AHC and WI: McClellan Wins in 1864

With no PoDs prior to said year, how could George McClellan and the Peace Democrats have emerged victorious in 1864? Bonus points if McClellan's acceptance speech at the DNC supports the peace platform (as it was initially going to, before Atlanta).

With McClellan elected on this platform, how would the war progress? Would the CSA get their negotiated peace? Or would the Union fight on? And if that latter, how much damage is done to their cause by these events?

Have a string of Confederate victories. Specifically, Atlanta can't fall, but to ensure a McClellan victory, make it worse even than that.

Also,convince the Fremont to keep up his Radical Republican ticket, to split the vote.

a negotiated peace would only happen if the confederates won the decisive victory they never achieved otl

AdmiralBlake said:

a negotiated peace would only happen if the confederates won the decisive victory they never achieved otl

Click to expand...

Just to be clear about the Peace Platform: it was to "demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the states, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Unnion". As James McPherson put it, this "put peace first, and Union a distant second". McClellan himself had been calling for such a convention in the days prior to the convention, but reversed his position in the aftermath of Atlanta.

Perhaps if Longstreet is not wounded, and Grant is killed or severely wounded at the battle of the Wilderness and the ANV has a major victory. Combined with a continued stalemate in Georgia might do the trick. There was considerable war weariness in the North and the knock-on effects might strengthen the Peace Democrats enough to wim

Claudius said:

Perhaps if Longstreet is not wounded, and Grant is killed or severely wounded at the battle of the Wilderness and the ANV has a major victory. Combined with a continued stalemate in Georgia might do the trick. There was considerable war weariness in the North and the knock-on effects might strengthen the Peace Democrats enough to wim

Click to expand...

No PoDs before as stated by the OP.

Dirk_Pitt said:

No PoDs before as stated by the OP.

Click to expand...

Before 1864-the Battle of the Wilderness was in that year, and it was then that Longstreet was wounded and when he proposes Grant gets seriously wounded. Anything after January 1st 1864 is fair game according to the OP.

Perhaps if Longstreet is not wounded, and Grant is killed or severely wounded at the battle of the Wilderness and the ANV has a major victory. Combined with a continued stalemate in Georgia might do the trick. There was considerable war weariness in the North and the knock-on effects might strengthen the Peace Democrats enough to wim

John Fredrick Parker said:

That seems to work; any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Well to just make sure Lincoln goes down, have Fremont run as a Radical after the military failings. It'll be like 1912 50 years ahead of schedule and while the Civil War is ongoing.

Claudius said:

Perhaps if Longstreet is not wounded, and Grant is killed or severely wounded at the battle of the Wilderness and the ANV has a major victory. Combined with a continued stalemate in Georgia might do the trick. There was considerable war weariness in the North and the knock-on effects might strengthen the Peace Democrats enough to wim

Click to expand...

jpj1421 said:

Well to just make sure Lincoln goes down, have Fremont run as a Radical after the military failings. It'll be like 1912 50 years ahead of schedule and while the Civil War is ongoing.

Click to expand...

OK, we've got something going here; let's go then with a PoD of May 6, 1864, where Longstreet isn't gravely injured. Now, while it's plausible enough, I'd rather not injure or kill Grant. That said, there's still plenty of time for butterflies to hinder Sherman's campaign and aiding Fremont's campaign (both of which begin said month).

Does anyone want to add to the election period of TTL? Also, now that we've gotten started on causes, I'm curious about effects -- if McClellan and the Peace Democrats come to power, what are the Union's prospects?

Claudius said:

Perhaps if Longstreet is not wounded, and Grant is killed or severely wounded at the battle of the Wilderness and the ANV has a major victory. Combined with a continued stalemate in Georgia might do the trick. There was considerable war weariness in the North and the knock-on effects might strengthen the Peace Democrats enough to wim

Click to expand...

Another plausible POD from the Wilderness is having Jubal Early allowing John Gordon to launch his attack on the Union right flank earlier in the day. IOTL, the attack was a success, smashing the Union flank and taking hundreds of prisoners, but darkness prevented a full exploitation. If it had been launched at the same time as the Confederate counter attack on the Union left flank, the results might have been devastating for the Army of the Potomac.

Of course, as everyone knows, my favorite POD is Johnston remaining in command of the Army of Tennessee and winning a decisive victory over Sherman.

John Fredrick Parker said:

Does anyone want to add to the election period of TTL? Also, now that we've gotten started on causes, I'm curious about effects -- if McClellan and the Peace Democrats come to power, what are the Union's prospects?

Click to expand...

If McClellan wins, it's very likely that a cease-fire will go into effect. You hear lots of people say that since McClellan was a War Democrat who repudiated the peace plank of the Democratic platform, he would have gone on with the war. But this ignores many salient facts. First of all, McClellan only repudiated the peace plank AFTER Atlanta had fallen. Before that, he had kept his options open. Meanwhile, he was telling several of his high-placed Democratic friends that he would implement an armistice if he came into the White House.

It's also worth noting that McClellan's first overt political act had been the endorsement of George Woodward, a pro-peace Copperhead, for governor of Pennsylvania in 1863.

As Albert Castel in his monumental history of the Atlanta Campaign, Republicans might have quit the war effort in large numbers in the event of a McClellan electoral victory. Since he would have no longer been committed to the abolition of slavery as a condition of peace, even IF he had continued the war, many Republicans would no longer have seen the war as worth fighting. What use would be the restoration of the Union if slavery were to be allowed to continue?

I don't think I exaggerate when I assert that the 1864 election has more AH potential than any other American presidential election, with the possible exception of 1912.

Anaxagoras said:

Another plausible POD from the Wilderness is having Jubal Early allowing John Gordon to launch his attack on the Union right flank earlier in the day. IOTL, the attack was a success, smashing the Union flank and taking hundreds of prisoners, but darkness prevented a full exploitation. If it had been launched at the same time as the Confederate counter attack on the Union left flank, the results might have been devastating for the Army of the Potomac.

Of course, as everyone knows, my favorite POD is Johnston remaining in command of the Army of Tennessee and winning a decisive victory over Sherman.

Click to expand...

Either POD (or better, both) would serve. A convincing ANV victory over the AOP is very much needed for this to work. Perhaps Davis, seeing Grant and Meade in retreat and Richmond less threatened might generate a butterfly keeping Johnston in place.

Anaxagoras said:

I don't think I exaggerate when I assert that the 1864 election has more AH potential than any other American presidential election, with the possible exception of 1912.

Click to expand...

I think I agree with you there.

Claudius said:

Either POD (or better, both) would serve. A convincing ANV victory over the AOP is very much needed for this to work. Perhaps Davis, seeing Grant and Meade in retreat and Richmond less threatened might generate a butterfly keeping Johnston in place.

Click to expand...

So a late August PoD, for example, wouldn't work?

John Fredrick Parker said:

So a late August PoD, for example, wouldn't work?

Click to expand...

Sure, around Atlanta. Since Sherman's move to the south of the city succeeded so well, and since Hood had demonstrated an inability to win battles the previous month, we often forget how risky a move it was for Sherman. In fact, due to expired enlistments of Union regiments, the Army of Tennessee was actually stronger vis-à-vis its Union counterparts in August than it had been in July. A successfully pitch into Sherman's left flank would have put Sherman in a very uncomfortable position.

Incidentally, those enlistments couldn't have been butterflied away in the month or so leading up to late August. One wonders how a much stronger and less demoralized Army of Tennessee under Joe Johnston would have fared by the time Sherman's army had shrunk from 100,000 to 80-85,000.

If Atlanta doesn't fall, Lincoln doesn't win.

Anaxagoras said:

If Atlanta doesn't fall, Lincoln doesn't win.

Click to expand...

That's an impressive claim; you mean "doesn't fall before the Election" or "falls after McClellan's acceptance speech"? Because the latter would mean McClellan runs as a Peace Democrat, though I doubt it would be enough by itself to prevent Lincoln's re-election. If it is the former, than what is the latest PoD to make that happen?

Claudius said:

A convincing ANV victory over the AOP is very much needed for this to work.

Click to expand...

No, what happened IOTL is just fine. The Northern public believed that Grant's campaign against Lee was a failure and that he had suffered unacceptable casualties. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter; what matters is that this was what the Northern voters believed. It was Union victories elsewhere, Atlanta above all, that turned the tide of public opinion.

John Fredrick Parker said:

That's an impressive claim; you mean "doesn't fall before the Election" or "falls after McClellan's acceptance speech"? Because the latter would mean McClellan runs as a Peace Democrat, though I doubt it would be enough by itself to prevent Lincoln's re-election. If it is the former, than what is the latest PoD to make that happen?

Click to expand...

(Nitpick: McClellan wrote a letter. He didn't make a speech. But I digress.)

Even if Atlanta, is still in Confederate hands (or even if Sherman has suffered a significant defeat), I don't think McClellan would outright embrace the peace plank in a public statement. He just wouldn't repudiate it. Other Democrats, like Vallandigham or Manton Marble of the New York World, would do the political dirty work. He would stay aloof.

The voters would then see the choice as between Lincoln and more war, or McClellan and an end to the war. By not openly embracing the peace plank, McClellan could still appeal to waverers and War Democrats who were disgusted with Lincoln but still didn't want to be thought of as pro-Confederate.

McClellan was a War Democrat and supported continuing the war and reuniting the Union. The Democrats as a party ran on a Peace platform which put him as odds with them and this was sure to cause problems.

McClellan was not fool enough to voluntarilly end a war his side was winning, far more likely is the scenario that he would engage in peace negotiations but offer terms totally unacceptable to the Confederate so he could restart the war and claim credit as the man who saved the Union.

Guys you do know that just because McClellan wins in 64 ITTL it doesn't mean the war itself stops until he becomes president. IRRC Lincoln said he if he lost the election he would go full out to end the war before he had to leave. If he does that by the time McClellan gets sworn in the Confederacy is either on the ropes badly or basically done and not even McClellan would stop the war at that point. You'd also likely end up with a large case of buyers remorse.

Admiral Halsey said:

Guys you do know that just because McClellan wins in 64 ITTL it doesn't mean the war itself stops until he becomes president. IRRC Lincoln said he if he lost the election he would go full out to end the war before he had to leave.

Click to expand...

True, but how well would US soldiers fight under such circumstances? If they think the war is lost (which they are bound to believe if McClellan gets elected on a Peace Democrat platform) then won't morale and discipline collapse and desertions skyrocket?