McClellan's Reconstruction

Let's say by some fluke, Lincoln loses in 1864. I'm thinking a combination of the Fremont-Cochrane Radical Democracy party managing to gain some momentum and spoiling Lincoln plus something else (A Brazilian entry into the war following the Bahia incident?) tips things to McClellan.

Now, OTL the war ended in May 1865. McClellan won't even take office until March 1865. I'm thinking Lincoln and decides to speed up the war effort and the war ends just as McClellan is taking office.

McClellan is thus the one presiding over reconstruction, with a House and Senate that are Republican-dominated. How does that go?
 

Marc

Donor
To quote briefly from an essay on McClellan from the New York Times.

He denied the basic premise of Lincoln’s policy, that secession was an act of rebellion. Instead, he declared that the government had no right to “subjugate” the seceded states. So when their districts were occupied by Union forces, the “political rights” of Southerners must be automatically restored. As McClellan well knew, such a policy would slowly restore the Democratic Party’s national majority. McClellan also warned that “A declaration of radical views, upon slavery, will rapidly disintegrate our present Armies.”

Think someone actually worse than Andrew Johnson.
 
Let's say by some fluke, Lincoln loses in 1864. I'm thinking a combination of the Fremont-Cochrane Radical Democracy party managing to gain some momentum and spoiling Lincoln plus something else (A Brazilian entry into the war following the Bahia incident?) tips things to McClellan.

Now, OTL the war ended in May 1865. McClellan won't even take office until March 1865. I'm thinking Lincoln and decides to speed up the war effort and the war ends just as McClellan is taking office.

McClellan is thus the one presiding over reconstruction, with a House and Senate that are Republican-dominated. How does that go?

If anything occurs sufficient to shift the election to McClellan the strategic situation going into 1865 is definitely one changed into the favor of the Confederacy.
 

JJohnson

Banned
Let's say McClellan wins, but Lincoln somehow pulls off getting a Confederate loss and hands him reconstruction. The South would have their representation in the federal Congress restored, probably after some kind of loyalty oath of a percentage of the population. If McClellan wins, the Republicans will likely have lower numbers in both chambers, or be in the minority, meaning the radical reconstruction - overthrow the governments that just passed the 13th amendment and throw them out of congress till they pass the 14th amendment - won't happen.

So, McClellan wins, the 13th passes to outlaw slavery. He allows those same state governments to take oaths to the Union and those governments, in continuity with the government running the south 1861-1865, doesn't pass the OTL 14th or 15th amendments. At some point soon, the Supreme Court will rule that the freed slaves are citizens, and that could trigger an alternate 14th amendment: "All persons formerly held to service or labor, born within the United States, and under the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside." If worded this way, that avoids later re-interpretation to widespread birthright citizenship for illegal aliens and avoids birth tourism by foreigners in the US. But that's a later topic.

This new timeline, slavery is gone, thank God, but equality is not going on just yet. Without reconstruction there is likely no KKK, so less racial strife overall. If the Democrats of this time period retake all chambers, they may stifle black civil rights and legal equality at a federal level. Let's say also that the federal government redirects some tariff revenue south towards rebuilding infrastructure, rather than leaving the south destitute for decades, since McClellan has some pull with Congress. Railroads get rebuilt quicker; livestock is purchased and replaces that stolen, killed, or eaten by Union troops; homes and businesses are rebuilt sooner; blacks are employed doing this as are whites. Without the radical Republican Congress it's very likely the south would've recovered from Sherman's devastation much quicker and the south as a whole would have come out ahead decades earlier. But that's if Congress diverts funding to the south for rebuilding, like we did with the Marshall Plan for Europe. The South had no money, no credit, no livestock, no crops or seed, and many were homeless after the war.
 
Assuming the military situation is the same when he takes office, the South is still forced to surrender. Reconstruction however, would be vastly different, and it's quite possible slavery wouldn't have been ended.

The idea that there would be less racial strife is nonsense; there was plenty of white supremacist violence and riots before the KKK, and before congressional Reconstruction. Violence in the South against blacks ramped up only months after the Civil War, long before Radical Republicans came up with any real plans for Reconstruction. Andrew Johnson’s attempt to seek a reconciliation with the South by withdrawing federal troops meant doing nothing about violence against black and white Unionists.
 

JJohnson

Banned
Probably not if McClellan wins. I would think the Democrats take over or work with the 'Constitutional Union' party or the 'National Union' party to wedge them out.
 
Probably not if McClellan wins. I would think the Democrats take over or work with the 'Constitutional Union' party or the 'National Union' party to wedge them out.

How about the midterms in 1866? In OTL, the Republicans gained enough seats in Congress to override vetoes. Could that happen here?
 
Do theRepublicans still gain their Congressional majorities in 1864?

They do in the Senate, which was so overwhelmingly Republican that even the return of Democratic Senators from all the Confederate States would have been insufficient to deprive them of control. OTOH the Dems might gain control of the HoR.


How about the midterms in 1866? In OTL, the Republicans gained enough seats in Congress to override vetoes. Could that happen here

Senate maybe, HoR almost certainly no. If a Democratic HoR is elected with McClellan, and proceeds to admit representatives from the Rebel states, the Republicans might regain a majority at midterm, but would be very unlikely to get two-thirds. So they could not override vetoes.
 
Last edited:
The thought of Southern-sympathizer George McCllellan conducting reconstruction is enough to keep one up nights.
 
Didn't the democrats oppose passage of the 13th amendment? A democrat president (McClellan) would at least be neutral on it. Lincoln and Co. did a bit of arm twisting/politicking to get it passed. So I wouldn't be so sure the amendment passes, leaving slavery to die a different kind of death. I can't see anyone being brazen enough to actually use slave labor, but they might claim property rights/compensation.
 
Top