WI:George B. McClellan Wins the 1864 election?

I was thinking, what would happen if George B. McClellan won the 1864 Election. His platform was to end the war, so what would peace look like? Would it be a status quo before the battle of manassas? or would it be different? Would the only way to influence the votes to his favor would to have the Union lose battles in Northern Virginia and the march to sea be a failure? Maybe Grant and Shurman need to be eliminated?

Also these are a few questions that could have to do with a treaty?
Would the confederates be able to get a pacific ocean port? Would Arizona and new mexico (southern) stay with the CSA? Could we see a capital change as DC is close to the CSA? Maybe have a union Northern Virginia State formed (North of Rappahanock)? Would the virginia penninsula become union to guarentee the acess of the Chesepake Bay? Would the Mississippi river be free for all acsess? Would the confederates abandon claims to kentucky missouri and West virginia? Would there be reperations for the siezed union properity?
 
It really would depend on the POD you use to achieve that victory.

A great POD might be Bragg stopping a bullet at Chickamauga. That would force almost certainly force Davis to have Johnston take over in the West again. Lee was urging this all along anyways.

Johnston's not going to win the Battle of Chatanooga or it's equivilent once Grant gets there with reinforcements, nor do I think he's aggressive enough to force a battle before hand and try and eliminate the Army of the Cumberland, but he won't bungle the battle the way Bragg did, and likely you'd see higher Union casualties vs lower Confederate casualties.

Leaving Johnston in charge throughout the Altanta campaign, could concievably be enough of a bloodbath to turn Union voters against Lincoln. Especially if Altanta holds until November 1864.

So couple a bloody Overland campaign with an equally bloody Altanta campaign, neither of them securing their primary objectives during that year as Richmond and Altanta still hold and the Armys of Tennessee and Northern Virginia are still going concerns, and you could see a public disenchanted enough to throw Lincoln out, if barely.

Now you're biggest problem with President McClellan, even though he was the peace Democrat's nominee, he never was solidly stated to have favored a peace platform. More than likely, he's try and continue the war and do what Old Abe couldn't. He was rather egotistic and petty.

But let's suppose you have a negotiated peace settlement in 1865 as you suggested.

There's no way the South is going to get a Pacific port from any settlement. None. Even Confederate Arizona territory(OTL's southern AZ and NM) is a sketchy proposition being the South's one attempt in 1862 to take it was soundly beaten.

To be honest, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri are all likely to be non-negotiable for the Union as well. You'll see pro-Southern attitudes in the latter two states, especially Kentucky for some time to come, but not enough to wrestle either state from the Union. Certainly Confederate force of arms didn't do the trick.

So you'd see the South consisting of the eleven core states, Indian territory, and -maaaaybe- Confederate Arizona. You may also get the Union to pay some indemnities for the damage the war caused the South too, though the value of siezed Federal property would likely be deducted from this.

I would also see the North demanding free trade access rights to the Mississippi. Especially since they'd effectively be giving back the entireity of the valley back to the South. This would be a point of contention years down the road perhaps, but right now the south isn't in a position to argue over it.

Basicly a peace treaty signed in 1865 would be because the North is tired of it, more than the South compelled them to. So they would get to dictate the terms of the peace.
 
There's no way the South is going to get a Pacific port from any settlement. None. Even Confederate Arizona territory(OTL's southern AZ and NM) is a sketchy proposition being the South's one attempt in 1862 to take it was soundly beaten.

To be honest, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri are all likely to be non-negotiable for the Union as well. You'll see pro-Southern attitudes in the latter two states, especially Kentucky for some time to come, but not enough to wrestle either state from the Union. Certainly Confederate force of arms didn't do the trick.

So you'd see the South consisting of the eleven core states, Indian territory, and -maaaaybe- Confederate Arizona. You may also get the Union to pay some indemnities for the damage the war caused the South too, though the value of siezed Federal property would likely be deducted from this.

I would also see the North demanding free trade access rights to the Mississippi. Especially since they'd effectively be giving back the entireity of the valley back to the South. This would be a point of contention years down the road perhaps, but right now the south isn't in a position to argue over it.

Basicly a peace treaty signed in 1865 would be because the North is tired of it, more than the South compelled them to. So they would get to dictate the terms of the peace.

What about my Northern Virginia idea? becoming union? i was thinking this could be the trade off for confederate acess to the pacific
 
It really would depend on the POD you use to achieve that victory.

A great POD might be Bragg stopping a bullet at Chickamauga. That would force almost certainly force Davis to have Johnston take over in the West again. Lee was urging this all along anyways.

Johnston's not going to win the Battle of Chatanooga or it's equivilent once Grant gets there with reinforcements, nor do I think he's aggressive enough to force a battle before hand and try and eliminate the Army of the Cumberland, but he won't bungle the battle the way Bragg did, and likely you'd see higher Union casualties vs lower Confederate casualties.

Leaving Johnston in charge throughout the Altanta campaign, could concievably be enough of a bloodbath to turn Union voters against Lincoln. Especially if Altanta holds until November 1864.

So couple a bloody Overland campaign with an equally bloody Altanta campaign, neither of them securing their primary objectives during that year as Richmond and Altanta still hold and the Armys of Tennessee and Northern Virginia are still going concerns, and you could see a public disenchanted enough to throw Lincoln out, if barely.

Now you're biggest problem with President McClellan, even though he was the peace Democrat's nominee, he never was solidly stated to have favored a peace platform. More than likely, he's try and continue the war and do what Old Abe couldn't. He was rather egotistic and petty.

But let's suppose you have a negotiated peace settlement in 1865 as you suggested.

There's no way the South is going to get a Pacific port from any settlement. None. Even Confederate Arizona territory(OTL's southern AZ and NM) is a sketchy proposition being the South's one attempt in 1862 to take it was soundly beaten.

To be honest, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri are all likely to be non-negotiable for the Union as well. You'll see pro-Southern attitudes in the latter two states, especially Kentucky for some time to come, but not enough to wrestle either state from the Union. Certainly Confederate force of arms didn't do the trick.

So you'd see the South consisting of the eleven core states, Indian territory, and -maaaaybe- Confederate Arizona. You may also get the Union to pay some indemnities for the damage the war caused the South too, though the value of siezed Federal property would likely be deducted from this.

I would also see the North demanding free trade access rights to the Mississippi. Especially since they'd effectively be giving back the entireity of the valley back to the South. This would be a point of contention years down the road perhaps, but right now the south isn't in a position to argue over it.

Basicly a peace treaty signed in 1865 would be because the North is tired of it, more than the South compelled them to. So they would get to dictate the terms of the peace.

There is no way the South would get either Arizona or indemnities as the South was incapable of forcing either through, particularly the latter. How are they going to force the North to pay a dime?? If Little Mac would agree to that he might as well resign before he gets lynched! The South could consider itself lucky if they don't lose Tenn as that state was basically lost before the '64 election.
 
McClellan did not want to end the war. He supported the full continuation of the war. The Democratic bosses wanted to end the war, and made peace their platform. The Democrats saying they'd end the war with McClellan while McClellan had to keep saying he wanted to continue it is a big reason why he lost.
 
McClellan did not want to end the war. He supported the full continuation of the war. The Democratic bosses wanted to end the war, and made peace their platform. The Democrats saying they'd end the war with McClellan while McClellan had to keep saying he wanted to continue it is a big reason why he lost.

Even the Democratic platform said the peace negotiations had to be based on re-union. They would drop the slavery question but not the re-union one. Even that would not have included Black Union soldiers as Little Mac said previously that any slave that helped the US Army in any fashion (as a soldier/spy) would get permenant military protection. Much as I dislike the man he was fairly honorable and would have kept his word.
 
Now you're biggest problem with President McClellan, even though he was the peace Democrat's nominee, he never was solidly stated to have favored a peace platform. More than likely, he's try and continue the war and do what Old Abe couldn't. He was rather egotistic and petty.
McClellan does seem likely to provide the rather unusual scenario of being a much more literal commander-in-chief of the US army. I really can't see McClellan going to the peace table without having spent at least one campaign season trying to fight the war the way he always wanted to.

All things considered, I think he has a decent shot at pulling off a win, especially if his role as Commander-in-Chief leaves him focusing more on logistics and grand strategy (his best points) without as much of an active battlefield role (where he was skilled, but missed opportunities where bold action might have been decisive). It helps that the 1865 Confederacy would already be pretty badly worn down.

Odds are pretty good he would try for something like the Peninsular Campaign again; he loved the idea of using US naval superiority to bypass Lee's army and Northern Virginia's defense-friendly terrain, but Lincoln's opposition seriously complicated his attempt at it. With a free field, he's likely to try it again.
 
The problem with the Democrats winning in 1864 is McClellan was a War Democrat but his base was a bunch of Peace Democrats. A McClellan Administration might be the Bizarro Obama Administration, namely McClellan follows through on his statements to continue the war but his base throws a bitch-fit despite his having made that explicit from the first.
 
Ok, what could convince George to be a pro peace?

Body snatchers. McClellan being misinterpreted as against the war is due to the Vallindingham Democrats assuming quite a bit of influence over his campaign, it has nothing to do with the man's personal views. It's kind of like how Barack Obama was saying he'd fight the Afghanistan War in 2007 but then when he was elected and continued said war Democrats suddenly thought "But he never said he would."

McClellan, however, would not have had the 13th or 14th Amendments as part of the postwar setting, which would have a lot of nastiness in its own right.
 
Im not familliar with the process of declaring war in the united states, but could instead a majority in congress vote to end the war?
 
Im not familliar with the process of declaring war in the united states, but could instead a majority in congress vote to end the war?

In 1865 with Lee besieged in Richmond and Sherman securing Atlanta, even if too late for Lincoln to be re-elected? You're joking, right?
 
Last edited:
In 1865 with Lee besieging Richmond and Sherman securing Atlanta, even if too late for Lincoln to be re-elected? You're joking, right?

First off as mentioned earlier i intend to butterfly away Grant and Sherman succeding in their respective campaigns.

Also Lee besieging Richmond??????????????
I thought he was confederate

Now my TL is invalid
 
In 1865 with Lee besieging Richmond and Sherman securing Atlanta, even if too late for Lincoln to be re-elected? You're joking, right?

Besides the only way to do so is to refuse to vote for funds supporting it, with troops being on the field. That would be political suicide. If they do that they might as well concede the '66 and '68 elections, at the very least.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Even the Democratic platform said the peace negotiations had to be based on re-union.

Yes and no. The platform called for an immediate ceasefire, with negotiations to be opened afterwards to bring the South back into the Union. Basically, the Peace Democrats expected the South to rejoin the Union if the Democrats were in power and offered ironclad guarantees that slavery would be preserved. The fact that this was nonsense didn't stop a lot of Democrats from believing it.

Honestly, if a cease-fire went into effect, it could only have happened because the Northern public had lost the will to go on with the war (why else would they have voted Lincoln out?). And many Republicans would no longer have seen the war as worth fighting if the abolition of slavery were no longer a war aim.

That being the case, had an immediate cease-fire gone into effect, it would been politically impossible to resume hostilities afterwards.

Besides the only way to do so is to refuse to vote for funds supporting it, with troops being on the field. That would be political suicide.

Not necessairly. Many of the Congressional Democrats came from districts within the large cities, where opposition to the war was intense.
 
Yes and no. The platform called for an immediate ceasefire, with negotiations to be opened afterwards to bring the South back into the Union. Basically, the Peace Democrats expected the South to rejoin the Union if the Democrats were in power and offered ironclad guarantees that slavery would be preserved. The fact that this was nonsense didn't stop a lot of Democrats from believing it.

Honestly, if a cease-fire went into effect, it could only have happened because the Northern public had lost the will to go on with the war (why else would they have voted Lincoln out?). And many Republicans would no longer have seen the war as worth fighting if the abolition of slavery were no longer a war aim.

That being the case, had an immediate cease-fire gone into effect, it would been politically impossible to resume hostilities afterwards.



Not necessairly. Many of the Congressional Democrats came from districts within the large cities, where opposition to the war was intense.

It still would have been suicide. Voters don't tend to be thrilled with the idea that their family members are dying because congress doesn't allow the army to buy bullets and food. Even a withdrawl will take money. The army will know how to play the game of overestimating how much it costs to withdraw to continue the war. Little Mac also said before the election that there wouldn't be a cease fire until the South agreed to re-union and he would control the diplomats as well as the army.
 
I could see the Atlanta Campaign taking a lot longer than IOTL but I've yet to see anyone give a good detailed explanation of how Grant's Virginia campaign would be kept from reaching the James River much longer than it took IOTL. "Once he got to the James, it would become a siege, and then it would only be a matter of time...*"

*-Paraphrasing Robert E. Lee
 
If you want a negotiated peace with Southern independence, I think the best time to achieve it is before Lincoln's inauguration. You might also be able to have the Virginian militia seize Washington after they seceded but before the North got enough of an army there to stop them; I know the North was scared about that. The next best time is after the 1862 congressional elections; have the South win enough battles to give a Democrat victory.

If you want peace and Southern independence in 1864, I don't think you can do it with McClellan. You'd need Valandingham or another Copperhead in office, someone who actually wanted to give up even though the war was all but won - and I don't see how you can have him elected without all the electors suddenly turning faithless or the South suddenly gaining invincible body armor.

If this happened, and if it happened without alien space bats helping the Southern armies, the Confederate territory is basically going to depend on how much President Valandingham or whoever thinks he can get away with. In a somewhat realistic scenario, I can see them keeping the original eleven states minus Tennessee and maybe plus Indian Territory - but I'm not Valandingham, and I don't know whether there would be enough Copperheads in Congress to save him from instant impeachment.
 
First off as mentioned earlier i intend to butterfly away Grant and Sherman succeding in their respective campaigns.

Also Lee besieging Richmond??????????????
I thought he was confederate

Now my TL is invalid

You can delay the Atlanta Campaign, as that's what ensured Lincoln was re-elected. Delaying the Overland Campaign isn't needed, the mere reality of the Siege of Petersburg was quite unpopular with the North in 1864 as they'd really underestimated the difficulty of defeating even the attenuated ANV.

Besides the only way to do so is to refuse to vote for funds supporting it, with troops being on the field. That would be political suicide. If they do that they might as well concede the '66 and '68 elections, at the very least.

^Yup.

I could see the Atlanta Campaign taking a lot longer than IOTL but I've yet to see anyone give a good detailed explanation of how Grant's Virginia campaign would be kept from reaching the James River much longer than it took IOTL. "Once he got to the James, it would become a siege, and then it would only be a matter of time...*"

*-Paraphrasing Robert E. Lee

They really can't. And if the Union switches Ben Butler for someone competent, they've got two armies for the ANV to handle that are led by someone who can command them. Lee probably could have held them off in a defensive battle, but that's a big probably and is one of the neglected PODs for the Civil War that could really have altered it in a major way.
 
Top