Quote:
Originally Posted by timewalker  I have often wondered whether McClellan would have sued for peace in any event. Yes, he had the Democratic platform forced on him which called for peace, but I think Little Mac would have seen as clearly as Lincoln did that the war was essentially won by then and, in true political fashion, would have said, "While I realize I campaigned on that platform, circumstances have changed since it was written and therefore I have no choice but to see the war through to its conclusion." ... | The Democratic Convention adjourned on August 31, 1864. In addition to nominating the McClellan/Pendleton ticket, they voted a platform that included planks that: - called the war a failure
- demanded a cease fire
- called for a convention of the states
Mclellan mulled this over and did not accept until September 8. He explicitly rejected the "Peace Platform" by making reunion a condition for peace. This is not surprising. It was consistent with McClellan's position before the nomination, and practically a requirement if McClellan wanted to win in New Yorrk or Pennsylvania. The "Peace Platform" was a Copperhead thing, and Valandingham was the champion of it.
But note also that between the nomination and the acceptance, Sherman took Atlanta. McClellan was an intelligent soldier; he could read a map and see what that was likely to mean.
Tim
__________________
"Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
| 
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
