McClellan wins in 1864

jeffking

Banned
Let's suppose that the Sherman offensive is stopped in Tennesee and the Virginia offensive continues to stagnate into stalemate, if by election day 1864 the picture of the war is no different than the year before does McClellan win the election? and if he does does he propose immediately armistace terms of say a union between North and South much like England's relation to it's dominions? Does he outlaw the Emancipation? and if he does continue the war what are the chances he makes himself overall General in Staff?
 
Sherman won't be stopped so long as his opponents are the OTL ones. He's too smart to fall for their tricks requiring him to be dumb and neither of them has it what it takes to attack with a manner that'd make Sherman bleed enough to make it worthwhile. Now, the best way for *this* to happen is for Lee to win the Battle of the James after the Battle of Cold Harbor. Then the CSA has won the war on the battlefield, leaving Little Mac with the dilemma of having a commitment to preserving the Union but nothing to preserve the Union *with*.
 
Well there's still the problem of the Democrats having an incoherent platform, with different wings of the party wanting to dgo in much different directions. There were those Democrats who were outright sympathetic to the Confederacy and opposed the abolition of slavery, those that though they supported abolition believed that the Confederacy had a right to independence and those Copperheads that wanted to bring them treacherous Dixies back into the Union by whatever means it demanded so that they could thereafter hang Jeff Davis from the highest tree in Washington D. C. The Democratic ticket of 1864 had a pro-War Presidential Nominee (McClellan) an anti-War Vice-Presidential Nominee (Pendleton) while the party platform was for peace with the South (and personally rejected by McClellan). This contributed greatly to Lincoln's landslide: most people didn't know what they would be voted for if they voted Democratic. National Union on the other hand was clear and consistent in their program and nominee. Additionally, as a general, McClellan wasn't actually that good. Lincoln was at one point so irritated about McClellan that he remarked "If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time."

So, the timeline you're thinking about creating... I assume that McClellan will be a Peace Candidate, rather than the pro-War candidate he was in our timeline... Maybe, under the circumstances you're suggesting. If we just went with our timeline up to the election and still had McClellan winning, I would be offering the following reply:

"Just like John Quincy Adams appointed Henry Clay Secretary of State after the latter had helped the former win the Presidential Election of 1824, so George B. McClellan appointed Bmelmixibarotto Orglaxinicatzuki-Flephlminskiowraxxxa'thoplathlon, an Alien Space Bat from Alderamin VII, for his hand (or more aptly, wing) in letting the Democrats win the 1864 election, as Secretary of the Treasury."
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Joe Harsh made an astute observation in his PhD thesis. McClellan was not seeking the 1864 nomination and in fact had avoided getting involved in the debates. Because of this he had no input into the platform, and was effectively bound into a negotiated peace. No doubt he'd try and win the war, but has to deal with the peace platform.

Sherman was paranoid and was convinced Johnston had a larger force than his. It would not be hard for him to suffer a bad defeat and fall back. Grant of course was totally outgeneralled by Lee and *did* devolve into a stalemate.

You may like for McClellan to actively seek nomination, in which case he'd be at the convention, force through a war democrat platform and this would strip away the war democrats from Lincoln. For real ****s and giggles you could have Fremont not surrender the radical platform and split the Republican vote. The peace Democrats might well split from McClellan, but he'd probably win.

If he got in McClellan understands the difference between the Office of the Presidency and a military Commission. He resigned his Commission just before the election so that he would not by an army officer if elected. Honestly? He might well put Meade in as GiC. He also proposed compensated emancipation if I remember correctly. However, reunification was a necessity.
 
Joe Harsh made an astute observation in his PhD thesis. McClellan was not seeking the 1864 nomination and in fact had avoided getting involved in the debates. Because of this he had no input into the platform, and was effectively bound into a negotiated peace. No doubt he'd try and win the war, but has to deal with the peace platform.

Sherman was paranoid and was convinced Johnston had a larger force than his. It would not be hard for him to suffer a bad defeat and fall back. Grant of course was totally outgeneralled by Lee and *did* devolve into a stalemate.

You may like for McClellan to actively seek nomination, in which case he'd be at the convention, force through a war democrat platform and this would strip away the war democrats from Lincoln. For real ****s and giggles you could have Fremont not surrender the radical platform and split the Republican vote. The peace Democrats might well split from McClellan, but he'd probably win.

If he got in McClellan understands the difference between the Office of the Presidency and a military Commission. He resigned his Commission just before the election so that he would not by an army officer if elected. Honestly? He might well put Meade in as GiC. He also proposed compensated emancipation if I remember correctly. However, reunification was a necessity.

Have you ever actually written a TL about McClellan? Don't mean to be rude, but you are AH.Coms Resident Mcellan Super Fan.
 
Absent ASBs the only way the Confederacy ever wins is if the majority of the population in the north decides they are OK with letting the south go (and does this include Kentucky? W.Virginia..important questions). BTW I consider England and France intervening on the Confederate side ASB - France won't unless Britain does and the odds of England sending the RN over to break the Union blockade is essentially nil.

If the election of Little Mac in 1864 is equated with a desire in the North to "let our wayward sisters go", then you see an independent CSA. If Mac's election is just about changing horses, then it only helps the CSA to the extent he interferes with the conduct of the war.

The US CW is often referred to as the first "industrial" war - and the CSA's problem was they didn't really have any industry, and were outnumbered over 4:1 in white population. Interesting industrial fact - during the CW the US put down many many many miles of NEW RR trackage (not counting repairing damaged mileage), the net increase in RR trackage in the CSA was essentially zero - very little capacity to make rails, and no locomotive works in the CSA at the beginning of the war....
 
Joe Harsh made an astute observation in his PhD thesis. McClellan was not seeking the 1864 nomination and in fact had avoided getting involved in the debates.

Shortly after the Peninsula Campaign, Fernando Wood was telling McClellan he was presidential material. This is shortly after McClellan wrote to Lincoln, trying to tell Lincon how to do his job.

By the 1864 election, McClellan had several campaign managers - Samuel Barlow, Samuel Cox, August Belmont, Dean Richmond, Samuel Tilden, Sanford Church, and Manton Marble.

Because of this he had no input into the platform, and was effectively bound into a negotiated peace. No doubt he'd try and win the war, but has to deal with the peace platform.

McClellan's managers had input in the platform, just not enough to change it.

Sherman was paranoid and was convinced Johnston had a larger force than his. It would not be hard for him to suffer a bad defeat and fall back. Grant of course was totally outgeneralled by Lee and *did* devolve into a stalemate.

It's statements like this that make people wonder what timeline you are from, since your opinions definitely don't match the events of OTL.

You may like for McClellan to actively seek nomination, in which case he'd be at the convention, force through a war democrat platform and this would strip away the war democrats from Lincoln.

Ramming a pro-war platform down the throat of of the 1864 Democratic Convention is not going to turn Stanton, Johnson, Butler, etc. into McClellan supporters.

For real ****s and giggles you could have Fremont not surrender the radical platform and split the Republican vote. The peace Democrats might well split from McClellan, but he'd probably win.

The Peace Democrats considered OTL's peace plank on the 1864 Democratic platform to be weak. With a war plank, McClellan will lose a lot more of their votes than Lincoln would lose to Fremont.

He also proposed compensated emancipation if I remember correctly.

I'd be interested in seeing a source.
 
Also, what happens between election and inauguration?

That's an additional four months of war. If March 4 finds Atlanta fallen and Sherman just starting his march to the sea, is President McClellan going to call him back? I don't see it.
 
Also, what happens between election and inauguration?

That's an additional four months of war. If March 4 finds Atlanta fallen and Sherman just starting his march to the sea, is President McClellan going to call him back? I don't see it.

Lincoln has planned to basically win the war "at any cost" if he were to lose reelection before he had to hand over the Office to McClellan. The South likely would still collapse and Surrender, possibly even faster than it did, and McClellan would be left to handle Reconstruction.​
 
Lincoln has planned to basically win the war "at any cost" if he were to lose reelection before he had to hand over the Office to McClellan. The South likely would still collapse and Surrender, possibly even faster than it did, and McClellan would be left to handle Reconstruction.​

One thing Lincoln can certainly do is use the lame duck session of the old Congress to vote sufficient funding that Mac can continue the war through 1865, and does not need to summon the new one prior to December.

Can the Confederacy hold on that long?
 
Top