Draft Peace Treaty Between USA and CSA

Anaxagoras · May 6, 2012

Comments welcome!

-------------------------------------

TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA

The United States of America and the Confederate States of America, moved by a mutual and sincere desire to see the calamity of war and the unnecessary effusion of blood and treasure ended, and to establish peace on the firm foundations of friendship and mutual respect, have appointed for that purpose respective plenipotentiaries. The President of the United States has appointed Joel Parker, Governor of the State of New Jersey, and John Dix, Major General of the United States Army, and the President of the Confederate States has appointed Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States, and John Breckinridge, Major General of the Confederate Army, who, after a reciprocal communication of their respective full powers, have arranged, agreed upon, and signed the following Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America.

Article I
There shall be a firm and universal peace between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, and between their respective citizens, without any exception of places and persons.

Article II
The United States recognizes the complete independence of the Confederate States, fully recognizes the legitimacy of the Confederate government, and acknowledges that any and all political or legal authority the United States once held over the territory now encompassed by the Confederate States is totally dissolved.

Article III
Immediately upon the exchange of mutual ratifications of this treaty, the military forces of the United States shall begin to withdraw from all territory of the Confederate States currently under their occupation, with such withdrawal to be completed in as expedient a manner as practical, but within two months in any event. Care shall be taken to avoid unnecessary disruptions to civilians and there shall be no unnecessary destruction of property during this time. The Confederate government, and its military forces, shall use all means within its power to assist the withdrawing United States forces.

Article IV
Immediately upon the exchange of mutual ratifications of this treaty, the United States and the Confederate States shall transmit orders to their respective naval vessels, wherever they might be, to immediately cease all hostile action against the other party. Furthermore, immediately upon the exchange of mutual ratifications of this treaty, the United States shall lift the naval blockade imposed upon the Confederate States on April 19, 1861.

Article V
All prisoners taken by either side, on land or sea, shall be restored as soon as practical after the exchange of mutual ratifications of this treaty.

Article VI
The territory of the Confederate States of American consists of the following states: Virginia (including Fort Monroe), North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida (including Fort Pickens), Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. The Confederate States forever abandons any and all territorial claims to the State of Maryland, the State of West Virginia, the State of Missouri, and the Territory of New Mexico, the Indian Territory, and any portions thereof.

Article VII
A plebiscite shall be held in the State of Kentucky to enable the citizens of the said state to decide for themselves whether their state shall remain within the United States or shall join the Confederate States. Immediately upon the exchange of mutual ratifications of this treaty, the United States and the Confederates States shall each appoint five commissioners to create a ten-person commission with authority to organize and oversee this plebiscite and to that it be free and fair. The plebiscite shall be held within one year of the exchange of mutual ratifications of this treaty, with all military forces of both the United States and Confederate States having evacuated the State of Kentucky three months beforehand.

Article VIII
Each party reserves to itself the right to fortify whatever point within its territory it may judge proper so to fortify for its security, excepting wherein this would conflict with Article VII.

Article IX
Neither the United States or the Confederates States, nor any citizen thereof, shall be bound in any way or manner for any loss of property which may have regrettably taken place during the period of military hostility between the two nations. For the purposes of this treaty, “property” shall be held to include persons held to servitude under the laws of the Confederate States.

Article X
The United States agrees to make a good faith effort to prevent the entry of persons held to servitude in the Confederate States into the United States and to return those who, despite the good faith efforts of United States authorities, do enter the United States.

Article XI
When traveling into the United States, citizens of the Confederate States shall not be permitted to bring persons held to servitude under the laws of the Confederate States with them.

Article XII
The vessels and citizens of the United States shall, in all time, have free, unhindered and uninterrupted use of the Mississippi River for means of transportation, armed vessels of a military nature alone excepted.

Article XIII
The citizens of the United States and the Confederate States shall have the freedom to trade in the territory of the other nation and shall pay within the other nation no other or greater duties, charges or fees whatsoever than the most favored nations are or shall be obliged to pay; and they shall enjoy all the rights, privileges and exemptions in navigation and commerce, which the most favored nation does or shall enjoy; submitting themselves, nevertheless to the laws and usages there established, and to which are submitted the citizens and subjects of the most favored nations.

Article XIV
To facilitate commerce and friendly relations, the two nations grant to each other the liberty of having in the ports or inland centers of commerce of the other consuls, vice-consuls, agents and commissaries of their own appointment, whose functions shall be regulated by particular agreement whenever either party shall choose to make such appointment; but if any such consuls shall exercise commerce, they shall be submitted to the same laws and usages to which the private individuals of their nation are submitted in the same place.

Article XV
Each nation shall endeavor, by all the means in their power, to protect and defend all vessels and other effects belonging to the citizens of the other nation, which shall be within the extent of their jurisdiction, by sea or by land, and shall use all their efforts to recover and cause to be restored to their right owners, their vessels and effects which shall be taken from them within the extent of their said jurisdiction.

Article XVI
If private citizens of either nation, acting under proper law, shall erect monuments or memorials to their respective war dead on battlefields in the territory of the other nation, the local authorities shall protect said monuments and memorials and treat acts of vandalism directed towards them as a serious criminal offense.

Article XVII
If unhappily any disagreement should hereafter arise between the United States and the Confederate States, whether with respect to the stipulations of this treaty or for any other reason, the two nations honestly pledge to one another that they will endeavor in the most sincere manner to settle the difficulties so arising and to preserve the state of peace and friendship in which the two countries are now placing themselves, using, for this purpose, mutual representations and pacific negotiations. And if, by these means, they should not be enabled to come to an agreement, a resort shall not, on this account, be had to reprisals, aggression, or hostility of any kind, by the one nation against the other, until the government of that which deems itself aggrieved shall have maturely considered, in the spirit of peace and friendship, whether it would not be better that such difference should be settled by the arbitration of commissioners appointed on each side, or by that of a friendly nation. And should such course be proposed by either party, it shall be acceded to by the other, unless deemed by it altogether incompatible with the nature of the difference, or the circumstances of the case.

Article XVIII
If unhappily war should ever again arise between the two nations, the merchants of either nation then residing in the other shall be allowed to remain six months to collect their debts and settle their affairs, and may depart freely, carrying off all their effects, without molestation or hindrance.

CONCLUDED ONBOARD THE RIVER QUEEN ANCHORED IN HAMPTON ROADS AUGUST 2, 1865, RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES ON OCTOBER 1, 1865 AND THE CONFEDERATE STATES ON OCTOBER 6, 1865, RATIFICATIONS EXCHANGED AT CITY POINT, VIRGINIA, ON NOVEMBER 1, 1865.

Evan · May 6, 2012

Random thoughts -- All right; what happened?

And why are you specifically listing Fts. Monroe and Pickens, but not the many other forts which would have been in the same situation? What about Fort Sumter? What about the many forts that had to have been built during the war?

That Fugitive Slave Article is going to be generally ignored, you know, though I guess the Copperhead Democrats just might push it in there.

Where'd you grab that article about merchants from? Was that actually put in mid-1800's treaties? It seems to smack of the 1600's.

Anaxagoras · May 6, 2012

Evan said:
All right; what happened?

Won't tell. I'd love to hear the speculation.

Evan said:
And why are you specifically listing Fts. Monroe and Pickens, but not the many other forts which would have been in the same situation? What about Fort Sumter? What about the many forts that had to have been built during the war?

Because those two forts were never in Confederate hands at any time during the war. Were there any others?

Evan said:
That Fugitive Slave Article is going to be generally ignored, you know, though I guess the Copperhead Democrats just might push it in there.

I would expect it to be ignored, and I would assume Stephens and Breckinridge would expect it to be ignored. But they would have insisted on including it in order to save face.

Evan said:
Where'd you grab that article about merchants from? Was that actually put in mid-1800's treaties? It seems to smack of the 1600's.

Are you talking about Article XIII or Article XVIII?

M79 · May 6, 2012

Interesting to say the least. I'm curious about the Indian Territory and why the Union has an interest in it at this time, but otherwise seems like a nice start. For the treaty to occur in August 1865 I wonder do we have a cease fire in early '65/late '64? Does this come about by a stronger position in the West somehow with Rosecrans getting strategically defeated at Chicakmauga or does the East somehow work out better?

*Or does Lee pass away early in the war for whatever reason and someone else assume control of the Confederate army at a much earlier stage?

Evan · May 6, 2012

Anaxagoras said:
Because those two forts were never in Confederate hands at any time during the war. Were there any others?

I don't think so, but I'd expect a blanket clause saying something like "all forts within the limits of said States," instead of specifically mentioning these.

Anaxagoras said:
I would expect it to be ignored, and I would assume Stephens and Breckinridge would expect it to be ignored. But they would have insisted on including it in order to save face.

Agreed, though I could also see it becoming a major sticking point fueling US revanchism.

Anaxagoras said:
Are you talking about Article XIII or Article XVIII?

The latter.

Anaxagoras · May 6, 2012

Evan said:
I don't think so, but I'd expect a blanket clause saying something like "all forts within the limits of said States," instead of specifically mentioning these.

Might be a good idea.

Evan said:
Agreed, though I could also see it becoming a major sticking point fueling US revanchism.

No doubt.

Evan said:
The latter.

That comes from the treaty the model Treaty of Friendship and Commerce that Thomas Jefferson wrote when he was a diplomat in Europe (which was signed only by Prussia). I noticed that the same language was used in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican War, so I thought I'd include it here.

William_Dellinger · May 6, 2012

I have a problem with Articles VI & XI.

Article VI: A victorious CSA would never abandon claim to New Mexico Territory, as well as Indian Territory. The entire war was fought over the expansion of slavery into the western territories (though, one could make the argument that without needing to keep the balance of power in a united Congress, there wouldn't be as much need to expand). But it's not just the balance of power that drove Southern expansionists, it was the entire mindset of paternalism expanded to the West, Carribbean, Central America, etc. I really don't see that happening, or in regards to the Indian Territory either, the Five Civilized Tribes were allies of the CSA. Of course the Southerners could hang them out to dry, but I don't think the US would push the issue since it would be full of hostile forces.

Article XI: The Southern planters would raise holy hell over this. And unless Lincoln has expanded the Emancipation Proclamation to cover the rest of the US, it'd be illegal as well. The EP was only applicable to states and areas in rebellion.

Just my two cents.

Grimbald · May 6, 2012

Interesting

I would imagine there would be a need to define "West Virginia" since there were a number of counties in dispute.

Indian Terrority would probably be Confederate since the Union placed negative value on it.

Would Maryland get the eastern counties of Virginia across the bay?

Johnrankins · May 6, 2012

William_Dellinger said:
I have a problem with Articles VI & XI.

Article VI: A victorious CSA would never abandon claim to New Mexico Territory, as well as Indian Territory. The entire war was fought over the expansion of slavery into the western territories (though, one could make the argument that without needing to keep the balance of power in a united Congress, there wouldn't be as much need to expand). But it's not just the balance of power that drove Southern expansionists, it was the entire mindset of paternalism expanded to the West, Carribbean, Central America, etc. I really don't see that happening, or in regards to the Indian Territory either, the Five Civilized Tribes were allies of the CSA. Of course the Southerners could hang them out to dry, but I don't think the US would push the issue since it would be full of hostile forces.

Article XI: The Southern planters would raise holy hell over this. And unless Lincoln has expanded the Emancipation Proclamation to cover the rest of the US, it'd be illegal as well. The EP was only applicable to states and areas in rebellion.

Just my two cents.

On the contrary it is FAR TOO GENEROUS to the CSA. What wimp agreed to this treaty? Certainly not Lincoln! He would NEVER agree to holding plebesites ANYWHERE! Article X would never be agreed to either. There is NO WAY a FSL is going to be enforced. The CSA wants independence let it worry about escapred slaves. Article XIII would never be agreed to. Article XV would never be agreed to, let the CSA build its own navy! Article XVI wouldn't be agreed to as too expensive. Article XVIII would never be agreed to.

ProfJets · May 6, 2012

William_Dellinger said:
I have a problem with Articles VI & XI.

Article VI: A victorious CSA would never abandon claim to New Mexico Territory, as well as Indian Territory. The entire war was fought over the expansion of slavery into the western territories (though, one could make the argument that without needing to keep the balance of power in a united Congress, there wouldn't be as much need to expand). But it's not just the balance of power that drove Southern expansionists, it was the entire mindset of paternalism expanded to the West, Carribbean, Central America, etc. I really don't see that happening, or in regards to the Indian Territory either, the Five Civilized Tribes were allies of the CSA. Of course the Southerners could hang them out to dry, but I don't think the US would push the issue since it would be full of hostile forces.

Article XI: The Southern planters would raise holy hell over this. And unless Lincoln has expanded the Emancipation Proclamation to cover the rest of the US, it'd be illegal as well. The EP was only applicable to states and areas in rebellion.

Just my two cents.

They could very easily abandon their western claims. This POD has the treaty being signed in late 1865, which implies a rather lengthy war. Southern leaders who have victory/independence in hand are not going to risk continued war and the possibility of defeat over New Mexico.

Evan · May 6, 2012

Anaxagoras said:
That comes from the treaty the model Treaty of Friendship and Commerce that Thomas Jefferson wrote when he was a diplomat in Europe (which was signed only by Prussia). I noticed that the same language was used in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican War, so I thought I'd include it here.

Okay then - I'm surprised, but sure, stick it in.

William_Dellinger said:
Article XI: The Southern planters would raise holy hell over this. And unless Lincoln has expanded the Emancipation Proclamation to cover the rest of the US, it'd be illegal as well. The EP was only applicable to states and areas in rebellion.

An outright ban on bringing slaves into the United States from what is now a foreign country would be totally Constitutional. And since they are now a foreign country - the planters would make a big fuss about it, but I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on. But, to keep them calm, why not just say that bringing slaves across the border (from either side) would be governed by the laws of the receiving country?

TyranicusMaximus · May 6, 2012

Johnrankins said:
On the contrary it is FAR TOO GENEROUS to the CSA. What wimp agreed to this treaty? Certainly not Lincoln! He would NEVER agree to holding plebesites ANYWHERE! Article X would never be agreed to either. There is NO WAY a FSL is going to be enforced. The CSA wants independence let it worry about escapred slaves. Article XIII would never be agreed to. Article XV would never be agreed to, let the CSA build its own navy! Article XVI wouldn't be agreed to as too expensive. Article XVIII would never be agreed to.

Are you going to flip out in every CSA independent thread?

AStanley · May 6, 2012

Anaxagoras said:
Article VI
The territory of the Confederate States of American consists of the following states: Virginia (including Fort Monroe), North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida (including Fort Pickens), Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. The Confederate States forever abandons any and all territorial claims to the State of Maryland, the State of West Virginia, the State of Missouri, and the Territory of New Mexico, the Indian Territory, and any portions thereof.

CONCLUDED ONBOARD THE RIVER QUEEN ANCHORED IN HAMPTON ROADS AUGUST 2, 1865, RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES ON OCTOBER 1, 1865 AND THE CONFEDERATE STATES ON OCTOBER 6, 1865, RATIFICATIONS EXCHANGED AT CITY POINT, VIRGINIA, ON NOVEMBER 1, 1865.

Unless the Confederacy has pushed the Union out of the entirety of its lands, or captured DC or something (Both VERY unlikely), its too late a sign date to get everything mentioned in the treaty.

Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana already have been "reconciled" and have fully functioning Union governments and almost no confederate presence, why on earth would the union give it up?

Here is my map for a late treaty:

9 Fanged Hummingbird · May 6, 2012

AStanley said:
Unless the Confederacy has pushed the Union out of the entirety of its lands, or captured DC or something (Both VERY unlikely), its too late a sign date to get everything mentioned in the treaty.

Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana already have been "reconciled" and have fully functioning Union governments and almost no confederate presence, why on earth would the union give it up?

Wouldn't that assume the war progressed exactly as it did IOTL? In which case, why would there be a treaty at all? I'm pretty sure this scenario implies that the course of the war went differently to some degree.

AStanley · May 6, 2012

9 Fanged Hummingbird said:
Wouldn't that assume the war progressed exactly as it did IOTL? In which case, why would there be a treaty at all? I'm pretty sure this scenario implies that the course of the war went differently to some degree.

I still can't comprehend how the CSA managed to hold those borders after 4 years of war.

There isn't an outside intervention force, otherwise they would be mentioned in the treaty.

If the CSA does a much better job, they might be able to split the states that reconciled with the Union.

AtriumCarceris · May 6, 2012

AStanley said:
Unless the Confederacy has pushed the Union out of the entirety of its lands, or captured DC or something (Both VERY unlikely), its too late a sign date to get everything mentioned in the treaty.

Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana already have been "reconciled" and have fully functioning Union governments and almost no confederate presence, why on earth would the union give it up?

Because there wouldn't be peace over it. The CSA is not going to fight over New Mexico because it didn't secede with them, it being a territory. They will fight over a sizeable portion of the the country they formed. If there's going to be a peace treaty at all, it requires Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia sans-West Virginia.

A peace treaty wouldn't even be put forth if it didn't have the CSA getting these lands. And if the USA would not accept it, then neither side would want peace. Outside of really unlikely circumstances anyway.

Also, I do think Indian Territory shouldn't be given up so easily, especially if Kentucky is getting a plebiscite. I would actually believe Indian Territory going to the CSA more than a plebiscite in Kentucky.

Johnrankins · May 6, 2012

TyranicusMaximus said:
Are you going to flip out in every CSA independent thread?

No, just ones that are far too generous, particularly for 1865. What exactly is the CSA conceding to the USA? As far as I can tell nothing. Why is the US giving up Tennessee when the CSA is in no shape to take it back? Or Arkansas or Louisiana? Even if the CSA does considerably better it will be flat broke and begging for funds by 1865 and in no shape to demand anything that the Union has already conquered! Why would the USA make it easier for the CSA to survive? Why would the US agree to return escaped slaves or protect CSA shipping? The latter is completely nonsensical as I know of no other treaty that has that. Why would the US agree to give the CS MFN treaty status? Why would agree to protect CSA monuments which I have never heard of being part of any treaty? This is Jeff Davis wish list, nothing more!

AStanley · May 6, 2012

AtriumCarceris said:
Because there wouldn't be peace over it. The CSA is not going to fight over New Mexico because it didn't secede with them, it being a territory. They will fight over a sizeable portion of the the country they formed. If there's going to be a peace treaty at all, it requires Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia sans-West Virginia.

A peace treaty wouldn't even be put forth if it didn't have the CSA getting these lands. And if the USA would not accept it, then neither side would want peace. Outside of really unlikely circumstances anyway.

Also, I do think Indian Territory shouldn't be given up so easily, especially if Kentucky is getting a plebiscite. I would actually believe Indian Territory going to the CSA more than a plebiscite in Kentucky.

1.How is West Virginia any different than say Eastern Tennessee? Both are largely unionist areas, both are under Union control.

2.The Confederacy would take anything for peace, including breaking up a few of their states, They will certainly never be in a position to demand peace, so they will have to ask the Union for peace, thus the Union gets to mandate the terms

3.This Peace treaty is reaching TL-191 levels of realism...

Johnrankins · May 6, 2012

AStanley said:
1.How is West Virginia any different than say Eastern Tennessee? Both are largely unionist areas, both are under Union control.

2.The Confederacy would take anything for peace, including breaking up a few of their states, They will certainly never be in a position to demand peace, so they will have to ask the Union for peace, thus the Union gets to mandate the terms

3.This Peace treaty is reaching TL-191 levels of realism...

Yes, like I said this is a Jeff Davis wish list as is, particularly for 1865!

Blue Max · May 6, 2012

Johnrankins said:
On the contrary it is FAR TOO GENEROUS to the CSA. What wimp agreed to this treaty? Certainly not Lincoln! He would NEVER agree to holding plebesites ANYWHERE! Article X would never be agreed to either. There is NO WAY a FSL is going to be enforced. The CSA wants independence let it worry about escapred slaves. Article XIII would never be agreed to. Article XV would never be agreed to, let the CSA build its own navy! Article XVI wouldn't be agreed to as too expensive. Article XVIII would never be agreed to.

Guessing PoD is Fremont elected in 1856, leading to Civil War against a remarkably incompetent US POTUS. The Border States join the Confederacy, so the CSA is being generous in allowing a Plebiscite in Kentucky, and foreswearing "Disputed" Maryland and Missouri.

We're thinking WAY to far along this being anything at all like the OTL civil war. Besides, if Breckinridge is PotCS, he's pretty sure of winning his home state anyhow.

The wording then would be incorrect; it would be the "Confederacy agrees to withdraw its troops from Philadelphia and other territories of the United States". For those wondering to what Lincoln was thinking in terms of signing this treaty, Attorney Generals don't sign peace treaties. Not that it matters, I'm sure Lincoln has probably resigned from Fremont's cabinet in protest of his bungled war effort.

So the terms are slanted completely against the United States, because when Washington DC has been evacuated and Pennsylvania and Ohio occupied, you tend to have that sort of bargaining power. We just need to resort to PoD abuse to get a For All Time* sort of situation.

So, assume that Fremont is President, the war broke out in 1856, and the Union started the conflict, throwing all of the Border States into the Confederate Column.

In full:
Article III: Both Nations shall withdraw from occupied territory; indeed, the Confederates are the ones laying siege to NYC.
Article VI: The Confederacy really should include Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri; perhaps the Plebiscite is held for Kansas (LOL)
Article XII: The Confederates have won, make the Union pay for using the Mississippi River.

*For Act II, have the Confederate States turn into a giant North Korea with freakish medical experiments on slaves and a three thousand mile barricade to keep its people inside. The odds on it happening are much stronger than the PoD working out.