Meanwhile, in the USA: 1864 - ...

[galileo-034]

This is the counterpart of my CS electoral TL.
I don't know enough about the US electoral history, so I will remain rather vague.


US presidential election - November 1864

Background:
By the fall of 1864, the civil war has reached a stalemate. The failure to obtain a clear advantage has caused strengthening of partisans of a peace.
The Peace Democrats have nominated the hero of the first times of the war, General McClellan, as their candidate to the presidential election, on a peace platform, with the congressman Pendleton as his running mate.
For a time, the Republican Party has almost been about to break apart: the Radical Republicans had nominated General Frémont as their candidate, seeing Lincoln as an incompetent President; however, feeling that his candidacy could only cause the defeat of Lincoln, Frémont had withdrawn.
In the meantime, the supporters of Lincoln had formed the National Union Party and had nominated Andrew Johnson as his running mate, hoping to gain support of the War Democrats.



President A. Lincoln (NU-IL) / Military Governor A. Johnson (NU-TN) ; 111 electoral votes (50,9 % of the popular vote)
General G. B. McClellan (D-NJ) / Representative G. H. Pendleton (D-OH) ; 122 electoral votes (49,1 % of the popular vote)

This election has surely been the most controversial presidential election of US history.
While Lincoln has won the popular vote with an advance of about 74,000 voices over his adversary, he hasn't won an electoral majority.
New Hampshire and Maryland have surely been the states where has been decided the election, McClellan having won them by only a few dozens of votes.


Final Result:
Elected 17th President of the USA

George Brinton McClellan
from New Jersey

Elected 16th Vice President of the USA

George Hunt Pendleton
from Ohio

 

[Decatur]

This is the counterpart of my CS electoral TL.
I don't know enough about the US electoral history, so I will remain rather vague.


US presidential election - November 1864

Background:
By the fall of 1864, the civil war has reached a stalemate. The failure to obtain a clear advantage has caused strengthening of partisans of a peace. (snip)

You need to explain the POD that caused the "stalemate." In OTL, by that point the Union was clearly winning the war (e.g., Atlanta and Mobile Bay).

McClellan would have stood a much better chance of winning if he had been able to stop the Peace Democrats from dominating the convention and writing the party platform. By Election Day, the situation was so different from the summer that if he had won the election, he almost certainly would have continued the war with the same result as OTL.

 

[galileo-034]

There is no particular POD as I've explained it in :
CS presidential elections: 1867 - ...

 

[Lord Grattan]

But w/o a thought out and plausible POD all you've got is a wave of a magic wand, and you can't bring about a civil war stalemate or a Lincoln/Johnson defeat in the fall of 1864 by simply saying "voilà".

 

[d32123]

Without a clear and plausible point of divergence this belongs in the Alien Space Bats forum. I'm pretty sure, barring foreign aid, that there is no way that the Civil War is a stalemate by 1864.

 

[Doctor Imperialism]

You probably should've stuck this in the Map Thread, they're a little more lenient when it comes to plausibility - although not by much.

Nice map, by the way. Shame it's difficult to justify.

 

[Fiver]

You need to explain the POD that caused the "stalemate." In OTL, by that point the Union was clearly winning the war (e.g., Atlanta and Mobile Bay).

There are a variety of PODs in the early years of the war that could result in stalemate by 1864. The death of Grant, for instance.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Not plausible, also not internally accurate

President A. Lincoln (NU-IL) / Military Governor A. Johnson (NU-TN) ; 116 electoral votes (52,3 % of the popular vote)
General G. B. McClellan (D-NJ) / Representative G. H. Pendleton (D-OH) ; 117 electoral votes (47,7 % of the popular vote)

This election has surely been the most controversial presidential election of US history.
Lincoln had won the popular vote with an advance of about 186,000 voices over his adversary.

This result is highly unlikely. Lincoln might have lost in 1864, but losing the electoral college while winning the popular vote by a substantial margin is implausible. If Lincoln wins the popular vote by 186,000, that would be a margin of 52.3% to 47.7%, compared to 55% to 45% OTL; i.e. a swing of 2.7%. That would be enough to flip CT, NH, NY, and PA, but not any other states; some 70 electoral votes. That would give McClellan 91 EV, still well short of a majority. (I note that you did not flip NH, even though it was closer OTL than IN, MI, or OR.) Incidentally your ATL electoral vote total for Lincoln is wrong. There were 235 EV, and if McClellan gets 117, Lincoln has 118 not 116. NV cast 3 EV, not 2, which is half the discrepancy. If NH flips, then Lincoln has 113, and McClellan has 122.

 

[galileo-034]

This result is highly unlikely. Lincoln might have lost in 1864, but losing the electoral college while winning the popular vote by a substantial margin is implausible. If Lincoln wins the popular vote by 186,000, that would be a margin of 52.3% to 47.7%, compared to 55% to 45% OTL; i.e. a swing of 2.7%. That would be enough to flip CT, NH, NY, and PA, but not any other states; some 70 electoral votes. That would give McClellan 91 EV, still well short of a majority. (I note that you did not flip NH, even though it was closer OTL than IN, MI, or OR.) Incidentally your ATL electoral vote total for Lincoln is wrong. There were 235 EV, and if McClellan gets 117, Lincoln has 118 not 116. NV cast 3 EV, not 2, which is half the discrepancy. If NH flips, then Lincoln has 113, and McClellan has 122.

After the apportionment effected in 1863, there were 184 representatives and 50 senators; so, there were 234 EV. I've noticed the 2 EV of Nevada; seemingly, the third elector wasn't able to carry his vote IOTL, and I've kept this happening ITTL. ITTL, the election in NH has been very close, but when I mentionned the states which decided the elction, I had in mind rather the states which were lost by Lincoln by a very thin margin.
For the margin, it has taken me time, but I've established state-by-state popular vote carried (x1,000) by Lincoln:
States won
CA -- 57
NV -- 9
MN -- 23
IA -- 80
WI -- 80
IL -- 181
MO -- 65
KS -- 16
OH -- 260
WV -- 22
VT -- 38
MA -- 122
RI -- 12
ME -- 65
NH -- 34/35*

States lost
OR -- 8
MI -- 82*
IN -- 140*
KY --24
MD -- 35
DE -- 7
NJ -- 57
PA -- 286/287*
NY -- 361
CT -- 42

*: thin margins

Total
~2,106,000 votes for Lincoln, over 4,032,000 votes
or 52,2 %
and a margin of 180,000 votes

You probably should've stuck this in the Map Thread, they're a little more lenient when it comes to plausibility - although not by much.

Nice map, by the way. Shame it's difficult to justify.

As in my CS electoral TL, there will be in the backgrounds I will give explanations about domestic and foreign developments. As this TL is the complement of 'CS presidential elections: 1867 - ...', I think it would better to read it to understand this TL.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

I can't believe your numbers

After the apportionment effected in 1863, there were 184 representatives and 50 senators; so, there were 234 EV.

Well, as a matter of fact, there were 51 Senators at the time of the 1864 election, due to the admission of Nevada; however that includes a Union Senator from Virginia (there had been two, but one died in January 1864 and was not replaced).

There was also one more Representative (from Nevada). 50 Senators + 185 Representatives = 235 Electoral votes.

In any case, your initial posting had 233 EV being counted. Apparently you assumed that the reported EV counts were complete - which they weren't; see below.

I've noticed the 2 EV of Nevada; seemingly, the third elector wasn't able to carry his vote IOTL, and I've kept this happening ITTL.

I can't find out why that happened, but it seems very likely that since the missing elector was not significant, nothing was done about it. If that missing elector could decide the outcome, he'd get his vote in or be replaced.

There was another missing elector in Massachusetts; the same thing applies there.

ITTL, the election in NH has been very close, but when I mentionned the states which decided the elction, I had in mind rather the states which were lost by Lincoln by a very thin margin.
For the margin, it has taken me time, but I've established state-by-state popular vote carried (x1,000) by Lincoln:

I compared these numbers to the actual numbers, and cannot make any sense of the vote swings, which vary from 10.3% (CA) to 1.1% (NY). The very smallest changes are in the largest states, which is unlikely.

Aside from Oregon, all of the changes which flip states are just enough: McClellan wins eight additional states by a total plurality of just 22,000, out of 2M cast in those states. Again excepting Oregon, the percentage pluralities in those states are the lowest, and much lower than the other states. Four are 1.2% or less, and three more under 4%, whereas Lincoln doesn't carry any state by less than 4%, and eight by over 10%.

It's just way too convenient.

 

[Lord Grattan]

So your TL is based solely on handwavium first with convenient background PODs added later, correct?

 

[galileo-034]

So your TL is based solely on handwavium first with convenient background PODs added later, correct?

As I've explained it in my CS electoral TL, I don't want to lost too much time on details of the war. Voluntarily, I've limited the background to general trends to prevent too much unrealistic things from being written. I will essentially give general trends about foreign and domestic policies as I think they would be in case of a CS independence (de facto at least) in the USA.
There, my main idea is that with such a stalemate (if you look to the map, you can see that there had been only little gains since 1861), the pro-peace sentiment would grow stronger than IOTL.
If you look to the first update of my CS electoral TL, you could have more informations about the end of the ACW as I've thought it (I should recall it in the next update).

I can't find out why that happened, but it seems very likely that since the missing elector was not significant, nothing was done about it. If that missing elector could decide the outcome, he'd get his vote in or be replaced.

There was another missing elector in Massachusetts; the same thing applies there.

In the 1864 election, Nevada ended up with an anomalous two electoral votes, when the third elector was snowbound. Since the new state’s legislature had not yet convened, there was no mechanism to select a replacement.

(source: http://www.270towin.com/states/Nevada).
After the apportionment effected in 1863, Massachusetts had 10 representatives. From different websites I've read, the 12 EV of this state all voted, for Lincoln.

Well, as a matter of fact, there were 51 Senators at the time of the 1864 election, due to the admission of Nevada; however that includes a Union Senator from Virginia (there had been two, but one died in January 1864 and was not replaced).

There was also one more Representative (from Nevada). 50 Senators + 185 Representatives = 235 Electoral votes.

In any case, your initial posting had 233 EV being counted. Apparently you assumed that the reported EV counts were complete - which they weren't; see below.

I've not thought to these Senators; however, I don't think that they would have voted, given that Virginia is still in state of rebellion. So, we have an electoral college of 235 EV, but with only 233 EV having voted.

I compared these numbers to the actual numbers, and cannot make any sense of the vote swings, which vary from 10.3% (CA) to 1.1% (NY). The very smallest changes are in the largest states, which is unlikely.

Aside from Oregon, all of the changes which flip states are just enough: McClellan wins eight additional states by a total plurality of just 22,000, out of 2M cast in those states. Again excepting Oregon, the percentage pluralities in those states are the lowest, and much lower than the other states. Four are 1.2% or less, and three more under 4%, whereas Lincoln doesn't carry any state by less than 4%, and eight by over 10%.

I have no strong knowledges in this matter. If you want giving other more realistic propositions for the votes carried by Lincoln with the same result that I have drawn in the map, don't hesitate.

 

[Snake Featherston]

McClellan would never be the last President of the unified United States. He would not abolish slavery in any way, shape, form, or fashion, but he would not allow the CSA to break free because he won the Oval Office.

 

[galileo-034]

It's why there is no peace, but a mere armistice as I wrote in the CS electoral TL. I imagine the USA and the CSA would be more like South Korea and North Korea, still at war, given that there is no peace treaty.
Of course, any recognition is excluded.

 

[Snake Featherston]

It's why there is no peace, but a mere armistice as I wrote in the CS electoral TL. I imagine the USA and the CSA would be more like South Korea and North Korea, still at war, given that there is no peace treaty.
Of course, any recognition is excluded.

He's not going to negotiate an armistice, either.

 

[galileo-034]

ITTL, the Peace Democrats are stronger than IOTL.

 

[galileo-034]

Second version of popular vote result

States won by Lincoln
CA -- 58 ~55%
NV -- 9 ~56%
MN -- 24 ~57%
IA -- 81 ~61%
WI -- 79 ~53%
IL -- 184 ~53%
MO -- 68 ~65%
KS -- 16 ~76%
OH -- 254 ~54%
WV -- 23 ~66%
VT -- 40 ~71%
MA -- 119 ~68%
RI -- 13 ~57%
ME -- 65 ~57%
NH -- 35* ~50%

States lost by Lincoln
OR -- 8 ~44%
MI -- 79 ~48%
IN -- 134 ~48%
KY -- 23 ~25%
MD -- 36* ~49%
DE -- 8 ~46%
NJ -- 59 ~48%
PA -- 269 ~47%
NY -- 329 ~45%
CT -- 40 ~ 46%

Total: ~ 2,053,000 votes for Lincoln (50,9 %) over 4,032,000

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Fair enough...

A

In the 1864 election, Nevada ended up with an anomalous two electoral votes, when the third elector was snowbound. Since the new state’s legislature had not yet convened, there was no mechanism to select a replacement.
(source: http://www.270towin.com/states/Nevada).

I thought it was something like that; but if that one elector's vote would have changed the outcome, he'd have been present come hell or high snow.

After the apportionment effected in 1863, Massachusetts had 10 representatives.

You are correct. I was mislead by the results reported at psephos.com, which is normally the most reliable and comprehensive source of election data.

I've not thought to these Senators; however, I don't think that they would have voted, given that Virginia is still in state of rebellion.

Senators don't vote. A state has two electors for its Senators, but they aren't the same people. That a Virginia Senator was still seated in Congress had no effect on the Presidential election. Virginia did not vote. With the separation of West Virginia, the Union "government" of Virginia ceased to have any real basis, and no further efforts were made to treat it as a real state.

So, we have an electoral college of 235 EV, but with only 233 EV having voted.

The actual Electoral College would number...

240 House seats were allocated in the reapportionment after the 1860 Census. You've referred several times to the "1863 reapportionment", but it was done in time for the 1862 elections. In 1863, West Virginia was allocated three House seats on its admission, these seats being taken from Virginia. Kansas was admitted in 1861 and Nevada in 1864; each was allocated one seat, making 242 Representatives. There were 36 states, each with two Senators (72).

242 + 72 = 314 electoral votes. However, eleven states in rebellion did not vote, subtracting 80 electoral votes (58 for Representatives and 22 for Senators), leaving 234.

The result was Lincoln 212, McClellan 21, one not cast, total 234.

I have no strong knowledges in this matter. If you want giving other more realistic propositions for the votes carried by Lincoln with the same result that I have drawn in the map, don't hesitate.

I have no objections to a scenario with McClellan defeating Lincoln; what I questioned was that electoral outcome with the popular vote given. You can get there from here, but not by that route.

I will note again that 117 electoral votes is not a majority. In 1836, the Virginia electors abstained from voting for Richard M. Johnson for Vice President. (This was due to his personal life: he openly acknowledged his slave mistress and their children.) This left Johnson with exactly half of the electors. The choice of VP devolved upon the Senate, per the 12th Amendment, the only time that has ever happened.

If McClellan received exactly half of the electoral votes, the choice of President would pass to the House.

A better scenario would give McClellan a bare majority of the popular vote (50.1% or so, a swing of 5%), which could flip roughly the same states and also New Hampshire, giving him a clear electoral majority (122-112).

 

[Rich Rostrom]

States won by Lincoln
Total: ~ 2,053,000 votes for Lincoln (50,9 %) over 4,032,000

You still need to flip at least one more state to McClellan. Also, the popular vote needs to shift a little more. I've been running simulations, and it looks to me like any near tie in the popular vote will give McClellan a solid electoral majority - 130 to 140 EV.

As for how this could happen - if Sherman failed to capture Atlanta, there would be demoralization in the North and McClellan could win.

If he won - he had said (more or less) that he could not accept disunion, and thereby betray the sacrifice of his fellow soldiers. But once in office, with a Peace Democrat majority in Congress, he would find it very hard to reject any peace efforts.

As Lincoln wrote, he would have to save the Union before his successor's inauguration, because that successor would have won the election on terms that made it impossible to save it afterwards.

 

[galileo-034]

When I wrote this update, I wanted something like the election of 1876.

I've decided to correct the update and give New Hampshire to McClellan (now with a clear electoral majority), but it would not change significantly the popular vote result.