McClellan as President

I am writing a timeline with the ACW as the PoD. One of the events in the timeline involves the CSA surviving the Civil War as an independent state, and I was thinking that a McClellan presidency would be one of the most likely ways to have that come about. I was wondering if anyone could offer some suggestions as to how McClellan could win the 1864 election against Lincoln and what kind of policies his administration would have towards ending the Civil War and also postwar.

Delta Force said:

I am writing a timeline with the ACW as the PoD. One of the events in the timeline involves the CSA surviving the Civil War as an independent state, and I was thinking that a McClellan presidency would be one of the most likely ways to have that come about. I was wondering if anyone could offer some suggestions as to how McClellan could win the 1864 election against Lincoln and what kind of policies his administration would have towards ending the Civil War and also postwar.

Click to expand...

McClellan is a war democrat. The CSA will be reabsorbed, but not reconstructed.

If Johnston or (less likely) Hood is able to inflict a severe check upon Sherman that prevents him from capturing Atlanta by Election Day, it is likely that Lincoln will lose the election and McClellan will be the next President. Lincoln himself thought so, as demonstrated by his memo on the subject written in early August.

In contrast to most people on this board, I think a McClellan electoral victory at least might have resulted in Confederate independence. If the Confederates are able to avoid a severe defeat before the end of the 1864 campaign season (which would have to be the case in any TL involving a McClellan electoral victory), they will begin 1865 in a vastly improved position than was the case IOTL. There would have been no March To The Sea and possibly no ravaging of the Shenandoah Valley.

The Northern public appeared quite willing to throw in the towel during the summer of 1864, until the victories at Mobile Bay, Atlanta and in the Shenandoah caused public opinion to swing back towards Lincoln. The prospect of 1865 being yet another bloody and indecisive year could have been too much for a tired Northern public, which would have already demonstrated its reluctance to go on with the war by electing McClellan.

Furthermore, as Lincoln clearly understood, McClellan would have owed the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party too much to be able to resist the political pressure to enter into a cease-fire with the Confederacy. This was seen during the election itself when the Democrats nominated an extreme antiwar Copperhead as its VP candidate. Although McClellan himself would have probably gone into any such negotiations with a good faith intention of restoring the Union, there was no way the Confederates would have accepted anything other than complete independence. And once the fighting had been brought to a halt, it would have been physically impossible to resume hostilities no matter what the outcome of the negotiations would have been.

Finally, it seems extremely unlikely that the Republicans, and in particular the abolitionists, would have been willing to continue prosecuting the war effort with McClellan as commander-in-chief. If McClellan had dropped emancipation as a condition of peace, which he certainly would have done, the Republicans would no longer have seen the war as worth winning. Indeed, I would expect at least half of the U.S.C.T. units to mutiny and throw down their weapons the moment President McClellan publicly drops emancipation as a Union war aim.

McClellan- when do you want the POD?

McClellan for President in 1864 was crippled by two things:
1) He thought of himself as a great general and that he could bring victory
2) the Copperhead Clement Vallandigham peace wing of his own party

Thus It is hard to make Mac
1)the Hero and ! Savior of the UNION !
--AND--
2)Make an independent CSA

If the POD is in late 1864, it's tough for CSA to "win."
Yes, Lincoln could have lost the election given a some bad war news before Nov, but by the time Mac is sworn in March 1865.
The CSA is doomed in terms of the military situation.
McClellan believing in his own military skill would not bow to the Rebs in March 1865.

So for your 1864 election of Mac and an independent CSA, I think you need an early war POD that leaves Mac NOT disgraced as a military leader, but gets a CSA victory overall. I think Mac wins in West Va but then cannot be called to head the Army of Potomac. You need him sent West. You pick the new slot. He could replace Fremont in the Trans-Miss instead of Halleck. Mac could get the command in Louisville that passed from Robert Anderson to Sherman [briefly] to Buell.

This would be a horrific disaster as when the Union conquers the Confederacy but fails to deliver on the Emancipation Proclamation it pretty much buggers its claim to any particular morality something awful. McClellan will never be the man that broke the United States, but he equally will never be the man that abolished slavery, an institution he firmly approved of. He will also blend with this the disastrous kind of "mild" policies of Joe Johnston. The OTL postwar scenario was horrid enough, but imagine the kind of damage done to the US psyche when a slaveholder's revolt is defeated without destroying slavery......

67th Tigers said:

McClellan is a war democrat. The CSA will be reabsorbed, but not reconstructed.

Click to expand...

In which case the USA spends four/five/six years at war against a slaveholder's revolt but leaves slavery intact and adopts equally draconian military policies to re-impose it at bayonet point after the fact. This would be one of the worst disasters in US history and pretty much a way to permanently ensure a US-Screw.

Snake Featherston said:

In which case the USA spends four/five/six years at war against a slaveholder's revolt but leaves slavery intact and adopts equally draconian military policies to re-impose it at bayonet point after the fact. This would be one of the worst disasters in US history and pretty much a way to permanently ensure a US-Screw.

Click to expand...

I am not sure he would be willing to use US troops to reimpose slavery as too many troops would throw down their arms. However, the various Southern militias would probably be reconstituted and would try to do so.

Johnrankins said:

I am not sure he would be willing to use US troops to reimpose slavery as too many troops would throw down their arms. However, the various Southern militias would probably be reconstituted and would try to do so.

Click to expand...

Don't underestimate Little Mac's capacity for self-delusion here. He probably thinks that Northern troops all agree with him in actuality anyhow. And any evidence shown against it is just Radical Republican Propaganda..........however if the Union Army just went home like that, what exactly does Little Mac *do*?

Johnrankins said:

I am not sure he would be willing to use US troops to reimpose slavery as too many troops would throw down their arms. However, the various Southern militias would probably be reconstituted and would try to do so.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much just as bad, in this sense. And would he recognize that they would, before they actually do so?

Snake: Whine?

Elfwine said:

That's pretty much just as bad, in this sense. And would he recognize that they would, before they actually do so?

Click to expand...

In my opinion he would be convinced they would reimpose it, dismiss any evidence to the contrary, and when it happens anyway, I dread thinking what the Young Napoleon would do in response. As I said, this would be a disaster of Biblical Proportions, and is a fine example of how one can have the Worse ending to the Civil War than the OTL Bad one. No, what I think he'd do is show his very West Pointer idea of how to respond to indiscipline in the Armed Forces, neglecting that this is long before the Commissar Idea would even be feasible. And if he horrifically bungles it, we see stage one of the *second* Civil War.

Snake Featherston said:

In my opinion he would be convinced they would reimpose it, dismiss any evidence to the contrary, and when it happens anyway, I dread thinking what the Young Napoleon would do in response. As I said, this would be a disaster of Biblical Proportions, and is a fine example of how one can have the Worse ending to the Civil War than the OTL Bad one.

Click to expand...

I imagine accusing the Republicans of treason is involved. He was comfortable doing it in the war, why will he hesitate here?

This could be either embarrassing or a total mental break with reality depending on how crazy he is.

But even the best case scenario there, he comes off as a total ass.

No, what I think he'd do is show his very West Pointer idea of how to respond to indiscipline in the Armed Forces, neglecting that this is long before the Commissar Idea would even be feasible. And if he horrifically bungles it, we see stage one of the *second* Civil War.

Click to expand...

Dare I ask?

McClellan as POTUS is probably the worst thing to wish upon America. Good luck having any kind of recconciliation with the South, hell the man's incompetence could lead to a second civil war!!! (that is a worst case scenario mind you).

And one thing I should point out about McClellan prosecuting the war effort is that he would have probably sacked Grant and Sherman for what he saw as unacceptable casualties (he hated the thought of men dying en masse) and would probably allow the war to drag on until 1866-7 (or lost it preferring a negotiated peace) until the South was forced to give up. He is not an aggresive leader and is rather petty so it is highly unlikely he would want men like Grant or Sherman out shinning him.

Elfwine said:

I imagine accusing the Republicans of treason is involved. He was comfortable doing it in the war, why will he hesitate here?

This could be either embarrassing or a total mental break with reality depending on how crazy he is.

But even the best case scenario there, he comes off as a total ass.

Click to expand...

A really unpleasant prospect is his vindictively and foolishly imitating Lincoln's one big mistake in letting Ambrose Burnside decide policy and thus decides that such "treason" necessitates reviving military tribunals. After all, Roger Taney had made his decision, but let him enforce it.

Elfwine said:

Dare I ask?

Click to expand...

Well, imagine how Northern communities would react to 1) being told after all this against slavery the institution will survive just fine, 2) seeing their children back and disgruntled and disillusioned, 3) seeing the equivalent of the military police of the time find a few desertees and publicly executing them by gunshots. The Commissar system was repeatedly scrapped even by a system much more tolerant of such waste than the 19th Century USA was, McClellan in his usual pattern will be paranoid and finding a conspiracy and avoiding any responsibility, and if this goes on and festers then we wind up in a "Here We Go Again" pattern.

And the odds of a USA that finally figures something else out being more than a continental Great Power after all this are slim to none. Would McClellan intentionally be a jackass like this? No. People as a rule in this kind of thing aren't. To him it'd be refusing to tolerate mutiny in the ranks. No matter what anyone else had to say about it.

McClellan wasn't fool enough to end a war that his side was winning. He was far more likely to take control and claim the credit for the victory.

EnglishCanuck said:

McClellan as POTUS is probably the worst thing to wish upon America. Good luck having any kind of recconciliation with the South, hell the man's incompetence could lead to a second civil war!!! (that is a worst case scenario mind you).

And one thing I should point out about McClellan prosecuting the war effort is that he would have probably sacked Grant and Sherman for what he saw as unacceptable casualties (he hated the thought of men dying en masse) and would probably allow the war to drag on until 1866-7 (or lost it preferring a negotiated peace) until the South was forced to give up. He is not an aggresive leader and is rather petty so it is highly unlikely he would want men like Grant or Sherman out shinning him.

Click to expand...

I don't think he'd sack Grant in the middle of the war, to be honest. He was enough of a Union patriot and a military man to recognize Grant has the war won and if he sacks him and *then* the Union horrifically loses there's nobody else at fault for that but McClellan. Afterward, however......

Snake Featherston said:

A really unpleasant prospect is his vindictively and foolishly imitating Lincoln's one big mistake in letting Ambrose Burnside decide policy and thus decides that such "treason" necessitates reviving military tribunals. After all, Roger Taney had made his decision, but let him enforce it.

Click to expand...

The worst part is, I can see McClellan being able to rationalize this. I'm not sure he'd be as gleeful about it as you do, but that's almost semantics.

Well, imagine how Northern communities would react to 1) being told after all this against slavery the institution will survive just fine, 2) seeing their children back and disgruntled and disillusioned, 3) seeing the equivalent of the military police of the time find a few desertees and publicly executing them by gunshots. The Commissar system was repeatedly scrapped even by a system much more tolerant of such waste than the 19th Century USA was, McClellan in his usual pattern will be paranoid and finding a conspiracy and avoiding any responsibility, and if this goes on and festers then we wind up in a "Here We Go Again" pattern.

And the odds of a USA that finally figures something else out being more than a continental Great Power after all this are slim to none. Would McClellan intentionally be a jackass like this? No. People as a rule in this kind of thing aren't. To him it'd be refusing to tolerate mutiny in the ranks. No matter what anyone else had to say about it.

Click to expand...

This is . . . bad.

Snake Featherston said:

I don't think he'd sack Grant in the middle of the war, to be honest. He was enough of a Union patriot and a military man to recognize Grant has the war won and if he sacks him and *then* the Union horrifically loses there's nobody else at fault for that but McClellan. Afterward, however......

Click to expand...

Well since Lincoln had already established the precedent for sacking leaders in war time I find it plausible. He may replace him too and just send him to another front as well. If he did keep him in command he would irritate Grant to no end with his insistence on limiting casualties and probably hamstring him at every turn with orders to wait, counter orders, and having to be 100% sure of the goals severely hampering the war effort, and he would definately not allow Shermans march to the sea.

Though would he have employed black soldiers is another question?

I don't see Little Mac quite THAT stupid, SF. It would cause him a lot of headaches. All he has to do is to declare it a state matter and let the Southern states reimpose it.

Elfwine said:

The worst part is, I can see McClellan being able to rationalize this. I'm not sure he'd be as gleeful about it as you do, but that's almost semantics.

Click to expand...

I think gleeful would be an understatement but I could see him crowing about it.

Elfwine said:

This is . . . bad.

Click to expand...

Pretty much, yes. There's a reason I state that the US Civil War has endings of Bad, Worse, and Apocalyptic.

EnglishCanuck said:

Well since Lincoln had already established the precedent for sacking leaders in war time I find it plausible. He may replace him too and just send him to another front as well. If he did keep him in command he would irritate Grant to no end with his insistence on limiting casualties and probably hamstring him at every turn with orders to wait, counter orders, and having to be 100% sure of the goals severely hampering the war effort, and he would definately not allow Shermans march to the sea.

Though would he have employed black soldiers is another question?

Click to expand...

Not quite. Lincoln never sacked Meade, while Grant, who fought gruesome battles, was the only guy to assume departmental command in 1862 to keep it into 1864, by which point he took over the entire war effort. Most of what you're referring to would already be fait accomplis by the time he takes over, as Lincoln will still be President into March of 1865 and will like Davis fight the war to the last minute and hour he retains power.

Snake Featherston said:

Not quite. Lincoln never sacked Meade, while Grant, who fought gruesome battles, was the only guy to assume departmental command in 1862 to keep it into 1864, by which point he took over the entire war effort. Most of what you're referring to would already be fait accomplis by the time he takes over, as Lincoln will still be President into March of 1865 and will like Davis fight the war to the last minute and hour he retains power.

Click to expand...

Fair point.