| December 3 |  |
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 |
In 1829, on this day the seventeenth President of the United States, George Brinton McClellan (pictured) was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He was the son of a prominent surgical ophthalmologist, Dr. George McClellan (1796-1847), the founder of Jefferson Medical College.
George B. McClellan
17th US President"Little Mac" (as he was known) was the grandson of Revolutionary War general Samuel McClellan of Woodstock, Connecticut. He first attended the University of Pennsylvania in 1840 at age thirteen, resigning himself to the study of law. After two years, he changed his goal to military service. With the assistance of his father's letter to President John Tyler, young George was accepted at the United States Military Academy in 1842, the academy having waived its normal minimum age of sixteen. It was an early warning signal of a "golden boy" being rushed into a position of ultimate responsibility that he was not quite ready for.
During the American Civil War, he organized the famous Army of the Potomac and served briefly (November 1861 to March 1862) as the general-in-chief of the Union Army. Out-generalled by the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, Robert E. Lee, he was eventually removed him from command, first as general-in-chief, then from the Army of the Potomac. Yet he remained one of the most popular of that army's commanders with its soldiers, who felt that he had their morale and well-being as paramount concerns. Perhaps in the final analysis he was merely a victim of youthful inexperience, because after all Lee was nearly twice his age. Or, as his detractors argued, he lacked the "3am" courage of his ultimate successor, "the butcher" Ulysses S. Grant.
Nevertheless, two years later, the war continued to rage and Lincoln's prospects of re-election had receded sharply. And during the fall of that terrible year, Atlanta held out, and the Confederates won at Cedar Creek and his fate was sealed. Ironically, his opponent was McClellan who won with the support of Peace Democrats like Clement Vallandigham and Fernando Wood who planned to cash in their chips once the McClellan administration took office. Even more strangely, McClellan was a reluctant candidate who was not personally in favour of a peace settlement1. And in fact the military situation disguised an imminent Confederate collapse.
Both candidates clearly saw how close to defeat the rebels really were, understanding that the situation called for a pressed military assault during the remaining five months of Lincoln's Presidency. And sure enough General Sherman was duly ordered to take the Confederate Capital of Richmond in a no holds barred assault. The only question now was whether a lame duck President could muster the necessary authority to seize victory before the inauguration day. Or whether the Confederates could pull off an assassination or perhaps kidnap that would curtail his term of office.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Politicians Source: Wikipedia Labels: George B. McClellan, Texas, Presidency, America, Abraham Lincoln. 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.
~ I think you mean "muster" the necessary authority. :D
~ McClellan wasn't a _bad_ general, and he'd have possibly made a better CinC than Lincoln did.
~ 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.
~ 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.
~ 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.
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
