1864 election

[leftyhunter]

Highly unlikely a Democrat, as president, would have gone along with anything as draconian as Radical Republican Reconstruction in the South.

If giving black people equal rights is draconian then your absolutely right. By the way how do you define"Radical Republican"? ***edited by Chellers***
Leftyhunter

 

[Hunter]

I guess most would say that Lincoln would have lost the election without the "victories" in Atlanta and Mobile, but I'm wondering what people think about the world-historic consequences of there being no second term for Lincoln: no second inaugural (perhaps the greatest speech in the history of democracy), no assassination (however bad, the most galvanizing and immortalizing event of the century), and no likelihood that there was a peace that gave Davis what he was essentially looking for. Would this, as per the Gettysburg Address, have given fodder to the age-old argument that real democracy was a pipe dream? I only ask this as a history teacher that tries to put all of this in proper perspective. Davis, Lee et all, thought they were defending the principles of 1776. This is not a rhetorical question.

What ifs are always interesting. This one is because it posits that Lincoln loses the election. I guess anything is possible but I have never seen any evidence that, without the taking of Mobile Bay and Atlanta, he would have lost. I know Lincoln had feelings of insecurity but there were no polls or surveys bearing on this question. The strategic position of the South was dire in the fall of 1864. Tennessee, North Alabama, North Georgia, South Louisiana, were occupied. The desertion rate in the Confederate army was increasing rapidly. By contrast, no Confederate troops were in possession of any portion of a northern state. It made no sense to change horses in the middle of the stream under these circumstances.

But assuming he lost, I do not believe slavery would have lasted much longer than it did. Lincoln would have implemented a surge to bring an end to the war before McClellan was inaugurated on March 4, 1865. Failing that, McClellan may not have been willing to fight for emancipation, but there was a large and very determined group who would have: the USCT. These men, 180,000 armed troops, could have and likely would have led a massive slave insurrection.

 

[Rebforever]

Well my friend you are in for a treat.
"Conscious of my own weakness, I can only seek fervently the guidance of the Ruler of the Universe, and relying on his all-powerful aid,do my best to restore Union and peace to a suffering people, and to establish and guard their liberties and rights." George B.McClellan
" In his acceptence speech for his nomination he wrote.,"The Union must be preserved at all costs".
"McCellan and the election of 1864; Election Amid the War 211 Dickerson College blogs
Leftyhunter

My question is not answered here, my Cally friend.

 

[Rebforever]

Has for McCellan's reconstruction policy his acceptence speech deals with that issue as well.
Leftyhunter

Here are his speeches and a few words. you are correct on this part.
But it doesn't coinside with what you have posted all together.

McClellann at first fought to keep the Union together.

MeClellan also for freeing the slaves and giving them the right to vote.
Page eleven, "Speech at Dayton."

https://archive.org/details/speechesofgengeo00mccl

 

[matthew mckeon]

Here are his speeches and a few words. you are correct on this part.
But it doesn't coinside with what you have posted all together.

McClellann at first fought to keep the Union together.

MeClellan also for freeing the slaves and giving them the right to vote.
Page eleven, "Speech at Dayton."

https://archive.org/details/speechesofgengeo00mccl

That's a great source. McClellan does lay it out pretty clearly: the democratic party accepts the end of slavery and the right of blacks to vote. I've learned something! I think he was being optimistic that southern whites were going to go along with it without question.

His earlier words on the virtues of a small government implies a mild and limited Reconstruction, so how
that would enforce black civil rights I couldn't say.

The Northern Democratic campaign was crudely racist, so its not like it was building support for black civil rights, but in the good old days, the candidates had a small role in political campaigns.

 

[Andersonh1]

Had Lincoln lost the election, one likely consequence might be that he lives to be an old man, rather than being assassinated. It would be interesting to speculate about what path his life might have taken, and whether he'd have written memoirs or been interviewed at the turn of the century, or whether he'd have attended the Gettysburg reunion with the veterans. There are all sorts of possibilities.

 

[brass napoleon]

That's a great source. McClellan does lay it out pretty clearly: the democratic party accepts the end of slavery and the right of blacks to vote. I've learned something! I think he was being optimistic that southern whites were going to go along with it without question.

His earlier words on the virtues of a small government implies a mild and limited Reconstruction, so how
that would enforce black civil rights I couldn't say.

And therein lies the rub. He says he accepts it, but will do nothing to enforce it. In fact he blames the abuses that have been occurring in the South on "the influence of our officials in the General Government". In other words, it's time to leave the foxes to guard the hen house.

But I do agree, it's an interesting quote nonetheless that I had never seen before.

 

[cash]

That's a great source. McClellan does lay it out pretty clearly: the democratic party accepts the end of slavery and the right of blacks to vote. I've learned something! I think he was being optimistic that southern whites were going to go along with it without question.

His earlier words on the virtues of a small government implies a mild and limited Reconstruction, so how
that would enforce black civil rights I couldn't say.

The Northern Democratic campaign was crudely racist, so its not like it was building support for black civil rights, but in the good old days, the candidates had a small role in political campaigns.

That was from 1876, long after the 13th Amendment had been ratified. It means nothing as to what McClellan believed in 1864.

 

[matthew mckeon]

That was from 1876, long after the 13th Amendment had been ratified. It means nothing as to what McClellan believed in 1864.

You're absolutely right. This is a horse of a different color.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I looked up some stuff from 1864. One Democratic broadsheet states a vote for McClellan is a vote against "negro equality."

 

[Hunter]

I looked up some stuff from 1864. One Democratic broadsheet states a vote for McClellan is a vote against "negro equality."

In 1864, most northern Democrats, and indeed most northern Republicans, opposed racial equality from a social or political standpoint. McClellan's position was consistent with that, but he also opposed sacrificing white lives to free the remaining slaves. The assumption was that if that became the policy of the federal government, the Confederacy would collapse.

 

[matthew mckeon]

In 1864, most northern Democrats, and indeed most northern Republicans, opposed racial equality from a social or political standpoint. McClellan's position was consistent with that, but he also opposed sacrificing white lives to free the remaining slaves. The assumption was that if that became the policy of the federal government, the Confederacy would collapse.

One campaign song says (sings) we won't think about "n----- heads" any more. Yikes. Another song, to the tune of "Battle Cry of Freedom" sings: "we want no more rank n****** at the White House frying pan, nor at the head of the table."

 

[Hunter]

One campaign song says (sings) we won't think about "n----- heads" any more. Yikes. Another song, to the tune of "Battle Cry of Freedom" sings: "we want no more rank n****** at the White House frying pan, nor at the head of the table."

They did not even know how to pronounce political correctness.

 

[civilken]

Had Lincoln lost the election, one likely consequence might be that he lives to be an old man, rather than being assassinated. It would be interesting to speculate about what path his life might have taken, and whether he'd have written memoirs or been interviewed at the turn of the century, or whether he'd have attended the Gettysburg reunion with the veterans. There are all sorts of possibilities.

Thank you for bringing up a point I really never thought of before it would have been interesting to see what would happen.

 

[Lnwlf]

Had Lincoln lost the election, one likely consequence might be that he lives to be an old man, rather than being assassinated. It would be interesting to speculate about what path his life might have taken, and whether he'd have written memoirs or been interviewed at the turn of the century, or whether he'd have attended the Gettysburg reunion with the veterans. There are all sorts of possibilities.

Thank you for bringing up a point I really never thought of before it would have been interesting to see what would happen.

An interesting "What If..." scenario indeed, but off topic here. Should you want to pursue it further, please start another thread. Thanks!

Posted as Moderator

 

[Acbernsen]

What ifs are always interesting. This one is because it posits that Lincoln loses the election. I guess anything is possible but I have never seen any evidence that, without the taking of Mobile Bay and Atlanta, he would have lost. I know Lincoln had feelings of insecurity but there were no polls or surveys bearing on this question. The strategic position of the South was dire in the fall of 1864. Tennessee, North Alabama, North Georgia, South Louisiana, were occupied. The desertion rate in the Confederate army was increasing rapidly. By contrast, no Confederate troops were in possession of any portion of a northern state. It made no sense to change horses in the middle of the stream under these circumstances.

But assuming he lost, I do not believe slavery would have lasted much longer than it did. Lincoln would have implemented a surge to bring an end to the war before McClellan was inaugurated on March 4, 1865. Failing that, McClellan may not have been willing to fight for emancipation, but there was a large and very determined group who would have: the USCT. These men, 180,000 armed troops, could have and likely would have led a massive slave insurrection.

I agree with you in the main, and think that McClellan would have behaved mostly honorably, but remember the binary aspect of the question of whether we continue with the war effort of not (where would LMac have been on this?), and that the early state votes before A and M went against Lincoln.

 

[Acbernsen]

I think MClellan was generally an honorable man, and a decent, if plodding, general, but accepting the Democrat nomination, during the war, when he knew that party forces would be against a vigorous prosecution of the war that he was militarily entrusted with at one point, was an ultimately shameful act. Then again, my love of Lincoln and what I think would have been my loyalty to the Republicans, might be influencing my judgement here.

 

[Sbc]

I guess most would say that Lincoln would have lost the election without the "victories" in Atlanta and Mobile, but I'm wondering what people think about the world-historic consequences of there being no second term for Lincoln: no second inaugural (perhaps the greatest speech in the history of democracy), no assassination (however bad, the most galvanizing and immortalizing event of the century), and no likelihood that there was a peace that gave Davis what he was essentially looking for. Would this, as per the Gettysburg Address, have given fodder to the age-old argument that real democracy was a pipe dream? I only ask this as a history teacher that tries to put all of this in proper perspective. Davis, Lee et all, thought they were defending the principles of 1776. This is not a rhetorical question.

Great thread

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

Might as well wonder what Davis would have done in the same circumstances.

I was making a bit of a joke based on the incorrect date.

((((shaking head))))

 

[unionblue]

I was making a bit of a joke based on the incorrect date.

((((shaking head))))

Of course.