In the 1864 presidential election, George B. McClellan carried the State of New York along with all other Northern States except New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky, despite the efforts of the Republican Party and Lincoln’s War Department marshalling the soldier vote against him. After Lincoln’s assassination in mid-April 1865, the Yonkers Herald-Gazette condemned it as “the darkest crime” but added that “it might have been a wise move at the beginning of the war or during the darker days of the struggle.”Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.org The Great American Political Divide
Revised: In September 1864, the New York World editorialized “for the simple
reason that, after [peace candidate George B. McClellan’s] inauguration,
the character of the war will have so changed that the Southern people
will no longer have a sufficient motive to stand out.” Despite a
critical New York press, Lincoln barely won the State’s 212 electoral
votes in November 1864 against McClellan, the manipulated soldier vote
assisting greatly in the .92% margin of victory. After Lincoln’s
assassination in mid-April 1865, the Yonkers Herald-Gazette condemned it
as “the darkest crime” but added that “it might have been a wise move
at the beginning of the war during the darker days of the struggle.”
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.org
The Second War on the Liberties of American Citizens
“For the Democrats of Westchester County [New York], the presidential contest of 1864 appears as the last opportunity for opposition to Lincoln, his policies, and the future course of the war. This time, they could rally around a single candidate, George B. McClellan.
For Mary Lydig Daly, having Lincoln as president once again was a repulsive thought. [She] wrote in her diary . . . “We are at present ruled by New England, which was never a gentle or tolerant mistress, and my Dutch and German obstinate blood begins to feel heated to see how arrogantly she dictates and would force her ideas down our throats, even with the bayonet.”
In 1864, McClellan made it clear he would continue the war to its successful conclusion, that is, the restoration of the Union as it was. He did not advocate “peace at any price,” in spite of the sentiments of some members of his party.
Should he have won the presidency in 1864, he would have dismantled the repressive aspects of Lincoln’s policies against civil liberties and civilians. He would have undone the Republican experiments in social engineering, especially emancipation.
When his Northern solders commented on the evils of slavery (many of them having seen the institution for the first time), what they were really seeing were the consequences and disorder of emancipation. The Reconstruction Era presented a clear picture of what that was like, resulting in “nothing but freedom” for the ex-slaves.
When Lincoln was nominated that June , the Yonkers Herald-Gazette . . . commented “Another four years of “Honest old Abe” would leave nothing but the shadow of a Republic on the American continent. The Republican papers in the county, such as the rival Yonkers Statesman, trotted out their familiar epithet of “disloyalty” against this paper and other Democratic sheets . . .
The Yonkers Herald-Gazette retorted: “We confess to the smallest possible amount of respect for the Republican professions of “loyalty,” or Republican charges of “disloyalty.” The word is not American, nor Republican even – here it originally expressed the treasonable attachment of the loyal Tories to George the Third, in his wanton war against American liberty; and as now used, it general means partisan devotion to Abraham Lincoln, not in resistance to a Southern Rebellion, but in a would-be second war on the liberties of American citizens.”
(The Last Ditch of Opposition: The Election of 1864 and Beyond; Yankees & Yorkers: Opposition to Lincoln’s Policies in Westchester County, New York, and the Greater Hudson Valley, Richard T. Valentine; Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s War, D. Jonathan White, editor, Abbeville Institute Press, 2014, excerpts pp. 204-206)