CSA Victory: The aftermath

Mar 1st 1866

With the Colored Troops on the edge of revolt Pendleton proposes the following 13th amendment:

All persons and spouses and children of such persons previously held in involuntary servitude who has rendered assistance to the United States Armed Forces in the recent rebellion of the states, shall be considered free of such service. All such persons and spouses and children of such persons shall be considered to be citizens of the United states. Congress shall make laws to put this in effect.


OOC: I think the Republicans will go along with this as a stopgap measure. It isn't total abolition but it is better than nothing. Edited with Belfast's wording. I also removed the words formerly resident of the states in rebellion as that wouldn't cover some of the troops.
 
Last edited:
What happened to slavery in the union states that did not rebel? They were not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation.

All persons and spouses and children of such persons previously held in involuntary servitude formerly resident of the states in rebellion who has rendered assistance to the United States Armed Forces in the recent rebellion of the states, shall be considered free of such service.
All such persons and spouses and children of such persons shall be considered to be citizens of the United states. Congress shall make laws to put this in effect.


edit to
respond to idea question from
Anaxagoras

All persons and spouses and children of such persons previously held in involuntary servitude formerly resident of the states in rebellion who has rendered assistance to the United States Armed Forces in the recent rebellion of the states, shall be considered free of such service. All such persons and spouses and children of such persons shall be considered to be citizens of the United states. Congress shall make laws to put this in effect.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
Mar 1st 1866

With the Colored Troops on the edge of revolt Pendleton proposes the following 13th amendment:

All persons previously held in servitude who has rendered assistance to the United States Armed Forces shall be considered free of such service. Congress shall make laws to put this in effect.

OOC: Anyone have better wording for this? I think the Republicans will go along with this as a stopgap measure. It isn't total abolition but it is better than nothing.

What about their families?
 
What happened to slavery in the union states that did not rebel? They were not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation.

All persons and spouses and children of such persons previously held in involuntary servitude formerly resident of the states in rebellion who has rendered assistance to the United States Armed Forces in the recent rebellion of the states, shall be considered free of such service. All such persons and spouses and children of such persons shall be considered to be citizens of the United states. Congress shall make laws to put this in effect.


edit to
respond to idea question from Anaxagoras

All persons and spouses and children of such persons previously held in involuntary servitude formerly resident of the states in rebellion who has rendered assistance to the United States Armed Forces in the recent rebellion of the states, shall be considered free of such service. All such persons and spouses and children of such persons shall be considered to be citizens of the United states. Congress shall make laws to put this in effect.

I will use that, thanks. The ones in the Union Slave States remain slaves. It sucks to be them but there is no logical way I can think of for Pendleton to free those who are in the slave states. He couldn't care less about the slaves he just doesn't want colored troops revolting. . Edited the above to conform to your wording. I also removed the words formerly resident of the states in rebellion which wouldn't cover slaves from Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware which could cause troops raised in those areas to revolt. Since the FSL did not cover foreign countries slaves who escape the CSA are NOT returned. Of course this means every USA escaped slave is going to claim he is from a CSA state. This is going to cause the headaches in the various courts.
 
Last edited:
Apr 3rd, 1866

Secretary Trenholm was in a bad mood. "It was time to face facts" he thought In two months $1.5 billion was due and there was no way in Hell the Confederacy could pay it. The terms would have to be renegotiated. We will have to spread it out over 20 years or so. If he announced it now the price of CSA bonds will go through the floor. He will have to ask congress to allow him to print more greybacks and he will take some of that money and purchase back some of the debt. Inflation will go through the roof but it can't be helped.

Apr 5th, 1866

Trenholm got congress to authorize $500 million in confederate greybacks. As he thought the announcement caused panic with the bonds falling to ten cents on the dollar as everybody headed to the exit door. He was able to buy $60 million worth of bonds for $6 million in greybacks as the most panicky fools got a fraction of what they were actually worth. The price would no doubt rise in the future.
 
May 15th ,1866

Jefferson Davis thought "Well at least most of the troops are back. The army will have to remain much larger than we thought at the start of the CSA but it can't be helped. We will need to have at least 60,000 infantry and 15,000 cavalry to keep an eye on the Union and to capture escaped slaves. We are losing around 5,000 a month to the North right now and it will probably go up further when the new estimates come out. We will have to lift wartime rates on railroads if we want to see them rebuilt. That will raise inflation even higher but what else can be done?"

Secretary Trenholm thought he was prepared for the price shock but he was not. It was even worse than he thought it would be rising to 35% a month!
 
Secretary Trenholm thought he was prepared for the price shock but he was not. It was even worse than he thought it would be rising to 35% a month!

Ouch! 35%/month is heading fast toward hyperinflation territory, or just total uselessness. Will anyone in the CSA actually use Greybacks, if they dont have to, or will the economy mostly devolve to a barter level system.

Will individual states issue their own 'coupons' or some such, which might functionally replace the national currency?

I foresee a huge blackmarket in hard currencies, probably the US dollar, 'cause its handy.

I also see, with all this, most of the economy heading underground. If no one is using greybacks for transactions, theres no tax being collected..... Which makes the Confed national finance picture even worse, which makes the greyback even more worthless, which....

Hi, Id like to buy an apple.
Thatll be 2 megabucks
Here
no, those are the OLD megabucks
Oh. How about a US penny?
Sure, here's your change.
 
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.

In the scenario you described, it is inconceivable that the Confederacy only lost Tennessee and West Virginia (since in reality they never controlled any of the border states). The Union controls the Mississippi River, much of Arkansas, and large parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and roving at will in Georgia.

There is no way the Union will give up control of the Mississippi River. The Confederacy is too weak to take it back. They are barely holding onto Virginia and the Carolinas with Texas and Florida left alone only because they were backwaters.

The Confederacy in strong enough to survive, but not strong enough to force the Union to give up anything they already have.

At minimum, the Confederacy loses Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkanasas, and Mississippi. Northern Alabama is a unionist stronghold and will also be kept by the Union. Georgia and southern Alabama could be given up as part of deal to secure the parts of Arkanasas and Louisiana not under Union control by 1866. It is also possible that all of Alabama stays in the Union too.

Mississippi likely becomes a majority black state and used to resettle many of the escaped slaves currently residing behind Union lines, but who do not want to go back to the Confederacy. The Union will also expect that over the years large numbers of slaves will escape and go to the USA, so they'll want to settle them in Mississippi rather than have them live where there are a lot more whites.
 
In the scenario you described, it is inconceivable that the Confederacy only lost Tennessee and West Virginia (since in reality they never controlled any of the border states). The Union controls the Mississippi River, much of Arkansas, and large parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and roving at will in Georgia.

There is no way the Union will give up control of the Mississippi River. The Confederacy is too weak to take it back. They are barely holding onto Virginia and the Carolinas with Texas and Florida left alone only because they were backwaters.

The Confederacy in strong enough to survive, but not strong enough to force the Union to give up anything they already have.

At minimum, the Confederacy loses Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkanasas, and Mississippi. Northern Alabama is a unionist stronghold and will also be kept by the Union. Georgia and southern Alabama could be given up as part of deal to secure the parts of Arkanasas and Louisiana not under Union control by 1866. It is also possible that all of Alabama stays in the Union too.

Mississippi likely becomes a majority black state and used to resettle many of the escaped slaves currently residing behind Union lines, but who do not want to go back to the Confederacy. The Union will also expect that over the years large numbers of slaves will escape and go to the USA, so they'll want to settle them in Mississippi rather than have them live where there are a lot more whites.

The real world isn't a game of Civilization; just because the US Army controls an area does not mean it becomes part of the US after the war. The only way for the Union to lose the Civil War is to lose the political will to suppress the Confederacy. I don't see a scenario in which the North loses the political will to suppress the Confederacy, but not the political will to keep Alabama. Besides, it would make a next war inevitable; and if Peace Democrats are the ones doing the negotiating, I don't think they'll be interested in setting up the next war.
 
In the scenario you described, it is inconceivable that the Confederacy only lost Tennessee and West Virginia (since in reality they never controlled any of the border states). The Union controls the Mississippi River, much of Arkansas, and large parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and roving at will in Georgia.

There is no way the Union will give up control of the Mississippi River. The Confederacy is too weak to take it back. They are barely holding onto Virginia and the Carolinas with Texas and Florida left alone only because they were backwaters.

The Confederacy in strong enough to survive, but not strong enough to force the Union to give up anything they already have.

At minimum, the Confederacy loses Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkanasas, and Mississippi. Northern Alabama is a unionist stronghold and will also be kept by the Union. Georgia and southern Alabama could be given up as part of deal to secure the parts of Arkanasas and Louisiana not under Union control by 1866. It is also possible that all of Alabama stays in the Union too.

Mississippi likely becomes a majority black state and used to resettle many of the escaped slaves currently residing behind Union lines, but who do not want to go back to the Confederacy. The Union will also expect that over the years large numbers of slaves will escape and go to the USA, so they'll want to settle them in Mississippi rather than have them live where there are a lot more whites.

You may well be right. However I wanted this as a near "best case realistic scenario" for the CSA. This is the BEST I can see it do and that might even be stretching it a bit. I admit the Union keeping the areas you mentioned is even more likely but I didn't want to be accused of bending over backward to screw the CSA.
 
Ouch! 35%/month is heading fast toward hyperinflation territory, or just total uselessness. Will anyone in the CSA actually use Greybacks, if they dont have to, or will the economy mostly devolve to a barter level system.

Will individual states issue their own 'coupons' or some such, which might functionally replace the national currency?

I foresee a huge blackmarket in hard currencies, probably the US dollar, 'cause its handy.

I also see, with all this, most of the economy heading underground. If no one is using greybacks for transactions, theres no tax being collected..... Which makes the Confed national finance picture even worse, which makes the greyback even more worthless, which....

Hi, Id like to buy an apple.
Thatll be 2 megabucks
Here
no, those are the OLD megabucks
Oh. How about a US penny?
Sure, here's your change.

Yeah, a lot of the economy will be conducted using the US dollar instead of the CS one. That is common enough in various 3rd world economies which the CSA one will be for some time.
 
September 12th, 1866

Secretary Trenholm thinks "FINALLY, some good news for a change. We had the best harvest we ever had since the war started. True, it isn't as big as it was in 1859 but sadly we have less people to feed since then as well." He hoped that this would cause inflation to fall was a disastrous 45% last month after the railroad rates went through the roof following the end of railroad price controls.

September 15th, 1866


John Harris (Not based on any real person OTL) made a fortune smuggling during the war and looked for a place to invest. He turned to railroads starting with trying to get the line from Richmond to Norfolk running smoothly connecting both cities with tobacco plantations further inland. He was able to buy it for a song from the bank due to the terrible condition it was in. Little did anyone know at the time (including himself) he had an absolute genius in building railroads. ..
 
Last edited:
The real world isn't a game of Civilization; just because the US Army controls an area does not mean it becomes part of the US after the war.

I am very aware of this. I am also aware that the US controls that entire area and the Confederates do not. Peace treaties typically reflect reality. Reality is that Union troops control the entire Mississippi River valley and much of the Western Theatre. How exactly are the Confederates going to convince the US to withdraw their troops? The CSA has zero leverage.

All of this land used to be part of the United States. The emancipated slaves will be extremely pro-Union. There will be a significant number of pro-Union whites in the area. Another large groupf of whites who only reluctantly agreed to secession, and would be more than happy to be back in the US at this point. Only a small minority of fire eaters would cause problems, and they'll likely flee to the rump CSA anyway.

The only way for the Union to lose the Civil War is to lose the political will to suppress the Confederacy. I don't see a scenario in which the North loses the political will to suppress the Confederacy, but not the political will to keep Alabama.

I agree with the first sentence. The second setence is disputable. Northern Alabama is a unionist stronghold. No Union government will give that up as long as Union troops are on it. Southern Alabama is different. At the same time, between blacks and Unionist whites, the pro-Union population is probably the majority. Southern Alabama could be retained by the Confederates. It all depends on the peace negotiations.

Besides, it would make a next war inevitable; and if Peace Democrats are the ones doing the negotiating, I don't think they'll be interested in setting up the next war.

It does not need to make another war inevitable. In fact, I think it highly unlikely. The Confederates lost half their country and is far weaker. The relative power difference between the USA and CSA will only grow after the war. If the Confederates pick another fight in 1890 or 1920, it'll be curbstomped.

Certainly, the prevention of another war will be an objective both sides want and the peace treaty will reflect this. Since the US will be giving back all the ports it has occupied, Georgia, as well any some of the other lands it seized post-November 1864 (how far into the Carolinas did Sherman go since he's already in Savannah), the US is already being fairly magnanimous.
 
You may well be right. However I wanted this as a near "best case realistic scenario" for the CSA. This is the BEST I can see it do and that might even be stretching it a bit. I admit the Union keeping the areas you mentioned is even more likely but I didn't want to be accused of bending over backward to screw the CSA.

OK. At the very least though, the US probably has complete navigation rights along Mississippi River. Most likely, it would also have Arkansas, and might even have gotten New Orleans (and a certain area of Bayou around it) split off so that the US can control the trade even if the rest of Louisiana remains in the Confederacy. That river is too important for the US to not have absolute control over it (as long as it is under US control, the US could still also guarantee CSA rights to use the river as well).

I also think the US would have insisted on splitting off any Unionist areas in Alabama or Mississippi. It is one thing to give up areas filled with pro-Confederates. It is another to give up regions you control full of Unionists. The northern half or third of MI/AL would be split off.

It would still leave a viable Confederacy while still not having the US abandon the Mississippi River and Southern Unionists already under their protection.
 
I was planning to make Joseph E Johnston the next president of the CSA and PT Beauregard his VP . I was going to have the parties be
1) The Democrats (Jeff Davis loyalists)
2) Southern Whig Party
3) State's Rights party (Fire Eaters)
4) Farm Party (Rural Socialists)

I was thinking Jeb Stuart (Whose death is butterflied away) as the Democrat, Johnston as the Southern Whig, Rhett as the State's Rights and some made up Northern Ark Major as the Farm Party as he will get crushed anyways. Sounds good or do you have better suggestions?
 
I was planning to make Joseph E Johnston the next president of the CSA and PT Beauregard his VP . I was going to have the parties be
1) The Democrats (Jeff Davis loyalists)
2) Southern Whig Party
3) State's Rights party (Fire Eaters)
4) Farm Party (Rural Socialists)

I was thinking Jeb Stuart (Whose death is butterflied away) as the Democrat, Johnston as the Southern Whig, Rhett as the State's Rights and some made up Northern Ark Major as the Farm Party as he will get crushed anyways. Sounds good or do you have better suggestions?

The issue with Johnston as President is that Johnston doesn't like politics and in OTL wasn't a very good or effective politician when he was elected in Virginia - he just spent his time in Congress sitting quietly and not contributing. Also, in OTL, the only reason he went into politics was because he had to live life as a civilian and couldn't be in the military anymore. It is far more likely that if the Confederacy gained its independence Johnston would remain in the Army and rise to be its General-in-Chief or end up as superintendent of a military academy somewhere, and would refused to run for President if nominated and refuse to serve if elected, just like Sherman did because, just like Sherman, his interest was never in the political theater. You'd have to bar him completely from the military to make him a potential candidate, and with all his powerful friends in Congress that's not likely to happen by 1866/1867 in a Confederacy Victorius scenario.

You might be able to wedge Lee into the President's role by having someone else nominate him and have them pray on his sense of "duty" to get him to accept or, failing that, I'd suggest just bumping Beauregard up to President and having someone like Longstreet as Vice President, or else go for a politician like John C. Breckenridge, John H. Reagan or Louis T. Wigfall instead.
 
The issue with Johnston as President is that Johnston doesn't like politics and in OTL wasn't a very good or effective politician when he was elected in Virginia - he just spent his time in Congress sitting quietly and not contributing. Also, in OTL, the only reason he went into politics was because he had to live life as a civilian and couldn't be in the military anymore. It is far more likely that if the Confederacy gained its independence Johnston would remain in the Army and rise to be its General-in-Chief or end up as superintendent of a military academy somewhere, and would refused to run for President if nominated and refuse to serve if elected, just like Sherman did because, just like Sherman, his interest was never in the political theater. You'd have to bar him completely from the military to make him a potential candidate, and with all his powerful friends in Congress that's not likely to happen by 1866/1867 in a Confederacy Victorius scenario.

You might be able to wedge Lee into the President's role by having someone else nominate him and have them pray on his sense of "duty" to get him to accept or, failing that, I'd suggest just bumping Beauregard up to President and having someone like Longstreet as Vice President, or else go for a politician like John C. Breckenridge, John H. Reagan or Louis T. Wigfall instead.

Beauregard / Longstreet it is then. What about the rest ?
 
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.

Yes on Savanah, no on the economy of the Great Plains: there was no economy, yet. Iowa was small and developing but rail to Chicago was already in place. Most of the development, including Missouri, was east, not south. LIttle was exported through NOLA.
 
November 1866,

Beauregard elected president carrying TX,LA, MS, Al, FL and NC Rhett only wins SC and Jeb Stuart carrying VA, AR and GA.

Trenholm has happy for a change. The inflation rate finally went down because of the new crop. Prices went up only 15% last month which was the lowest in many months.

One troubling thing was the 1866 Congressional election up north. Running on the theme "Democrats snatched defeat from the hands of victory. " the Republicans gained 22 seats in the house and 17 in the senate. There was even talk of impeaching Pendelton for treason.
 
Last edited:
Top