Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnWilkes
Lincoln certainly refuses. Sherman march was Nov./Dec of 64. He later entered the Carolinas at the start of Feb. 65. If instead Atlanta and Mobile Bay held till after the election, Sherman begins his march in Dec. Since he was actually marching in Dec. and Feb., this would not be a problem. Wilmington fell in Jan., surely Mobile on the Gulf could be captured despite the weather. Hood destruction in Tennessee comes in Jan instead of very late Nov.But armies operated in Tennessee in Feb of 62 with McHenry and Donelson.
Hood destroyed, Atlanta gone, Georgia destroyed, Mobile and Wilmington shut down.Plus all that came before. Even McClellan would be able to see victory. In fact, McClellan would claim it was his despite the awful mess Lincoln left him.
Then would that ego of McClellan's allowed him to give up the presidency in 68 or later and leave a "lesser" man take over and ruined the Republic that McClellan "saved from destruction" three times.
I'm not sure Lincoln refuses the armistice. He would want to control the peace. Don't forget a McClellan win probably means democrats in congress. Lincoln would see a ticking clock. The allure of declaring victory before McClellan takes office would be intense.
Who is to say lee doesn't dig in, and Johnston avoids a certain loss like bentonville long enough for democrats to replace high command, end the draft, discharge troops, and present palatable peace terms? The South could have held out till 1866 by going asymmetric, longer depending on Texas and civilian will.
What is in it for McClellan politically? The north isn't staying democratic long.