Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if Lee had accepted command of federal forces?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Shek View Post
    Holy sh!t . . . this alternate history is starting to get wierd. McDowell vs. Giap?
    I started to bite on that but decided against it....nice shooting, though!

    I agree Malvern Hill was badly fought, but having read a few of the reports on both sides I'm keeping an open mind as to who and what was to blame.


    I've read enough and walked the ground enough times....I'm sold!


    Richmond does seem a poor choice for the capitol. But back in those days the distance from Washington to Richmond must have seemed farther than it does today: 5 days march versus a 1 1/2 hr drive. Also, before transcontinental railroads the eastern half of the US economic sphere ended at Virginia's border.

    Richmond was selected for political reasons. It was seen as a way to reinforce Virginia's late entry into the Confederacy; remember, there were those rambunctious western counties that were to soon go their own way. It was also a way to make sure Virginia was all in and stayed all in.

    But as for distance? In 1861 the 135 miles was operational depth...it was not strategic depth. A 5 day march ws not considered a great distance in the day. It sat on a river navigable all of the way to the ocean. Richmond stood for as long as it did more from incompetency rather than from any great strategic play on the part of the Confederacy.

    The Confederate capitol should have been no farher north than Raleigh and not too close to the Eastern seaboard.

    As has been suggested, from a strategic perspective, Atlanta made more sense.
    Last edited by Albany Rifles; 08 Dec 11,, 15:19.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
      I started to bite on that but decided against it....nice shooting, though!
      Snickering at the poor fella who just doesn't get it, are we.

      I agree Malvern Hill was badly fought, but having read a few of the reports on both sides I'm keeping an open mind as to who and what was to blame.

      I've read enough and walked the ground enough times....I'm sold!
      That's how I'd like to come to an opinion, not that I reject your assessment.


      Richmond does seem a poor choice for the capitol. But back in those days the distance from Washington to Richmond must have seemed farther than it does today: 5 days march versus a 1 1/2 hr drive. Also, before transcontinental railroads the eastern half of the US economic sphere ended at Virginia's border.

      Richmond was selected for political reasons. It was seen as a way to reinforce Virginia's late entry into the Confederacy; remember, there were those rambunctious western counties that were to soon go their own way. It was also a way to make sure Virginia was all in and stayed all in.
      I understand that it was political. I was just throwing in some thoughts on why they didn't think it was particularly vulnerable.

      But as for distance? In 1861 the 135 miles was operational depth...it was not strategic depth. A 5 day march ws not considered a great distance in the day. It sat on a river navigable all of the way to the ocean. Richmond stood for as long as it did more from incompetency rather than from any great strategic play on the part of the Confederacy.
      Operational vs strategic depth, excellent point, though I admit to not being greatly familiar with those concepts as they applied at the time. I wonder if they thought the river to the sea was a positive rather than a negative, since water transport was more important in the day. In any case, it does seem an odd location for the capitol. Hubris maybe.

      The Confederate capitol should have been no farther north than Raleigh and not too close to the Eastern seaboard.
      That was my next question.

      As has been suggested, from a strategic perspective, Atlanta made more sense.
      Was it ever under serious consideration at the time? This old booster editorial cites a number of perceived advantages Richmond offered, but strategic location is never mentioned. Richmond Dispatch, 5/11/1861

      Regarding the original topic, I never expected there to be any winners and losers among us. Starting in 1861 and putting Lee in command of Union forces, the hypothetical exercise had to begin with eliminating some of what we know actually happened, namely the slate of commanders who actually commanded the Union army from McDowell onward. Then we had to look at Lee's abilities and thinking re war fighting. To do this we had to look ahead in real time at Lee's actual record as a CSA commander in various battles and then judge how that might have affected his performance had he been instead the Union commander. That led to several necessary and unnecessary diversions from the topic. Bottom line, we will never know. But as to the what-if topic, I think his qualities make him a better commander than McDowell and probably McClellan and certainly better than Hooker, Pope and Burnside. As for Grant and Meade, in 1861 they had not yet appeared on the radar of the powers to be.

      Anyway, an interesting topic and I learned a lot from it. What's next?
      Last edited by JAD_333; 08 Dec 11,, 17:30.
      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by astralis View Post
        JAD,



        the South was fighting an insurgency-- the North had fairly limited political will. the South merely had to hang on-- the North had to comprehensively beat the South.
        Maybe it doesn't affect your point, but it was not an insurgency in the sense we use the word today.

        "Where a revolt takes the form of armed rebellion, it may not be viewed as an insurgency if a state of belligerency exists between one or more sovereign states and rebel forces. For example, during the American Civil War, the Confederate States of America was not recognized as a sovereign state, but it was recognized as a belligerent power, and thus Confederate warships were given the same rights as United States warships in foreign ports.[4][5][6]"

        "Hall, Kermit L. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions, Oxford University Press US, 2001 ISBN 0-19-513924-0, 9780195139242 p. 246 "In supporting Lincoln on this issue, the Supreme Court upheld his theory of the Civil War as an insurrection against the United States government that could be suppressed according to the rules of war. In this way the United States was able to fight the war as if it were an international war, without actually having to recognize the de jure existence of the Confederate government.""



        ... battles such as Chancellorsville can be seen as tactical, even operational victories for the South-- but strategically, losses.
        If the strategy is to defeat the north and subjugate it, you are right. But the strategy was to break the will of the North to continue the war and force it to recognize the CSA. In that context, Lee's actions do conform to a strategy.
        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

        Comment


        • #49
          Anyway, an interesting topic and I learned a lot from it. What's next?

          I am not sure...but I sure have swept out some cobwebs.

          Give me some time to think....but I would bet it won't be the hypothetical kind of topic.

          What I am intrigued about now is the current interpretation of Civil War symbols and their cooption.

          I am forming a thread...let me mull on it.
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #50
            My uncle owned a hard scrabble farm back in the hills near Hancock, Md. It had an authentic log home and log barn. We'd go out everyday during the summer--I was 13 at the time--to clear pines and saplings from the fields. One day, I was poking around in some woods and came across a little cemetery, 5-6 graves, one had a cast iron cross like the one in the picture below. It's probably still there.



            Not far from there my buddy and I found the badly rusted hilt of a broken sabre. I'd put the exact location at 8 miles northeast of Clear Spring.

            By the way, a client of mine in Middletown showed me a 5lb coffee can full of stuff his father found when he used to plow the fields where the Battle of Cedar Creek was fought. Mostly bullets, but some pieces of shot, buckles, buttons and even a piece of bone.
            Attached Files
            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

            Comment


            • #51
              Robert E. Lee owned slaves, but felt guilty about it. He opposed secession. President Lincoln offered Lee command of the Union Army. Lee thought about it for a day, so it was a real possibility. Finally he decided that his loyalty to Virginia was stronger than his loyalty to the United States.

              With Lee in charge of the Union Army the Civil War would have ended much sooner with a Union victory. Indeed, it would have ended so soon that the Emancipation Proclamation would never have been issued. During the campaign of 1860, and earlier Lincoln made it clear that he was not in favor of freeing the slaves in states where slavery was legal. He ran against what he called "a second Dred Scott Decision." This would have been a decision by the Supreme Court finding laws against slavery in the free states to be unconstitutional. In addition, Lincoln was opposed to allowing slavery to spread to the territories.

              In 1860 abolition was not popular in the North. Most Northerners who opposed slavery in their states and in the territories opposed the spread of slavery because they did not want more Negroes in their states and in the territories. For the same reason they favored the perpetuation of slavery in the South. If slavery was outlawed many ex slaves would more north and compete with whites for factory jobs.

              With an early Union victory a chastened South would return to the United States with its "peculiar institution" intact. Slavery would have continued indefinitely into the future.

              Comment


              • #52
                So Mandala, what leads you to that conclusion?

                Lee blew it at Malvern Hill. His army was savaged at Sharpsburg, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. His greatest successes came from the actions of aggressive subordinates. Historians fault him for his failure to properly consider logistics. He overly favored Virginians and would not discipline subordinates who erred.

                So why would be have had victory sooner?
                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                Mark Twain

                Comment


                • #53
                  He also had a nasty habit of dividing his forces risking destruction in detail.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                    So Mandala, what leads you to that conclusion?

                    Lee blew it at Malvern Hill. His army was savaged at Sharpsburg, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. His greatest successes came from the actions of aggressive subordinates. Historians fault him for his failure to properly consider logistics. He overly favored Virginians and would not discipline subordinates who erred.

                    So why would be have had victory sooner?
                    The Confederacy would have been denied a great general. The Union would have gained one.

                    Although his judgement failed him at Gettysburg Lee liked to fight defensively in an era when weapons favored defense.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      also,

                      politically speaking

                      With an early Union victory a chastened South would return to the United States with its "peculiar institution" intact. Slavery would have continued indefinitely into the future.
                      this wasn't going to happen. even if the war ended in 1861 with a complete confederate collapse at Bulls Run, re-unification would have meant compensated manumission. after the gore of 1862 there was no more talk of compensation.

                      by 1864 it was clear that the south was going to get the torch, which sherman did with a vengeance.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Mandala View Post
                        The Confederacy would have been denied a great general. The Union would have gained one.

                        Although his judgement failed him at Gettysburg Lee liked to fight defensively in an era when weapons favored defense.
                        Stop. Just stop. Grant and Sherman were manuver Generals who put Napolean to shame.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          Stop. Just stop. Grant and Sherman were manuver Generals who put Napolean to shame.
                          Grant attacked heavily fortified positions and took heavier casualties than he needed to.

                          I am not saying that Grant should not have been a general. My point is that Lee was a great general. Denying him to the Confederacy and giving him to the Union would have helped the Union and shortened the War.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Mandala View Post
                            Grant attacked heavily fortified positions and took heavier casualties than he needed to.

                            I am not saying that Grant should not have been a general. My point is that Lee was a great general. Denying him to the Confederacy and giving him to the Union would have helped the Union and shortened the War.
                            So you're telling me that Lee would have made mince meat of Longstreet and Stuart.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              mandala,

                              Although his judgement failed him at Gettysburg Lee liked to fight defensively in an era when weapons favored defense.
                              this is just patently wrong.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Mandala View Post
                                With Lee in charge of the Union Army the Civil War would have ended much sooner with a Union victory.
                                Can't it be tested. You ought to know better than to create a fact from speculation.

                                The rest of your post is in the same mold.

                                Except...

                                With an early Union victory a chastened South would return to the United States with its "peculiar institution" intact. Slavery would have continued indefinitely into the future.
                                A reasonable view. Saving the Union was Lincoln's initial goal, not freeing the slaves.
                                To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X