CSA Victory: The aftermath

[Johnrankins]

What will have happened to the slaves freed under the Emancipation Proclamation? Between the enactment of a cease-fire and the signing of a peace treaty, I would imagine that there would be a flood of frantic slaves attempting to escape into the Union lines before the Union armies withdraw.

Oh yes. I haven't gotten to the Union side yet but it is safe to say many thousands of escaped slaves are going north. The EP will be revoked but the FSL will be very weakly enforced and not at all if the slaves come from CSA states. Also all colored troops and their families will be free as Pendelton is fully aware the colored troops would revolt if that didn't happen.

In the short run Tennessee will more of a slave state then ever due to geography and economics. It is surrounded by slave states and will be the only Union state that is so. Southerners are very poor at the end of this war and slave owners and TN can easily outbid them. It would be even higher but some of the slave owners are smart enough to worry about what would happen if the Republicans got back into power. If that happens it will be difficult to stop abolition in some form or other.

Maryland and Delaware slave owners will try to sell their slaves south before they all run away. KY and Missouri will last somewhat longer but they will have problems with escaped slaves as well, particularly Missouri as it almost surrounded by free states.

 

[Johnrankins]

Jan 3rd 1866

President Pendelton was in a fairly good mood. After months of negotiations the treaty was finally signed. He would have signed the treaty long ago but Senator Foster told him that no treaty would pass the senate without TN remaining in the union along with West Virginia and VA north of the Rappahannock. The last was particularly important to guard DC. He still had to deal with the Emancipation Proclamation. As much as he hated it the fact was it had repercussions. He had to reassure the Colored Troops that they and there families would remain free or face a massive armed revolt by Colored Troops.

 

[Johnrankins]

Feb 17, 1866

General Sherman thought "Newspapers, do they EVER get anything right? Some drunken soldiers burn part of the dock at New Orleans and they make it sound like the whole city went up in smoke."

 

[BELFAST]

The problem with the Emancipation Proclamation is it could be open to challenge thought the courts.
May need to amend the constitution as was done OTL.

 

[Johnrankins]

The problem with the Emancipation Proclamation is it could be open to challenge thought the courts.
May need to amend the constitution as was done OTL.

Most of the US Supreme Court was appointed by Lincoln as the Southern justices left. More importantly THEY don't want to see a huge armed rebellion by colored troops either. Note that Pendelton was thinking ONLY about the troops not the others freed by the EP. The way I see around it is that the court could rule that losing your slaves is the cost of treason. That if Colored Troops would swear that their masters helped the rebellion than they remain free. You can count on all of them doing so even if they have to lie about it.

 

[Blue Max]

What will have happened to the slaves freed under the Emancipation Proclamation? Between the enactment of a cease-fire and the signing of a peace treaty, I would imagine that there would be a flood of frantic slaves attempting to escape into the Union lines before the Union armies withdraw.

That's one option.

Another is that they refuse to consider the war over and announce their goal: Abolition of slavery across all of the former United States.

The Union will have cut large amounts of Southern Territory, territory that already had large numbers of escaped slaves, contrabands and Colored Volunteers about. They're not going to go back on the chain; and if they're not being allowed to leave to the Union (and why would Pendleton make this effort?) then their choice is clear: They're going to fight for freedom.

The South is largely trashed and fragile. They face a potentially gigantic revolt spearheaded by military veterans that could potentially take years to entirely suppress. There are a lot of people who would like to see that revolution succeed out of noble aims or a base desire for revenge.

Re-enslaving tens of thousands is far from easy even without the great pressures of national reconstruction and war casualties. When the chips go down, I don't think the Confederacy can survive a very late war ending combined with a further civil war against the slaveholding system.

And there we have a terrible choice left on the table of the Confederacy. Wage this war against a gigantic slave rebellion that they could well be so serious against their depleted numbers and stressed infrastructure that the Second Black Nation in America is born, or, compromise against the very ideals that give the Confederacy form--potentially ending the Confederacy politically in short order.

It's quite the punchline for the Union. They might have given up the war against the Confederacy--but still done so much that it crumbles anyhow.

Best Case Answer of the Confederacy: functionally give up on a Fugitive Slave Law (they're now a different country...), make a realpolitik concession that tens of thousands of slaves won't be recaptured. If the Confederacy wasn't completely broke, the answer might be to buyout all slaves. But the Confederates are busted financially and it's not clear that they will enjoy peace for years either.

 

[bguy]

Since the Free Trade stipulation passed why are you arguing?

My concern is that it seems like the Confederates are handicapping themselves for no discernible reason. They are in desperate financial straits and need the revenue from a revenue tariff on U.S. goods and export duties from their own sells of cotton. They simply can't afford free trade at this time.

OTL in 1860, the South sold about a quarter of its cotton to the North (worth approximately 70 million dollars or so.) If we assume a 10% export duty on cotton, that's around 7 million dollars from export duties the CSA is foregoing annually by agreeing to free trade with the US.

The lost revenue is even worse in regards to import duties. The best numbers I've seen say that in 1860, the Southern states purchased around 200 million dollars worth of food and manufactured goods from the North. Now that number will obviously be less here since the CSA is destitute from the war and has lost Tennessee, but even if we assume they can only afford to purchase 100 million dollars worth of goods from the North and assuming an average 10% tariff on Northern goods (which would be a lower tariff rate than what the CSA actually had OTL), that's still 10 million dollars the CSA is losing by pursuing free trade with the U.S.

Given the CSA has an enormous war debt to pay, a country to rebuild, and is going to need to maintain a large army for some time to fight what will probably be a very large black uprising, it simply can't afford to forego that much tax revenue. Especially since they aren't actually getting anything in return from the US in exchange for such a concession.

Diplomatically there is also a price to the CSA in pursuing such a free trade policy with the US as it will certainly tick off Britain and France if their people have to pay export duties on Confederate cotton and face tariffs on their manufactured goods while their US competitors do not. An alliance between the CSA and any European state was always a long shot, but this will pretty much put the last nail in the coffin.

 

[BELFAST]

Most of the US Supreme Court was appointed by Lincoln as the Southern justices left. More importantly THEY don't want to see a huge armed rebellion by colored troops either. Note that Pendelton was thinking ONLY about the troops not the others freed by the EP. The way I see around it is that the court could rule that losing your slaves is the cost of treason. That if Colored Troops would swear that their masters helped the rebellion than they remain free. You can count on all of them doing so even if they have to lie about it.

The problem you create if the courts rule the Emancipation Proclamation is a war time Executive order. This is a lot of power that future president might abuse. Better to pass an amendment to the constitution the frees the slaves.
No problems with the courts and it does not give future president too much power.

 

[Anaxagoras]

snip

You make an error when you assume that trade between the Union and the Confederacy would be at the same level postwar as it was prewar IOTL. Obviously, if a tariff has been put in to place, there will be a reduction in trade levels (even assuming all else somehow remains the same).

 

[Johnrankins]

My concern is that it seems like the Confederates are handicapping themselves for no discernible reason. They are in desperate financial straits and need the revenue from a revenue tariff on U.S. goods and export duties from their own sells of cotton. They simply can't afford free trade at this time.

OTL in 1860, the South sold about a quarter of its cotton to the North (worth approximately 70 million dollars or so.) If we assume a 10% export duty on cotton, that's around 7 million dollars from export duties the CSA is foregoing annually by agreeing to free trade with the US.

The lost revenue is even worse in regards to import duties. The best numbers I've seen say that in 1860, the Southern states purchased around 200 million dollars worth of food and manufactured goods from the North. Now that number will obviously be less here since the CSA is destitute from the war and has lost Tennessee, but even if we assume they can only afford to purchase 100 million dollars worth of goods from the North and assuming an average 10% tariff on Northern goods (which would be a lower tariff rate than what the CSA actually had OTL), that's still 10 million dollars the CSA is losing by pursuing free trade with the U.S.

Given the CSA has an enormous war debt to pay, a country to rebuild, and is going to need to maintain a large army for some time to fight what will probably be a very large black uprising, it simply can't afford to forego that much tax revenue. Especially since they aren't actually getting anything in return from the US in exchange for such a concession.

Diplomatically there is also a price to the CSA in pursuing such a free trade policy with the US as it will certainly tick off Britain and France if their people have to pay export duties on Confederate cotton and face tariffs on their manufactured goods while their US competitors do not. An alliance between the CSA and any European state was always a long shot, but this will pretty much put the last nail in the coffin.

True, revise that to MFN along with GB and France. However there will be free transit down the Mississippi. That would not be a negotiable demand by the Union. About all the CSA is gong to get out of this treaty is independence. I remember one treaty here giving the CSA everything including the kitchen sink. That isn't going to happen in TTL.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I remember one treaty here giving the CSA everything including the kitchen sink. That isn't going to happen in TTL.

I think I was the author of the thread in question, about a year ago. Of course, I listened to the input from informed commentators (including yourself) and revised the treaty considerably.

 

[Anaxagoras]

However there will be free transit down the Mississippi. That would not be a negotiable demand by the Union.

And it costs the Confederacy nothing to grant free navigation of the Mississippi; indeed, giving such access is to their economic benefit. I do think that it might be used as an ambit claim by the South during negotiations in order to obtain concessions from the United States on some other issue, though.

 

[Johnrankins]

And it costs the Confederacy nothing to grant free navigation of the Mississippi; indeed, giving such access is to their economic benefit. I do think that it might be used as an ambit claim by the South during negotiations in order to obtain concessions from the United States on some other issue, though.

Minor ones, maybe. The problem for the CSA is that it really isn't in the position to dicker hard. Hell, it probably had to dicker hard to keep Northern Arkansas and prevent New Orleans becoming a free city.

 

[Johnrankins]

The problem you create if the courts rule the Emancipation Proclamation is a war time Executive order. This is a lot of power that future president might abuse. Better to pass an amendment to the constitution the frees the slaves.
No problems with the courts and it does not give future president too much power.

Which it probably won't. The USSC justices don't want rebelling Colored Troops more than anyone else. Even without an amendment I think they would have some work around concerning Colored Troops.

 

[bguy]

Minor ones, maybe. The problem for the CSA is that it really isn't in the position to dicker hard. Hell, it probably had to dicker hard to keep Northern Arkansas and prevent New Orleans becoming a free city.

I would agree with that if a Republican or even a War Democrat was in the White House, but with Pendleton as President, who ITL wants peace so badly he is willing to abandon a war the North has already won, why would he take a hard line in negotiations with the South? Pendleton doesn't need a formal treaty, ratified by the Senate, to end the war after all. All he has to do is agree to a cease-fire with the CSA, order US troops to withdraw from the Confederate territories, end the blockade, and demobilize US forces. He can do all that solely on his authority as President without needing Congressional approval, and as long as Peace Democrats make up at least a third of the Senate, he faces no risk of being removed from office for doing so (barring assassination or a military coup of course.) That would de facto end the war, and even if the Republicans win the presidency in 1868, it would be very difficult for them to get the country behind starting the war back up after 3 years of peace.

 

[Anaxagoras]

(barring assassination or a military coup of course.)

But the scenario Johnrankins has laid out seems to practically beg for a military coup. He says that both sides suffered heavier losses around both Atlanta and Richmond/Petersburg, which can only mean that the Southern armies have been all but destroyed. He also says that Atlanta has fallen and Sherman marched to Savannah. In other words, the Confederacy has been militarily defeated just as thoroughly as IOTL by the time Lincoln left office.

If Pendleton assumes office through the assassination of McClellan and then tries to enact a cease-fire and gives the South its independence in such a situation, I think that the military would launch a coup and would be supported in doing so both by the bulk of the population and the members of Congress.

 

[Johnrankins]

I would agree with that if a Republican or even a War Democrat was in the White House, but with Pendleton as President, who ITL wants peace so badly he is willing to abandon a war the North has already won, why would he take a hard line in negotiations with the South? Pendleton doesn't need a formal treaty, ratified by the Senate, to end the war after all. All he has to do is agree to a cease-fire with the CSA, order US troops to withdraw from the Confederate territories, end the blockade, and demobilize US forces. He can do all that solely on his authority as President without needing Congressional approval, and as long as Peace Democrats make up at least a third of the Senate, he faces no risk of being removed from office for doing so (barring assassination or a military coup of course.) That would de facto end the war, and even if the Republicans win the presidency in 1868, it would be very difficult for them to get the country behind starting the war back up after 3 years of peace.

If he looks weak he will get nothing done in congress. How he conducts negotiations helps determine that. In any case the CSA is given big concessions for peace. They didn't lose Northern Arkansas or New Orleans after all.

 

[Johnrankins]

But the scenario Johnrankins has laid out seems to practically beg for a military coup. He says that both sides suffered heavier losses around both Atlanta and Richmond/Petersburg, which can only mean that the Southern armies have been all but destroyed. He also says that Atlanta has fallen and Sherman marched to Savannah. In other words, the Confederacy has been militarily defeated just as thoroughly as IOTL by the time Lincoln left office.

If Pendleton assumes office through the assassination of McClellan and then tries to enact a cease-fire and gives the South its independence in such a situation, I think that the military would launch a coup and would be supported in doing so both by the bulk of the population and the members of Congress.

They have not been destroyed. There is a large army under Lee and a smaller one under Johnston. Sherman's and Grant's armies are considerably smaller while Lee's and Johnston's are bigger relative to Grant/Sherman than OTL. Sherman limped into Savannah unlike OTL where he strolled. Richmond didn't fall even though the cease fire took place in July 1865. Also the large scale desertions from both armies after Lincoln's re-election don't happen TTL. Grant and Sherman are following their chain of command as they did all their lives. Still the South is bad shape and the 1866 and 1868 election will go poorly for the Democrats.

 

[bguy]

If he looks weak he will get nothing done in congress. How he conducts negotiations helps determine that. In any case the CSA is given big concessions for peace. They didn't lose Northern Arkansas or New Orleans after all.

I think Pendleton getting nothing done in the Congress is pretty much unavoidable. Like you said, the Republicans are going to control the Senate in his first two years, and there is no way they will cooperate with Pendleton on anything. Most of them probably think he is an outright traitor who conspired with the CSA to assassinate his predecessor. If the Republicans then take the House in the '66 midterms then they will certainly try and impeach him.

If Pendleton assumes office through the assassination of McClellan and then tries to enact a cease-fire and gives the South its independence in such a situation, I think that the military would launch a coup and would be supported in doing so both by the bulk of the population and the members of Congress.

I agree that a military coup could very easily occur here and would probably have considerable popular support. Which Union general would be willing to attempt one though? It doesn't really feel like something Grant, Sherman, or Meade would do. Ben Butler might be willing to attempt a coup, but assuming his military performance was as spotty ITL as OTL, he probably got relieved from command as soon as Lincoln lost the election.

 

[Johnrankins]

I think Pendleton getting nothing done in the Congress is pretty much unavoidable. Like you said, the Republicans are going to control the Senate in his first two years, and there is no way they will cooperate with Pendleton on anything. Most of them probably think he is an outright traitor who conspired with the CSA to assassinate his predecessor. If the Republicans then take the House in the '66 midterms then they will certainly try and impeach him.



I agree that a military coup could very easily occur here and would probably have considerable popular support. Which Union general would be willing to attempt one though? It doesn't really feel like something Grant, Sherman, or Meade would do. Ben Butler might be willing to attempt a coup, but assuming his military performance was as spotty ITL as OTL, he probably got relieved from command as soon as Lincoln lost the election.

Points taken. Still I don't think he would want to look weak and the CSA did as well in the treaty as they possibly could. Also a signed and ratified treaty always looks good in the papers. Politicians LOVE to look good in the papers.

Yeah, a leader of the coup is hard to see. Still the Democrats are about to be manhandled in the '66 election as the Union was close to a victory here.