Lincoln's loss in 1864

[Steve]

(06-16-2019 10:18 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I came across the letter that in 1864 Lincoln had his cabinet sign sight unseen concerning what would happen if he lost the election of 1864. To refresh your memory, here it is:

This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so cooperate with the Government President elect, as to save the Union between the Election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards.

So let's pretend. It's 1864 and the Siege of Atlanta is dragging into its fourth month. Casualties are mounting and the Confederacy shows no signs of capitulating. Finally, in late September, the siege is broken, but at a high cost of human lives. Although it was close, Lincoln loses to George B. McClellan, thanks, in large part, to the soldiers who are growing tired of the battle.

So what could Lincoln have done from November to March that would allowed him to save the Union? Is he being almost nihilistic here, in that Congress would be focusing on how to either work with McClellan or stymie his policies and not really paying attention to Lincoln (in my opinion, anyway)? Would the military have fought any harder for a lame-duck Lincoln while waiting for the man who built the Army of the Potomac to take it over again?

I realize much, if not all, of this requires speculation. However, I think it's an interesting subject that can be answered, if only somewhat. I will wait for other people to chime in before giving my own opinion.

Best
Rob

I still think Lincoln would've won as long as Atlanta fell by say early to mid-October, maybe. However long the delay the capture of Atlanta also delays Sherman's March to the Sea but probably doesn't stop it from happening. I'm sure Lee would still have surrendered to Grant. Though, I'm not sure what the condition of Johnston's Army would be vis-à-vis surrender by Mar. or April 1865

I think McClellan was enough of a military strategist to see the South's doom and wouldn't have pressed for a peace process until he took office. It was after all the part of his own platform which McClellan actually campaigned against. Basically he'd allow Lincoln to mortally weaken the Confederates and then take credit for winning the war. I also think it's likely that unless there was some sort of a peace conference under McClellan, Booth would also try to assassinate McClellan. If he was successful (which we can't be sure of due to the changed circumstances), George Pendleton would've become President. The thought of that kind of makes one wonder if a hypothetical Pendleton administration would've been any better than the Johnson administration. A McClellan presidency probably wouldn't have been that much different from the Johnson presidency.

The most important question is whether a weakened and ending Lincoln presidency and Republicans in Congress could push through a version of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery. My guess is that it maybe would've had 50/50 odds of passing once a Union victory was inevitable and Republicans still had control of both Houses of Congress. But I might be a little too optimistic on that point.