# What if Robert E. Lee had accepted Lincoln's offer ??



## Milkman (Dec 19, 2009)

As we know Robert E. Lee was a career US Army officer and had served for over 30 years by 1861.

President Lincoln offered Colonel Lee full command of the Union Army. Lee declined and stayed loyal to his home state of Virginia which seceded shortly thereafter. Within a short period he was promoted to be the Commanding General of the Army of Northern Virginia.

What if Robert E. Lee had taken the offer and become the Commanding General of the US Army, how would that have changed the events of 1861 - 1865?  

Thoughts, ideas, theories ?????


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 19, 2009)

It is hard to say what the outcome would have been.  As for my opinion, I do not believe the outcome would have changed, as the confederacy was out manned and out gunned towards the end of the war. 

So if Lee had accepted Lincoln's offer, the Union Army would have had another war time genius running the show. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## westcobbdog (Dec 19, 2009)

my guess it would have gone from 61' to 63'.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 19, 2009)

My original thoughts on this are the same as your westcobb, but if Lee were with the Union a different CSA officer would have evolved to take command of the ANV.  

Perhaps Jackson ????  Jackson may have been even more aggressive as the Commanding General ?????

Perhaps Longstreet??????  more cautious and deliberate.... he may have lost less confederate soldiers in battle?????

How would Lee's federals have fared against either of these?


----------



## trckdrvr (Dec 19, 2009)

There were many Armies in the Confederate Army...as many as 20 diffrent Armies.
None of them fared much better than R.E Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia did after about '63/'64.

My opinion..the outcome would have been the same.


----------



## Resica (Dec 19, 2009)

Interesting. I don't think Stonewall had what it took to run an army. He would have been forced to be more flexible than he was. He  often told subordinates very little about his plans which could make a cohesive unit tough to come by.

    Longstreet performed well under Lee but performed poorly during his few stints in independent command.  
     Maybe Early or Beauregard, I don't know. Maybe John Gordon, Robert Rodes, of course they would have to have been later in the war, if it lasted that long.

   Had Lee taken command  of the Army of the Potomac I think  with that army's size and his audacity he may have crushed the Confederate Army in the east . As it was, he took many risks and seldom had reserves to throw in, was outnumbered nearly all the time and still whipped up on the Union Army. Can you imagine what he could of done with an army as large and well equipped as the Army of the Potomac? One wonders!


----------



## JustUs4All (Dec 20, 2009)

Resica said:


> Had Lee taken command  of the Army of the Potomac I think  with that army's size and his audacity he may have crushed the Confederate Army in the east . As it was, he took many risks and seldom had reserves to throw in, was outnumbered nearly all the time and still whipped up on the Union Army. Can you imagine what he could of done with an army as large and well equipped as the Army of the Potomac?



Probably.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 20, 2009)

Resica said:


> Interesting. I don't think Stonewall had what it took to run an army. He would have been forced to be more flexible than he was. He  often told subordinates very little about his plans which could make a cohesive unit tough to come by.
> 
> Longstreet performed well under Lee but performed poorly during his few stints in independent command.
> Maybe Early or Beauregard, I don't know. Maybe John Gordon, Robert Rodes, of course they would have to have been later in the war, if it lasted that long.
> ...



Very good points Gary, 

Assuming some early victories, I think Lee would have probably been given more "control" by the war dept/Lincoln and perhaps would have been extended more power than McLellan and his successors.
 Lee would have been an even more powerful leader for the Union than he was for the CSA...... IMO.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Dec 20, 2009)

Had Lee accepted Lincoln's offer, I believe that Joseph Johnston or Albert Sidney Johnston would have been offered command of the Confederate army. Joseph Johnston was the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Army to resign his commission and was politically well connected in Virginia through his brother and his nephew. Albert Sidney Johnston was a friend of Jefferson Davis and that alone may have been enough to warrant his command.

The Confederacy would have faired poorly under Joseph Johnston. Albert Sidney Johnston would have done better. Regardless, they both lacked the logistical ability of Lee and the War would have been much shorter under both of their commands. And, as mentioned above, they would have been fighting Lee, who would have run rings around the two of them.


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Dec 20, 2009)

I wouldn't assume that Lee would have been so successful with the US Army.

While it had advantages, it had a firmly embedded and entrenched officer corp that Lee would have had to deal with.  Even Lincoln was hampered by the inertia of his general staff.

There was an overlay of political favoritism and interference from the Congress and Cabinet  that Lee did not have to deal with (or as much).


----------



## rhbama3 (Dec 20, 2009)

One point i think you'd have to consider:
Lee's strategy as a northern commander would have been entirely different. A general with the benefit of both more men and better equipment would not direct his troops the same as one who knows he's outnumbered and needs a better plan.


----------



## Longstreet1 (Dec 20, 2009)

He should have listened to Longstreet more but thats just my opinon.


----------



## Resica (Dec 20, 2009)

rhbama3 said:


> One point i think you'd have to consider:
> Lee's strategy as a northern commander would have been entirely different. A general with the benefit of both more men and better equipment would not direct his troops the same as one who knows he's outnumbered and needs a better plan.



Having an aggressive attitude like he had would certainly help though.


----------



## Bayou Hunter (Dec 21, 2009)

Longstreet1 said:


> He should have listened to Longstreet more but thats just my opinon.



TO MY KNOWLEDGE; Longstreet wouldve done better with an outnumbered, outsupplied army, had he had all of the say so.  Ghettysburg wouldve never happened and he wouldve played the whole war safe and defensively instead of headin up to them; as Lee did, which inturn ran into a lot more than we could handle.  And you all know how things went downhill from Ghettysburg.  And good ole JEB had a lot of fault for Ghettysburg, leaving Lee and the south blind to that many union soldiers on top of them.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 21, 2009)

Bayou Hunter said:


> And good ole JEB had a lot of fault for Ghettysburg, leaving Lee and the south blind to that many union soldiers on top of them.



Stuart was probably somewhat negligent in his assigned task. Some say Lee's orders to Stuart on that mission were vague and non-distinct. 
 I have read that there were other cavalry units that could have been diverted to recon use in Stuarts abscense. One was with Ewell, one to the west of Cashtown, and another just south in Maryland. Either could have been re-assigned to ride out and see what is coming from Washington and points east. 
Not defending Stuart, just that I think he and Longstreet caught some un-neccesary flak from the armchair quarterbacks back home when they realized the ANV lost.

IMO, If the ANV had won at Gettysburg the supposed wrong doings of Longstreet and Stuart would have been downplayed or never published.


----------



## Bayou Hunter (Dec 21, 2009)

Milkman said:


> Stuart was probably somewhat negligent in his assigned task. Some say Lee's orders to Stuart on that mission were vague and non-distinct.
> I have read that there were other cavalry units that could have been diverted to recon use in Stuarts abscense. One was with Ewell, one to the west of Cashtown, and another just south in Maryland. Either could have been re-assigned to ride out and see what is coming from Washington and points east.
> Not defending Stuart, just that I think he and Longstreet caught some un-neccesary flak from the armchair quarterbacks back home when they realized the ANV lost.
> IMO, If the ANV had won at Gettysburg the supposed wrong doings of Longstreet and Stuart would have been downplayed or never published.



Yeah you're right.  Someone had to take the blame and you know they wouldnt pin any of it on Ole Bobby Lee.  I just feel like if Longstreet were in Lee's place, the south wouldve stayed south, thus keeping this from happening; at least at that time.  A defensive guerilla style warfare in the south was they're best hope.
That being said, no insult intended for Robert E. Lee; a great man.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 22, 2009)

ttt


----------



## Mako22 (Dec 22, 2009)

Robert E Lee fighting for the Yankees against Virginia!!! This thread is sick and should be closed!


----------



## SJGlenn (Dec 25, 2009)

*whoa*



Woodsman69 said:


> Robert E Lee fighting for the Yankees against Virginia!!! This thread is sick and should be closed!




I agree....this thread is too blasphemous...


----------



## Milkman (Dec 26, 2009)

Woodsman69 said:


> Robert E Lee fighting for the Yankees against Virginia!!! This thread is sick and should be closed!





SJGlenn said:


> I agree....this thread is too blasphemous...



Is the theory of Lee being a non-seccesionist that far fetched?  

 I say not, many Southerners were pro-union.


----------



## Mako22 (Dec 26, 2009)

Milkman said:


> I say not, many Southerners were pro-union.



pro union and traitors.


----------



## gamudslinger88 (Dec 26, 2009)

Milkman said:


> I say not, many Southerners were pro-union.



Many were anti union. Union is just that, Unifying the states under control of one federal goventment. By doing this the states give up there right to being individual states and become basicaly one state with local govenments overseeing the states affares. It also ment the feds had a power monopoly and could run the country. This makes the feds stronger than the states who were run by the people therefore we are in the situation we are today. Think about this, the word state means country in every language. In American English it also means the same but we look at it as a collection of countys. States are ment to run on there own without tyrant federal union governments controlling everything. Its the way the Christian America was made and ment to run. Alowing non Christians and anti Christians into our Christian country was a huge mistake, The only one bigger was alowing one to become president. Lets face it though our country was on a downward slide since the fall of the south and we was already screwed. 

To answer the OPs question I dont think it would have changed a thing. He didnt so lets thank God he fought for the right side! Its just unfortunate we didnt win. 

Sorry for the typos.......... my hands are COLD!!!


----------



## whitworth (Dec 26, 2009)

*All should get over it*

Robert E. Lee had great military experience.  He just did not have any great foresight.  The Confederacy lost in four years, and Lee for all his exploits, never controlled the whole state of Virginia for the Confederacy; let alone any other state.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 26, 2009)

Woodsman69 said:


> pro union and traitors.



Just for the sake of argument................ Before 1860 everyone in the South was Union, correct.  Lincoln's election in 1860 started the movement to secede from the Union and be independent states. 

 Is it reasonable to assume that every individual would agree with his/her state's government to pull out of the Union?

If they chose to remain loyal to the Union is that unreasonable?

Traitors.?????


----------



## Milkman (Dec 26, 2009)

whitworth said:


> Robert E. Lee had great military experience.  He just did not have any great foresight.  The Confederacy lost in four years, and Lee for all his exploits, never controlled the whole state of Virginia for the Confederacy; let alone any other state.



What do you mean by "control Virginia" ??


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Dec 27, 2009)

Interesting thread, while Longstreet would had been more cautious, it would not have won the war(meaning, gained independance from the union).  Both offensives were designed for political ramifications up north.  One to hopefully help anti-war congressional candidates, and the other to embolden anti-war democrats in '64 and hopefully get foriegn recognition.

The main question should be, what if Lee had command from the outset, after 1st manassas Lee would have followed up (at least I think he would have) and had there been a follow up, a political solution could have been reached.  The CSA never had a hope to win the war as folks think of it, and its goal was always to force a political solution, not destroy the northern armies, they knew that was impossible.

The south was always looking for a way to get the union to recognise the right of state's independance from the federal govt., not to destroy the federal govt.

The goals of the two sides had to be met by different means, the union had to destroy the CSA, the CSA had to influence elections in the union so the right to exist as a seperate nation could take place.  If the south would have won its independance, I do not think the seperation would have lasted very long, simply for economic reasons, there would have been another constitutional convention at some point, and the union would have been recreated. The CSA fought more of a "political war" whereas the union fought a "total war" the first one done amongst "civilized" folks, until then (for modern times...aka industrial times) the only total wars were fought against two totally different cultures, such as against the indians.


----------



## rongohio (Jan 3, 2010)

Milkman said:


> Is the theory of Lee being a non-seccesionist that far fetched?



Thought it might not be a bad idea to let the General speak for himself.  Here's a few quotes from Douglas Southall Freeman's 4-volume biography called "R. E. Lee":

January 22, 1861 (5 days after Georgia became the 5th state to secede): _"I wish to live under no other government, and there is no sacrifice I am not ready to make for the preservation of the Union save that of honour.  If a disruption takes place, I shall go back in sorrow to my people and share the misery of my native state, and save in her defence there will be one soldier less in the world than now."
_
April 18, 1861 (after being offered the command of the Union Army by Lincoln's adviser): _"I declined the offer he made me to take command of an army that was to be brought into the field, stating as candidly and courteously as I could, that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, I could take no part in an invasion of the Southern States."_

April 19, 1861 (immediately after learning that Virginia had seceded): _"I must say that I am one of those dull creatures that cannot see the good of secession."_

April 20, 1861 (in a letter to Simon Cameron, U.S. Secretary of War): _"I have the honor to tender the resignation of my commission..."_

OK, so here's my 2 cents worth (you can stop reading here if you don't want to hear the opinion of a California-born Ohioan who hopes to retire in Virginia someday).  Lee would never have taken up arms against his beloved Virginia, and it seems he had no desire to fight against any other state, South or North, except in defense of Virginia.  The only way he could have led a Union army was if Virginia stayed in the Union and was invaded by the Confederacy.  If that would have happened, I think the war would have been over in months.


----------



## Milkman (Jan 3, 2010)

rongohio said:


> Thought it might not be a bad idea to let the General speak for himself.  Here's a few quotes from Douglas Southall Freeman's 4-volume biography called "R. E. Lee":
> 
> January 22, 1861 (5 days after Georgia became the 5th state to secede): _"I wish to live under no other government, and there is no sacrifice I am not ready to make for the preservation of the Union save that of honour.  If a disruption takes place, I shall go back in sorrow to my people and share the misery of my native state, and save in her defence there will be one soldier less in the world than now."
> _
> ...




Ron,
Thanks for the input and quotes from Lee, I had read these before. As I stated in post #24 above,Many sensible Southerners were not in support of secession.

 Not that they agreed with all the ideas and theories coming out of Washington city, but seceding from the Union may have been extreme for some of them, including Colonel Lee.


----------



## rongohio (Jan 20, 2010)

Here's another question to ponder, since the topic of Gettysburg has come up a couple times in this thread: when Lee invaded Pennsylvania in 1863, was it for the good of Virginia or the Confederacy?  (or both, or neither?)

(At the time that Lee set out for PA, the town of Vicksburg, Mississippi was under seige by U.S. Grant.  If Vicksburg fell, so would the Mississippi River, and the Confederacy would be cut in two.  President Davis asked Lee to go to the aid of Vicksburg, but Lee talked him out of it and instead started out on the road that would end at Gettysburg.)


----------



## Rednec (Jan 20, 2010)

rongohio said:


> Here's another question to ponder, since the topic of Gettysburg has come up a couple times in this thread: when Lee invaded Pennsylvania in 1863, was it for the good of Virginia or the Confederacy?  (or both, or neither?)
> 
> (At the time that Lee set out for PA, the town of Vicksburg, Mississippi was under seige by U.S. Grant.  If Vicksburg fell, so would the Mississippi River, and the Confederacy would be cut in two.  President Davis asked Lee to go to the aid of Vicksburg, but Lee talked him out of it and instead started out on the road that would end at Gettysburg.)




Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania was a strategic decision intended to outmaneuver and outfight the Yankee Army in Yankee country for the purpose of quickly ending the war by capturing Washington City from behind, to force a Yankee surrender and make them sign a peace treaty and recognize Confederate independence.  Lee must have convinced Davis that time was on the Yankees' side, that the Confederates could not win a war of attrition with diminishing resources and a smaller army.  It is true that the invasion would probably draw the Army of the Potomac away from their campaign to Richmond, but that was not the primary purpose, just an added benefit.

While Davis was justified in his concern for Vicksburg and the additional difficulties that a Confederacy cut in two would suffer, sending Lee to save Vicksburg would likely have precipitated the Yankee capture of Richmond before Lee could even arrive at Vicksburg.  The prospects of stopping the Yankees' marches across Dixie while trying to re-establish a seat for the Confederate government somewhere in the interior would be mighty grim.  A resulting war of attrition without a secure capital meant certain defeat.

The strategic and moral lesson of the war, IMHO, is that a defensive war cannot be won against an invader with vastly superior resources.  Had the Confederates continued pursuit of the Yankee Army as it retreated from First Manassas to Washington - and captured Washington when they could - Confederate States independence would likely have been sustained.


----------



## whitworth (Jan 20, 2010)

*Remember Lee lost*

History was always kind to the best confederate general it had.  The confederacy lost; winners can be kind to the loser; especially if he stays in country, he has to be an American.  

As great as Lee is portrayed, he spent thirty years collecting checks from the U.S. government; resigned; took an insurrection position and seceded; lost in battle in four years.   

What good you can say, Lee still lost.   Lee didn't anticipate losing.  He couldn't have been perfect.


----------



## Rednec (Jan 21, 2010)

Yes, he worked for uncle for 30yrs then went solo. He took side of the constitution, is was not an insurrection...but a right...

Arguably the most honorable man to walk within our borders. History is not kind to the losers, the north writes it,,thats why the South is still looked upon negatively today. South writes the songs.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jan 21, 2010)

The South lost the War as soon as the North decided to fight to stop the dissolution of the union.  With the disparity in resources, the only military hope the South had was that foreign powers would engage with them as they did during the Revolution.  Since that did not happen, which Southern general was in charge where was ultimately of little importance.


----------



## alphachief (Jan 21, 2010)

The North would have won quickly and easily.  The only reason the war lasted as long as it did was because Lee got so much out of the army and limited resources he had to work with and the Union forces stumbled along under terrible leadership until Grant took over.  Lee was actually in favor of ending slavery and transporting the slaves back to Africa.

By the way...my Grandmother gave me this bronze of Lee when I was 8 years old (1968).  I've displayed in prominenantly in every office I've every occupied throughout my career.  In my house...we celebrate January 19th...not the 18th.


----------



## rongohio (Jan 21, 2010)

alphachief said:


> By the way...my Grandmother gave me this bronze of Lee when I was 8 years old (1968).  I've displayed in prominenantly in every office I've every occupied throughout my career.



Great heirloom!  Worth treasuring


----------



## coyotebgone (Jul 5, 2010)

With the state of the country.  We may all wish he was more successful. 

My two cents


----------



## gin house (Jul 6, 2010)

i may be wrong but i agree Lee was probably the best commander the south could have had but what i think was as important and kept the south in the war as long as it did was its people.  the south was battle tested, who beat the brittish and made this a free country????  that was less than 100 years before the civil war.   war stratagies, plans, bla, bla, bla ....when it came down to it fighting was all that mattered, outnumbered, outgunned,  underdog from the get go....i think southerners were all together a tougher and more determined people...JMO


----------



## Resica (Jul 6, 2010)

gin house said:


> i may be wrong but i agree Lee was probably the best commander the south could have had but what i think was as important and kept the south in the war as long as it did was its people.  the south was battle tested, who beat the brittish and made this a free country????  that was less than 100 years before the civil war.   war stratagies, plans, bla, bla, bla ....when it came down to it fighting was all that mattered, outnumbered, outgunned,  underdog from the get go....i think southerners were all together a tougher and more determined people...JMO


Plus you didn't have to win, you just had to tie.


----------



## gin house (Jul 7, 2010)

Resica said:


> Plus you didn't have to win, you just had to tie.



 not quite following you resica?


----------



## Resica (Jul 7, 2010)

gin house said:


> not quite following you resica?



You're right. After re-reading what you wrote, my follow up doesn't really make much sense. 

What I was referring to was that the south didn't need to conquer and hold territory outside of their own, while the north had to destroy the south. The south  just needed to hold out until the voters in the north said enough, which never happened.


----------



## gin house (Jul 7, 2010)

Resica said:


> You're right. After re-reading what you wrote, my follow up doesn't really make much sense.
> 
> What I was referring to was that the south didn't need to conquer and hold territory outside of their own, while the north had to destroy the south. The south  just needed to hold out until the voters in the north said enough, which never happened.



 i gotcha now, x2 on that


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 8, 2010)

RoosterTodd said:


> Had Lee accepted Lincoln's offer, I believe that Joseph Johnston or Albert Sidney Johnston would have been offered command of the Confederate army. Joseph Johnston was the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Army to resign his commission and was politically well connected in Virginia through his brother and his nephew. Albert Sidney Johnston was a friend of Jefferson Davis and that alone may have been enough to warrant his command.
> 
> The Confederacy would have faired poorly under Joseph Johnston. Albert Sidney Johnston would have done better. Regardless, they both lacked the logistical ability of Lee and the War would have been much shorter under both of their commands. And, as mentioned above, they would have been fighting Lee, who would have run rings around the two of them.



You pretty well gave my answer.  I've read that AS Johnston's death at Shiloh was one of the most significant moments of the war.  Had he survived, more resources and men ultimately would have to have been sent west which would have evened the odds in the east a little more.  It was an interesting article, but I think the outcome would have been the same, just delayed a little.

Point is, if he was that good, he probably would have been in command eventually.  But Joe Johnston might have been in Lee's place in the first place, given his seniority and clout.


----------



## Milkman (Jul 8, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> You pretty well gave my answer.  I've read that AS Johnston's death at Shiloh was one of the most significant moments of the war.  Had he survived, more resources and men ultimately would have to have been sent west which would have evened the odds in the east a little more.  It was an interesting article, but I think the outcome would have been the same, just delayed a little.
> 
> Point is, if he was that good, he probably would have been in command eventually.  But Joe Johnston might have been in Lee's place in the first place, given his seniority and clout.



I think Joseph Johnston was in command of the Confederate Army of the Potomac (later named ANV) prior to RE Lee. Lee inherited it when Johnston was injured.  It was then that Lee's genious began to show IMO.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jul 8, 2010)

I kinda think he would have succeeded where McClellan failed.  War might not have made it out of 1862.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 14, 2010)

I was going earlier...PGTB


----------



## Outdooradman (Aug 9, 2010)

*R.E. Lee as the Union General / Commanding Officer*

The Civil War would not have gone far beyond first blood...

The South had a passion to show their commitment to the conflict at First Bull Run. Union at the time was full of over confidence & ego to say nothing of inept leadership ... Lee as a Union commander would have cut through all of this fog and altered the flow of events. 

The presence of a civilian audience at First Bull Run was nothing but incentive for the Army of the Confederacy to add insult to the Union's injury. I doubt Lee would have allowed the civilian audience to participate - if need be he would have forced the Confederates to a battle site location away from a civilian audience and the disgrace that the Union suffered. 

A wild card at Bull Run was that MANY of the Union soldiers were actually beyond their enlistment period. Lee would have weighed his strengths and weakness - and handled this very imortant first battle differently. 

My guess - one year from initial hostilities the war would have ended... the series of early Southern victories would have been significantly derailed. 

Lee's big mistake was of course Gettysburg. A result of some of the same kind arrogance that plagued the Union in at First Bull Run...his risky miscalculation with Picketts Charge which was the final poker hand - Lee was arrogant and his Jeb Stuart was off on an ego trip and out of touch with his Army as well as his duty to be the eyes of Lee's efforts. Longstreet guessed that Picketts charge was suicide & Jeb Stuart should have been the one to advise of the STRONG Northern presence at the very point of Picketts charge that Lee believed to be the weak point of their lines.

The valiant Southern cause went down in one swift afternoon of battle. It had been a long and tiring war and Lee was rolling high stakes. 

I beliver Lincoln would have been easily re-elected if Lee had command of the North- that is if Lee did not run himself - PLUS I feel the South would never have been devastated by Sherman after so many years of the conflicts duration.

Wars work best when won quickly. 

My thoughts and best guess.


----------



## reylamb (Aug 10, 2010)

My thoughts?

The war would have ended much quicker.

Sherman would have never marched to the sea.

Lee, and not Grant, would have been the 18th President.


----------



## Milkman (Aug 10, 2010)

reylamb said:


> My thoughts?
> Lee, and not Grant, would have been the 18th President.


Good points but I differ on the Presidential scenario. Lee was very much a man of honor. Based on his reluctance to be in the public eye after the war I dont think he would have run for public office.

Example,
If I remember correctly there was a large insurance company that offered Gen Lee a position with a huge salary just so he could be their spokesperson and use his name for the company. He refused the offer, saying he must _earn_ any compensation given him.
 Instead he took the job as president of Washington college and wouldnt even allow them to pay him the salary they wanted to.
 He refused to allow the college directors to even build a house for him. But they did so anyway. He was living in that house when he died.


----------



## Milkman (Aug 10, 2010)

Outdooradman said:


> The Civil War would not have gone far beyond first blood...
> 
> The South had a passion to show their commitment to the conflict at First Bull Run. Union at the time was full of over confidence & ego to say nothing of inept leadership ... Lee as a Union commander would have cut through all of this fog and altered the flow of events.
> 
> ...



Very good points, 
I think if Jackson had survived to be at Gettysburg he would have been able to sway General Lee into a flanking attack instead of the center attack.
 Longstreet was not able to convince Lee of this.


----------

