[Sherman Logan]

Northern war-weariness, leading to a negotiated settlement.

Sorry, but I don't buy it as a realistic possibility.

By the 1864 election, the South had lost much of its territory, which was occupied and in the process of being reconstructed. Most notably the entire Mississippi Valley. Other large sections, such as everything west of that valley, most of Florida, etc. were for all practical purposes cut offfrom the rest of the CSA.

I have no doubt there were many Copperheads and other willing to negotiate a peace. However, does anyone seriously think Union public opinion would allow all that land they had conquered at immense cost in blood and money to just be handed back in negotiations?

Or does anyone think CSA public opinion would have allowed its government to accept anything but return of all its sacred soil?

Sometimes wars are very nearly impossible to get out of, even if both sides want to.

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan: "does anyone seriously think Union public opinion would allow all that land they had conquered at immense cost in blood and money to just be handed back in negotiations?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't McClellan's Democrats the "peace party" (the George McGoverns & Barak Obamas) of the 1864 election?

Would not a McClellan election as president have resulted in serious negotiations, in which the Confederacy's First Principle -- slavery -- would be preserved?
Is there any evidence that McClellan intended to be hard-nosed tough on that issue?

And isn't it usually said that Sherman's and Sheridan's victories gave northerners the boost in confidence -- needed during Grant's stalemate at Petersburg -- to reelect Lincoln over McClellan?

[x]

Or does anyone think CSA public opinion would have allowed its government to accept anything but return of all its sacred soil?

Good question. By 1864, I don't think public opinion was very adamant on that point. People were already sick of the war.

But, how could you divide a state like Tennessee, say? Would the pieces really make up something like a state? Would you really cede parts of Florida or Mississippi or Louisiana simply because Northern troops were there, even if there was no significant (White) support for the Union?

Without getting into a "sacred soil" argument I wonder if the 19th Century mind would really accept the kind of long truce and irregular borders that issued from the Korean War.

My suspicion is that politically active people may well have been "all or nothing" in their thinking even if the powerful emotions had dissipated. The alternative of an armistice that simply let each side hold on to what it had just wasn't part of the mindset.

In particular, Davis was probably too rigid and too inept to take good advantage of the opportunity of a negotiated settlement if it arose.