What If General McClellan Defeated Lincoln For President?

Yes, unless the Peace Democrats also won Congress. A what if President McClellan will take office March 4, 1865, less than a month later on April 1, the CSA lines at Petersburg collapse and Lee surrenders April 9. McClellan will take the victory rather than stop fighting. The CSA is mostly gone by March 4, 1865.
 
Yes, unless the Peace Democrats also won Congress. A what if President McClellan will take office March 4, 1864, less than a month later on April 1, the CSA lines at Petersburg collapse and Lee surrenders April 9. McClellan will take the victory rather than stop fighting. The CSA is mostly gone by March 4, 1864.

1865
 
The only way McClellan is going to become president is if there are some disastrous set backs in the Union campaigns of 1864 since he could never win from the ridiculous waffle campaign he pulled historically. He only disavowed the peace plank of his party platform after the fall of Atlanta, meaning that (to go with the scenario Jeff Brookes posits in his novel Shattered Nation) that if Sherman fails outside Atlanta and there are other setbacks across 1864, McClellan embraces the peace platform and runs on the promise of a negotiated peace for a war weary nation and just ekes out a win and gets into officer he suddenly has a conundrum.

What happens next is dependent on the events of the winter of 1864-65, do Union campaigns make up for losses in 1864? Or is the Confederacy still in a "strong" position with say, Wilmington still open to blockade runners, Richmond has not fallen, nor looks like it will, and the Army of Tennessee is stalwart outside Atlanta.

If we go by Lincoln's "Blind Memorandum" of August, he will engage in discussions with McClellan on the best course of action. This will be informed by both McClellan's personal opinion of Lincoln (low) and his opinion of the Union field armies performance. Needless to say, if Lincoln says fight, history will show McClellan will take the opposite course and go with his parties' choice of attempting negotiations, with a probable call for an armistice in February 1865.

When McClellan then takes office in March he will be appointing negotiators to discuss the issue of reunion, needless to say the Confederates will absolutely refuse reunion, leading to lengthy talks, but with both sides seeing their armed forces melt away from desertion and demobilization (in the Union's case as terms of enlistment end) and even after say six months of negotiations McClellan wants to continue the war, he may not have the strength or support to do so.

If he does continue to fight, the Confederacy is probably toast by fall 1865 at the latest. If he does not fight he is basically presented with a fait accompli by Richmond and will have little choice but to recognize the Confederate states as it is in 1865.

Per the second option the obvious result is international mediation, probably by France, Britain, and Russia who mediate the negotiations between the two governments. How that turns out I can't say, but we shall assume the CSA exists with perhaps all the original seceding states.

McClellan then goes on to cover domestic policy. His biggest issues will be the demobilization of the army, financial policy, new foreign relations, and the western territories.

Some obvious conclusions are that the Freedmen's Bureau dies ignobly on March 3rd 1866. Red Cloud's War ends most likely as historically, the US military will attempt to rise to 100,000 men, with a deeply fracticious debate in Washington on the matter, and economically things will be rough.

Other issues are not so clear cut, but McClellan will probably go down as one of the worst presidents in history, handily losing the election in 1868 to either a Republican, or a splinter from his own Democratic Party.
 
He only disavowed the peace plank of his party platform after the fall of Atlanta, meaning that (to go with the scenario Jeff Brookes posits in his novel Shattered Nation) that if Sherman fails outside Atlanta and there are other setbacks across 1864, McClellan embraces the peace platform and runs on the promise of a negotiated peace for a war weary nation and just ekes out a win and gets into officer he suddenly has a conundrum.
McClellan disavowed the peace platform as soon as he was informed of the nomination. There was no point where he could have repudiated it earlier; he wasn't at the convention and was essentially a "drafted" candidate rather than one seeking it out.
 
The only way McClellan is going to become president is if there are some disastrous set backs in the Union campaigns of 1864 since he could never win from the ridiculous waffle campaign he pulled historically. He only disavowed the peace plank of his party platform after the fall of Atlanta,

For the umpteenth time, he repudiated the peace plank with his acceptance letter the day the offer was made. He could not have repudiated it sooner without access to a time machine. What's more he risked his nomination to do so. The DNC had not pronounced the nomination final, for the only time in their history. There was a power struggle between the two wings of the party in the three days following which McClellan's War Democrats handily won.

You are completely mistaken about McClellan's intent. He intended to win the war, and force the south back into the Union on the norths terms. Frankly he'd probably direct a massive general concentration against Richmond, bringing Sherman's wayward and impotent force there and crush the rebellion on cue. Whilst reconstruction would certainly have been different, there is an indication it would have been far kinder to the new freemen. McClellan believed in bring the freemen in as full citizens by state sponsored education, whereas the Republicans basically declared freedom and then left the new freemen to fend for themselves under the new share-cropping regime.

Britain and France had given up on the South by late 1863. That ship had sailed.
 
The war is so close to the end by March of 1865, that its hard to see McClellan having any military role at all.

Considering the virulently racist campaign the Democrats waged in 1864, "McClellan, the black man's friend" is contraindicated. Positive attitudes he might have had, but he was the white man's candidate, and plenty of his supporters would be glad to remind him of that.

If the Congressional elections happened as they actually did, McClellan and the Democrats will be outnumbered. Again he will not get reinforcements. While its hard to imagine a worst president than Andrew Johnson, McClellan didn't have any political experience, or show a lot of political aptitude. Presidents, and this goes for Lincoln, Johnson and Grant, are not dictators/wizards. They are part of political movements and organizations.

His impact on Reconstruction would be mostly negative: Freedman' Bureau, Civil Rights Act of 1866, 13th,14th and15th Amendments. They may pass despite of him, but not with his help.

He would no doubt spend a good deal of time slagging the generals who ended up actually winning the war, and I imagine Grant would go after him pretty hard in 1868.
 
Considering the virulently racist campaign the Democrats waged in 1864, "McClellan, the black man's friend" is contraindicated. Positive attitudes he might have had, but he was the white man's candidate, and plenty of his supporters would be glad to remind him of that.
That's how campaigns were run in those days - the presidential candidate was actively discouraged from getting involved!


His impact on Reconstruction would be mostly negative: Freedman' Bureau, Civil Rights Act of 1866, 13th,14th and15th Amendments. They may pass despite of him, but not with his help.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean he'd be less in favour of them than Andrew Johnson?

He would no doubt spend a good deal of time slagging the generals who ended up actually winning the war
Did he do that historically?
 
Did he do that historically?

No, he publicly praised them, and wrote letters to many congratulating them on their victories. For example:

To William T. Sherman

My dear General Orange New Jersey September 26 1864

Events have crowded upon me so thickly of late that I have been unable to congratulate you as I had wished & intended to do. But on the principle that is it better late than never I will even at this late day express to you my sincere & heartfelt appreciation of the remarkable campaign you have just completed. I confess that at the beginning I trembled for your long line of communications, and I have watched with the most intense interest the admirable manner in which you overcame the difficulty. Your campaign will go down to history as one of the memorable ones of the world, & will be even more highly appreciated in the future than it is in the present. How beautifully you have illustrated the tenderness of communications, by your operations against the enemy’s!

But I will not now pretend to do more than offer you my heartfelt congratulations upon the manner in which you have served your country and illustrated your own name – nor can I avoid congratulating you also upon the superb conduct of your troops during the whole campaign.

Poor Macpherson’s loss grieved me very much – it must have been a serious personal as well as official one to you – connected as he had been with you for a long time. I am starting for the city & beg you to excuse the hurried screed, & accept it simply as the hearty congratulations of your sincere friend,

Geo B McClellan

Gen W T Sherman
Atlanta
 
Considering the virulently racist campaign the Democrats waged in 1864,

and of course the virulently racist campaign the Republicans ran. They were trying to portray the Democrats as the "Negro equality Party" and both sides were trying to "out-racist" the other. McClellan actually stayed out of all this, and we know his personal opinions. Same for Lincoln. Let's remember that McClellan got in trouble in July '62 for suggesting to Lincoln manumitting the slaves of the border states....

Consider this Republican poster:

DEMOCRATIC CATECHISM OF NEGRO EQUALITY

Who said that all men are created equal? Thomas Jefferson, the Father of Democracy.

Who gave the negroes the right of suffrage in New York; The Democratic party.

Who presided over the convention which gave this privilege to negroes? Martin Van Buren, a Democrat.

Who married a negro woman, and by her had mulatto children? Richard M. Johnson, a good Democrat.

Who elected Richard M. Johnson Vice President of the United States? The Democratic party.

If President Van Buren had died, and Richard M. Johnson had become President; who would have become the Democratic mistress of the White House? This same negro woman

Who made the negro a citizen of the State of Maine? The Democratic party.

Who enacted a similar law in Massachusetts? The Democratic party.

Who gave the negro a right to vote in New Hampshire? The Democratic party.

Who permitted every colored person owning $250 in New York to become a voter? A General Assembly, purely Democratic.

Who repealed the laws of Ohio which required negroes to give bonds and security before settling in that State? The Democratic party.

Who made mulattoes legal voters in Ohio? The Supreme Court of which Rueben Wood was Chief Justice.

What became of Rueben Wood? The Democratic party elected him governor three times, and he is still a leader of the Democratic party.

Who helped give free negroes the right to vote in Tennessee under her Constitution of 1796? General Jackson.

Was General Jackson a good Democrat? He generally passed as such.

Who with the above facts, and many others, staring them in the face, are continually whining about “negro suffrage” and negro equality? The Democratic party.

Who voted against the White Soldier voting in Penn’a in 1864? The Democratic party.

All these things were done by Democrats, and yet they deny being in favor of negro equality, and charge it upon the Republicans—just like the thief who cries “stop thief” the loudest.

N.B. –Send your Democratic friend one of these Valuable Documents. Sold Wholesale and Retail at Johnson’s, No. 18 North Tenth Street, Philadelphia, Pa. See his Political Songs.
 
That's how campaigns were run in those days - the presidential candidate was actively discouraged from getting involved!



I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean he'd be less in favour of them than Andrew Johnson?


Did he do that historically?
The party that nominated McClellan was rotten with racist invective in the election. If a democrat was elected, any democrat, he had to satisfy that constituency. The candidates did stay at home: but once he started governing, his allies and staff wouldn't have a lot of interest in black civil rights, quite the opposite.

McClellan or any president, wouldn't work in a vacuum.

As far as Andrew Johnson is concerned he was marginalized, his vetoes overridden and finally impeached. I doubt McClellan could fall so low(who could?), but he would have less reason to promote black civil rights than Johnson did.

Your last point, that McClellan was generous to other Union generals I didn't know. Its admirable. If he still faced Grant in 1868, that might be strained, but I admit I could very well be wrong.
 
and of course the virulently racist campaign the Republicans ran. They were trying to portray the Democrats as the "Negro equality Party" and both sides were trying to "out-racist" the other. McClellan actually stayed out of all this, and we know his personal opinions. Same for Lincoln. Let's remember that McClellan got in trouble in July '62 for suggesting to Lincoln manumitting the slaves of the border states....

Consider this Republican poster:

DEMOCRATIC CATECHISM OF NEGRO EQUALITY

Who said that all men are created equal? Thomas Jefferson, the Father of Democracy.

Who gave the negroes the right of suffrage in New York; The Democratic party.

Who presided over the convention which gave this privilege to negroes? Martin Van Buren, a Democrat.

Who married a negro woman, and by her had mulatto children? Richard M. Johnson, a good Democrat.

Who elected Richard M. Johnson Vice President of the United States? The Democratic party.

If President Van Buren had died, and Richard M. Johnson had become President; who would have become the Democratic mistress of the White House? This same negro woman

Who made the negro a citizen of the State of Maine? The Democratic party.

Who enacted a similar law in Massachusetts? The Democratic party.

Who gave the negro a right to vote in New Hampshire? The Democratic party.

Who permitted every colored person owning $250 in New York to become a voter? A General Assembly, purely Democratic.

Who repealed the laws of Ohio which required negroes to give bonds and security before settling in that State? The Democratic party.

Who made mulattoes legal voters in Ohio? The Supreme Court of which Rueben Wood was Chief Justice.

What became of Rueben Wood? The Democratic party elected him governor three times, and he is still a leader of the Democratic party.

Who helped give free negroes the right to vote in Tennessee under her Constitution of 1796? General Jackson.

Was General Jackson a good Democrat? He generally passed as such.

Who with the above facts, and many others, staring them in the face, are continually whining about “negro suffrage” and negro equality? The Democratic party.

Who voted against the White Soldier voting in Penn’a in 1864? The Democratic party.

All these things were done by Democrats, and yet they deny being in favor of negro equality, and charge it upon the Republicans—just like the thief who cries “stop thief” the loudest.

N.B. –Send your Democratic friend one of these Valuable Documents. Sold Wholesale and Retail at Johnson’s, No. 18 North Tenth Street, Philadelphia, Pa. See his Political Songs.
That's an interesting document, but its obviously push back against democratic harping on race. Race mixing, black voting, the horrors of miscegenation(did I spell that right?), that's was the Democratic theme that election. We criticize the Republicans for their racial attitude, but scaled to their opponents, the Republicans sound like the Nation of Islam.

Whatever his own feelings, that's his political base.
 
The party that nominated McClellan was rotten with racist invective in the election. If a democrat was elected, any democrat, he had to satisfy that constituency. The candidates did stay at home: but once he started governing, his allies and staff wouldn't have a lot of interest in black civil rights, quite the opposite.
As 67th has noted, the other party used racist rhetoric as well.

Of course, there's also an argument that he could govern from the "centre" - think of what FDR did for civil rights, for example. At the time civil rights were a Republican issue, but FDR as a Democrat could make more progress simply because there wasn't the knee-jerk "this is another of your special issue things" going on.


As far as Andrew Johnson is concerned he was marginalized, his vetoes overridden and finally impeached. I doubt McClellan could fall so low(who could?), but he would have less reason to promote black civil rights than Johnson did.
Why would he have less reason? Johnson strongly opposed black civil rights to the point of vetoing them - how could McClellan possibly be less in favour of black civil rights than Johnson? There's nothing more extreme than Presidential veto.
 
Your last point, that McClellan was generous to other Union generals I didn't know. Its admirable. If he still faced Grant in 1868, that might be strained, but I admit I could very well be wrong.
What you did, of course, is assume McClellan would do something bad despite not having evidence for it - indeed, the evidence that exists suggests he was not bitter as you assumed he was. This is a common thread when McClellan turns up - people assume the worst of him on as many fronts as come up.


That's an interesting document, but its obviously push back against democratic harping on race. Race mixing, black voting, the horrors of miscegenation(did I spell that right?), that's was the Democratic theme that election. We criticize the Republicans for their racial attitude, but scaled to their opponents, the Republicans sound like the Nation of Islam.

Whatever his own feelings, that's his political base.
A one-term President who's not after a second term doesn't need to play to 'his base' unless that base is essential for a governing coalition.
It's also very interesting, if you don't mind my saying, that you characterize 67th's source as "obviously" push back. It feels uncomfortably to me like disdaining the source.
We know that Republican electoral propaganda made up outright lies about McClellan (the "on a boat at Malvern Hill" one, for example, or their saying that McClellan was the 'peace' candidate when he'd repudiated that part of the platform).



But I think my thesis is as follows:
Historically, Andrew Johnson was an extremely poor president who fought with the party that he'd nominally been elected under because of his deep opposition to racial equality and his strong sympathy for the South.
With a similar composition of Congress to the one Andrew Johnson had to deal with, it is likely - given McClellan's personal views - that he would fight with the majority much less than Johnson did, over racial issues at least.
While this may lead to a break with his own party, the historical 17th President did this as well so it's not something we can use to argue such a break would be impossible.
Even being neutral on the Reconstruction issue, and passively going along with the recommendations of Congress, would be an improvement in this on Johnson - possibly a considerable one.


It's quite possible that a McClellan Presidency would be viewed quite poorly, of course, as a period of difficult attempts to reintegrate North and South. However, I don't think we (who know how the actual 17th President turned out) would view him as anything other than a considerable upgrade.
 
Of the two political parties, there was a clear difference of their intentions in terms of black citizenship, black civil rights, and the status of the freedmen. They are not equivalent, and nothing demonstrates the difference more clearly than the election of 1864.

If McClellan, or any democrat, tried to "move to the center"(the 14th and 15th Amendments, are they the center? I don't think so) he would likely lose his own political supporters, and fail to gain the Republicans, who would have their own general in mind.

I don't believe the analogy with FDR is a good one. FDR was considerably more politically skilled than McClellan(not a dig at Mac, but Roosevelt was a master) and the situation in 1864 and 1932 were quite different, in the challenge facing the nation and the tools the government was willing to use. FDR took office with a Congressional majority, and a Republican minority so shellshocked that they went along with him for a year.* Mac would not have those advantages.

*one of my favorite quotes of the time was from the Republican minority leader. Faced with heresy after heresy from the New Deal, he could only mutter. "The house is on fire. The President says this is the way to put it out."
 
FWhilst reconstruction would certainly have been different, there is an indication it would have been far kinder to the new freemen. McClellan believed in bring the freemen in as full citizens by state sponsored education, whereas the Republicans basically declared freedom and then left the new freemen to fend for themselves under the new share-cropping regime.
What are your sources for this? I was not aware of McClellan holding any kind of views that could be considered in opposition to slavery or the integration of African Americans as full citizens into society.
 
What you did, of course, is assume McClellan would do something bad despite not having evidence for it - indeed, the evidence that exists suggests he was not bitter as you assumed he was. This is a common thread when McClellan turns up - people assume the worst of him on as many fronts as come up.



A one-term President who's not after a second term doesn't need to play to 'his base' unless that base is essential for a governing coalition.
It's also very interesting, if you don't mind my saying, that you characterize 67th's source as "obviously" push back. It feels uncomfortably to me like disdaining the source.
We know that Republican electoral propaganda made up outright lies about McClellan (the "on a boat at Malvern Hill" one, for example, or their saying that McClellan was the 'peace' candidate when he'd repudiated that part of the platform).



But I think my thesis is as follows:
Historically, Andrew Johnson was an extremely poor president who fought with the party that he'd nominally been elected under because of his deep opposition to racial equality and his strong sympathy for the South.
With a similar composition of Congress to the one Andrew Johnson had to deal with, it is likely - given McClellan's personal views - that he would fight with the majority much less than Johnson did, over racial issues at least.
While this may lead to a break with his own party, the historical 17th President did this as well so it's not something we can use to argue such a break would be impossible.
Even being neutral on the Reconstruction issue, and passively going along with the recommendations of Congress, would be an improvement in this on Johnson - possibly a considerable one.
I

It's quite possible that a McClellan Presidency would be viewed quite poorly, of course, as a period of difficult attempts to reintegrate North and South. However, I don't think we (who know how the actual 17th President turned out) would view him as anything other than a considerable upgrade.
Political advertising contains falsehoods? I am shocked, shocked I tell you! And Democratic political advertising was, in contrast, fact checked and gospel pure!

I hope I'm not disdaining any poster here, especially one I respect as much as 67th and yourself. But to say the equivalent of "both sides do it." on this issue is not supported by the historical record.

To make Gen. McClellan get right with race, you've got him abandoning his own party and joining the other side. We can write what we want about events that never happened, but it seems unlikely. If he's a sweetly reasonable "moderate" or "middle of the road" on other people's rights and lives, then he's more dangerous than the odious Johnson.
 
Back
Top