Draft Peace Treaty Between USA and CSA

They had no claims to Maryland as it never seceded or even had a rump legislature or the governor say it seceded. Any claims to Maryland would be laughed at.

I ve always read that that was only because of the presence of the Federal army...but is not indicative of actual sentiment at either the political level or the ave. Joe on the street. I though it was occupied before over fears that just such a vote would take place, separating Washington from the rest of the Union.
 
My understanding is that the UK is threatening intervention in this scenario. Either way if the Union is calling for a cease-fire it means she is willing to negotiate, and I think that at the very least a plebiscite for Tennessee will be part of the peace treaty under almost any circumstances. Also, the final lines at time of cease-fire will determine a lot about who is negotiating for what which is why I ask for them. We've already stated that the front lines are better than OTL 1865, so who knows what the situation is overall.

I doubt the threat would be overt, something veiled and more ambiguous though is not out of the question. Tightening Credit terms for instance, or restricting the flow of strategic materials or stiffening the price for them..say.
 
An equivalent concession would be the Confederacy ceding territory they firmly control or putting it up for plebescite. For example if the Confederacy ceded Indian Territory and put Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Mississippi up for plebiscite. That deal still favors the Confederacy, but it's at least equivalent.

The cession of crucial territory in Virginia in your treaty is by the Union, not the Confederacy. The Union have controlled Virginia north of the Rappahannock for years. Ceding any of that gives them a less defensible border and a less defensible capital.

Any Confederate demand for anything in Maryland is a bunch of hot air. They have never controlled it and never claimed it.

The Union would rather have a plebiscite in West Virginia than in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, or Louisiana. They know the Confederates can't cheat hard enough to win in West Virgina.

The Union would only ask the Confederacy to assume part of the Union debt as a bargaining chip. The Confederacy would be in even greater financial trouble than the Union, and would be expected to default.

Confederate claims for return or compensation of escaped slaves would be met and exceeded by Union claims for compensation over Union property seized by the Confederate government, debt owed Union citizens that the Confederate government forced Confederate citizens to pay to itself instead, and commerce raiding.

If the USCT are mutinying, there would be no demand for the return of USCT POWs. And a Peace Democrat certainly wouldn't trade that for a plebiscite anywhere, even if the ATL didn't require the USCT to be acting like idiots.

The Confederacy ceding claims to US Territory is significantly less of a bargaining chip than the US ceding claims to North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. It's certainly not equivalent to the Union putting any territory it controls up for plebiscite.

You are equating control and occupation with sovreignty over same... that is not the case until the ink is on the treaty and ratified. until then everything is negotiable.

it would be good to know who has initiated the negotiations by the way...Union or the Confederates. it would put things inperspective more.
 
You are equating control and occupation with sovreignty over same... that is not the case until the ink is on the treaty and ratified. until then everything is negotiable.

it would be good to know who has initiated the negotiations by the way...Union or the Confederates. it would put things inperspective more.

I agree with this, with Fiver's logic of the treaty it ends up giving the middle finger to most of Tennessee's voters.
 
Again, a map of where the lines are at the time the treaty is being negotiated would be nice.
 
Top