DBWI: Little Mac doesn't die in the Penninsula Campaign

As you know General George McClellan was killed when his horse tripped badly over some rocks and he flew into a tree and died of a broken neck. A freak accident if there ever was won. Would he have done even better than his replacement? After all he was the best general in the Union Army at the time and it was skills that got the army to Hanover Court House just before he died. On the other his death inspired the Union Army like nothing else. "For George" was the battle cry for far more than one Union regiment. Many Union soldiers felt that it would be disgracing the memory of Little Mac not to give an all-out effort, particularly when the rumor (untrue) got out that he died when personally spying out the enemy positions. Would Richmond have fallen before July 11th as in OTL?
 
Last edited:
That's a toughie - there's no deneying Union ferocity following his death is what led to the capture of Richmond, but the lack of a solid general in charge is why the Army of the Potomic didn't follow up on that progress until early 1863.

The big questions you need to ask are:

1) If Mac lives, does the Union take Richmond as per OTL, or as easily as they did?

2) If they still do, does he further capitalize on the victory?

3) If he doesn't, what happens next? OTL, the Confederates never really recovered following the fall of Richmond, and retreated constantly until the Confederacy finally sued for peace. In one where Richmond stands firm, what comes next?
 
That's a toughie - there's no deneying Union ferocity following his death is what led to the capture of Richmond, but the lack of a solid general in charge is why the Army of the Potomic didn't follow up on that progress until early 1863.

The big questions you need to ask are:

1) If Mac lives, does the Union take Richmond as per OTL, or as easily as they did?

2) If they still do, does he further capitalize on the victory?

3) If he doesn't, what happens next? OTL, the Confederates never really recovered following the fall of Richmond, and retreated constantly until the Confederacy finally sued for peace. In one where Richmond stands firm, what comes next?

1) I think they still take Richmond but a little later, maybe the 14th or 15th. His death really inspired Union troops
2) Is that a question? He was the best general in the Union Army. It might have took him a while to get going but when he did he would go forward with slow, rolling momentum
3) Hard to say. The fall of Richmond really screwed them in Europe. British shipbuilders either insisted that they would be paid entirely in cash up front or sold them the ships to others. This really hurt the CSA's blockade running efforts. However, I seriously doubt that the CSA can win in the long run. Maybe they last until mid 1863 or even (unlikely) to 1864 before going under.
 
Last edited:
I wonder whether McClellan falls into that category of people whose reputation has been saved by their deaths like General Custer in the Second Mexican War or President Hancock at the hands of an assassin.

I remember reading that old General Phil Kearny thought McClellan a poor general though he was definitely in a minority.
 
Just because Mac was a cautious fellow doesn't mean he was incompetent or some sort of fool. I mean, sure, he moved slowly during the campaign, but I'd say it was with good reason, what with the Confederacy almost panicking in those months between Mac's landing and that molasses-slow push up the Peninsula. Hell, they practically stripped all of the eastern coast from North Carolina to Alabama of any sort of meaningful force just to make sure they could match, man-for-man that Union juggernaut. And it was that stripped coastal defenses that allowed Burnside to exploit his North Carolina expedition so thoroughly and make sure that Lee had nowhere to go once the rest of Virginia all but collapsed. And once the ANV surrendered, and Robert E Lee handed over his sword, did the Confederacy really have any option other than capitulation? sure, the West held out for quite a while beyond...but the writing's on the wall, and however good Beauregard may be, he could only delay that inevitable. He did that pretty well, but I can't imagine him ever somehow bringing about a victory.
 
I wonder whether McClellan falls into that category of people whose reputation has been saved by their deaths like General Custer in the Second Mexican War or President Hancock at the hands of an assassin.

I remember reading that old General Phil Kearny thought McClellan a poor general though he was definitely in a minority.

Perhaps, but most likely it was jealousy. His troops certainly thought he was the best. You can't fault his organizational or leadership skills. He turned half-trained militia to a professional fight force! On the other hand he did have a tendency to be cautious. If there is one fault with him is that he is a bit slow.
 
Just because Mac was a cautious fellow doesn't mean he was incompetent or some sort of fool. I mean, sure, he moved slowly during the campaign, but I'd say it was with good reason, what with the Confederacy almost panicking in those months between Mac's landing and that molasses-slow push up the Peninsula. Hell, they practically stripped all of the eastern coast from North Carolina to Alabama of any sort of meaningful force just to make sure they could match, man-for-man that Union juggernaut. And it was that stripped coastal defenses that allowed Burnside to exploit his North Carolina expedition so thoroughly and make sure that Lee had nowhere to go once the rest of Virginia all but collapsed. And once the ANV surrendered, and Robert E Lee handed over his sword, did the Confederacy really have any option other than capitulation? sure, the West held out for quite a while beyond...but the writing's on the wall, and however good Beauregard may be, he could only delay that inevitable. He did that pretty well, but I can't imagine him ever somehow bringing about a victory.

Exactly, I think that Little Mac might have taken a bit longer to win but the war would have been less bloody for the North.
 
Another point: without taking Richmond, would Lincoln still have issued the Emancipation Proclomation? I imagine not, given he wanted to issue it after a great Union victory. Between losing Richmond and the EP, the CSA was a lost cause by the end of July
 
Another point: without taking Richmond, would Lincoln still have issued the Emancipation Proclomation? I imagine not, given he wanted to issue it after a great Union victory. Between losing Richmond and the EP, the CSA was a lost cause by the end of July

I think he would have. The EP or something like it was probably inevitable. For one thing it was only a matter of time before Lincoln got a big victory and for another it was something he really wanted to do. If the war was never started he couldn't have done so but ironically the war gave him an excuse to do what he wanted to do.
 
Top