1864 Election Discussion

[Anaxagoras]

We have often discussed whether the electoral defeat of Abraham Lincoln in the 1864 election might have created a scenario in the Confederacy could have won its independence. Because this question is so complex, I thought I'd post a thread devoted to it.

There are several things to consider. By 1864, the Northern public was quite clearly tired of the war, with the enormous casualties, as well as the high taxes, inflation, conscription and general disruption it caused. There was also a very large portion of the population, perhaps the majority, which was uncomfortable with emancipation and feared job competition from newly-freed slaves.

Because of all this, it is clear that Lincoln could have lost the election if the Union armies had not achieved considerable success during the 1864 campaign season. IOTL, the victories achieves at Mobile Bay, Atlanta, and in the Shenandoah Valley persuaded the Northern public that the Union was, indeed, winning the war and that the cost they were bearing was actually worth something. Had Union arms not enjoyed such success, it is clear that Northern voters would have shown Mr. Lincoln the door.

Since Lincoln beat McClellan in the electoral college 212 to 21, it looks like a blowout. But the truth is that McClellan lost New York by a hairsbreadth (less than half a percentage point), and several other states by rather small margins. As shown here, a swing of a mere 33,000 votes in critical states would mathematically have enabled McClellan to secure enough electoral votes to win the election. If the Confederates had been successful during the 1864 campaign season, it is very easy to see how the Northern public might have turned Lincoln out.

The next question is whether a McClellan victory would have mattered when it came to the question of the Confederacy's survival. Although the 1864 Democratic platform specifically called for a cease-fire and a negotiated restoration of the Union, McClellan himself was a War Democrat who personally rejected this approach. Many argue that if McClellan won, he would simply have continued the war anyway, thus dooming the Confederacy to inevitable defeat.

But there are a few issues with this point of view. First of all, it's important to point out that McClellan only released his letter repudiating the peace plank only after the victories at Mobile and Atlanta had begun to turn public opinion in favor of continuing the war. Had those victories not occurred, would McClellan have remained wedded to the idea of restoring the Union by force, or would be have allowed his ambition to persuade him to adopt the position of the Peace Democrats?

Furthermore, it is generally assumed that McClellan was planning on dropping the abolition of slavery as a condition of peace. If he did this, would Republicans have continued to support the war effort? Would they have been willing to continue the fight, with all its consequent losses of blood and treasure, if their ultimate goal of abolishing slavery was no longer going to be achieved?

Additionally, McClellan would only have become President with the support of the Peace Democrats, which can be seen in the fact that George Pendleton, a Copperhead congressman from Ohio, was chosen as his VP candidate. As Lincoln himself astutely pointed out in his famous memorandum that August, McClellan would have "secured his election on such ground" that it would basically be impossible for him to resist the political pressure to offer a truce to the Confederates and attempt a negotiated restoration of the Union.

Any attempted negotiation would have obviously failed, since Jefferson Davis would have automatically rejected any proposals that did not grant the Confederacy its independence. But having accepted a cease-fire so that the negotiations could take place, would the McClellan administration have had the political capital to resume hostilities after the negotiations had failed? Would the Northern public, which doubtless would have breathed a sigh of relief at news of the initial cease-fire, have been willing to launch the war all over again after months, possibly a year, of peace? Against an enemy that would have spent the intervening time restoring its strength and recovering from the damage the war had inflicted up until then?

Anyway, I look forward to an informative and respectful discussion.

[Snake Featherston]

McClellan will never give up the Union, but he'd throw the slaves under the bus in a heartbeat. The Union would likewise still crush the Confederacy in the fighting during that gap between Lincoln's defeat and McClellan's inauguration, and Little Mac is too much the Union man to allow the USA to lose at the last minute. As to the prospects of a post-Civil War scenario where the *US* government seeks to reimpose slavery.......

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

McClellan will never give up the Union, but he'd throw the slaves under the bus in a heartbeat. The Union would likewise still crush the Confederacy in the fighting during that gap between Lincoln's defeat and McClellan's inauguration, and Little Mac is too much the Union man to allow the USA to lose at the last minute. As to the prospects of a post-Civil War scenario where the *US* government seeks to reimpose slavery.......

Agreed, much as I despise Little Mac I admit he was a strong Unionist.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

McClellan will never give up the Union

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

Agreed, much as I despise Little Mac I admit he was a strong Unionist.

I am unconvinced that he was entirely opposed to the cease-fire idea, though. Why did McClellan wait until after the victories at Mobile Bay and Atlanta to publicly repudiate the idea of a cease-fire? He could have made it clear that he opposed the idea of a cease-fire the moment his name began to be floated as a possible Democratic candidate.

In fact, in August of 1864, Samuel Barlow (probably McClellan's closest personal friend) wrote Manton Marble, editor of the New York World, that McClellan "is for peace, not war. . . If he is nominated he would prefer to restore the Union by peaceful means, rather than by war."

I agree that McClellan was a strong Unionist, but I don't think he was all that opposed to the idea of a cease-fire and an attempt to restore the Union by negotiation rather than force.

[Nytram01]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

I agree that McClellan was a strong Unionist, but I don't think he was all that opposed to the idea of a cease-fire and an attempt to restore the Union by negotiation rather than force.

And when negotiations break down due to the Confederate politicians refusal to agree to a restoration of the Union war will recommence.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Nytram01

And when negotiations break down due to the Confederate politicians refusal to agree to a restoration of the Union war will recommence.

I very much doubt it. After all, the Northern public wouldn't have elected McClellan unless they were sick of the war and saw no prospect of it being brought to a successful conclusion. Having got what they wanted with the cease-fire, the public would have been unwilling to recommence the war after a period of peace. Many Republicans would have been unwilling to recommence the war if slavery was no longer going to be a war aim; in their eyes, what would be the point? And many of the Peace Democrats (who would likely be a sizable portion of Congress in this scenario) would have refused to support any resumption of fighting, either.

Besides, even if you are correct and the Union does find the political will to resume the war, what would the Confederates have done during the intervening months of peace? Their strength would have been greatly restored and they would have been able to meet any renewed Union military operations much more effectively. This simple fact would deter any resumption of fighting in any event.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

I am unconvinced that he was entirely opposed to the cease-fire idea, though. Why did McClellan wait until after the victories at Mobile Bay and Atlanta to publicly repudiate the idea of a cease-fire? He could have made it clear that he opposed the idea of a cease-fire the moment his name began to be floated as a possible Democratic candidate.

In fact, in August of 1864, Samuel Barlow (probably McClellan's closest personal friend) wrote Manton Marble, editor of the New York World, that McClellan "is for peace, not war. . . If he is nominated he would prefer to restore the Union by peaceful means, rather than by war."

I agree that McClellan was a strong Unionist, but I don't think he was all that opposed to the idea of a cease-fire and an attempt to restore the Union by negotiation rather than force.

Because he needed to conciliate the Copperheads. In other words that was political calculation, not sincere conviction.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

Besides, even if you are correct and the Union does find the political will to resume the war, what would the Confederates have done during the intervening months of peace? Their strength would have been greatly restored and they would have been able to meet any renewed Union military operations much more effectively. This simple fact would deter any resumption of fighting in any event.

A cease fire does not eliminate the Confederacy's problems with the blockade, spiraling inflation, massive public debt, desertion, etc. Any cease fire gives the Union a chance to recover while the Confederacy continues to fall apart.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Because he needed to conciliate the Copperheads. In other words that was political calculation, not sincere conviction.

Possibly, but possibly not. I think it's clear that McClellan was hedging his bets based on what the military situation would be during the fall of 1864. After all, you don't have one of your closest advisors say that to the editor of the one of the country's most important newspapers unless you are going to be willing to cash your chips in on it later.

Originally Posted by Fiver

A cease fire does not eliminate the Confederacy's problems with the blockade, spiraling inflation, massive public debt, desertion, etc. Any cease fire gives the Union a chance to recover while the Confederacy continues to fall apart.

It does not eliminate these problems, but it makes them much better. With a cease-fire, the value of the Confederate dollar would strengthen and the government's ability to float loans would improve, thus easing the inflation problem to a degree. And I think the desertion problem would be vastly improved in such a scenario, since the Confederate forces would see victory as a real possibility rather than a hopeless dream.

In the meantime, the enactment of a cease-fire would cause political turmoil in the Union. Republicans might well essentially quit the war if abolition is no longer a war aim. Recruitment and conscription would falter, for why would anyone want to join a fight that has apparently been lost (which would have been the public perception)? And the Union's own fiscal problems would have been increased by the cease-fire.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

It does not eliminate these problems, but it makes them much better. With a cease-fire, the value of the Confederate dollar would strengthen and the government's ability to float loans would improve, thus easing the inflation problem to a degree. And I think the desertion problem would be vastly improved in such a scenario, since the Confederate forces would see victory as a real possibility rather than a hopeless dream.

It would still be a dollar without any backing other than hope, though. And I'm not sure where it's getting these loans from - who is so eager to loan money outside the CSA, and who has money to loan inside?

[Blue Max]

I think the Peace Democrats would have to have their guy (Seymour? Vallandigham?) as the #1 man on the ticket for a peace to be offered.


We're talking about a military situation where the Union is laying siege to Atlanta and has cut the CSA into three pieces. If McC offers reunion with slavery, the Confederates would have to think hard on it. If they refuse, (which they could), McC would probably continue the war.


McC was about as committed to peace in the Civil War as John Kerry was to peace in the Iraq War--he'd create the impression that he'd be more willing to consider it, but he'd not do it. He'd get the peace vote and ignore it's mandate.


By the time McC has been sworn in, Atlanta has probably fallen and the CSA will clearly be on its last legs. If the CSA will not agree to a negotiated surrender, then there's no reason not to beat it out of them.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

It would still be a dollar without any backing other than hope, though.

That's true, but in this scenario, there would be much more hope for the Confederacy than IOTL, and the Confederate dollar would thus be worth more.

Originally Posted by Blue Max

We're talking about a military situation where the Union is laying siege to Atlanta and has cut the CSA into three pieces.

But in a scenario in which McClellan has been elected President, the military situation is obviously going to be different than it was IOTL, and much more favorable to the Confederacy.

Originally Posted by Blue Max

McC was about as committed to peace in the Civil War as John Kerry was to peace in the Iraq War--he'd create the impression that he'd be more willing to consider it, but he'd not do it. He'd get the peace vote and ignore it's mandate.

But the President is not a dictator. If the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives in the 1864 election for the same reasons that McClellan won the Presidency, than the Peace Democrats would be able to cut off funding for the war effort if they wanted to. In other words, they would be able to force McClellan to go the cease-fire/negotiation path if they wanted to do so.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

That's true, but in this scenario, there would be much more hope for the Confederacy than IOTL, and the Confederate dollar would thus be worth more.

Not enough more to salvage the situation.

[QuoProQuid]

Lincoln was under the impression that a McClellan Presidency would mean the collapse of the Union. Consequently, had he lost the election he set out to win the Civil War by noon of March 4, 1965 by any means necessary. What Lincoln believed wasn't necessarily realistic but he was determined on acting. Lincoln's 'lame duck' period will be rife with activity and massive loss of life. He will not allow McClellan to make the peace treaty.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by QuoProQuid

Lincoln's 'lame duck' period will be rife with activity and massive loss of life. He will not allow McClellan to make the peace treaty.

But what if the 1864 campaign season had gone much better for the Confederates and they had ended the year more or less where they had begun it? There would then have been no prospect whatsoever of bringing the war to a successful conclusion by March, especially as the time period between November and March is not very good for military campaigning and the Confederates would have had fought ferociously to hold on until the handover of power took place. Lincoln felt deeply the cost in lives of his soldiers; would he have really been willing to sacrifice thousands more if he honestly thought that it would not do any good? Or would he have tried to get what he could when he could be opening negotiations himself?

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by QuoProQuid

Lincoln was under the impression that a McClellan Presidency would mean the collapse of the Union. Consequently, had he lost the election he set out to win the Civil War by noon of March 4, 1965 by any means necessary. What Lincoln believed wasn't necessarily realistic but he was determined on acting. Lincoln's 'lame duck' period will be rife with activity and massive loss of life. He will not allow McClellan to make the peace treaty.

He might also ask the lame duck Republican Congress to vote sufficient war credits to enable Mac, if he so chooses, to continue the war through 1865 without calling the new (Democratic?) HoR into session before the legal date of December. If by March the Union seems in sight of victory, he will probably do so.

[SPJ]

Back on the topic of slavery. If Somehow the CSA was allowed independence during a McClellan Presidency what would happen to slavery in the Union. Would the 13th amendment still be issued to abolish slavery in this TL? I somehow doubt that McClellan could stop that if he wanted to and somehow Republicans still had seats in the governemnt.

[jkay]

But the President is not a dictator. If the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives in the 1864 election for the same reasons that McClellan won the Presidency, than the Peace Democrats would be able to cut off funding for the war effort if they wanted to. In other words, they would be able to force McClellan to go the cease-fire/negotiation path if they wanted to do so.

But, the Democrats'd hardly be all for peace, any more than all Republicans were radical abolitionists. They'd be split, and the GOP unified, just like how there was no Congressional ending of Iraq after 06. It's deeply unlikely, indeed, they'd be remotely able to override a Lincoln veto. So, he would have to the end.


Of course, it'd all depend on the POD and how big its effects. Of course, it'd take a pre-'64 POD.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by jkay

They'd be split, and the GOP unified

But the Republicans wouldn't be unified. If abolition is no longer a war aim, a big chunk of the Republican Party will no longer support the war. If anything, they'd be split worse than the Democrats.

[Fleetlord]

The question is how did the CS win its victories in '64? By now we're at the point where even a Confederate victory is a Confederate defeat, because they're out of men and supplies. I can believe that they can hold off collapse until November, enough to change the outcome of the vote. But hold off until March? Nope.