Lee and Thomas were both Virginians, and close friends.
Lee was nine years older than Thomas.
When the time came, Lee chose his state while Thomas chose his nation.
Today Lee is idolized beyond his merit, while Thomas' sterling record is usually ignored.
But I think it insults Thomas to say he was merely the Union's equivalent of Confederate General Longstreet.
Thomas was better than Longstreet.
Both Thomas and Lee died in 1870.
RFEngineer: "But if your hypothetical includes Lee turning against Virginia, it’s among the most far-fetched of fantasies."
But the fact is that Lee, like Thomas, had a choice, and had he chosen differently results could well have been a shorter war with far fewer Virginians killed.
So, as I said: Lee chose poorly.
“But the fact is that Lee, like Thomas, had a choice, and had he chosen differently results could well have been a shorter war with far fewer Virginians killed.”
You do not understand Lee. He had no choice but to support Virginia.
“Today Lee is idolized beyond his merit”
His fellow Virginians didn’t agree with you then, and don’t now.
Your problem in understanding Lee is that you place modern standards on 19th century men. You do not discern that a man like Lee could be place loyalty to Virginia above “United States” which by definition had become dis-united.
The modern version of the United States did not exist then.
In fact, the 10th Amendment’s unconstitutional decline was expressly part of the resolution of the Civil War - and his has been degraded ever since then.
In Lee’s time, loyalty to ones state was not unusual. You do not seem to understand that - and that’s the same mistake others make when they make outrageous claims about Lee.
Your position on “Lee’s choice” is absurd. Men died for their state with honor then.
According to your approach, in a couple hundred years we’ll be seen as traitorous scum because if we did not heartily embrace a “United Nations” as our guiding light. Think that couldn’t happen?