General Robert E Lee as a Union general?

While Lee was no wizard, he was far superior to anyone the Union Army employed to lead the Army of the Potomac, till Grant showed up.

A previous post mentioned Lee's agressiveness, and casualty rate.

It's true. Lee believed in agressive action. This was a liability while he was commander of the Army of Northern Virginia in the late part of the war. But had he been the commander of the Union Army in 1862, where he would've enjoyed something like a 2 to 1 advantage, his offensive spirit would have been usefull.

McClellan, in contrast was slow and cautious, and he was whipped by Lee on the Penninsula.

In my opinion, if Lee had run things, years of strife would have been avoided, lives saved, and for the time being, slavery preserved.

It's unknown what Lee would have done as a Union general. Lee's reputation was built on taking long odds and winning. But, one must remember that considering the Confederacy's material and manpower weaknesses, he HAD to take long chances to stand a remote chance of winning. Had he had the Union's advantages of manpower and material, he didn't have to take those chances, and therefore might not have taken them.

And upon analysis of his strategies, particularly from his taking command during the Seven Days Battles in 1862 through the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, Lee's victories were more the result of either timidness or incompetence on the part of his opponents. McClellan was a great organizer, but he always overestimated the enemy's strength. Pope was an idiot, and Burnside wasn't much better. And Hooker lost all his nerve at a critical point of the Battle of Chancellorsville. And these faults on the part of Union generals gave Lee his victories.

But Meade at Gettysburg was different. His strategy was by no means brilliant, but he was greatly determined. And Lee's luck, which had helped him in nearly every previous battle, left him, and at the end of the third day, Lee had lost the greatest battle fought in the western hemisphere.

Lee would have given the Union a legitimate leader from the start of the war, which would have helped considering the Union wasn't particularly effective at using their superior forces until Grant finally took over.

the civil war would have ended much quicker an less blood would have been shed. the union was losing till grant took over if a good general like lee was in from the beginning it would have ended really soon after the start

General Lee has been turned into a God of the Confederacy by those who do not understand that he defended a heritage of abuse and terror. There is nothing honorable about the man. And those who suppose there is are blind and ignorant fools.

Well, Robert E Lee was really over-rated, and the casualty percentage rates for troops involved were always higher for the south with him in charge.