AHC: Make West Virginia an Independent Nation

It establishes plausibility is my argument. Now for whether other people were aware of this possibility, or thought there was a possibility where there was actually not:

Rumors traveled through the capital that McClellan might resign, or instigate a military coup, if Scott were not removed. Lincoln's Cabinet met on October 18 and agreed to accept Scott's resignation for "reasons of health."[36]

That come's from George B. McClellan's Wikipedia page, with the source citation being: McPherson, Battle Cry, p. 360.

But hey! Let's not trust Wikipedia to cite a real source. Let's find Battle Cry, page 360:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GXfGuNAvm7AC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false <---- well, it won't let us preview page 360, but we have established McPherson's "Battle Cry" is "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James M. McPherson.

So, we have a primary source suggesting McClellan was aware of the possibility he could stage a coup, and a non-primary source stating that there were fears McClellan was capable of such a coup. The whole section of the Wikipedia article is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._McClellan#Building_an_army

But, so you don't ignore my verification attempt of the cited source, let's go check if this Battle Cry of Freedom is considered historically accurate:
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-The-Civil/dp/0345359429

According to Amazon it won the Pulitzer, and is considered to be a historical book and not fiction.

Of course it could all be a ruse, so we shall now check the Pulitzer website!

http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/History <--- Yep, it is there.

So, unless the Pulitzer committee for the category of history don't know Santa Anna from Santana, we have established that officials in the government at the time were worried about McClellan staging a coup and that McClellan thought he could succeed in such an endeavor.

But wait, did the military really suggest the possibility? Well I got that from the Lincoln quote in the Alternate History thread that inspired me to this, which I linked earlier. Let's check if that was ahistorical or chronologically sound.

Oh my! Let it not be said I am not doing my homework, that was a letter from Lincoln to General Hooker. http://deadpresidents.tumblr.com/post/1065509354/full-text-of-the-letter-from-president-lincoln-to

And given that said letter was 1863, two years after McClellan's casual thoughts to himself and his wife about dictatorship, I would say that Lincoln or anyone else for that matter could come to hear about Mac's inner thoughts from his private discourse the same way the rumors around Hooker came to his attention.

So, I have established plausibility. Due to the imprecision involved, I have not established probability, but I did not claim to. But it happened in our actual history that the administration was worried about a general staging a coup, and that there were rumors about such; and it is true that McClellan considered a coup. So rumours circulating about McClellan, and even perhaps being supported in some circles are not implausible by any means.

If you want me to apologize for not double-checking what I remembered about that thread when I claimed to you that members of the military were discussing a possible coup...well it's not going to happen, because you did even less work and yet insulted me; whereas I did a small amount of work and did something constructive, which turns out after the fact to have actually been plausible, so most of what I said - about it being plausible, still stands and my argument is now even better supported than before.

And considering I was being judged for not supporting an argument by some rhetorical support not being enough, descriptive discourse not being enough, when the only rebuttal was an insult with no argument or details to back it up at all, I can correctly claim I was not half-assing it or anything. I made a clear and well thought out argument in response to an empty rhetorical tool, a attempt at insult meant to use humor to mock me in front of a virtual crowd. And I responded with a well supported argument. If, on a forum full of lots of talking about history and spare citation of sources, a few paragraphs in support of an argument don't count as any supporting details, then frankly what does that say about every one-liner and short refutation that has ever been given on these boards?

Gentlemen and ladies, I stand before you here and I solidly claim that I behaved properly and did support to the community standard my point, in the face of nothing but ill-conceived derision with nothing backing it up. I was then afterwards in some quarters accused of having no argument, no well supported claim, which is a most prejudicial statement; considering my previous point about the community standard, I'm sure you will agree that I met it with my previous statement.

So let my citation of sources now not be seen as a correction of a past error, but a continued legacy of uninterrupted excellence on my part in this thread in supporting my point.
 
Not so much an attempt at insult as an attempt at tersely pointing out that the plausibility is close to zero. You have done nothing to establish any interest in McClellan's part or any ability on his part.

All you have established are two things (Which should in fairness to yo satisfy Enigmajones here):

1) McClellan thought it was possible.

2) The Administration heard rumors that he was interested and able, and worried.

That's it. No sign of talking to other officers about it, no sign of preparing anything whatsoever either in 1861 or 1862, actively avoiding trying to do so when Lincoln removed him after Antietam, and nothing else.

Now, you could say "What if McClellan was like this?" is legitimate. And I think we'd all agree that its entirely possible McClellan could, under some circumstances, see Lincoln as needing to be removed from office and establishing himself as Dictator in the Roman sense.

Except maybe 67th, but he's deliberately iconoclastic on McClellan.

But that leaves the whole rest of the scenario - well written but poorly backed. If McClellan does this, how many soldiers will refuse to obey? How many citizens will refuse to obey? How will he make this work? This is impractical to put it lightly.

And that's before we even see the war end.
 
Sorry, but none of that establishes actual plausibility. Hitler was aware of the possibility that he could invade England, and the British worried that he would. But Sealion is still bunk.

And Sealion at least had some real planning and effort behind it. All you have in this Civil War era is some loose talk, not even the rudiments of the beginning of a conspiracy.

I've read Battle Cry numerous times, nothing in it suggests that a coup was a realistic possibility.
 
The American revolution fails. Rather than face the consequences of their treason, thousands of "patriots" retreat into the hinterlands of the Northwest forming a loosely knit republican state of "west Virginia" Being at the outermost periphery of Englands domain, its allowed a semi official existence, as its settlers war with and subject the regions tribes. However the inevitable conflict occurs thanks to the rise of Philadelphia's great iron foundries, and the discovery of vast reserves of Virginian coal...
 
Last edited:
A coup in the continental united states by an existing army is not like Operation Sealion, you can't just claim arbitrarily that lacking hard data it is implausible on logistical/physical grounds.

Instead, in lack of any hard data to the contrary, it is plausible by way of reasonable assumption given the context.

Given some of the best alternate history enters things into society that we have no physical evidence to support because they didn't happen, and weren't even thought about it, I I didn't even have to establish the supporting pillars of fact that I did for this to be plausible; I feel like I'm being held at a higher standard than the community norm and being insulted all because Elfwine trolled me and instead of reporting it like a normal person.

Even if no one had thought about the coup whatsoever, a coup at this time in the United States is still plausible, based on logic and reason. In lieu of any more specific details, it is generally quite plausible that an army in a war-torn country filled with dissent could overthrow the government.

The fact that this, in addition to being plausible in of itself, was considered and was part of the consciousness of the time brings this out of the realm of the normal level of possibility for Alternate History, as something improbable that we can insert in by way of a serious change of events like someone dying or a war being more vicious, and makes it so plausible - nay possible - that it comes down to personal choices that could be influenced by more subtle POD's.

This is starting to look like one of those plots and possibility points in histories that should be used again and again in alternate history - the McClellan coup: not only plausible (physically possible, logistically and so forth) but possible (considered a possibility by the parties involved).
 
Logic and reason suggest nothing of the kind. Liberal democracies with vast middle classes tend to be pretty darn coup-free. Even during wartime.
 
Logic and reason suggest nothing of the kind. Liberal democracies with vast middle classes tend to be pretty darn coup-free. Even during wartime.

Exactly. How many people are going to support McClellan doing this? McClellan is known for having a high opinion of himself and a low opinion of the Administration, meanwhile the Administration couldn't have been so seriously worried as to find this a real threat if they kept him in a position to (if there was the ability to use the Army of the Potomac to do this) do so.
 
How about an independent Appalachian state of Scots-Irish and natives beyond the 1763 Proclamation Line in a timeline where the American Revolution fails?
 
Good discussion so far. BTW, I know I said after the Civil War in the OP, but really, anytime is perfectly fine, even if it is before the USA's founding.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Now, you could say "What if McClellan was like this?" is legitimate. And I think we'd all agree that its entirely possible McClellan could, under some circumstances, see Lincoln as needing to be removed from office and establishing himself as Dictator in the Roman sense.

Except maybe 67th, but he's deliberately iconoclastic on McClellan.

Only in a reality transplant. McClellan has a lot of loyalty to the institutions of the United States.
 

Numb

Banned
neat idea

ive never thought of that before. but i dont think it would happen unless the south wins, and then it would only happen if the confederate victory was slight.
 
Only in a reality transplant. McClellan has a lot of loyalty to the institutions of the United States.
Im gonna go with 67th on this one, he is the biggest/only McClellan fanboy I know of, and he is the expert, even if he tends to be a little to pro-McClellan.
 
And I think we'd all agree that its entirely possible McClellan could, under some circumstances, see Lincoln as needing to be removed from office and establishing himself as Dictator in the Roman sense.

Except maybe 67th, but he's deliberately iconoclastic on McClellan.

If McClellan had the audacity needed to launch a coup, Richmond would have fallen in 1862.

But that leaves the whole rest of the scenario - well written but poorly backed. If McClellan does this, how many soldiers will refuse to obey?

Much of the supporters behind him, like the Confederates he saw before him, existed only in McClellan's mind.
 
If McClellan had the audacity needed to launch a coup, Richmond would have fallen in 1862.

I largely agree.

Much of the supporters behind him, like the Confederates he saw before him, existed only in McClellan's mind.

Yeah. The Army of the Potomac certainly loved him for a given definition of, but I can't see them following him here, and that's as far as I can see his support base being stretched.

I mean, if you stretch it past that point, you might as well have Thomas launch a coup. He's not much less recognizable.
 
Top