If they will not meet us on the open sea (a Trent TL)

[Saphroneth]

You seem pretty well informed, so I'm sure you know that already. Since any international slavers would be violating US, British, and CS law, why would this cause so much tension?

Allow me to inform you of the 1858 boarding dispute.

The background is that the US had banned the slave trade and pledged to support its eradication; however, only captains from the North would actually try and do this. (Indeed, only one man was ever executed under this law, in 1862).
Southern captains would do everything they could to avoid trying to eradicate the slave trade - as such, any actual slave traders would simply fly the US flag, as it was very unlikely they would be boarded and searched (as only US ships were legally allowed to do so - this is because the US did not grant the right of search to anyone).
Since only one or two US ships were on station at any one time, the British understandably got frustrated.
“the American Government, from motives which we ought perhaps to respect—from a mistaken sense of national honour—has interfered to cover with impunity that prostitution of the American flag which covers the abomination of the slave trade. I regret to say, as my noble Friend has stated, that we have not received from the Government of the United States that assistance which we were entitled to expect from a Government of free men.” (HC Deb 26 February 1861 vol 161 c950)
In 1858 they began boarding suspected slave ships off the coast of Cuba to ensure they were in fact allowed to fly the American flag.

This came close to causing a war. Seward made a speech about how awful it was the British were doing this terrible thing, several New York militia regiments volunteered for army service, and the British had to climb down.

Palmerston has made it his life's work to eradicate the slave trade. He is interested in closing loopholes.

 

[cerebropetrologist]

Since any international slavers would be violating US, British, and CS law, why would this cause so much tension?

There's a fuller explanation of the long-term context here.

 

[Devan Yates]

Allow me to inform you of the 1858 boarding dispute.


Palmerston has made it his life's work to eradicate the slave trade. He is interested in closing loopholes.

That's really interesting. But if I'm Pam, I'm not going to mess around with common law and the idea that the CS has received the laws of the US. If I'm him, I'm just going to make the right of search a condition of intervention. The CS would be desperate enough--no matter how well a war was going at that juncture, Davis understands that the CS is at a big disadvantage--to agree to that term, or subject to something even more vigorous, like the CSN having to patrol to stop the slave trade. Especially since the CS bans the slave trade in the Constitution and they badly need the help, I can't see them saying no.

 

[Saphroneth]

That's really interesting. But if I'm Pam, I'm not going to mess around with common law and the idea that the CS has received the laws of the US. If I'm him, I'm just going to make the right of search a condition of intervention. The CS would be desperate enough--no matter how well a war was going at that juncture, Davis understands that the CS is at a big disadvantage--to agree to that term, or subject to something even more vigorous, like the CSN having to patrol to stop the slave trade. Especially since the CS bans the slave trade in the Constitution and they badly need the help, I can't see them saying no.

But this isn't an intervention - this is, specifically, a war with the US over the action of the US relating to the RMS Trent, a mail steamer. This is, in effect, a separate war between Britain and the Union which happens to run concurrent with the Civil War.

 

[Devan Yates]

But this isn't an intervention - this is, specifically, a war with the US over the action of the US relating to the RMS Trent, a mail steamer. This is, in effect, a separate war between Britain and the Union which happens to run concurrent with the Civil War.

I get that, and that's technically true. But the Confederates are going to think of it as a *wink, wink* intervention. And Pam would know that, and this is the age of the secret alliance. If you were Pam, wouldn't you try and leverage all that into what should be at face value, a minor concession?

 

[Saphroneth]

I get that, and that's technically true. But the Confederates are going to think of it as a *wink, wink* intervention. And Pam would know that, and this is the age of the secret alliance. If you were Pam, wouldn't you try and leverage all that into what should be at face value, a minor concession?

Honestly, probably not. The very idea of intervening specifically to make a slave state more independent is sort of repugnant to the British ethos of the time.
Besides, the "treat ships of X as if they were ships of Y" is a gambit he's already used - on Brazil.

 

[Devan Yates]

Honestly, probably not. The very idea of intervening specifically to make a slave state more independent is sort of repugnant to the British ethos of the time.
Besides, the "treat ships of X as if they were ships of Y" is a gambit he's already used - on Brazil.

I'm not going to be that guy, because I hate that guy, but I'm not convinced. This is such an easy fix for Lord Palmerston:

"Dear Jeff: Thinking of shooting a lot of cannonballs at some Americans--like, a LOT. Also thinking of sinking some ships and shooting some other Americans with bullets. On the other hand, could really try very hard to do some more talking with them. I like talking.

Toodles,

Pammy

PS--you think you could throw in a frigate or two to enforce that one section of your Constitution. We'll totally help.
PPS---If you can't afford that, we can enforce it for you."

He could easily sell it to any opposition from the CS gov't as a necessary move to quell political opposition in the UK.

 

[cerebropetrologist]

If you were Pam, wouldn't you try and leverage all that into what should be at face value, a minor concession?

Not if I thought it was the South which had always prevented and frustrated attempts to suppress the slave trade in the first place.

'before this civil contest broke out, it was the influence of the South which prevailed at Washington, and prevented the Government there from accepting any of the offers we made for the purpose of enlisting the support of the United States Government in the execution of their treaty engagements. There is a treaty engagement by which they are bound to co-operate with us for the suppression of the slave trade. For a time they sent one or two small vessels to the coast of Africa, and lately they have increased the number. But this I have observed, that when an American cruiser is commanded by a captain from the South, no effective assistance whatever is given us for the suppression of the slave trade. The Southern captain shuts his eyes to what is going on, and runs off to Madeira for supplies or water; but the cruisers commanded by captains from the North do give us very effective and vigilant co-operation. This would lead to the hope, no doubt, that if the turn of events should give to the North a more sovereign existence, possibly the spirit of the North would prevail over the influence which hitherto has controlled them, and, although most of the cruisers were fitted out at New York and at Boston, and, perhaps, with capital from the North, yet it was the spirit of the South which animated these expeditions.'

Palmerston doesn't trust the South to enforce their own provisions, even if they had the means to do so. As a result, he'd want the right of search for British ships to inspect Confederate-flagged vessels. But he can't obtain the right of search without a treaty, and he can't get a treaty without recognising the South as a legitimate entity for the purposes of international negotiations:
'as Her Majesty's Government have not yet acknowledged the independence of the Confederate States, and that independence not being established in a way which would justify our interference, no diplomatic communications can take place between us and those States.'

Moreover, he can't enforce a treaty without the Confederate Congress ratifying it. And why would Palmerston trust the Confederate Congress, stuffed with the kind of slave-traders he fulminates against in the quote above, to give him a right they don't want to grant? Particularly as he's already given them the massive boon of recognition by negotiating the treaty in the first place?

 

[Saphroneth]

This is such an easy fix for Lord Palmerston:

It's really not. It's a deal which would cause considerable political unrest at home and it's something he personally would rather not do - the war is happening anyway, because the US rejected an ultimatum (so continuing to talk would be to show the ultimata of the British to have no force) while appearing to collude with the Confederacy over this would poison both British-Union relations (to a greater degree than just a war) and also his domestic support.
A war for the Confederacy has no support. A war for British honour has a lot.

 

[Devan Yates]

Not if I thought it was the South which had always prevented and frustrated attempts to suppress the slave trade in the first place.

'before this civil contest broke out, it was the influence of the South which prevailed at Washington, and prevented the Government there from accepting any of the offers we made for the purpose of enlisting the support of the United States Government in the execution of their treaty engagements. There is a treaty engagement by which they are bound to co-operate with us for the suppression of the slave trade. For a time they sent one or two small vessels to the coast of Africa, and lately they have increased the number. But this I have observed, that when an American cruiser is commanded by a captain from the South, no effective assistance whatever is given us for the suppression of the slave trade. The Southern captain shuts his eyes to what is going on, and runs off to Madeira for supplies or water; but the cruisers commanded by captains from the North do give us very effective and vigilant co-operation. This would lead to the hope, no doubt, that if the turn of events should give to the North a more sovereign existence, possibly the spirit of the North would prevail over the influence which hitherto has controlled them, and, although most of the cruisers were fitted out at New York and at Boston, and, perhaps, with capital from the North, yet it was the spirit of the South which animated these expeditions.'

Palmerston doesn't trust the South to enforce their own provisions, so he'd want the right of search. But he can't obtain the right of search without a treaty, and he can't get a treaty without recognising the South as a legitimate entity for the purposes of international negotiations, and he can't enforce a treaty without the Confederate Congress ratifying it. And why would Palmerston trust the Confederate Congress, stuffed with the kind of slave-traders he fulminates against in the quote above, to give him a right they don't want to grant? Particularly as he's already given them the massive boon of recognition by negotiating the treaty in the first place?

Well, I would say that he asks for an agreement for them to provide ships for patrol before anything. And you don't have to call it a treaty, which does need ratification. You can have an accord, and agreement, a protocol--it's not that important, because the form of the law will follow the desired function.

But two, I think that you ask for this because one, it costs you very little and you'll probably get it. Two, it's one more way to get what you want. It's always better to have two eggs in two baskets than one egg in one basket. Three, it's a way to get what you want that avoids or minimizes tension in the future. It strengthens the legal regime you seek to enforce.

 

[Saphroneth]

Well, I would say that he asks for an agreement for them to provide ships for patrol before anything. And you don't have to call it a treaty, which does need ratification. You can have an accord, and agreement, a protocol--it's not that important, because the form of the law will follow the desired function.

But two, I think that you ask for this because one, it costs you very little and you'll probably get it. Two, it's one more way to get what you want. It's always better to have two eggs in two baskets than one egg in one basket. Three, it's a way to get what you want that avoids or minimizes tension in the future. It strengthens the legal regime you seek to enforce.

Palmerston desires only one thing - the ability to shut down the slave trade. The right of search will suffice, and to get it the easiest way possible is what makes the msot sense.

Spoiler

Remember, if it's the only concession (or one of the only ones) he wants out of the Union he's sure to get it. But the Confederacy are likely to refuse, and he has no leverage with them at this point - the war is happening whether the CSA agree or no, and he's not actually co-operating with them in any way.

 

[Devan Yates]

It's really not. It's a deal which would cause considerable political unrest at home and it's something he personally would rather not do - the war is happening anyway, because the US rejected an ultimatum (so continuing to talk would be to show the ultimata of the British to have no force) while appearing to collude with the Confederacy over this would poison both British-Union relations (to a greater degree than just a war) and also his domestic support.
A war for the Confederacy has no support. A war for British honour has a lot.

But that assumes he makes it public, and it assumes he lets the US in on the negotiations. There's no reason to do that. Again, this is the golden age of the secret agreement. When you can extract a concession from a party that's as desperate as the CS is, you can make bluffs and idle threats. They are too weak to argue.

 

[Devan Yates]

Palmerston desires only one thing - the ability to shut down the slave trade. The right of search will suffice, and to get it the easiest way possible is what makes the msot sense.

Spoiler

Remember, if it's the only concession (or one of the only ones) he wants out of the Union he's sure to get it. But the Confederacy are likely to refuse, and he has no leverage with them at this point - the war is happening whether the CSA agree or no, and he's not actually co-operating with them in any way.

I don't mean to say that it isn't a sufficient condition to shut down the slave trade in the future, because it probably is. But I don't see why he wouldn't try to put himself in a position of the greatest strength to make it happen.

But it doesn't really matter. Sarah Palin happened, which proves that people do things that don't make for the strongest strategies. I'll keep on reading either way.

 

[cerebropetrologist]

Well, I would say that he asks for an agreement for them to provide ships for patrol before anything.

They had that with the US, and (as the quotes provided show) Palmerston believes Southern politicians and Southern captains wrecked it. If they wouldn't live up to the agreement in peacetime, why would they do so in wartime when their navy has other things to do?

And you don't have to call it a treaty, which does need ratification. You can have an accord, and agreement, a protocol--it's not that important, because the form of the law will follow the desired function.

If, in Palmerston's view, the South prevented the North from fulfilling a ratified treaty engagement because they didn't agree with it, why would they adhere to anything less formal? Why would the Confederate Supreme Court, or the Congress, or Davis's successor, not throw out an unconstitutional arrangement which enables the president to bypass oversight?

Two, it's one more way to get what you want. It's always better to have two eggs in two baskets than one egg in one basket.

Not really. Either Palmerston treats the South as an independent country and seeks an accord with them, or he treats them as legally part of the United States and claims the right of search as a result of the US signing a treaty before the South's independence was established. He can't hold both positions at the same time.

Three, it's a way to get what you want that avoids or minimizes tension in the future. It strengthens the legal regime you seek to enforce.

Again, not really. Even a ratified treaty can be abrogated as soon as it suits the South- for instance, as soon as they've won their freedom. They don't even have to do so overtly on the grounds they want to import slaves: they can claim it was intended to be a temporary measure, but now they've got their own navy they're entitled to enforce their own laws. And once one nation has thrown off British maritime supremacy, other countries like Brazil, Portugal, Spain or France might be tempted to follow their example- and the whole system of slave trade prevention which Palmerston has spent his career building up could come crashing to the ground.

 

[edgeworthy]

I've not mentioned it yet, but I did actually plan on that showing up some time:


https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ships-of-nations.326948/page-28#post-12435505

Previous historical use included:

"In the summer of 1861, as a reaction to Seward's earlier sabre rattling. HMG sent a whole brigade in two ships, the Great Eastern and the Golden Fleece.

Great Eastern carried:
- D Bty, 4th Brigade Royal Artillery: 7 offrs, 220 men, 20 women, 25 children and 110 horses
- 30th Regiment and 4th Battalion, 60th Rifles: each 30 offrs, 868 men, 80 women, 120 children and 6 horses
- 4 offrs, 102 men, 9 women and 19 children of units already in Canada

She made the journey from Liverpool to Quebec city in 8 days and 6 hrs - very fast indeed.

The other regiment of the brigade, the 47th, went on the SS Golden Fleece from Kingstown (Ireland) to Quebec, taking 14 days."

 

[Saphroneth]

9 May

Confederate guns bombard the Rock Creek line. By now nearly a dozen large Dahlgrens are emplaced north of the creek, and their fire is proving destructive.
Despite this fusillade, however, the Confederate assault which goes in as the afternoon becomes the evening is not aimed to cross Rock Creek - instead, supported by the now-battle-scarred Virginia and two big 10" guns, as well as a trio of 7" Brooke rifles emplaced two weeks ago, 12,000 troops launch an attack on Fort Lyon in Virginia.
The earthwork fort has already been severly damaged by the shells bursting inside it, causing derangement of the walls and rendering many of the rifle pits unfightable. The four defending regiments are well aware of their difficult situation (for example, gunpowder stores are low - it has not been possible to resupply in any systematic way since the Virginia arrived a month and a half ago) and are on the whole not battle experienced or very well trained. They are also armed with chiefly unserviceable muskets - around fifty of which have broken just in the time since the Virginia arrived.
Though they resist well at first, after the death of the colonel commanding the 26th NY that portion of the defence suffers considerable disruption. Roughly three thousand infantry - a mix of formations from all over the Confederacy - reach one of the breeches in the walls, passing through the field of fire of disabled flank guns, and the fort's commander hastily surrenders.
The casualties from the battle were high on both sides, with the total Union killed/wounded being lower than the Confederate total but the captured Union troops reversing this.

The loss of Fort Lyon unhinges the defence of Alexandria, and there is worry in Washington that this success will - if followed up - result in the collapse of another section of the fort ring around DC. It would also clear out one of the last Union footholds on Virginia soil, and as such is important for propoganda purposes. It is nigh-impossible to do anything about it, though - the Potomac is interdicted by the Virginia, and Eads' gunboats which might be able to alter this are still at least a month from completion.

Confederate purchasing agents in France are hinted that the Ville de Nantes - a steam line-of-battle ship currently about to go into Ordinary - might be available for purchase if the price is right. This suggestion comes from Napoleon III, though he is not directly involved in the negotiations.


10 May
Further west, Smith attacks Morgan's division of the Army of the Ohio. The Confederate army (designated as the Army of Kentucky, a recent redesignation) is not much larger than Morgan's force, but possesses somewhat better weapons and an extremely important advantage - Patrick Cleburne.
An ex-British soldier, Cleburne's service in the 41st Foot has made him well aware of the importance of discipline, and he has also obtained a copy of the Hythe musketry manual and managed to put some of it into effect. As such, the Army of the Ohio runs into a screen of picked troops roughly as proficient with the rifle as third-class British infantry, all of whom have been given the Enfields Smith has been able to scare up.
The result is devastating. At three hundred yards more shots are hitting than missing, and Morgan's 7th Division is unable to counter this heavy and accurate fire - indeed, the sheer number of casualties incurred from what is a relatively small force about three regiments strong leads the Union army to believe they are heavily outnumbered.
Morgan's force pulls back to a small hillock, and Smith orders an assault. With Cleburne's rifles firing over the heads of the assaulting troops to suppress the defenders, Smith's men push through the (not) beaten zone and shatter Morgan's force.
There are now no cohesive Union armies between the Cumberland Gap and Lexington. As news of this military calamity spreads, Buell orders some of the reinforcements headed for Michigan diverted to form up at the closest rail junction to the Cumberland Gap - his hope is that they will form a nucleus that Morgan's sundered division can reform around.
As Smith's cavalry are pursuing Morgan's damaged force, capturing all their artillery and harrying them until nightfall, this hope may be a forlorn one.

 

[BELFAST]

Nice work again.
Patrick Cleburne OTL said this

Spoiler

In 1864, he dramatically called together the leadership of the Army of Tennessee and put forth the proposal to emancipate slaves and enlist them in the Confederate Army to secure Southern independence.[11][12] His plan did not include black equality, suggesting that legislation and foresight would ensure relations between blacks and whites would not materially change.[13] This proposal was met with polite silence at the meeting, and while word of it leaked out, it went unremarked, much less officially recognized.[10] From his letter outlining the proposal:[14]

Satisfy the negro that if he faithfully adheres to our standard during the war he shall receive his freedom and that of his race ... and we change the race from a dreaded weakness to a position of strength.

Will the slaves fight? The helots of Sparta stood their masters good stead in battle. In the great sea fight of Lepantowhere the Christians checked forever the spread of Mohammedanism over Europe, the galley slaves of portions of the fleet were promised freedom, and called on to fight at a critical moment of the battle. They fought well, and civilization owes much to those brave galley slaves ... the experience of this war has been so far that half-trained negroes have fought as bravely as many other half-trained Yankees.

It is said that slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Cleburne

 

[Saphroneth]

Yes, he's quite a well known individual because he's one of those "moderate" Confederates. Here he's more important as someone who OTL (and TTL earlier) introduces actual European methods into one portion of the CS Army.

 

[BELFAST]

Yes, he's quite a well known individual because he's one of those "moderate" Confederates. Here he's more important as someone who OTL (and TTL earlier) introduces actual European methods into one portion of the CS Army.

I think he must be one of the more famous Irish men to fight for the CSA.

I wonder will Myles Keogh join the confederate in this TL.

Myles Walter Keogh

Spoiler

(March 25, 1840 – June 25, 1876) was an Irish soldier. Serving the armies of the Papal States during a rebellion in Italy, he was recruited into the Union Army during the American Civil War, serving as a cavalry officer, particularly under Brig. Gen. John Buford during the Gettysburg Campaign and the three-day battle that ensued. After the war, Keogh remained in the regular United States Army as commander of Company I in the 7th Cavalry Regiment under George Armstrong Custer during theIndian Wars, until he was killed along with Custer and all of his men at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876.

Thus in March 1862 Keogh resigned his commission in the Company of Saint Patrick, and with his senior officer – 30-year-old Daniel J. Keily of Waterford – returned briefly to Ireland, then boarded the steamer "Kangaroo" bound from Liverpool to New York, where the vessel arrived April 2. Another Papal comrade, Joseph O'Keeffe – 19-year-old nephew of the Bishop of Cork – met with Keogh and Keily in Washington.

August 1863 – General Buford(seated) and staff, Keogh (left)
Through Secretary Seward's intervention, the three were given Captains' rank and on April 15 assigned to the staff of Irish-born Brigadier General James Shields, whose forces were about to confront the Confederate army of Stonewall Jackson. They notably stormed after Jackson’s army in the Shenandoah Valley and nearly captured the furious leader at theBattle of Port Republic. Jackson may have slipped into the hills, but Keogh’s courageousness during his first engagement did not go unnoticed. George B. McClellan, the commander of the Potomac Army, was impressed with Keogh, describing the young Captain as "a most gentlemanlike man, of soldierly appearance," whose "record had been remarkable for the short time he had been in the army."[2] On McClellan's request, Keogh was temporarily transferred to his personal staff. He was to be with 'Little Mac' for only a few months but served the General during the Battle of Antietam. After McClellan's removal from command in November 1862, the admirable traits identified in his first six months in the Union army came to the fore when he and his Papal comrade, Joseph O’Keeffe, were reassigned to General John Buford’s staff.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Keogh [/spoler]

 

[Devan Yates]

They had that with the US, and (as the quotes provided show) Palmerston believes Southern politicians and Southern captains wrecked it. If they wouldn't live up to the agreement in peacetime, why would they do so in wartime when their navy has other things to do?


If, in Palmerston's view, the South prevented the North from fulfilling a ratified treaty engagement because they didn't agree with it, why would they adhere to anything less formal? Why would the Confederate Supreme Court, or the Congress, or Davis's successor, not throw out an unconstitutional arrangement which enables the president to bypass oversight?


Not really. Either Palmerston treats the South as an independent country and seeks an accord with them, or he treats them as legally part of the United States and claims the right of search as a result of the US signing a treaty before the South's independence was established. He can't hold both positions at the same time.


Again, not really. Even a ratified treaty can be abrogated as soon as it suits the South- for instance, as soon as they've won their freedom. They don't even have to do so overtly on the grounds they want to import slaves: they can claim it was intended to be a temporary measure, but now they've got their own navy they're entitled to enforce their own laws. And once one nation has thrown off British maritime supremacy, other countries like Brazil, Portugal, Spain or France might be tempted to follow their example- and the whole system of slave trade prevention which Palmerston has spent his career building up could come crashing to the ground.

I think you make a number of good counterpoints. However, If Lord Palmerston is trying to maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses (which all statesmen do), then he's going to have a plan A, B, and C.

The fact is, he wants an independent South. If he didn't, he doesn't go to war; there's just no way to rationalize it otherwise. He's a smart man. He knows that the best way to put his whole anti-slave trade system in jeopardy is to help out a nation whose reason for being is slavery. So there are other values here which are more important to him.

In one respect, the situation is a similar one to WW2. You can't rationalize going to war against the Nazis post-1942 if your number one value is destroying communism. President Lindbergh, for example, is never going to fight alongside the Russians. Same would go for communism--you cant fight alongside the Nazis and somehow pretend to be pro-Communist. President John L Lewis is not going to help the Nazis kill the Soviets.

Pam must think that a united US--which, even before the Emancipation Proclamation, stands a better than even chance of abolishing slavery--is the worse outcome than an independent slaveholding CS. So even if he disagrees with their politics, he doesn't disagree enough to make sure that they don't get to practice those politics far into the future.

Even if he/the UK gov't were to say (which they wouldn't, because it's crazy) that you can fight the free states without helping the slave states, then they don't fight the *way* they do in the timeline. There are limited wars, wars that get declared and not fought, and times when the whole thing just fizzles out. Just look at the Aroostook War. So if they really wanted to go to war for war's sake, then they burn a town in Maine or something and then let it be known that they would really rather see slavery get abolished than kill each other because of a couple of candy-ass diplomats from a pariah state.

Instead, these guys are going all out.

And if you don't want to aid slavery, then you definitely don't break the blockade of the slave states.

And the whole line of thinking that they are somehow worried about recognizing the CS and how that might look, how it might damage relations with the US, it just doesn't hold water. If the CS wins, then it doesn't matter. If the CS loses, it doesn't matter, because the UK has just killed a bunch of Americans.

I mean, I generally hate it when people are friendly with the neighbors I feud with. Even when they wave to them--but you know that I hate even more? When you wave to my neighbors and then burn my house down and kill my family. Even when you pay no attention to my neighbors, and burn my house down and kill my family, I still hate that more than someone waving to my hated neighbors.

It is not believable to say that the US would win a war with the UK in the midst of the ACW. But I have trouble with the idea that the UK could engage in such a war, then pretend that they aren't basically guaranteeing the continued existence of slavery in North America. And even beyond that, to be so committed to that fiction that they wouldn't at least try to get assurances from the pariah state whose existence they are midwifing into being.

I sort of think of it like Churchill's percentages agreement with Stalin. Does he trust Stalin? No. Does he like him? No. Does he like the system he represents? Hell no. Does he think that fighting alongside him has done anything but strengthen Stalin and the system he represents? Not a chance. Does he even think that Stalin will abide by an agreement in the end? I'm going to venture to say that he had his doubts. But that doesn't stop him from broaching the subject, and at least trying to get a concession from him. If nothing else, it gives Churchill a window into Stalin's state of mind, how Stalin perceives himself and his own strengths, and what Stalin's short to medium term goals are.

It's not about trust on the part of Pam, necessarily. But if he hates slavery as much as you say, and he nonetheless agrees to ensure its existence for the foreseeable future, than I would guess that he would want to get as much leverage as he can over the people he detests.