Is this Southern Victory scenario plausible?

August 1864: As Lincoln was riding to the Soldiers' Home, a shot fired from the bushes caused his horse to bolt, and he lost his hat; when soldiers retrieved the hat, they found a bullet hole in it. The incident was hushed up, but Secretary of War Edwin Stanton augmented the heavy guard that accompanied the president.

POD: When the horse bolts, Lincoln falls off and breaks his neck, which kills him.

-Hamlin becomes President in August 1864
-Hamlin replaces Ulysses S. Grant with Joseph Hooker in August 1864
-Hooker is more cautious than Grant, and proceeds with more caution.
-The CS still loses a lot of battles, but costs to the Union are higher than OTL
-The CS settles in for the long haul and begins a war of attrition, trying to fend off the US for as long as possible
-The war drags on till November 1864
-Being unpopular due to mishandling the war, Hamlin is defeated for re-election by George McClellan
-Hamlin is in a race to defeat the Confederacy before McClellan takes over in March 1865
-Winter sets in, and the CS line stabilizes as Hooker is unable to make many gains
-McClellan takes office in March 1865

after this, one of two scenarios

1. McClellan declares an immeidate ceasefire on all fronts and begins negotiations with CS leaders

2. McClellan continues to fight the war, but badly mishandles it, and the US begins to become disillusioned and questions whether the war can be won. Possibly dragging on for another year or so, McClellan eventually gives up and declares a ceasefire.

So pick this apart please. Is it plausible?
 
Okay, let's take this piece by piece.

-Hamlin becomes President in August 1864
-Hamlin replaces Ulysses S. Grant with Joseph Hooker in August 1864

Why on earth would he replace Grant with Hooker?

-Hooker is more cautious than Grant, and proceeds with more caution.
-The CS still loses a lot of battles, but costs to the Union are higher than OTL

Hooker being more cautious increases casualties? I do not get this.

-The CS settles in for the long haul and begins a war of attrition, trying to fend off the US for as long as possible

How is this changing anything from OTL?

-The war drags on till November 1864
-Being unpopular due to mishandling the war, Hamlin is defeated for re-election by George McClellan
-Hamlin is in a race to defeat the Confederacy before McClellan takes over in March 1865
-Winter sets in, and the CS line stabilizes as Hooker is unable to make many gains
-McClellan takes office in March 1865

This is, of course, ignoring the Western armies.

after this, one of two scenarios

1. McClellan declares an immeidate ceasefire on all fronts and begins negotiations with CS leaders

Why would he do that?

2. McClellan continues to fight the war, but badly mishandles it, and the US begins to become disillusioned and questions whether the war can be won. Possibly dragging on for another year or so, McClellan eventually gives up and declares a ceasefire.

McClellan doesn't really need to do anything except not to do #1. The war will be won pretty much on schedule unless Hooker has really and truly f--ked up, to the point that there's no siege of Petersburg and the like.
 
Okay, let's take this piece by piece.



Why on earth would he replace Grant with Hooker?



Hooker being more cautious increases casualties? I do not get this.



How is this changing anything from OTL?



This is, of course, ignoring the Western armies.



Why would he do that?



McClellan doesn't really need to do anything except not to do #1. The war will be won pretty much on schedule unless Hooker has really and truly f--ked up, to the point that there's no siege of Petersburg and the like.

I can't see Hamlin replacing Grant with Hooker either. Why would he do that? Grant has a much better record than Hooker as he didn't lose a single campaign.

Also you are right even if he does this does not stop Sherman. Sherman will still take Atlanta and so Hamlin still gets the bump from that.

You correct here as well. Little Mac will only declare a cease fire if the CSA agrees to its own destruction and it is only for haggling about the details of reunion.
 
One reason to replace a better man with a worse man is - that (in this case) the president fears a "war hero" will replace him / make him look bad.

Often in History a good/exceptional leader could not stand having an equal good #2.

Not all decisions are dictated by logic, some are just made by instinct...
 
One reason to replace a better man with a worse man is - that (in this case) the president fears a "war hero" will replace him / make him look bad.

Often in History a good/exceptional leader could not stand having an equal good #2.

Not all decisions are dictated by logic, some are just made by instinct...

It's not even about logic, it's just . . . why? Hamlin doesn't have anything to fear from Grant replacing him, or making him look bad.
 
I can't see Hamlin replacing Grant with Hooker either. Why would he do that? Grant has a much better record than Hooker as he didn't lose a single campaign.

Especially because Hamlin will by trying to reassure the country as much as possible by projecting an image of stability and a continuation of Lincoln's policies. Which means not randomly replacing top generals.
 
August 1864:
POD: When the horse bolts, Lincoln falls off and breaks his neck, which kills him.

-Hamlin becomes President in August 1864
-Hamlin replaces Ulysses S. Grant with Joseph Hooker in August 1864
Hamlin replacing Grant is barely plausible. Grant had a towering reputation by 1864: Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga were an unparalleled record. But by August 1864, the butcher's bill for Grant's Virginia campaign was reaching staggering levels, and many Unionists were becoming demoralized. About this time, Lincoln himself wrote that he could not expect to be re-elected. So - Hamlin comes into office, and immediately begins to worry that Grant's losses will lose the election and the war. He hears that Grant is hitting the booze again. Possibly Halleck, who tried to discredit and supersede Grant in 1862, plays on these fears. Hamlin panics, and decides Grant must go. OK - but no way does he pick Hooker, whose last tenure at the Army of the Potomac was the disastrous Chancellorsville campaign. He might send Halleck to command the AotP; but I think Halleck would insist on staying in DC as Army chief of staff. He might be fool enough to elevate Ben Butler, who was actually senior to Meade. (Grant did not directly command the AotP. He was nominally commander in chief of the whole U.S. Army. Meade commanded the AotP under Grant's immediate control. Butler was commander of the Army of the James, the force sent to Bermuda Hundred to attack Petersburg. Butler had been promoted to Major General of volunteers in the first months of the war. Meade's elevation had come in 1863 - so Butler was senior to him. By August 1864, Lee was besieged at Petersburg, and the Union forces there, in nearby Bermuda Hundred, and across the James were effectively one sprawling command. In Grant's absence, Butler could claim command of the combined Union forces.) Butler was a clever politician, lawyer, and military administrator, but completely incapable as a combat commander. He might have screwed up the campaign so that it became a Confederate victory - if anyone could. By August 1864, Lee's army was pinned down at Petersburg. There were no more general field battles in that theater, only clashes between division and corps size forces as the Union probed the defenses and tried to reach the Confederate supply lines to the west. I don't see how even Butler could do much to lose the campaign. Possibly Butler decides to win the war in hurry, and strips his leift wing of troops for an all-out assault on the fortifications around Petersburg. The assault falls disastrously, and Lee takes advantage of the weak left flank for a devastating counterattack. Butler panics, and orders a general retreat to the east. Debacle, McClellan elected, etc.
 
That post could use some editing to make it clearer what you're saying.


But to respond tot he idea of a debacle: What about the Western armies? Do their efforts get ignored?
 
Starting with the ratification of the US Constitution in 1788 what is the weakest plausible United States? Would it be a Confederate ACW victory? Or would there be some way to keep the 1788 borders? Could you make it so that OTL seems a near-ASB Ameriwank?

Not without great effort. There simply isn't enough getting in the way of US expansion and development

OTL is certainly not inevitable, but rendering it "near-ASB" would take a great deal..
 
Top