Editor says, what if losing the 1864 election was for the best? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the May 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, in authoring this article we refer to Civil War Talk and Discussion Boards, we also repurposed content from Wikipedia.
1) He supported continuation of the war and restoration of the Union (though not the abolition of slavery), but the party platform, written by Copperhead Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, was opposed to this position. The platform called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy. McClellan was forced to repudiate the platform, which made his campaign inconsistent and difficult. He also was not helped by the party's choice for vice president, George H. Pendleton, a peace candidate from Ohio.

Chris Oakley commented on 2012-05-07 01:33:05 ~ I think you mean "muster" the necessary authority. :D

Eric Oppen commented on 2012-05-07 03:11:19 ~ McClellan wasn't a _bad_ general, and he'd have possibly made a better CinC than Lincoln did.

Eric Lipps commented on 2012-05-07 23:57:17 ~ McClellan was beter at organizing an army than at actually using it. His constant (errorneous) belief that the Southerners had him outnumbered kept him from pressing the advantage when he had it. As for abolition, it would have come sooner or later, even in a victorious South; if nothing else, mounting pressure from Britain and France would ultimately have forced the issue. The only question is when.

Richard Roper commented on 2012-05-31 10:15:40 ~ If an all out attack is made prematurely, with a doubting president-elect in the background it may fail. Lee may get away with his army and there is no surrender at Appomattox Court House because he was surrounded. This was partly because the attack was unexpected and there were delays whilst the troops "drew" rations. Meanwhile general custer's cavallry as used in an all-out attack, get cut down, and as not there for a pusuit. "Colonel Custer's Charge" goes down like the Charge of the Light Brigade" in history, charging the Confederate batteries. Lee's army gets away. Guerrilla fighting continues on other fromts. McCleelan once inargurated opens negotiations. I don't think necessarilly the CSA would continue, but some new loose union, as someone has said with slavery continuing for the moment.

Christopher Lee commented on 2012-05-31 16:18:54 ~ I think it would be hard for the Union army to raise itself for victory. The CSA would know that simply giving ground and keeping a substantial and credible force in being would be sufficient until inauguration. Whatever McClellan's personal thoughts he would have been elected on a crystal clear peace mandate. It would have been impossible for him to avoid a peace settlement. I think the momentum towards a negotiated settlement once McClellan won would be too much, would Lincoln have dared to countermand his own electorate by pressing so hard when his programme had been voted down? Also Sherman would have taken some time to redeploy for Richmond, time for his troops to desert, refuse to attack given the election result and so on. You seem to be proposing that Lincoln was a dishonourable man who would attempt to circumvent the clear wishes of the electorate. I suspect the outcome for the Union of this election would be the same as for the Russians after the fall of the Tsar, the wind would come out of their sails, they would just sit it out til the peace settlement. In terms of the settlement we can assume that the existing CSA would be recognised as a separate nation. What of the border states, would the Copperheads be prepared to concede plebiscites in Maryland or any other states technically in the Union but with strong Confederate sympathies? What about the western territories? How would they be divided? Would they use the Mason-Dixon Line? Also there would be the poisition of West Virgininia, presumably the rump Virginia would demand this back. So I propose as a reasonable peace: recognition of the CSA, plebiscites to be held in any states whose legislatures vote for this within an agreed period (say 6 months so it did not drag on), West Virginia reincorporated into Virginia, Mason-Dixon Line to California border to be the demarkation of western territories. That might be a bit unreasonable for a negotiated peace, however, it would depend upon how desperate for peace the Union became once the election was held. As for slavery this is all about international pressure, clearly the CSA would be unliklely to emancipate in the near future, the issue would become a source of national pride and identity. They might try to expand slavery's scope, say with some territorial landgrabs in the Caribbean, such as Cuba and the Dominican Republic. I feel, though, that wihtout being able to build some international slave-holding bloc they would soon be compelled by moral condemnation to end the practice, perhaps after a generation, say the 1880s. By 1860 slavery had been got rid of by almost every major nation who could influence the CSA, they would have been too late by then to build such a blco, so I agree slavery was a dead duck regardless of CSA wishes.