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

[Saphroneth]

But will the CSA be able to use that money? Given their horrible society, arch-conservative to boot, what are the odds the money will be squandered, used to prop up a failing system and oppress the slaves, leading to a harsh defeat in the next war?

Frankly it's not helpful to stereotype the Confederacy any more than it is to whitewash them. They're not a great deal worse than the United States were a relatively short time beforehand slaves-wise (meaning when the US was divided between "slavery is good" and "get those blacks out of our state" states), and if they can achieve even a fraction of the productivity the US managed on extremely low wages in the Gilded Age they'll be fairly comfortable. (Not OTL-US standards, but the TTL-US won't be as rich as OTL-US either.)
As for being able to use the money, in a general sense - well, yes, actually. Here the Confederate myth that they're all hard-as-nails frontiersmen actually helps them considerably as it provides the impetus for reasonable-quality reserves with plenty of rifle training, and if you have that then you have the basic building blocks you need for an army that can mobilize relatively quickly (infantry wise, anyway).
With Kentucky they have the primary US source of really good horses, and they certainly have the attitude for good cavalry.
And as for artillery - Mr. Krupp sells to all sorts of people.

It won't work out quite as rosy as I describe, of course, but the Confederacy has no lack of tools needed to produce a modern military and their slave-owning nature as a society means that a larger proportion of their white population is capable of being mobilized than a comparable Union population.

As for the navy... in the 1890s and 1900s, getting a modern navy was/is/will be extremely simple even if you don't have the expertise. Buy it!
Ships, especially battleships, are matters of prestige - and a modern British battleship or two is the kind of thing the Confederacy would buy to show off.

 

[Starfox5]

But they'll be forced to spend a lot on keeping the slaves under control. They fear slave revolts like nothing else.

 

[Saphroneth]

But they'll be forced to spend a lot on keeping the slaves under control. They fear slave revolts like nothing else.

I'm already factoring that one in. Owning slaves does not by itself prevent a society from being well-off.
And, remember, you could say exactly the same thing about the US in the prior decades - and most of the US budget in the 1840s and 1850s was not spent on slave suppression.

 

[RodentRevolution]

I'm already factoring that one in. Owning slaves does not by itself prevent a society from being well-off.
And, remember, you could say exactly the same thing about the US in the prior decades - and most of the US budget in the 1840s and 1850s was not spent on slave suppression.

I think the problem with doing an industrial slave owning society effectively is the deadweight effect of slavery is marginal...maybe 1% lost growth per annum which is hard to notice at first but builds up over time.

Just like oil can seemingly bring in scads of money but by diverting attention away from other investments and papering over some problem cracks can in the long term cost its owning state more than is brought in.

Plus the danger point for the Confederacy opens up sometime in 1880 rather than post combustion engine.

That said it may not be all confrontations between the two polities are for keeps but more likely just further border renegotiations as it were.

 

[Saphroneth]

It's actually quite hard to get good data on the negative effects of slavery at all. In some cases it's clearly not beneficial, but in others it's much harder to tell.

In any case, the OTL USA is not the benchmark for prosperity, that was a freak of history. The CSA can chug along quite nicely with much of the good-value natural resources of the OTL US, enough of a budget to successfully do some things - and, in the nature of human nature, before too long the US may well have decided they're well rid of the pro slavery bits!

 

[Starfox5]

I'm already factoring that one in. Owning slaves does not by itself prevent a society from being well-off.
And, remember, you could say exactly the same thing about the US in the prior decades - and most of the US budget in the 1840s and 1850s was not spent on slave suppression.

I didn't mean "Most". But keeping your slaves oppressed will cost money - proportionally more now that there are no slave-free states to bring down the average cost. Further, the slave population has both people with a grudge against the slave owners and willing to send some "help" down south close by (the USA), examples of successful or semi-successful slave revolts in the Caribbean, and knows there is a superpower with a population who loathes slavery in the area. Further, there are so many influential people in the CSA owning so many slaves, the costs of emancipation with compensation by the state would be ruinous, and emancipating the slaves without compensation would not be feasible.

I don't really see how they can prosper. Oil won't be a factor for decades yet either.

 

[FriendlyGhost]

the Union would be extremely wary of going to war with Britain again

I know you're not planning on going this far with the TL, but I think this would play out in a very interesting fashion - the USA might actually end up in a strategic partnership with the UK, in order to contain the CSA.

 

[Saphroneth]

I didn't mean "Most". But keeping your slaves oppressed will cost money - proportionally more now that there are no slave-free states to bring down the average cost.

Do we have any actual data on that one? I've seen indications that the South was actually bringing in more net revenue per capita than e.g. the Midwest - and, of course, TTL the South hasn't been more or less burned down (the fighting's pretty much stayed in the border states).

Further, the slave population has both People with a grudge and willing to send some "help" down south close by (the USA), examples of successful or semi-successful slave revolts in the Caribbean, a superpower with a population who loathes slavery in the area, as well as so many influential people in their own country owning so many slaves, the costs of emancipation with compensation through the state would be ruinous, and emacnipating the slaves without compesation would not be feasible.

True on the USA, though "close by" is relative - it's across a national border at the bare minimum and often across several hundred miles. An apt comparison would be Canadians trying to help with escaping US slaves in the 1820s, I think, as a first pass.
The slave revolts aren't any change from OTL's pre-1860 period, no more successful ones have happened since 1860 AFAICT.
The superpower (Britain I presume?) is some hundreds to thousands of miles away, though I do have a plan for that one.
And the own-country influence is of course true, though I'm not sure why you're suddenly arguing that the Confederacy wouldn't be likely to emancipate their slaves - I agree that they wouldn't without a fairly major driver.

The CSA after this war won't necessarily be pleasant. They also won't be significantly worse than the US of a few decades prior, and they're not doomed to collapse either.



ED: an interesting point is that the US now effectively has two political parties - the "Pro CSA" and the "Anti CSA". The Democrats aren't doomed to the wilderness for decades like OTL, and the US opinion of the CS may shift back and forth a fair amount in part due to non-CS-related issues.

 

[Starfox5]

True on the USA, though "close by" is relative - it's across a national border at the bare minimum and often across several hundred miles. An apt comparison would be Canadians trying to help with escaping US slaves in the 1820s, I think, as a first pass.
The slave revolts aren't any change from OTL's pre-1860 period, no more successful ones have happened since 1860 AFAICT.
The superpower (Britain I presume?) is some hundreds to thousands of miles away, though I do have a plan for that one.
And the own-country influence is of course true, though I'm not sure why you're suddenly arguing that the Confederacy wouldn't be likely to emancipate their slaves - I agree that they wouldn't without a fairly major driver.

National borders seem rather easy to pass, back then. And Canada had to go through several states in the North to reach the slave states - the USA won't. Britain is in Canada. And in the Bermudas. And in the Caribbean. West Coast as well. They're pretty much wherever they want to be - patrolling for slavers was done all in the new world, I think. France is unlikley to like slavery either, and right across the border if they can hold Mexico. If they can't hold Mexico, then that's just another state who doesn't like the CSA.

Compensating all the slaves is very expensive. That alone would likely hold them back at first, and unless the slave population starts dwindling, it'll grow more expensive the longer they wait.

 

[Saphroneth]

Britain is in Canada. And in the Bermudas. And in the Caribbean. West Coast as well. They're pretty much wherever they want to be - patrolling for slavers was done all in the new world, I think.

Canada, Bermudas, Caribbean are all hundreds to thousands of miles away (which is what I meant) and they don't plan on taking California (though they do have Hawaii.)
And yes, the slave trade will be pretty much stopped by early 1863 except for the East African trade. (FWIW, the patrolling for slavers was done all over the Atlantic.)

 

[RodentRevolution]

I think the history of slave revolts in the CSA is disappointing to someone expecting something on the scale of Spartacus or Haiti

However it should be noted there may be more tensions in this era as guns become progressively cheaper not to mention more user friendly. That said it is probable that Confederate militias should still suffice to keep a lid on things.

One thing I suspect might happen though is both the US and CS are net poorer than OTL due to having larger armed forces from earlier. Just having an extra neighbour with an army worth spit is going to divert funds to the military where it is necessarily going to be less productive than invested in infrastructure or private enterprise.

 

[Saphroneth]

One thing I suspect might happen though is both the US and CS are net poorer than OTL due to having larger armed forces from earlier. Just having an extra neighbour with an army worth spit is going to divert funds to the military where it is necessarily going to be less productive than invested in infrastructure or private enterprise.

Oh, indeed - there's going to be a lot of forts on the border, a somewhat larger standing army (five times the size of the OTL prewar US army, that's still only about 75,000 men) and an actually effective militia in both cases. (Though the CS one may be more effective than the US one man for man.) Both sides will also have, you know, a navy, and will probably have up to date coastal forts on the important bits as well.
It all costs.
It'll more than make up for the three years less massive military spending.

 

[Saphroneth]

18 July

The news of the proposed conference arrives in the Americas. The reaction of Congress to the proposal is not overall positive - they agree that the Spanish location would be preferable, but object that the overall weighting of the conference is too pro-British and anti-Union as the Spanish are known to be anti-Union.

Based on State Department memos, they propose a third mediator to be added to the conference - Prussia. It will take another eight or nine days for this message to cross the Atlantic - one of the downsides of the width of the ocean.

The Confederacy are informed of these proposed changes, and see little problem with them. They (perhaps falsely) consider Prussia to be potentially sympathetic.

21 July

HMS Lion arrives at Hawai'i. The sight of such a huge ship - intended to be a largely permanent resident, as well, not simply a visitor - is quite an impressive one to the locals. She fires a 21-gun salute, which in the slightly involved metrics of the British Empire on the matter is about as high as it will get without being directly related to Victoria.
Once the formalities are over, the work begins. Both transports begin unloading, with the engineers heading up to pick positions for their four 68-lber guns - as well as the dozens that will follow - and the infantry battalion disembarking to take up their new garrison duties (one of which is introducing the local royal guard to the wonders of Hythe-style training).

22 July

A ship is stopped from sailing up the Delaware river, as it is breaking blockade by doing so - the blockade will not be lifted until the peace treaty. It has a cargo which includes fifty tons of gunpowder, which is contraband, and is sailed (somewhat gingerly!) to Bermuda for condemnation.

 

[Saphroneth]

By this point I think the British response to the news of the request for Prussian mediation is going to be "yes sure whatever this is taking far too long".

That or they'd make the journey in the Orlando, which should be able to manage a passage down to Havana in about two weeks. It still means it's looking like the treaty will come about in September - which is not great for the Union, their economy's not getting any better and they still have to pay their whole army (in demand notes which are getting less and less valuable; the Confederacy's currency is doing quite well by comparison due to confidence.)

 

[diestormlie]

Yeah, I imagine that the ceasefire is essentially de-facto survival of the Confederacy means that their currency shoots up to where it would be for, well, a legitimate state.

 

[Saphroneth]

Yeah, I imagine that the ceasefire is essentially de-facto survival of the Confederacy means that their currency shoots up to where it would be for, well, a legitimate state.

They were already doing rather better than not only OTL but the Union by late spring TTL, for two reasons.
First the Union's doing worse than OTL from January on. This is partly because the Union lost a major income stream (gold) and OTL the news of the British confrontation caused a bank run - this is even worse and sustained!
By contrast the Confederacy has had very few of the OTL defeats of the first half of the year, and has also been able to sell plenty of cotton. (Shelling the enemy capital is good for your relative solvency!)

 

[cerebropetrologist]

That or they'd make the journey in the Orlando, which should be able to manage a passage down to Havana in about two weeks.

They could take a mail steamer, if they want something less conspicuous and just as quick- not least because Orlando is probably needed on station. The Atrato arrived at Southampton on 8AM on 15 February 1862, having left St Thomas's in the Virgin Islands at 6 AM on the 31st January 1862. Difficult to find out exactly how long the outward trip took, but when it left Southampton on 2 May 1862 it returned 12 June 1862, having left St Thomas on the 29th of May. A bit later in its life, when it left Southampton on 18 May 1868 it arrived at Jamaica around the 6 June.

The Prussian options in the way of steamers from Southampton to the West Indies, arriving on a North German Lloyd (Bremen) or Hamburg-America Line ship, would be:
Atrato (Captain Woolley)- departs Wednesday 2 July 1862
Shannon (Captain G. Abbott)- departs Thursday 17 July 1862
Seine (Captain Revett)- departs Saturday 2 August 1862
Tasmanian (Captain Sawyer)- departs Monday 18 August 1862
That's if any of these ships are running as historical, of course...

It still means it's looking like the treaty will come about in September - which is not great for the Union, their economy's not getting any better and they still have to pay their whole army

Do you mean the treaty, or the opening of the conference? Ghent took from August 1814 to the end of December 1814, and they only had one frontier to sort out. All involved will know that campaigning can't restart until March, so the mediators might be prepared to take their time and do things properly. It's unfortunate for the Union, but they could send soldiers home on furlough to cut the cost of keeping them under arms (as indeed could the Confederates). The only question is how likely they are to come back in spring, and it's entirely possible that it could be their refusal to do so that forces the Union to come to terms.

 

[Saphroneth]

Do you mean the treaty, or the opening of the conference? Ghent took from August 1814 to the end of December 1814, and they only had one frontier to sort out. All involved will know that campaigning can't restart until March, so the mediators might be prepared to take their time and do things properly. It's unfortunate for the Union, but they could send soldiers home on furlough to cut the cost of keeping them under arms (as indeed could the Confederates). The only question is how likely they are to come back in spring, and it's entirely possible that it could be their refusal to do so that forces the Union to come to terms.

Ah, I was definitely underestimating how long the peace treaty was going to take - thanks for that info!

 

[cerebropetrologist]

Ah, I was definitely underestimating how long the peace treaty was going to take - thanks for that info!

Yeah, not something you can knock out over a weekend! Congress of Vienna was c. September 1814 to June 1815, but had bigger egos to contest with. The Alabama claims took quite a while- the cases were presented on 15 December 1871, the tribunal adjourned until 15 June 1872 (with both parties replying to the other's case on 15 April 1872), and the decision came on 7 September 1872. However, that contained complex legal issues and there wasn't a real rush to get it signed. 1856 Congress of Paris took a month, but didn't involve major territorial losses. To me, this could easily run September to February, not least because it's likely to rapidly evolve into two parallel sets of negotiations (UK-US and US-CS).

EDIT: A while back I drew up a potential structure for Gladstone's 1863 mediation (Britain, France, Russia, Austria and Prussia). It might not help because you're dealing with a three-party arrangement, but I'll post it anyway.

1) That both the Union and Confederate commissioners should state the terms under which they would consent to reunite and end the war.
2) If these terms of reunion are not mutually agreeable, that they should present the terms under which they would consent to separation.
3) If the terms of separation are not mutually agreeable, that the mediators will draw up a proposal for separation based on the cases presented to them.
4) If one party is unwilling to accept the terms, but both parties are willing to continue mediation, that they should suggest amendments to the mediators' proposal.
5) That the mediators should consider these suggestions and make an amended proposal in the light of them. This process of amendment will continue until agreement is achieved or the conference is ended.
5) The conference can be ended by one of the parties refusing to continue, or by a resolution passed by four-fifths of the mediators.

 

[Thoresby]

1) That both the Union and Confederate commissioners should state the terms under which they would consent to reunite and end the war.
2) If these terms of reunion are not mutually agreeable, that they should present the terms under which they would consent to separation.
3) If the terms of separation are not mutually agreeable, that the mediators will draw up a proposal for separation based on the cases presented to them.
4) If one party is unwilling to accept the terms, but both parties are willing to continue mediation, that they should suggest amendments to the mediators' proposal.
5) That the mediators should consider these suggestions and make an amended proposal in the light of them. This process of amendment will continue until agreement is achieved or the conference is ended.
5) The conference can be ended by one of the parties refusing to continue, or by a resolution passed by four-fifths of the mediators.

The problem with that is this isn't going to be a mediation, the Union has lost and the Confederacy and Britain have won, this is going to be a question of dictating terms that the Union finds more appealing than restarting the war.