CSA Victory: The aftermath

Jan 3rd 1866
General Lee was thinking about how it has been six months since President Pendelton's assumption of office following the assassination of McClellan. The peace treaty should be finalized by the end of the month. The negotiations went worse than he expected. The South had to give up Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri and Virginia north of the Rappahannock and West Virginia. Tennessee was the toughest to give up. For all practical purposes Kentucky and Missouri were gone from the very beginning of the war. He hoped for a long time to liberate them from the Yankees but he didn't really expect to get them back past 1863 anyways. Virginia north of the Rappahannock was in Union hands most of the war and even Lee thought they could not hold it long at this point. The Rappahannock was a natural barrier that could shield the rest of Virginia and Lee did not even try to regain West Virginia after 1862. The CSA might have shrunk but it did have the core left and the borders could be defended with the fortifications being built on both sides of the border. At least they got free trade out of the deal which should help the finances needed to maintain his army.
 
Jan 5th 18656

Secretary of the treasury George Trenholm thought "Bills, bills, bills and more bills. We are going to need to refinance our debt to survive. The fact is there is no way on God's green Earth we can pay all our debts on time. We just don't have the money. We are going to have to least double the length of our loans. Hopefully we will be enough on our feet we don't have to default entirely. At least inflation is down a bit. Corn prices went up only 12% last month"
 
Last edited:
Which Secretary of the Treasury? US or CS?
CSA. obviously. The US has some money difficulties but it isn't 175% of GDP in debt which TTL CSA is, which is less than OTL 200%. The US will pay its debts on time. Nor would the US Secretary be happy that the inflation rate went down to 12% A MONTH! Which again is less than OTL! I gave the CSA somehat better finances as it actually won.
 
Last edited:
Feb 14th, 1866

Secretary of War Breckenridge was in a bad mood. He had good news and bad news for Jefferson Davis. The damn Yankees pulled out of New Orleans and Savannah (OOC: This is the 19th century and it is going to take the Yankees a few months to withdraw completely) on time all right but they burned both cities to the ground before leaving. They forced the inhabitants out and left the cities in ashes. They then sunk a number of their most obsolete ships in their harbors which will force the CSA to spend precious time and money to get working again. Neither Jefferson Davis or Secretary Trenholm will be happy about the expense!
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
Feb 14th, 1865

Secretary of War Breckenridge was in a bad mood. He had good news and bad news for Jefferson Davis. The damn Yankees pulled out of New Orleans and Savannah (OOC: This is the 19th century and it is going to take the Yankees a few months to withdraw completely) on time all right but they burned both cities to the ground before leaving. They forced the inhabitants out and left the cities in ashes. They then sunk a number of their most obsolete ships in their harbors which will force the CSA to spend precious time and money to get working again. Neither Jefferson Davis or Secretary Trenholm will be happy about the expense!
This would never happen. For one thing, the Yankees didn't control Savannah. For another, burning New Orleans to the ground would pretty much cripple the agricultural economy of the Great Plains, since they would not be able to export their produce to European or Latin America markets. It would also cripple US relations with France and Britain, who would be anxious to get the cotton trade back into operation.

EDIT: I'm assuming that the Yankees didn't control Savannah, since Lincoln would only have lost the election if the Confederates did much better during the 1864 campaign than they did IOTL.
 
Last edited:
This would never happen. For one thing, the Yankees didn't control Savannah. For another, burning New Orleans to the ground would pretty much cripple the agricultural economy of the Great Plains, since they would not be able to export their produce to European or Latin America markets. It would also cripple US relations with France and Britain, who would be anxious to get the cotton trade back into operation.

EDIT: I'm assuming that the Yankees didn't control Savannah, since Lincoln would only have lost the election if the Confederates did much better during the 1864 campaign than they did IOTL.
No, they capture Savannah too late. Little Mac gets elected and continues the war until assassinated. Basically when Pendelton takes over and calls a truce, the CSA consists of the Carolinas, Florida and Texas. Many in the North are upset the war ended on the cusp of victory but Pendelton is a copperhead and he basically doesn't care about winning or losing the war.

New Orleans was burned AGAINST orders as many Union troops by this time HATED Southerners. More importantly it hurts the CSA far more than the USA. The US will ship the wheat east via the railroads. Many farmers will be upset about it but there is nothing they can do about it. GB and France might not be happy about it but they won't go to war over it.
 
New Orleans was burned AGAINST orders as many Union troops by this time HATED Southerners. More importantly it hurts the CSA far more than the USA. The US will ship the wheat east via the railroads. Many farmers will be upset about it but there is nothing they can do about it. GB and France might not be happy about it but they won't go to war over it.
The US is a (more or less) democracy. There's quite a bit they can do about it.

And I'm not really sure many US troops "HATED" Southerners. Not to this extent.
 
The US is a (more or less) democracy. There's quite a bit they can do about it.

And I'm not really sure many US troops "HATED" Southerners. Not to this extent.

They can elect Democrats to office, they can write letters and they can protest in other ways. What they can't do is "un-burn" New Orleans. What is done is done and can't be undone. That is what I meant by they can't do anything. They sure as Hell wouldn't be willing to pay to help the CSA rebuild New Orleans.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
No, they capture Savannah too late. Little Mac gets elected and continues the war until assassinated. Basically when Pendelton takes over and calls a truce, the CSA consists of the Carolinas, Florida and Texas. Many in the North are upset the war ended on the cusp of victory but Pendelton is a copperhead and he basically doesn't care about winning or losing the war.
If the CSA is limited to the Carolinas, Florida, and Texas, I can't see even a Copperhead as ideological as Pendleton giving them a truce. Even the Democratic Party would turn against him in a fury. I could even see a military coup taking place.

New Orleans was burned AGAINST orders as many Union troops by this time HATED Southerners.
As in many other threads, you generally attribute a harsher feeling against the Confederates on the part of the rank-and-file of the Union army than existed in reality.
 
John:

Need to clear up an important discrepancy here.

The CSA getting terms in 1866 (per your Original Post) would explain a lot of how the US Forces made major gains in the Confederacy. But your dates promptly hop back to 1865...

If Mac becomes President, he is inaugurated March 4th, 1865; so I'm trying to figure out the timing. US Forces could potentially do a lot more damage in 1865 as a means of earning concessions.

And I think a likely scenario for New Orleans is colored troops, contrabands and other slaves responding to the "truce" with a massive uprising. Indeed, the Confederacy is so weak at this point that a massive slave rebellion might even succeed--it would also enjoy the help of hundreds or even thousands of Northern "Volunteers."

There is no way that tens of thousands of slaves are going to accept re-enslavement, Northern Politics notwithstanding. Indeed, I think the Civil War might even continue as colored troops, contrabands and escaping slaves seek their own salvation. Burning New Orleans is likely just the beginning.

That said, this is interesting to read.
 

bguy

Donor
No, they capture Savannah too late. Little Mac gets elected and continues the war until assassinated. Basically when Pendelton takes over and calls a truce, the CSA consists of the Carolinas, Florida and Texas. Many in the North are upset the war ended on the cusp of victory but Pendelton is a copperhead and he basically doesn't care about winning or losing the war.
The time frame still doesn't make sense though. If Mac was elected President but planned to continue the war then there would be no reason for US troops to burn New Orleans and Savannah to the ground in Feb. 1865, since they would not have been ordered to evacuate either city as long as the war continued. The order to evacuate those cities would only occur once Pendleton became President and called for a truce, and it is difficult to believe that with Pendleton as President any US general would either deliberately destroy either city or otherwise let his men run riot since President Pendleton would certainly court-martial the commander that allowed such actions.

Also, if Pendleton is that anxious to make peace that he would abandon a war that the U.S. has all but won then why did he insist on holding on to Tennessee and a chunk of Virginia as part of the peace terms?

New Orleans was burned AGAINST orders as many Union troops by this time HATED Southerners. More importantly it hurts the CSA far more than the USA. The US will ship the wheat east via the railroads. Many farmers will be upset about it but there is nothing they can do about it. GB and France might not be happy about it but they won't go to war over it.
If it was burned against orders wouldn't President Pendleton likely offer US financial aid to repair New Orleans, since he would view what happened there as a criminal action rather than an act of deliberate US policy and would want to make amends. (Such an action would also appeal to the Butternut farmers in the Mid-West who are a big part of the Democratic Party's base now and who will want New Orleans reopened as soon as possible.)

At least they got free trade out of the deal which should help the finances needed to maintain his army.
I didn't understand this part either. Why would the CSA negotiate for free trade with the US? Its not like the US is going to put meaningful tariffs on the products the Confederates export. (The US needing cotton and having no cotton industry of its own to protect after all.) And since the CSA is going to desperately need the revenue from tariffs on Northern goods to help finance its post-war recovery, it really can't afford a free trade policy.

If anything I would expect the US to be the one negotiating to try and get a free trade agreement (or at least something akin to Most Favored Nation status). Otherwise the Confederates are likely to slap a tax on their exports of cotton to the North.
 
John:

Need to clear up an important discrepancy here.

The CSA getting terms in 1866 (per your Original Post) would explain a lot of how the US Forces made major gains in the Confederacy. But your dates promptly hop back to 1865...

If Mac becomes President, he is inaugurated March 4th, 1865; so I'm trying to figure out the timing. US Forces could potentially do a lot more damage in 1865 as a means of earning concessions.

And I think a likely scenario for New Orleans is colored troops, contrabands and other slaves responding to the "truce" with a massive uprising. Indeed, the Confederacy is so weak at this point that a massive slave rebellion might even succeed--it would also enjoy the help of hundreds or even thousands of Northern "Volunteers."

There is no way that tens of thousands of slaves are going to accept re-enslavement, Northern Politics notwithstanding. Indeed, I think the Civil War might even continue as colored troops, contrabands and escaping slaves seek their own salvation. Burning New Orleans is likely just the beginning.

That said, this is interesting to read.

My mistake. :eek: I meant 1866. I changed them now it was pointed out. I am so used to the war ending in 1865 I kept using that date. The treaty was signed Jan 2nd 1866. It was probably the colored troops that burned New Orleans and Savannah, with help from troops from strongly abolitionist states like Mass and Kansas (Which was merely Free Soiler before "Bleeding Kansas" and became strongly Free Soiler/ Abolitionist after being attacked by border ruffians.). I agree burning New Orleans is probably just the beginning. I also think it will be big issue in the 1866 election that the Democrats will use.
 
If the CSA is limited to the Carolinas, Florida, and Texas, I can't see even a Copperhead as ideological as Pendleton giving them a truce. Even the Democratic Party would turn against him in a fury. I could even see a military coup taking place.



As in many other threads, you generally attribute a harsher feeling against the Confederates on the part of the rank-and-file of the Union army than existed in reality.

In TTL Atlanta and Richmond were considerably bloodier therefor most of the Democrats swept in were die hard Copperheads. A military coup would be possible, I agree. It just doesn't happen in TTL.

Depends on the troops. If you are talking about Butternut country like Southern Illinois, Southern Ohio and Southern Indiana you are correct.
But I think you are wrong when it comes to Mass and KS troops along with the Colored Troops.
 
The time frame still doesn't make sense though. If Mac was elected President but planned to continue the war then there would be no reason for US troops to burn New Orleans and Savannah to the ground in Feb. 1865, since they would not have been ordered to evacuate either city as long as the war continued. The order to evacuate those cities would only occur once Pendleton became President and called for a truce, and it is difficult to believe that with Pendleton as President any US general would either deliberately destroy either city or otherwise let his men run riot since President Pendleton would certainly court-martial the commander that allowed such actions.

Also, if Pendleton is that anxious to make peace that he would abandon a war that the U.S. has all but won then why did he insist on holding on to Tennessee and a chunk of Virginia as part of the peace terms?



If it was burned against orders wouldn't President Pendleton likely offer US financial aid to repair New Orleans, since he would view what happened there as a criminal action rather than an act of deliberate US policy and would want to make amends. (Such an action would also appeal to the Butternut farmers in the Mid-West who are a big part of the Democratic Party's base now and who will want New Orleans reopened as soon as possible.)



I didn't understand this part either. Why would the CSA negotiate for free trade with the US? Its not like the US is going to put meaningful tariffs on the products the Confederates export. (The US needing cotton and having no cotton industry of its own to protect after all.) And since the CSA is going to desperately need the revenue from tariffs on Northern goods to help finance its post-war recovery, it really can't afford a free trade policy.

If anything I would expect the US to be the one negotiating to try and get a free trade agreement (or at least something akin to Most Favored Nation status). Otherwise the Confederates are likely to slap a tax on their exports of cotton to the North.
My mistake. :eek: I meant 1866. I am so used to the war ending in 1865 I accidently put that date down. The truce came on July 7th, 1865 and the treaty was signed Jan 2, 1866.

Pendelton is the President of the US not dictator of the US. There would be no chance of getting a bill past the Senate (Which was mathematically impossible for the Democrats to win)to help rebuild New Orleans. There is no way the Senate would be willing to help the CSA in any way. It isn't like New Orleans won't be rebuilt, let the CSA pay the bill.

It is the SOUTH that insisted on it. The South has only cotton and tobacco to offer. That is it. They were important crops but a small part of the US total economy. The North has virtually everything the South needs including salt, corn, meat, flour, shoes, steel, furniture and 101 various tools and gadgets. There was considerable amount of argument in the North about whether to trade at all with the South and just let it go bankrupt. However the textile industries and the fact there probably would be out and out starvation in the South allowed the concession to be made.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
In TTL Atlanta and Richmond were considerably bloodier therefor most of the Democrats swept in were die hard Copperheads. A military coup would be possible, I agree. It just doesn't happen in TTL.
This doesn't make sense to me. If Atlanta and Richmond were much bloodier than IOTL, the Confederacy would have been defeated sooner rather than later. If you're saying that they were considerably bloodier for the Union but not for the Confederacy, then how could the Union still achieve such a level of success that they captured Savannah before March of 1865?

Depends on the troops. If you are talking about Butternut country like Southern Illinois, Southern Ohio and Southern Indiana you are correct. But I think you are wrong when it comes to Mass and KS troops along with the Colored Troops.
Okay, I can agree with regards to the U.S.C.T. regiments. But were there any Kansas troops in New Orleans or Savannah? As far as I know, almost all of them were stationed in the Trans-Mississippi. And I don't think you can rank Massachusetts units in the same category with the Kansas Jayhawk boys.
 
This doesn't make sense to me. If Atlanta and Richmond were much bloodier than IOTL, the Confederacy would have been defeated sooner rather than later. If you're saying that they were considerably bloodier for the Union but not for the Confederacy, then how could the Union still achieve such a level of success that they captured Savannah before March of 1865?



Okay, I can agree with regards to the U.S.C.T. regiments. But were there any Kansas troops in New Orleans or Savannah? As far as I know, almost all of them were stationed in the Trans-Mississippi. And I don't think you can rank Massachusetts units in the same category with the Kansas Jayhawk boys.
Considerably bloodier for the USA , somewhat bloodier for the CSA. Enough to hold Atlanta until just after the election and then it is finally broken. After that, there is not much left to hold up Sherman.

Massachusetts was a die-hard abolitionist state. It was one of the most anti-slavery states in the union. Even in TTL Massachusetts goes strongly Republican. I think it isn't outside the bounds of possibility that they break discipline and take out their frustrations out on New Orleans.
 

bguy

Donor
It is the SOUTH that insisted on it. The South has only cotton and tobacco to offer. That is it. They were important crops but a small part of the US total economy. The North has virtually everything the South needs including salt, corn, meat, flour, shoes, steel, furniture and 101 various tools and gadgets. There was considerable amount of argument in the North about whether to trade at all with the South and just let it go bankrupt. However the textile industries and the fact there probably would be out and out starvation in the South allowed the concession to be made.
That still doesn't make sense though. The South doesn't need a treaty with the North in order for Southern imports from the North to be duty free. The US Constitution doesn't allow for export duties, so the only fees on all those items you list that the South needs to import from the North will be whatever tariffs the South decides to put on them. If the South wants free trade for their imports from the North all they have to do is set their own tariffs to 0%. They have literally no need to negotiate with the North on this point.

So again why would the South insist on free trade terms that get it absolutely nothing. The North isn't going to put any sort of meaningful tariff on Southern cotton since all that would do is make clothing more expensive for Northeners. (And if they did, so what. Such a tariff won't hurt the South at all, since the cost of the tariff will just be passed on to the Northerns who buy Southern cotton.) And by agreeing to free trade, the South loses a great deal since it would have to give up the revenue from its tariffs on Northern goods and export duties on its own exports to the North. (Income the South really needs.)
 
That still doesn't make sense though. The South doesn't need a treaty with the North in order for Southern imports from the North to be duty free. The US Constitution doesn't allow for export duties, so the only fees on all those items you list that the South needs to import from the North will be whatever tariffs the South decides to put on them. If the South wants free trade for their imports from the North all they have to do is set their own tariffs to 0%. They have literally no need to negotiate with the North on this point.

So again why would the South insist on free trade terms that get it absolutely nothing. The North isn't going to put any sort of meaningful tariff on Southern cotton since all that would do is make clothing more expensive for Northeners. (And if they did, so what. Such a tariff won't hurt the South at all, since the cost of the tariff will just be passed on to the Northerns who buy Southern cotton.) And by agreeing to free trade, the South loses a great deal since it would have to give up the revenue from its tariffs on Northern goods and export duties on its own exports to the North. (Income the South really needs.)

Actually a tariff on Southern cotton WOULD hurt the South. As the cost of clothing goes up Northerners buy less cotton clothing by either wearing clothing longer than they otherwise would or switching to wool. In either case the North buys less cotton. You make it sound like people don't react to prices. The US could also start importing cotton from Mexico.
 
Top