I don't think any officers would mutiny against a lawful order from the President. The US Colored Troops would likely desert though. Looking at the numbers, Lee and Joe Johnston had approximately 80,000 troops between them. The Union recruited about that number just from southern states and more than twice that from northern ones. If Grant and Sherman left supplies and ammunition with the deserters, they might be able to defeat the Confederacy by themselves.
Hypothetical: Lincoln loses to a peace Democrat in 1864 but the Civil War up to this point hasn't changed
- Thread starter AbeLincoln1865
- Start date
SwampTiger
Banned
You need a POD at least a year before the election to create more Peace Democrats. Maybe Chickamauga results in the loss of Chattanooga and Nashville? The Trans-Mississippi Department takes most of Missouri and invades Iowa? Northern War Democrats must be convinced the Union is gone....Oh wait, you don't want any military changes! Sorry , that bus has gone. Peace Democrats were too weak to gain the Democratic nomination by this time. Peace Democrats were only able to gather 23.5 delegates( of 226 needed) for Thomas Seymour at the Democratic Convention of 1864. The loss of Atlanta and the failure of the Red River Campaign sealed the fate of the Confederacy in voters eyes ( which really occurred on July 4, 1863). The remainder of the war east of the Mississippi is a slow strangling the Army of Northern Virginia, which took another seven months.
The only way the Democratic party to win is if they paint Sherman as a barbarian looting and pillaging under Lincoln's command and Grant throwing men away for useless attacks. Have the Democratic party focus on the loss of life and any ramp up in military campaign will only help the Democrats. The main question is what would a peace deal look like if the war stayed the same but the Democrats won the election. I doubt the US may give back much territory to a full Confederacy. If anything the Confederacy maybe made up of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama.
A peace deal might have been a lighter form of reconstruction of anything. Maybe passing the thirteenth amendment.
The OP specified that the war goes the same way, so yes, the federal forces still take Atlanta on schedule etc. Also he specifies a "peace democrat", which McClellan definitely wasn't, so this assumes that the election happens with BOTH the frontlines where they were IOTL and the Democratic nominee is Vallandingham or Wood or someone similar.
This is one of those things that technically are not ASB, but are effectively ASB. To get this situation, I think you need a POD from before 1860. As a thought exercise, I propose that slavery is much more popular than IOTL, in fact most northern states never bother to legally abolish slavery, and the abolitionist movement is weak. The Civil War or something like it still starts due to southern bullying of the north. Maybe though legal in the northern states, slavery is not widely practiced, and they don't put much effort it returning fugitive slaves to the south, and the southern states keep pressing them to return fugitive slaves while blocking any federal government policies that might benefit the north, such as tariffs. So the nothern states elect Lincoln and the southern states leave anyway, not because slavery is under threat, more because they can't boss the north around any more. This is close enough to the actual situation (Lincoln was no abolitionist) that i'll buy it. Then Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation or something like it, for reasons, and its really unpopular in the northern states, which are ITTL pro slavery, and other Lincoln administration domestic policies misfire and are badly received.
In this situation, I can see the peace democrat winning, not because the federal forces are losing the war, but because they are winning it. The voters might figure that there is not much the incoming president can do to screw up the war, since the army and navy will pretty much have it won before March, but they don't want Lincoln in charge of the reconstruction.
And the voters would be right. The only thing that might be different would be Lincoln himself sabotaging the war effort, in a fit of mental instability, by conceding everything at the February Hampton Roads conference. But if there was any sign for that, he would be removed, with Hamlin taking over until March. By the way, one problem with these threads is that, regardless of what Lincoln wanted, the Republicans were prepared to cheat to keep anything that looked like a peace Democrat out of the White House, so absent a complete collapse of the Union war effort, one would be allowed in only on the understanding that he would win the war but go easy on the South. And the latter would only happen with an unhistorically weak and unpopular abolitionist movement.
This is one of those things that technically are not ASB, but are effectively ASB. To get this situation, I think you need a POD from before 1860. As a thought exercise, I propose that slavery is much more popular than IOTL, in fact most northern states never bother to legally abolish slavery, and the abolitionist movement is weak. The Civil War or something like it still starts due to southern bullying of the north. Maybe though legal in the northern states, slavery is not widely practiced, and they don't put much effort it returning fugitive slaves to the south, and the southern states keep pressing them to return fugitive slaves while blocking any federal government policies that might benefit the north, such as tariffs. So the nothern states elect Lincoln and the southern states leave anyway, not because slavery is under threat, more because they can't boss the north around any more. This is close enough to the actual situation (Lincoln was no abolitionist) that i'll buy it. Then Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation or something like it, for reasons, and its really unpopular in the northern states, which are ITTL pro slavery, and other Lincoln administration domestic policies misfire and are badly received.
In this situation, I can see the peace democrat winning, not because the federal forces are losing the war, but because they are winning it. The voters might figure that there is not much the incoming president can do to screw up the war, since the army and navy will pretty much have it won before March, but they don't want Lincoln in charge of the reconstruction.
And the voters would be right. The only thing that might be different would be Lincoln himself sabotaging the war effort, in a fit of mental instability, by conceding everything at the February Hampton Roads conference. But if there was any sign for that, he would be removed, with Hamlin taking over until March. By the way, one problem with these threads is that, regardless of what Lincoln wanted, the Republicans were prepared to cheat to keep anything that looked like a peace Democrat out of the White House, so absent a complete collapse of the Union war effort, one would be allowed in only on the understanding that he would win the war but go easy on the South. And the latter would only happen with an unhistorically weak and unpopular abolitionist movement.
History Learner
Banned
As others have pointed out, it's just not possible for a Peace Democrat to win without changing the war to date. Going along with the hypothetical though, I'd expect the war to still be finished because by March of 1865 it's just too close to the end for anyone to not just see it through.
However, one point of order: McClellan's position changed as a result of realities on the ground.
However, one point of order: McClellan's position changed as a result of realities on the ground.
Since everyone is convinced that Atlanta is the mother of all securities for Lincoln, could we not just betterfly Atlanta falling until AFTER the election? If that is at all possible?
Seems the simplest option.
Seems the simplest option.
I could see that happen only if something like draft riots spread across the country, turned into a widespread popular antiwar movement, and fed into a copperhead platform. That definitely could have happened in 1863. There were riots in several cities, though they never became more than minor incidents outside New York City. Winning an election on that platform would still have been unlikely, but possible with butterflies.
As an aside, that would have made the uprising in New York impossible to ignore by international union sympathizers, and it would have created a crisis in the socialist movement much like that after 1956. Very interesting alternate history material here.
The answer to your question is no, because Lincoln's position would be completely untenable after the election.
As an aside, that would have made the uprising in New York impossible to ignore by international union sympathizers, and it would have created a crisis in the socialist movement much like that after 1956. Very interesting alternate history material here.
The answer to your question is no, because Lincoln's position would be completely untenable after the election.
Moving beyond the fact that the premise is more or less impossible - if the war is going well and a Peace Democrat wins the presidency, he would commit political suicide if he tried to end the war and withdraw Union forces when victory is nigh. It would go against common sense. With the war all but over, the incoming president would focus on extending generous terms to the defeated South, though it would be hard to be more generous to the South than the Union was IOTL.
This really is kind of like Truman (or Dewey!) signing a compromise peace with Hitler in April 1945.
Rather it'd be something like Lindbergh winning the 1944 election.
considering nothing has changed prior to this I agree with you 100%
several key Union defeats before the election would change the outcome but since nothing has changed you're looking at a non-starter