Lincoln's loss in 1864

[Steve]

(06-18-2019 10:40 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Steve,

I'm not sure I can agree with you on emancipation. The Democratic platform of 1864 is completely silent on that. In fact, one could interpret it as being anti-emancipation. Read this:

Resolved, That the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve the Federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired, and they hereby declare that they consider that the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution; the subversion of the civil by military law in States not in insurrection; the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force; the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press; the denial of the right of asylum; the open and avowed disregard of State rights; the employment of unusual test-oaths; and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms in their defense is calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a Government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

Now admittedly, McClellan wouldn't have been the first president to bypass his party's platform, but from my reading I don't think he was any friend of African-Americans. Also, it took a year for the 13th amendment to be ratified. Much of it was through the force of Lincoln and then the appeal to his martyrdom. At any point during a McClellan administration, the process could have been stopped. Look at the Equal Rights Amendment. It was on its way to passage in 1972 and 40 years later it still hasn't done so.

He of course would oppose civil rights measures or voting for former slaves, though.

Absolutely agreed on that point.

Best
Rob

At the time of its ratification in Dec. 1865, the 13th amendment had the second-shortest ratification period. When Lincoln was assassinated the amendment already had 21 out of the necessary 27 states for ratification and by the start of a potential McClellan administration, 19 states would've already ratified the amendment. I don't see McClellan as being as whole-heartedly supportive of the amendment as Lincoln and Johnson were but with the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in the Confederacy not under Union control in Jan. 1863, the abolition of slavery in Maryland and West Virginia, the need for the victory in the war to "mean something", etc the political momentum would've swung too strongly behind the amendment's ratification if Lincoln had been able to get it passed by Congress before a McClellan inauguration.

I can also see McClellan's ego making him convinced that the amendment's final ratifications would only be possible because God had put him in the Presidency to bring the country back together.