Mcellan Is elected in 1864, How Bad does it get?

How bad could it have gotten for the USA, or CSA, had McCellan been elected president of the USA? Does he give away the farm, or does he keep a hard line agaisnt giving to much away to the South?
 
It depends on the circumstances of his election.

1) Does he get elected because the Union is gaining little ground in 1864? If so, the Peace Democrats might get the war to end. I doubt if he gives away the farm because the Union would still be negotiating from a position of strength. That means you would only see the 11 states that actually seceded minus West Virginia and possibly plus Indian Territory. That means no Kentucky, no Missouri, no Maryland, and no Arizona Territory.

2) Does he get elected due to some crazy circumstances? a) Lincoln dies in 1864 due to getting shot while he was observing the war. Maybe voters judge McClellan as less crazy than Hamlin. Who knows? If this is the situation, I wouldn't see much changing beyond the initial POD unless Hamlin really screws up. b) Lincoln opts not to run for another term. I don't see why he wouldn't, but maybe the war takes an enormous toll on him and his wife manages to talk him into not running for a second term. Thus we get the whole issue of whether or not McClellan would be competent enough to handle the end of the war as opposed to Hamlin. You'd get a vastly different Reconstruction in this scenario either way.
 
thanks

It depends on the circumstances of his election.

1) Does he get elected because the Union is gaining little ground in 1864? If so, the Peace Democrats might get the war to end. I doubt if he gives away the farm because the Union would still be negotiating from a position of strength. That means you would only see the 11 states that actually seceded minus West Virginia and possibly plus Indian Territory. That means no Kentucky, no Missouri, no Maryland, and no Arizona Territory.

2) Does he get elected due to some crazy circumstances? a) Lincoln dies in 1864 due to getting shot while he was observing the war. Maybe voters judge McClellan as less crazy than Hamlin. Who knows? If this is the situation, I wouldn't see much changing beyond the initial POD unless Hamlin really screws up. b) Lincoln opts not to run for another term. I don't see why he wouldn't, but maybe the war takes an enormous toll on him and his wife manages to talk him into not running for a second term. Thus we get the whole issue of whether or not McClellan would be competent enough to handle the end of the war as opposed to Hamlin. You'd get a vastly different Reconstruction in this scenario either way.

thanks for the reply, i wondered what others would think about it.
 
McClellan saw himself as a little Napoleon and as the savior of his country. At all times he was very aware of his own personal reputation and cared very deeply how history would judge him. In his own words upon being promoted to command of the Army of the Potomac:

I find myself in a new and strange position here—Presdt, Cabinet, Genl Scott & all deferring to me—by some strange operation of magic I seem to have become the power of the land. ... I almost think that were I to win some small success now I could become Dictator or anything else that might please me—but nothing of that kind would please me—therefore I won't be Dictator. Admirable self-denial!'

He was conservative and while he agreed with putting down the South it was to save the Union, not to end slavery.

The crucial issue is whether or not Atlanta is captured before inauguration day. If that happens McClellan will definitely want to continue the war. With Atlanta fallen there should be enough public support and with the Republicans and War Democrats he will have no trouble with Congress. The Democratic platform in 1864 called for an immediate peace without specific mention of terms. McClellan however never declared he would carry out the platform.

Given his complete faith in what he thought was his own genius he certainly would have interfered with the armies in the field. Sherman would never have been permitted to march without a secure supply line or to allow Hood's army to turn north unopposed. Sherman would have been ordered to deal with Hood while continuing to conquer southern territory with firm supply mines.

Given the heavy losses of the 1864 campaign it is more than likely McClellan would have removed Grant from his command; likely leaving Meade in command in the field. Grant was too aggressive, too popular, and too independent to be to President McClellan's liking. He would have insisted the war be carried out according to his own conservative philosophy.

Fortunately by the time he would have been President the Union advantage was so massive there would be no way to lose the war. Though his interference might have protracted the fighting into the summer or fall of 1866.

The most important thing is the fact McClellan was willing to negotiate on all points except for slavery. The slaves who had already been liberated by the Emancipation Proclamation would remain free, however those still in Confederate territory when the war ends might remain slaves. Given public sentiments by 1865 and Republican control of Congress a more likely solution would be a phasing out of the remaining slaves with federal compensation. By that point there would be so many freed slaves that the institution could not survive except as a curiosity.

McClellan would fight for a 'soft' peace and would wage political battle with the Radical Republicans over the shape and form of reconstruction.
 
Regardless of how he gets elected, he will fight to perpetuate the Union. The problem will be that he will want a Union with the Peculiar Institution intact, vigorous, alive, and well......:eek::eek::eek:
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Regardless of how he gets elected, he will fight to perpetuate the Union. The problem will be that he will want a Union with the Peculiar Institution intact, vigorous, alive, and well......:eek::eek::eek:

No, he wanted it gone. However he was of the opinion that compensated manumission would be more acceptable.

As he wrote Lincoln on 7th July 1862:

"The right of the Government to appropriate permanently to its own service claims to slave labor should be asserted, and the right of the owner to compensation therefor should be recognized.

This principle might be extended, upon grounds of military necessity and security, to all the slaves of a particular State, thus working manumission in such State; and in Missouri, perhaps in Western Virginia also, and possibly even in Maryland, the expediency of such a measure is only a question of time.

A system of policy thus constitutional, and pervaded by the influences of Christianity and freedom, would receive the support of almost all truly loyal men, would deeply impress the rebel masses and all foreign nations, and it might be humbly hoped that it would commend itself to the favor of the Almighty."

Essentially this is McClellan recommending to Lincoln they should forcibly purchase and set free all slaves in the Union.
 
No, he did not want it gone, and his rhetoric in 1864 IOTL certainly shows this. He believed the Emancipation Proclamation was an abomination. He also opposed the 13th Amendment.
 
Well the important thing is that as a practical matter the institution was already dead as an economic system. The war had freed millions of slaves, there was no possibility of re-enslaving them. As General Sherman said:

They can no more get their slaves back than they can get back their dead grandfathers. It is dead.

Whatever his personal feelings McClellan was aware of public sentiment and the political strength of the Republicans. At some point in 65 or even 66 Davis and his government are going to have to acknowledge the war is lost and it's time to negotiate.

McClellan could offer federal compensation to all slave owners who still had saves. That would both end slavery, satisfy most of the north, and offer the south a small face saving gesture. I could also see McClellan wanting to offer the Southern states aid in reconstruction while trying to maintain the antebellum culture.

Given his conservative beliefs he would certainly be opposed to granting the former slaves citizenship or in any way empowering them politically or economically. His priority would be to restore a strong and loyal south to the union.
 
Off hand, I can think of a bad scenario: Mac gets elected because the war is going so shitty - as does a slate of Copperheads and Peace Democrats. Mac micromanages and bungles the war up further, and the Peace faction starts really pushing for a settlement. In fact, some start talking up impeaching him to let George Pendleton secure an end to the war. Meanwhile, war weariness leads to increased support for Copperheads, and there's some anti-government violence. Mac starts thinking maybe he was wrong, Dictator doesn't sound SO bad, then he can deal with all those traitors and Copperheads and secessionists right...
 
Off hand, I can think of a bad scenario: Mac gets elected because the war is going so shitty - as does a slate of Copperheads and Peace Democrats. Mac micromanages and bungles the war up further, and the Peace faction starts really pushing for a settlement. In fact, some start talking up impeaching him to let George Pendleton secure an end to the war. Meanwhile, war weariness leads to increased support for Copperheads, and there's some anti-government violence. Mac starts thinking maybe he was wrong, Dictator doesn't sound SO bad, then he can deal with all those traitors and Copperheads and secessionists right...


How can the Copperheads threaten impeachment while the Republicans still control the Senate? The Republicans don't love Mac, but they won't remove him to put Pendleton in his place.

Also, the new and possibly (not certainly) Democratic HoR won't meet till Dec 1865, unles Pres McClellan calls it sooner. So he's got the whole of that year to see the war through.
 
Once Atlanta falls the end of the war is within sight. McClellan was an overly cautious commander he always thought more about what the enemy might do as opposed to what he might. He was however not incompetent. He simply referred to win my maneuver while 'playing by the book' as it were. While never brilliant or innovative her at least had the virtue of never being reckless or careless with the lives of his men like generals such as Hooker, Burnsides, or Hood.

Victory would have taken longer as he would not have approved of any risky ventures, but this very same refusal to take needless risks also means the Union is not going to suffer any major disasters. Outnumbering the enemy about four to one by the time he takes office he will just have his armies grind forward until the South admits defeat.

While he saw himself as another Napoleon and a man of destiny I don't think deep down he had the necessary nerve to be a dictator.
 
Top