If he lost, the war policy would be taken back and a peace negotiation would have happened between the Union and the Confederacy. The war would have ended with two separate nations instead of one joined nation. Again this did NOT happen, and cannot be discussed. Why talk about what could have happened, when there still is not straight answer to why the Confederacy lost.Freehling placed some emphasis on the politics with the War Democrats, like McClellan. He said that McClellan won some were saying that he was not for peace, and then he was saying that he would have ended the war and accepted the independence of the South with less blood than Lincoln sought. But Lincoln did not lose and even if there were a possibility of losing the election, McClellan necessarily would not win the war. Also what McClellan preached does not mean that was what he was going to do in office. In both of the instances, the two authors cannot speculate of what could have happened. These speculations cannot be cause for war or even effects of the war. It is not a plausible explanation. In conclusion, I believe that neither authors gave sufficient ideas for why the Confederacy lost the war. McPherson stated what historians have said was the reasoning for the Confederate loss. He negates their ideas, but he never gives his ideas. So I still do not know what could have been the reason why the South lost. Freehling places a lot of emphasis on speculation and what could have been but wasnt. He does say that the reason behind the loss was due to social conflicts and not battles. He is closer to telling us why the Confederacy loss than McPherson because he uses more of his owns ideas....
