Lincoln Sort of Loses to McClellan

What if McClellan won the popular vote and North electoral college in 1864, Louisiana is split (let's say they passed a law instruction division of their electoral votes like Colorado did in 2000) but if Tennessee (75% for Lincoln and winner take all) and Louisiana (split) are counted then Lincoln wins. What does the electoral commission do?
 
You would need earlier POD that Lincoln would lost to McClellan. Civil War should go very badly that McClellan would has any chances. In OTL McClellan lost very clearly and he wasn't even close of Lincoln in these states which McClellan lost.

But if McClellan would win the election he is not going negotiate peace with South if then there is not strong Democratic Congress and much pressure towards him.
 
You would need earlier POD that Lincoln would lost to McClellan. Civil War should go very badly that McClellan would has any chances. In OTL McClellan lost very clearly and he wasn't even close of Lincoln in these states which McClellan lost.

But if McClellan would win the election he is not going negotiate peace with South if then there is not strong Democratic Congress and much pressure towards him.

Tenasee's unionist government held the vote in OTL even though they were told they couldn't send electors. Maybe Johnson can convince the electoral commission otherwise
 
They will be if the only alternative is letting McClellan win.

So I guess the unionist governments of those states (who were told ahead of time their electors wouldn't get to come but organized the vote anyways) would be like "yay, we're useful"
 
You would need earlier POD that Lincoln would lost to McClellan. Civil War should go very badly that McClellan would has any chances. In OTL McClellan lost very clearly and he wasn't even close of Lincoln in these states which McClellan lost.

OP is asking more of the effects of the listed scenario as opposed to bringing it about.

But if McClellan would win the election he is not going negotiate peace with South if then there is not strong Democratic Congress and much pressure towards him.

If McClellan has won, the Democrats have likely secured Congress or at least made large gains on his coattails. If McClellan wins period, it's definitely going to be on the back of war weariness/defeatism on the part of the Northern public, so the pressure will definitely be in the other direction to what you are proposing.
 
If McClellan has won, the Democrats have likely secured Congress or at least made large gains on his coattails. If McClellan wins period, it's definitely going to be on the back of war weariness/defeatism on the part of the Northern public, so the pressure will definitely be in the other direction to what you are proposing.

Alternatively, and I'd argue far more likely, it's a vote against an absolutist hardline stance of "Unconditional Surrender" and the crackdowns on civil liberties the Republicians are pushing. No Peace Without Reunion was still an incredibly popular position, and in reality that was the faction Little Mac trucked with. If he wins, I think Congress is far more likely to see a case of transformismo with the War Dems and Moderate Republicans co-operating to isolate the extremes on both sides and, from their commanding position of military strength, try to intice Richmond into voluntarily laying down arms and reintegrating into the Union. Make it clear that this is a limited time offer though; that steady gains will continue to be made and the terms on the table will only get worse the longer they drag things out
 
Alternatively, and I'd argue far more likely, it's a vote against an absolutist hardline stance of "Unconditional Surrender" and the crackdowns on civil liberties the Republicians are pushing. No Peace Without Reunion was still an incredibly popular position, and in reality that was the faction Little Mac trucked with. If he wins, I think Congress is far more likely to see a case of transformismo with the War Dems and Moderate Republicans co-operating to isolate the extremes on both sides and, from their commanding position of military strength, try to intice Richmond into voluntarily laying down arms and reintegrating into the Union. Make it clear that this is a limited time offer though; that steady gains will continue to be made and the terms on the table will only get worse the longer they drag things out

But would Johnson be able to convince the electoral commission to allow Tenaseee's vote count in this case?
 
But would Johnson be able to convince the electoral commission to allow Tenaseee's vote count in this case?

Unlikely. The sentiment in the population would be one looking for co-operation, legitimacy/rule of law, ect. so the Commission likely doesn't want to make it look like the Republicians won based on corrupt political manuvering. So, since McClellan has the popular vote I don't think they could be swung, especially since one of the big sticky points would be the EP; inticing the South back in probably means throwing that in the fire which Lincoln couldn't be counted on to do
 
If McClellan has won, the Democrats have likely secured Congress or at least made large gains on his coattails.

But it is the outgoing (Republican) Congress which will count the Electoral votes.

Incidentally, the Senate is overwhelmingly Republican, so there is no way the Dems can gain control. They might in theory win the House, but even that isn't assured.
 
But it is the outgoing (Republican) Congress which will count the Electoral votes.

Incidentally, the Senate is overwhelmingly Republican, so there is no way the Dems can gain control. They might in theory win the House, but even that isn't assured.

No the commission will count the votes, not Congress itself. Besides in this particular case, who won which state isn't in doubt, no state sent disputed returns so whoever is on the commission doesn't need to count, just decide wheather or not the loyalist government of Tenasee and Louisina get to send their electors after they were told it was a waste of time.

I agree with one thing. Even though the Democrats might make gains on McClellan's coattails, it doesn't mean they sieze either House. They might, but no garuntee.
 
Alternatively, and I'd argue far more likely, it's a vote against an absolutist hardline stance of "Unconditional Surrender" and the crackdowns on civil liberties the Republicians are pushing. No Peace Without Reunion was still an incredibly popular position, and in reality that was the faction Little Mac trucked with. If he wins, I think Congress is far more likely to see a case of transformismo with the War Dems and Moderate Republicans co-operating to isolate the extremes on both sides and, from their commanding position of military strength, try to intice Richmond into voluntarily laying down arms and reintegrating into the Union. Make it clear that this is a limited time offer though; that steady gains will continue to be made and the terms on the table will only get worse the longer they drag things out

McClellan didnt disavow the peace plank until after Atlanta, was telling Pro-Peace Democrats he was in favor of peace and the party platform was for Peace.

But it is the outgoing (Republican) Congress which will count the Electoral votes.

Blatantly stealing the election would not go over well, to say the least; 1876 is a good example of this.

Incidentally, the Senate is overwhelmingly Republican, so there is no way the Dems can gain control. They might in theory win the House, but even that isn't assured.

Winning the White House, the House and major gains in the Senate sends a pretty clear message.
 
Last edited:
McClellan didnt endorse the peace plank until after Atlanta, was telling Pro-Peace Democrats he was in favor of peace and the party platform was for Peace.

Um, no. He was part of the "no union, no peace" crowd until the convention was dominated by Peace Democrats. And the earlier position is not really a Peace democrat by any means.
 
Um, no. He was part of the "no union, no peace" crowd until the convention was dominated by Peace Democrats. And the earlier position is not really a Peace democrat by any means.

He didn't declare himself a War Democrat/disavow the peace plank until Atlanta was won and prior to that was telling others in private he was in favor of peace. This is not consistent with a firm War Democrat.
 
He didn't declare himself a War Democrat/disavow the peace plank until Atlanta was won and prior to that was telling others in private he was in favor of peace. This is not consistent with a firm War Democrat.

No he never said anyone he was "in favor of peace" that would end the union. Everyone wanted "peace" the question is if anything was on table.
 
What if McClellan won the popular vote and North electoral college in 1864, Louisiana is split (let's say they passed a law instruction division of their electoral votes like Colorado did in 2000) but if Tennessee (75% for Lincoln and winner take all) and Louisiana (split) are counted then Lincoln wins.


The thing about the 1864 election is that it wasn't even close. McClellan didn't just lose he got annihilated. We're talking landslide loss here for him. If he flips EVERY state that voted for Lincoln by under a 5% margine he STILL loses. If the Confederacy was allowed to vote and unanimously support him he STILL loses. If New York and Pennsylvania flip AND the CSA is allowed to vote unanimously for him he STILL loses. That's the magnitude of how badly McClellan lost the election. And this is WITHOUT counting Louisiania and Tennessee for Lincoln. Do that and McClellan can win Conneticut as well (the only other state to go Lincoln by under 5%) and he still loses.

McClellan winning in the way you describe would take such a massive flip in voters that I really can't see a path to it happening short of massive changes in the years before 1864, which more or less invalidates the scenario. Or time-traveling South Africans. Either way, not seeing it.

What does the electoral commission do?

Uh...the what commission?

Because so far as I know there ain't an electoral commission. Outside the 1876 election that is, but that was weird and doesn't count.
 
No he never said anyone he was "in favor of peace" that would end the union. Everyone wanted "peace" the question is if anything was on table.

He didn't say he was in favor of continued warfare until after Atlanta either; McClellan quite clearly was keeping his options open but seemed to lean on the side of peace until it became clear victory was likely. His first open political act, for example, was to endorse the pro-peace Copperhead George Woodward for governor of Pennsylvania in 1863. Throughout the 1864 campaign he had also been assuring Manton Marble, the Pro-Peace editor of the New York World, that he was in favor of a ceasefire and negotiations with the Confederacy without pre-conditions.
 
Top