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

[edgeworthy]

Just a little nitpick but $70 a Slave compensated emancipation seems a little low.
The average Pre-ACW price at auction was Ten Times that, one of the reasons that every time I see it in a TL I have to question its workability.
The price of a skilled worker could go as high as $1,750, and a Field hand could routinely be sold for $1,300.

A system of paying all of the slaveholders for all of their slaves freedoms at the market rate would cost nearly 3 Billion USD, which is more than the Federal Military Budget for the entire War.

(Its also one of the bugbears it the Not Stainless Steel Rat Trilogy of which we do not speak. The author has the US Govt managing such a scheme, whilst also fighting a war at the same time ... and its the other side that has monetary problems!?)

 

[Saphroneth]

The number's actually based on the amount the British used to handle compensated emancipation, which was about £25 per slave, and then cut roughly in half after applying the 5:1 conversion ratio between USD and GBP. (This number, by the way, is specie and not greenbacks - greenbacks it would be more like $250 or more with how badly the dollar's doing).

Perhaps the disconnect is that I literally mean every single slave including children, which drives the cost down.

(For what it's worth, the reason this is at least somewhat plausible is that they're dealing with 85,000 slaves. To do it for the entire British Empire (800,000 slaves) took 40% of that year's Imperial budget, and to do it for the whole pre-war US would be freeing 4,000,000 slaves.

TTL's one is literally 2% the problem it would be to do it to the entire pre-war US.

 

[Saphroneth]

FWIW, the Brits deliberately aimed for a low amount to incentivize quick cash out. Here I could see Lincoln aiming to do the same.

 

[Skallagrim]

The British deliberately went low, but the US government currently does not have the means to pay the full "worth" of each slave. That said... they will likely aim notably higher than $70. Even for children, utterly untrained, that would be a low price. Now, personally, my sympathy for slavers is non-existent, and they should be happy to get paid something at all, and not get the noose instead... but that's a modern perspective. At the time, slavery was seen as undesirable, but slaveholders were not universally seen as evil. Secessionists were seen as evil. Only a radical minority considered all slaveholders to be scum.

So is Congress going for a compensation scheme that will be considered "insultingly cheap", and which will certainly drive those poor slaveholders towards significant losses and even more significant politial outrage? No. Probably not. They'll go low, but not this low. I'd wager something closer to $500 per adult male, $250 per adult female, and $100 per child or elderly individual. How many of those 85,000 fall into which group is unclear to me, but those kinds of numbers are in between the deliberately low British number and the "realistic" price that slaveholders will be demanding. The resulting cost is going to be considerably higher than you'd get with a very low price... but that low price, even under these circumstances (nearly all slaveholders are now in another country), is just not politically viable. It was only the northern victory over the south in OTL that demanded an immediate, permanent end to that damned institution of slavery once and for all. In this timeline, there will ironically be less will in the north to "just" abolish slavery without "rightful" compensation.

 

[Saphroneth]

Thanks for the input on this - I'll probably make it an Ongoing Political Issue instead of doing a retcon.

 

[Saphroneth]

10 November

In consultation, Lincoln is informed that his Compensated Emancipation plans are unworkable - the total value of all slaves in the Union in 1860 was around $4B in pre-war dollars, and even with the mere 85,000 slaves expected to not go south the estimate is more like $70M pre-war than $6M - and scarcity will likely drive up the price.
The numbers dismay Lincoln, but he still considers it possible that some affordable plan for compensation could be reached.


11 November
McClellan opens informal discussions with his opposite number (Lee) about the prisoner exchanges to take place once the peace treaty is ratified. Both men agree it does not seem necessary to wait until the treaty activates to make the exchange, as their troops wish to return home as soon as possible.

The Emancipation discussions continue to become more arcane as they spread, slowly becoming public knowledge as people talk to other people who talk to others. One interesting idea is to convert all existing ownerships into indentured servitude until the age of majority or for seven years (whichever is sooner).
This whole thing is promptly used in the Confederacy as evidence the Union was planning to abolish slavery.


13 November
Maximilien is informed that his acceptance of the Imperial Crown of Mexico forfeits his place in the Austrian succession - this is almost the last moment before he gets on the ship, and thus something of a source for irritation. Nevertheless, his mind is made up, and he departs Treviso with his wife.

14 November
Milne winds down the blockade, to some relief from his captains - the weather is getting worse and many ships have suffered minor damage. The swollen West Indies Station begins to congregate at Bermuda and Halifax to sail eastwards and home.

Also on this date, the Treaty of Havana arrives in the United Kingdom (the ship with the dispatches having been delayed by heavy weather off Portugal).

17 November

British ratification of the Treaty of Havana.

Also on this date, the Lancaster leaves Hong Kong to return home. She is one of the largest US ships currently active, and with Mississippi forms the cruising force of the US Navy.


NOTE: removed James Mason's appointment as ambassador due to timing concerns.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

FWIW, the Brits deliberately aimed for a low amount to incentivize quick cash out. Here I could see Lincoln aiming to do the same.

Also, the Union won't be unhappy to see Missouri slave owners fleeing south with their chattel, both reducing the number of blacks in the Union (as you pointed out, a popular move), and lowering the total compensation paid.
A low compensation amount would encourage this immensely.
Slave owner "Hmmm.... I can stay here, and end up with $70/slave, or go South, and they're worth 10x that. Gee, I wonder... Which would make more economic sense."

And suddenly, the Union only has to pay out half of what they budgeted.

Edit:

So is Congress going for a compensation scheme that will be considered "insultingly cheap", and which will certainly drive those poor slaveholders towards significant losses and even more significant politial outrage? No. Probably not.

Is Congress going to go for a scheme that will be considered "insultingly expensive" (to the vast majority of Union citizens who AREN'T slaveholders?) I don't think so. Drive slave holders to significant losses? Well, 'Slave Power' had a very poor name in the Union, and I'll bet there will be few tears shed.
Political outrage? More political outrage over paying the money, IMO, than in weeping for Reb-symp slaveocrats.
Besides, as I just mentioned, the bulk of the Union will consider the alternative of them leaving (getting rid of both slaveocrats and blacks, AND reducing the tax burden on poor white farmers in the North?) This isn't just a twofer, it's a Trifecta. No downside. (To everyone in e.g. New York).

Political controversy? Maybe.
But if any serious numbers of Democrats push the issue, they'll let the Republicans sweep the House next election.

 

[Mrstrategy]

how much did the British had the union pay them?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Also. What does the Union do about Senators. Senators are elected in 3 cohorts (1/3 every 3 years) so that there's supposed to be a constant turn over. If the leaving states happen to not be evenly distributed, that's going to distort the balance of those cohorts, and may need some tweaking of election dates to fix the constitutional mandate (which I THINK is 1/3 every 2 years).

 

[Saphroneth]

Simple. Add Nevada to cheat.

 

[Mrstrategy]

Simple. Add Nevada to cheat.

lol

 

[Skallagrim]

Is Congress going to go for a scheme that will be considered "insultingly expensive" (to the vast majority of Union citizens who AREN'T slaveholders?) I don't think so. Drive slave holders to significant losses? Well, 'Slave Power' had a very poor name in the Union, and I'll bet there will be few tears shed.
Political outrage? More political outrage over paying the money, IMO, than in weeping for Reb-symp slaveocrats.

You have a point with what you wrote about 'driving out the slavers' as a deliberate strategy, but here you are projecting modern views on the past. A lot of people, not owning slaves, living in the north, were still opposed to taking away others' "property". (Not entirely strange: the era was hardly enlightened. Northerners, by and large, fought for the Union, not for the slaves. And they figured if the government was just going to take one man's property... whose property would they decide to, ah, "emancipate" next? This was, at that time, still something people were rather wary about.)

Unlike one might think now, people in the North hated the perceived betrayal of secessionism, not slavery itself. Most people didn't care all that much about that. For nearly the entire war in OTL (changing only near the end), the Republicans (except a relatively small group of radicals) had deliberately been railing against secession. Not against slavery. No-one was going to fight to "free the slaves", but many would fight to "save the Union". And this was known. Slave-owners wren't universally hated in the north, like you seem to think. Probably not loved either, but those states that stayed with the Union were considered loyal. In this TL, with the much shorter war, the vast majority of the people in the north don't even associate the war with slavery all that much. (A certain irony in that: northerners considering the war being about secession, southerners openly admitting it was about slavery. That may change with time, but what a contrast with OTL's modern-day attitudes!)

So perhaps, yes, a goernment strategy of driving out the slavers might be considered by those in power. But "fleecing" people and "taking their property" (because that was, sadly, still how it was seen) would not be able to count on the popular support you imagine. In fact, the best way to sell the strategy you suggest to the masses is not "it will drive out the slavers" but "it will rid us of those negroes".

Political controversy? Maybe.
But if any serious numbers of Democrats push the issue, they'll let the Republicans sweep the House next election.

I really, really doubt that. In fact, if the Republicans mismanage this issue, it'll cost them come next election. If they pay too much, they'll sure be seen as squandering money. But if they come across as vindictive, "property-stealing bullies", alienating (presumed) "loyal citizens", the Democrats will charge that the Republicans cannot let go of a war they lost in the first place. That they are causing still more division, even in a Union already much reduced. In a post-war time, unity must be promoted...

 

[Saphroneth]

how much did the British had the union pay them?

Not a great deal, in fact the British purchased some of Maine from the Union so the money technically went that way. There were probably a number of payments assessed from the Union to individuals, though, as compensation for cotton or food siezures in 1861 by the Union blockade.

Also. What does the Union do about Senators. Senators are elected in 3 cohorts (1/3 every 3 years) so that there's supposed to be a constant turn over. If the leaving states happen to not be evenly distributed, that's going to distort the balance of those cohorts, and may need some tweaking of election dates to fix the constitutional mandate (which I THINK is 1/3 every 2 years).

Here's a more serious treatment of the issue.

Assuming Maryland remains a separate US state, here's how it is before adding in Nevada:

17 First Class
12 Second Class
15 Third Class

So they have 44 seats and ideally would have two more Seconds and two fewer Firsts.
Maryland is First and Third, as is Missouri.

If they remove Maryland, then they need to add in eight Senators (of whom four would be Second and the other four one of the other two classes) to get something like 17:16:17 and restore things. If they just rejigger Maryland to be Second-Third, then that's effectively like removing Maryland and adding two other Senators, while just fiat declaring Maryland and Missouri should have Second-Third instead of First-Third would fix it instantly.

On the other hand, the Constitution states they should be divided as equally as may be, and one could argue that they're just going to live with the inequality until the classes even out again (which would take the addition of six states, bringing the classes to 19:18:19 - if they split a state like Michigan, Minnesota or Wisconsin that could be done pretty quickly, if they stick strictly to OTL it wouldn't even out for another forty five years (Nevada Nebraska Colorado NorDakota SouDakota Montana)

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

@Skallagrim . I agree, the war wasn't against slavery, it was against secession. True.
There may not have been much hatred of slave owners, per se, I'll buy that. But 'Slaveocracy' or 'Slave Power', the (accurate) view that the slaveowners of the South were trying to dictate to the North by refusing to pass anything they didn't agree with, WAS a political topic and a definite political theme in the North.
Given the CSA went so far as to shatter the Union, I would suspect that there will be very, very little sympathy for the remaining slave owners in the North. Certainly, I can see that 'stealing their property' would be a problem. But they're not. They're proposing the same terms the Brits offered their slave owners (as I understand the TL). Certainly, too, SOME people will loudly claim the slave owners are being cheated, and many might initially agreed. But faced with 'How much do you want to have your taxes raised to pay to people who are already rich', I really, really think that public opinion would come down heavily on the 'How can we get away with paying less' side, rather than the 'They wuz robbed' side.

Moreover, any remaining slaveholders can be tarred with the 'Rebel sympathizer' brush politically (whether true or not), which is going to make their protestations a lot less sympathetic.

Also, many slave owners in the past, when faced with abolition in various states did sell their slaves south, or moved south. It's something that has already happened before the PoD. Given that almost all of the remaining slave owners are near the new CSA border, and given that the CSA economy isn't collapsing (visibly) unlike the Union; and given that emancipation of their slaves (even with some compensation) is going to wreck the economies of their northern plantations; given all those things, I think even more slave owners will be either selling their slaves south or moving south with them.

Of course, some will try to have it both ways - get rid of the slaves, and claim the money anyway, or take the money, nominally free the slaves, and then force them south and back into slavery.

You get a few of THOSE stories going around, and the support for the slave owners will drop further.

The Union is in desperate financial shape here. They are, apparently, committed to paying for slaves in good money (gold, say) rather than greenbacks, and they just don't have a whole lot of that. Which will make the cost far more painful than the mere dollar value, which is bad enough.

 

[Saphroneth]

The Union is in desperate financial shape here. They are, apparently, committed to paying for slaves in good money (gold, say) rather than greenbacks, and they just don't have a whole lot of that. Which will make the cost far more painful than the mere dollar value, which is bad enough.

This is not something they're planning on doing immediately - certainly they're going to want the California gold to resume first!
Indeed, Lincoln's got two years left in office, and it might be a good plan for the 1864 election - or it might just be a good plan to get the Democrat (McClellan?) elected, or even for a Fremont/McClellan election.
(McClellan does in fact have a moderate claim to fame here - he saved a fair chunk of the Army of the Potomac, and nobody else has done much better!)

 

[Skallagrim]

The Union is in desperate financial shape here. They are, apparently, committed to paying for slaves in good money (gold, say) rather than greenbacks, and they just don't have a whole lot of that. Which will make the cost far more painful than the mere dollar value, which is bad enough.

They could be really slippery about it, of course, and offer a choice between "full price" in paper money, or lower price in specie dollars. Obviously a dirty trick, but you could sell it to the public. "Damned war influenced the money value. Not our fault. and hey, if Joe regular has to deal with devaluated paper money, why would it be too good for mister bigshot in his plantation home?" something like that.

I still think it's an issue that must be handled smartly. It can blow up in your face. But let's be clear: I agree with you that the strategy of deliberately using this whole affair to "urge" slave-owners to go south is a very realistic outcome. The offered deal would have to be not too low, so you can claim to be the reasonable party, but low enough to make the deal unattractive to most slave-owners. And when promoting it, you need to indeed cast the slavers as Confederate sympathisers... and especially (though it galls me on a fundamental level, this notion*), you need to put the focus on "they're taking all those black slaves with them, guys! More land for whites!"


[*I know, it fits in the era's mentality, but it just feels dirty. The one damned thing about shorter civil war TLs, no matter how they turn it, is that the Union doesn't get the chance to be led firmly onto the righteous path of destroying slavery once and for all, in all of the US.]

 

[Saphroneth]

[*I know, it fits in the era's mentality, but it just feels dirty. The one damned thing about shorter civil war TLs, no matter how they turn it, is that the Union doesn't get the chance to be led firmly onto the righteous path of destroying slavery once and for all, in all of the US.]

You would be surprised how often in published material (and other TLs) the Union, or the Union plus the Confederacy, just gets rid of slavery outright after having beaten up the British.
It's almost a meme.

 

[Mrstrategy]

Is Mexico ok or not?

 

[Saphroneth]

Is Mexico ok or not?

Depends what you mean by okay. And Mexico.

The Mexican Empire is about a year ahead of schedule, and support for the Republican cause is lower than OTL since there was no Battle of Puebla (no Cinco de Mayo, in fact).

 

[The Gunslinger]

The new Canadian border mostly makes sense (I think Britain would have been a little more vindictive, but that`s just me), the only thing with the new St. Lawrence border is that I`m fairly sure they'd take Plattsburgh too.