Draft Peace Treaty Between USA and CSA

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

The South had virtually nothing but cotton and tobbacco that had any real value in 1860.

Of course it does. . . a very big market. You have stated repeatedly how the South needs Northern manufactured goods, but it's equally true that the North needs the South to buy them. Otherwise, lots of industrialists in the North are going to go out of business and many thousands of Northern workers (including returning war veterans) are going to lose their jobs and be thrown out onto the street. In order to avoid this, the North is going to want to eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers in order to be able to sell their products to Southern consumers as easily as possible. Hence, they will want MFN status.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

They could if the people were desperately clamoring for peace, there was clearly no longer any possibility of subduing the Confederacy and the European powers were beginning to growl. Essentially, we have reached a point where any politician who does not bring an end to the fighting is going to get thrown out of office and replaced by someone who is.



This is a very minor article that I doubt would be at all controversial. And I don't see how it could possibly be defined as a "huge" expense.

The US can get peace merely by declaring a cease fire. The South got its butt badly kicked almost every time it invaded Union territory. The one exception was Perryville and even that was a strategic failure for the South.The Union declares a cease fire and entrenches its troops all along the TN border. If the CSA is foolish enough to try and invade it gets a very bloody nose. The people of the CSA would be war weary as well let's not forget.

It's a huge expense because you are talking about potentially thousands of sites and an abiding hatred for the enemy in the area. Every time a monument is vandalized you have to go through the expense of investigation, prosecution and judgment. You have to pay police, prosecutors and judges. If you are talking imprisonment that is an additional expense. Multiply that by a few thousand times and it is a major expense.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

Of course it does. . . a very big market. You have stated repeatedly how the South needs Northern manufactured goods, but it's equally true that the North needs the South to buy them. Otherwise, lots of industrialists in the North are going to go out of business and many thousands of Northern workers (including returning war veterans) are going to lose their jobs and be thrown out onto the street. In order to avoid this, the North is going to want to eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers in order to be able to sell their products to Southern consumers as easily as possible. Hence, they will want MFN status.

Paid with what? Cotton and tobbacco? Most of that is going to interest on its huge debt and paying the army in any case. The CSA will be a tiny market that the USA can easily ignore. It won't want to help out its rival in such a fashion. It wants it to remain flat broke.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

To allow Washington City to be defensible. And because the Federal government might not entirely trust the government of the State of Maryland.



The retrocession of the DC territory on the Virginia side of the Potomac to Virginia has always confused me a bit. That bit of territory should be included in the wording of the article.

If you include the area retrocessed (Alexandria County), then it may make sense, but you'd have to change the US Constitution which governs how large the District can be. And I really have a hard time imagining that happen given that you just increased the size of DC from the 62 square miles after retrocession to more than 1000 square files, making it more than 16 times the size it was at the beginning of the war.

[The Sandman]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

No, it doesn't. The South has nothing the North really needs. The only thing the South has is cotton and tobbacco. Niether are that important economically. The North has everything the South needs. Metals, food, fuel, all manufactured goods, drugs etc. Free trade strengthens the South more than the North. Why is the North agreeing to help its chief rival?

Because free trade ensures that the South will be unable to protect any of its native industry with tariffs, thus rendering it a massive agricultural colony of the North. It also would cripple the Confederate government, since IIRC their Constitution arranged things such that tariffs were the only way it could raise money.

Neither of these things is likely to be understood by the ruling class of the South. Or considered a bad thing even if they do understand them. Think of the plantation-owning class as the Goldman Sachs of its day and I expect you'll about have their attitude towards their own personal enrichment versus the people they nominally share a country/economy with.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by The Sandman

Because free trade ensures that the South will be unable to protect any of its native industry with tariffs, thus rendering it a massive agricultural colony of the North. It also would cripple the Confederate government, since IIRC their Constitution arranged things such that tariffs were the only way it could raise money.

Neither of these things is likely to be understood by the ruling class of the South. Or considered a bad thing even if they do understand them. Think of the plantation-owning class as the Goldman Sachs of its day and I expect you'll about have their attitude towards their own personal enrichment versus the people they nominally share a country/economy with.

You make a very good point. It may well pass for those reasons. I admit I didn't think of that.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

The US can get peace merely by declaring a cease fire.

The Northern people wouldn't stand for it. Remember that by 1864, the call of the public was very simple: give us either victory or peace. They were tired of the massive casualties and wanted an end to the war pronto, with victory if possible and without it if necessary. Any politician who says that they can have some sort of a middle ground between peace or war is going to be kicked out of office in one big hurry.

Besides, would this entail the blockade continuing indefinitely, even though no hostilities are ongoing? The British and French are not going to like that. Increased cotton production in India and Egypt aside, they are going to want access to both Southern cotton and tobacco production and the South as a market for their exports. Maintaining a blockade while attempting to subdue an armed rebellion is one thing; maintaining a blockade after a cease-fire is quite another.

This would also have a disastrous impact on the Union financial situation and a very helpful impact on the Confederate financial situation. If the Union declares a cease-fire, they are effectively acknowledging that they lack the ability to subdue the Confederacy. This will cause the value of greenbacks to fall sharply and make it much more difficult to float bonds at reasonable rates with New York and London bankers. It will have the reverse effect on Confederate currency and bond issues.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

The Northern people wouldn't stand for it. Remember that by 1864, the call of the public was very simple: give us either victory or peace. They were tired of the massive casualties and wanted an end to the war pronto, with victory if possible and without it if necessary. Any politician who says that they can have some sort of a middle ground between peace or war is going to be kicked out of office in one big hurry.

Besides, would this entail the blockade continuing indefinitely, even though no hostilities are ongoing? The British and French are not going to like that. Increased cotton production in India and Egypt aside, they are going to want access to both Southern cotton and tobacco production and the South as a market for their exports. Maintaining a blockade while attempting to subdue an armed rebellion is one thing; maintaining a blockade after a cease-fire is quite another.

This would also have a disastrous impact on the Union financial situation and a very helpful impact on the Confederate financial situation. If the Union declares a cease-fire, they are effectively acknowledging that they lack the ability to subdue the Confederacy. This will cause the value of greenbacks to fall sharply and make it much more difficult to float bonds at reasonable rates with New York and London bankers. It will have the reverse effect on Confederate currency and bond issues.

Cease-fires have been declared all through history without the huge effects you postulate. You can have a cease last years, decades and even centuries. Wars have been officially ended centuries after a cease-fire and after everyone has forgotten there even was a war. With a cease-fire you are going to few if any dead so the main reason for the opposition to war is gone. The South would also be sick of war and God help the politician who would advise breaking it. How many Georgians would be willing to die to have a plebe site in TN? If they are stupid enough to attacked huge numbers of entrenched troops there they get a very bloody nose very quickly and are extremely unlikely to try again.

A cease-fire is just that. You don't usually maintain a blockade during a cease-fire. A peace treaty (particularly one that is so one sided as to be allowing plebesites to be held in KY and TN, particularly KY, is going to be even worse for US treasuries. On the whole it is much better to have a cease-fire than sign a bad treaty.

[M79]

*Tennessee seceded, it will likely be granted at least a plebiscite unless the treaty is being done in OTL 1865 (this treaty sounds like something different)
*Not sure why Indian Territory stays in the Union, I think the latter would be happily rid of it given its inhabitants. Besides, if the Union is willing to give a cease fire, the CSA realizes that the Union is calling for peace and is willing to exchange things for it.
*Where are the cease fire lines in this timeline compared to OTL? Early 1864?
*Unless the CSA is so far on the ropes that the original seven states are all they will get, they will push for a plebiscite in Kentucky. If the Union really wants peace badly enough they might get it, especially under the right negotiatiors and circumstances are in place.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by M79

*Tennessee seceded, it will likely be granted at least a plebiscite unless the treaty is being done in OTL 1865 (this treaty sounds like something different)
*Not sure why Indian Territory stays in the Union, I think the latter would be happily rid of it given its inhabitants. Besides, if the Union is willing to give a cease fire, the CSA realizes that the Union is calling for peace and is willing to exchange things for it.
*Where are the cease fire lines in this timeline compared to OTL? Early 1864?
*Unless the CSA is so far on the ropes that the original seven states are all they will get, they will push for a plebiscite in Kentucky. If the Union really wants peace badly enough they might get it, especially under the right negotiatiors and circumstances are in place.

The Union Army is sitting on TN so why would the US give anything? It would have to be run by fools to do so. The OP says the treaty was signed in 1865.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by M79

Tennessee seceded, it will likely be granted at least a plebiscite unless the treaty is being done in OTL 1865 (this treaty sounds like something different)

Agreed. And I think the results would favor the Confederacy, the Unionist element in East Tennessee notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by M79

Not sure why Indian Territory stays in the Union, I think the latter would be happily rid of it given its inhabitants. Besides, if the Union is willing to give a cease fire, the CSA realizes that the Union is calling for peace and is willing to exchange things for it.

I'm thinking of rewriting the treaty so that the Indian Territory becomes some sort of independent state, with its borders guaranteed by both the Union and the Confederacy.

Originally Posted by M79

Where are the cease fire lines in this timeline compared to OTL? Early 1864?

Slightly better for the South but not by too much.

Originally Posted by M79

Unless the CSA is so far on the ropes that the original seven states are all they will get, they will push for a plebiscite in Kentucky. If the Union really wants peace badly enough they might get it, especially under the right negotiatiors and circumstances are in place.

Agreed. I am not sure what the results would be, though. And neither is anyone else, for that matter.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

Agreed. And I think the results would favor the Confederacy, the Unionist element in East Tennessee notwithstanding.



I'm thinking of rewriting the treaty so that the Indian Territory becomes some sort of independent state, with its borders guaranteed by both the Union and the Confederacy.



Slightly better for the South but not by too much.



Agreed. I am not sure what the results would be, though. And neither is anyone else, for that matter.

Why would the US give a plebesite in TN not talking KY? Its army is sitting on both states. Why give up land you already won? Why sign a peace treaty that is worse than a cease-fire in place? Do you think that the US State department was run solely by wimps and fools in 1865?

[M79]

Well Tennessee had a plebiscite before secession that ran in favor of the Union. They also had one afterwards confirming the decision to leave the Union was also in the popular interest. Maybe they think they can win the election if they are on the ground? Maybe they think they can do the same for Kentucky?

You sometimes give up land you've won in order to make peace. Depending on where the lines are in this OTL's 1865 and how desperate the Union is for peace they are likely to trade some land for peace.

Signing a peace treaty prevents a long occupation, costly rebuilding, possible guerilla warfare against the occupiers, and more deaths on your own side from trying to deliver a death-blow to the Confederacy. And if you honestly think they will implode in a few years anyway why pay for it when you can just hang out, let it die, and pick up the pieces?

No, the US State Department is not laden with fools and wimps, but if told to make peace they will be pragmatists to get the job done.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by M79

Well Tennessee had a plebiscite before secession that ran in favor of the Union. They also had one afterwards confirming the decision to leave the Union was also in the popular interest. Maybe they think they can win the election if they are on the ground? Maybe they think they can do the same for Kentucky?

You sometimes give up land you've won in order to make peace. Depending on where the lines are in this OTL's 1865 and how desperate the Union is for peace they are likely to trade some land for peace.

Signing a peace treaty prevents a long occupation, costly rebuilding, possible guerilla warfare against the occupiers, and more deaths on your own side from trying to deliver a death-blow to the Confederacy. And if you honestly think they will implode in a few years anyway why pay for it when you can just hang out, let it die, and pick up the pieces?

No, the US State Department is not laden with fools and wimps, but if told to make peace they will be pragmatists to get the job done.

You don't tend to give up land you already won. If the fools in the area rebel send them into the Western Deserts and see if they like living among the cacti and wolves.

[AStanley]

On the Subject of Plebiscites, I bet the Union occupied states will go very pro-union. Kentucky and Tennessee will go legitimately, Louisiana and Arkansas will be rigged.

I honestly don't see how the Confederacy would stop the Union from rigging Plebiscites

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

Why would the US give a plebesite in TN not talking KY? Its army is sitting on both states. Why give up land you already won? Why sign a peace treaty that is worse than a cease-fire in place? Do you think that the US State department was run solely by wimps and fools in 1865?

Because, apparently, this treaty isn't taking place in OTL 1865. Either the Union isn't firmly emplaced in TN and KY, or the Confederacy is also sitting on somewhere else like Maryland. (If this isn't the case, then I'll completely agree with you.)

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

I'm thinking of rewriting the treaty so that the Indian Territory becomes some sort of independent state, with its borders guaranteed by both the Union and the Confederacy.

If anything, it'd be a condominium - the old US fought a lot of wars to get the Indians under control; they aren't going to give them independence at this juncture. But I think the Union would be glad to get rid of it.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Evan

Because, apparently, this treaty isn't taking place in OTL 1865. Either the Union isn't firmly emplaced in TN and KY, or the Confederacy is also sitting on somewhere else like Maryland. (If this isn't the case, then I'll completely agree with you.)

Point taken, but it is hard to see how KY at least wouldn't be under firm Union control by 1865 or how the war would last until 1865 if it isn't. Another problem is that would recognize secession as legal which I can't see the Union conceding. It can concede it can't enforce an illegal act but it can't concede that it is legal in the first place without increasing the high risk that it will happen again. One of the first things the Union government is going to try is to federalize the government . It will want to weaken any "state's rights" as much as it can and move everything it can to the Federal level.

[Anaxagoras]

It would seem only fair for the Confederacy to assume a proportionate share of the Federal national debt as of 1860.

[Darth_Kiryan]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

It would seem only fair for the Confederacy to assume a proportionate share of the Federal national debt as of 1860.

*snort*

You really think the Confederacy is going to agree with that?

[TheKnightIrish]

Originally Posted by Adûnakhôr

*snort*

You really think the Confederacy is going to agree with that?

We'll be trying that one on Alex Salmond when he trys to secede with Scotland in 2014!