"What if McClellan would have won 1864 election?" Topic

According to most narratives, before the capture of Atlanta McClellan's ticket had a good chance to win the election against Lincoln. He was running on a peace with the South platform. In the South the military strategy in the months leading to the election was based, partly, upon the idea that McClellan's victory would lead to a negotiated peace, with the South retaining their independence.

However, would have McClellan, in the case he would have won, actually implemented that policy? After all the blood spilled and treasure spent, would have the Northern public actually accepted an independent South? McClellan would have had a good hand: Northern armies in front of Richmond and Atlanta; the Mississippi in Federal hands; most Southern harbors tightly blockaded by the US Navy, and the South running out of men and supplies to sustain the war. In that case, McClellan could have proposed peace to the South, but probably on the basis of they rejoining the Union, rather than a recognition of their independence. And it's doubtful that the Southern states would have accepted a peace that didn't involve independence.

Moreover, McClellan dreamed of military glory; of being regarded as the savior of the nation. A short of Cincinnatus cum Caesar, cum Octavian. Would have he allowed pass his chance at military glory, in a moment where he would have had the best cards in his hand?

I think he probably would have continue the war, after making some save-facing proposal to the Southern states to rejoin the Union. A proposal that the South would have be forced to reject.

What do you think?

if he had won the election? he would have been president…

I think after the losses of Spring and Summer 1864 that the Norrthern population would have been very war weary if there had been no clear gains for the lives of their sons, fathers and husbands.

Atlanta was a clear cut gain, but siege of Petersburg was not.

If Atlanta had not fallen and Shermans army was tied down in Georgia, I think that McClellan would have made peace with the Confederacy.

What the map would look like, I don't know, but some sort of cease fire would have gone into effect.

Weve done this.

Well, if the ONLY change to history is that McClellan had won the election (i.e. everything else, including the fall of Atlanta and Sherman's March had happened per history) and considering that in those days the new president wasn't inaugurated until March, then I think Lincoln, Grant and Sherman would have fought a winter campaign to end the war a month earlier than really happened. Even if they didn't pull it off, they would have been so close when McClellan took office it's hard to see him stopping them.

OTOH, if McClellan had won because the war wasn't going well and no end was in sight as of march 1865, then it's anyone's guess.

Hmmm, I wonder if McClellan ever went to the theater…?

McClellan would have had no choice politically but to end the fighting by negotiation. The final settlement would not have been pretty and solved nothing. Once the truth of how bad McClellan failed at Antietam came out, he would have been a one term president and relegated to the title of biggest fool in our nation's history. The Old Northwest would have seceded and cut a deal with the CSA for free access to the Mississippi. Since none of the key issues that started the war would have been decided, North America would become another Europe, with war breaking out between the various sections every few years. Something like recovering runaway slaves would have triggered a new war after both sides took time to raise a new crop of cannon fodder.

Maybe events were advancing far enough on their own, as Scott Washburn suggests, that the war outcome, i.e. final capitulation of Lee's army at Appomatix would have occurred anyway. The difference would have been in the post-war (reconstruction) politics. Would Little Mac have been any stronger than Andrew Johnson in resisting the will of the radicals in the US Congress? I submit that he would not have been able to do so and that Congress would have been running things.

Lincoln would have had 4 months after the election and would have maintained control of the navy. But most of the troops were state units with a lot of political officers. Would any of the states started calling their boys home?

A truce would have been forthcoming, it was afterall the basis for the peace platform, but I don't see McClellan getting a treaty put together during his first term and I don't see him getting a second term.

Asd has been said, the war would then at some point be reignited.

As pointed out above, the inauguration was not until March 1865, and by then the Confederacy was on its very last gasp; Sherman was marching up through the Carolinas and tearing up Lee's sources of supplies.

McClellan, in affect, renounced the peace platform of his party, saying he could not break faith with his soldiers. However, as also pointed out above, his "reconstruction" policy would have been more lenient than Johnson's (so would Lincoln's have been), but if the Republicans still controlled Congress he would probably have been impeached.

McClellan, in affect, renounced the peace platform of his party, saying he could not break faith with his soldiers.

Exactly right.
McClellan would have paid as much attention to the Democratic party paltform as he did to Lincoln.

The Emancipation Proclamation was in place, and the 13th Ammendmant had been passed by Congress on Jaunary 31, 1865. After that it was just a matter of the required 3/4 of the States ratifying it.
So, leniency on the slavery question was out of the question.

The war was all but over by the time McClellan would have been inaugurated in March.
Lincoln was less than a month into his second term when the war was over and he was assassinated. What could McClellan possibly have done to reverse anything? What could he possibly have offered the Confederacy that would not have gotten him impeached?
The "high crime and misdeamenor" that Johnson was impeached on was that he tried to fire a cabinet officer. That shows how little the House cared about the fine points of the law.
So, you must also posit a Democrat House and Senate for Mac to make any real change.

I think I'd need a visa to go to FL.

Cheers,

The Bandit

And Dixie would be a lot more popular song today.

Texas would be sovereign again!

Though Changing Presidents or parties due to an election during a war tends to lead to a peace. At least in Modern Time.
Vietnam
Korea

But a Civil War is a different animal. The Union had already won the war by Nov 1864 (hence the declaration of the Thanksgiving holiday starting that year).

The last six months was just a mopping up operation around the South. What did they not control?
Unuion forces raiding at will in Alabama, Georgia and Florida. tennesse and the border States were already under reconstruction governments.

No compromise peace would have been done. I do not think any college American Civil War professor would tell you any different.

Relying on faulty intelligence, McClellan would have been certain that the Petersburg garrison outumbered the Army of the Potomac by a factor of at least two or three to one and would have surrendered to the Confederacy several days after assuming the Presidency. If he had the intestinal fortitude not to surrender he would have disengaged and spent the next six months training for the final assault of the Petersburg defenses.

What McClellan would do would depend on what the political, military and domestic situation was when he took office. It is very unlikley that McClellan would win the election unless the political, military and domestic situation of the U.S. was significantly different than what it was in the actual 1864 scenario. However if nothing changes but the election result, then of course McClellan sees the war through. The peace might have been much different.

Given that McClellan did not endorse the peace program of the Democrats, coupled with the fact that the Confederacy was on it's last legs, by the time he would have been sworn in (Jan 1865) there would have been no reason to offer peace and independence to the South. Also, I question the idea that McClellan stood a good chance of winning prior to Atlanta. Without Southern Democrats the Democratic party in the North was clearly the minority party. The Republicans overwhelming won in 1864. It might have been a closer contest but I see no real evidence that Lincoln would have lost.

by the time he would have been sworn in (Jan 1865) …

The inauguration was in March in those days.

Is there any example in history of a side close to winning a war (which they set out to fight with the intention of annexing the other side) stopping to negotiate a truce?

Who would want to go down in history as the "chicken president" – who stopped a war that was already won?

Several of the South American Wars of consolidation ended abruptly with a armistice and treaty signed. Different conflicts over provinces trrying to declare independence or border conflicts with neighbors. Wars were stopped by the winning side for various reasons.

Argentinia had a coup which deposed of a president. World opinion had turned in their favor and European military support for the Uraguay area was ending.

Don,
Point taken. Which even makes my point all the more. What was left of the Confederacy by March to even grant independence too?

In the election the Electoral vote was not close
Lincoln won 22 States – 212 Votes
McClellan 3 states – 21 votes

Popular Vote was a little closer
Lincoln 2,218,388, McClellan 1,812,807

link

Does anyone want to consider the possibility of an assassination of "President"
McClellan?

A new Secret Six led by Wendell Philips, Ben Wade and Thad Stevens assassinates Little Mac and a rump congress rules America in Cromwellian style. New York seceded (of course, I add that to almost every scenario).