General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: to all those who mix in Lee with Jefferson and Washington. [View all]GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Grant was not offered the job as head of the Union Army until 1864, being the 4th man to hold the position. So while your comment is not inaccurate because in fact Grant got the job at some point in time after Lee turned it down, it is also somewhat deceptive as your wording suggests Grant was the 2nd choice. Rest assured I am not accusing you of intentional deception. Just stating how your comment read to me.
Had Lee taken the job, he would probably be remembered as a failed Union General as the logistics of the early war year did not favor the north in their attempted invasion of Virginia. There is little doubt(in my mind) that if Lee were leading the Army of the Potomac against the Army of Northern Virginia commanded by some of the other capable confederate generals he would have met McClellan's fate. Lee tended to be somewhat ponderous on the attack as did McClellan and the armies of the day. And that war flat out favored the defense. Unless your name was Stonewall Jackson. He was one of the few visionary generals of the war. Unfortunately, he was a traitor. And fortunately he died early enough in the war as to not tip the result in the South's favor. Because a General like him at Gettysburg could have changed the outcome.
But had Lee taken the position, he would now be remembered as a patriot, not a traitor.
Anyway, I am not making any political point here at all, just a fan of history. I always wonder if the events were taught as earth shattering and history changing really were.
Have a nice evening.