argues that if Lee would have had a better army, if he would have been a Northern commaner, he would have moved slower and taken less risks.

Any thoughts?

Answer 1

It is a reasonable hypothesis. Lee excelled at defensive strategy. His two offensive efforts did not go particularly well. Especially questionable was his go-ahead decision at Gettysburg for "Pickett's Charge." Conventional wisdom has it that Lee's failure at Gettysburg marked the beginning of the end for Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Personally, I think Lincoln's making Ulysses S. Grant commander of the Army of the Potomac was the real turning point.

Also of note: Lee was fortunate enough to have some superb tacticians under his command and was intelligent enough to give them due consideration. This was not usually the case in the Army of the Potomac where good advice was either not easily found, or else easily ignored.

*****

Good response from coach_pearce.

Answer 2

It's impossible to guess what decisions Lee would have had he been the Northern commander. But there are two important facts that need to be remembered about Lee.

1. When asked which officer was his best tactician during The Mexican War, General Winfield Scott said it was Lee.

2. Lincoln's first choice for Supreme Commander of Northern forces was Lee.

Sure sometimes his conditions forced him to be creative, but nobody before the Civil War doubted his genious, so what evidence do we have to do it now.

Answer 3

Lee believed in states rights over then that of the federal. Lee was up against a part of the country that had the industrial might and supplies to overwhelm the southern states. Lee was a great leader and planned attacks that he knew would cause the most damage. Though many will disagree, he was the father of "gorilla" warfare. Hit and run. The North was shocked when Lee went to the South to fight, and were worried of his knowledge and tactic. He fought with honor, and surrendered with the same.

Answer 4

Lee was a great commander. As you probably know from that book, Lee was torn between his homeland and his loyalty to America. President Lincoln even asked him to lead the Union into battle. Of course, he wouldn't have needed to be so bold if he had the upper hand, and he would have wanted to keep it. But that wouldn't have made him any less of a commander. He definately wouldn't have moved slower, but he probably would have taken less risks.

Answer 5

No ! Lee became a LT Colonel indoors the Union protection tension before he defected to alter into commander of the insurrection protection tension He became a graduate of West factor and fairly favourite as a Union officer.

Answer 6

Lee was the kind of man to make the most of his resources. If he'd had a better army, he would have used it to full potential. Lee was the kind of man who would do his level best at anything assigned to him. Why do you think he was chosen? It was pretty much known then and now that if ANYONE could have lead the south to victory with HONOR it would have been Lee.

Answer 7

If Lee were a northern commander, he would've faced syndney johnston, longstreet, jackson, beaugard..... some were competent while the other weren't I'd venture to say Lee still would've had to pull out daring strategy against the likes of Jackson and Longstreet....

Answer 8

Lee forgot what he was defending-- The South -- he had no business going into yankee territory -- especially Pennsylvania...looking for the fight. Should have waited for the fight to come his way... Patriots of the south would have been more vigarous in the fight now that the Yankees are on Virginia soil...