General Lee stays with Union

[RickJay]

@AK84

I think if he is in the West, he would have promoted Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, plus Thomas very quickly. He would have also sacked McClernand much earlier than Grant did, and possibly Rosecrans.

I’m not sure Lee could have promoted the good ones and fired bozos like McClernand any faster than actually happened, at least beyond the point that Grant was in charge of Western operations. There was a great deal of politics in giving our generalships, to an extent that by today’s standards would be inconceivably unprofessional. Jacksonian democracy was still a prevailing concept in American political life, and appointing a politician like McClernand to a generalship was just an expected part of that. Grant really, really, really wanted to fire McClernand, but it wasn’t politically possible until later in the war when

A) McClernand gave him a technical reason to, and
B) The sheer size of the Union Army and the bleak reality of massive war was such that people were more accepting of making decisions based on the professional needs of an army.

[John_Bredin]

@Colibri

This makes no sense. If Lee decided to stay with the Union, he’s going to ensure DC is defended. Lee above all was honorable. There’s no way he would have agreed to serve the Union and then subvert it.

This leads me to a tangential question: are there any known instances of Southern officers (army or navy) staying in the Union forces post-secession but then betraying the Union at a critical moment in battle? (Or the opposite: a pre-secession officer who joined the Confederate forces but then betrayed the Confederacy at a key moment in battle.) My guess would be no, but it’s certainly not impossible.

No McClellan jokes, please.