Wrapped in Flames: The Great American War and Beyond

[Darth_Kiryan]

But he also said he would be avoiding TL-191 analogues as well...

That I absolutely am! So don't expect that as an analogue going forward.

Hmmm, partially a geography issue, partially an international politics issue. For Britain, I encourage to think of their reactions to some coming events of the 19th century in terms of "Splendid Isolation" but also that they will be pivoting to a number of broader global threats in Asia, Europe and Africa by the end of the century.

North America will be no less a political minefield, but the US can't afford to focus on just Canada either. The new cleavage of the US in two is not going to do wonders for national domestic unity.

But as a reminder, the Monroe Doctrine is now dead and buried, which means more European poking around in the Americas for better or for worse...

Oh good, so, no taking of Northern Mexico for a Pacific port. Which probably mean Caribbean expansion, possibly. But then that makes them trying to take Cuba. LOL. So much LOL.
Its also odd that Mexican Empire usually equals Pro-confederacy whereas Republicn Mexico usually equals pro-US.

Hmmmm.
Franco-Confederate Alliance I can see. Which makes it funny if the Confederates try and flex their muscles and aid France in the Franco-Prussian War.
Which means a possible Prussian-Russian alliance.

Do we have a Monarch for Canada yet? I assume that the British Royal family will be the dominant overlord, but I'd assume to some degree that you would have an semi-independent Monarch of Canada

 

[Nenshou Yuuki]

Oh good, so, no taking of Northern Mexico for a Pacific port. Which probably mean Caribbean expansion, possibly. But then that makes them trying to take Cuba. LOL. So much LOL.
Its also odd that Mexican Empire usually equals Pro-confederacy whereas Republicn Mexico usually equals pro-US.

Hmmmm.
Franco-Confederate Alliance I can see. Which makes it funny if the Confederates try and flex their muscles and aid France in the Franco-Prussian War.
Which means a possible Prussian-Russian alliance.

Do we have a Monarch for Canada yet? I assume that the British Royal family will be the dominant overlord, but I'd assume to some degree that you would have an semi-independent Monarch of Canada

I imagine they might do something like the Prince of Wales for Canada, or like with India, it gets added to the current Monarchs title, so Victoria would be introduced as Empress of India and Queen of Canada. If the other OTL Dominions also become kingdoms, like Australia and New Zealand then they too may follow this precedent.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Oh good, so, no taking of Northern Mexico for a Pacific port. Which probably mean Caribbean expansion, possibly. But then that makes them trying to take Cuba. LOL. So much LOL.
Its also odd that Mexican Empire usually equals Pro-confederacy whereas Republicn Mexico usually equals pro-US.

Maximilian OTL wanted an independent Confederacy as a buffer between him and the United States (also the reason Napoleon III was pro-Confederate). And, really, neither Republican or Imperial Mexico were overtly pro or anti-US. The republicans were happy to use the Monroe Doctrine to gain support for their war against the Conservatives and the French, but they did not overtly like the US either - memories of the Mexican American War were still fresh.

Hmmmm.
Franco-Confederate Alliance I can see. Which makes it funny if the Confederates try and flex their muscles and aid France in the Franco-Prussian War.
Which means a possible Prussian-Russian alliance.

There's a possibility of either, that much I'll say. Though the Confederates won't be flexing their muscles on European matters any time soon...

Do we have a Monarch for Canada yet? I assume that the British Royal family will be the dominant overlord, but I'd assume to some degree that you would have an semi-independent Monarch of Canada

I have someone in mind, they'll be showing up soon.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I imagine they might do something like the Prince of Wales for Canada, or like with India, it gets added to the current Monarchs title, so Victoria would be introduced as Empress of India and Queen of Canada. If the other OTL Dominions also become kingdoms, like Australia and New Zealand then they too may follow this precedent.

That is one idea indeed. Victoria might accept that as a sign she's an Empress, but at the same time when Disraeli made her the Queen-Empress (as Queen of England and her colonies, but Empress of India) that was a convoluted method that worked too. So a similar attitude is probably what will be adopted immediately. Near as I can tell it wouldn't have bothered anyone in the halls of Parliament, but perhaps vexed members of the Court of Saint James who don't like changes in protocol.

 

[Ironshark]

I thought the whole point of canadian monarchism at the time was being under the house of Windsor and a connection to britian

would they really want their own Monarch?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I thought the whole point of canadian monarchism at the time was being under the house of Windsor and a connection to britian

would they really want their own Monarch?

In 1865 thats the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

But you do have a point. I'm unsure if when Macdonald was proposing the name he had envisioned a separate Canadian monarch other than Victoria, something I do doubt. However, with Canada presently being "special" as an awarded Kingdom of Canada under the Queen, there could be an argument made in the future that having a scion of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha running the show would tie Canada inflexibly to the Empire as a whole. I don't think the Queen will be convinced for now, but there certainly is a man for the job if he ever wanted it.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Chapter 111: A Full Bitter Peace​

“The way of peace they have not known, And there is no justice in their ways; They have made themselves crooked paths; Whoever takes that way shall not know peace.” - Isaiah 59:8 (KJV)

“The decision by President McClellan to declare the war over was greeted with some incredulity in Richmond. Not even Davis had appeared to believe it would be so simple. However, the normally cantankerous president was found cheering with the crowds, even embracing his normally hated enemy and vice president, Alexander Stephens…

At once he sent emissaries north to Washington to propose peace talks. He entreated Washington to look for some neutral place for the talks, lest sectarian tensions run high as they had in Louisville. This would be agreed to amicably by Washington, which wanted to distance itself from the talks in a very physical sense.” - Through Fire and Fury: The Davis Administration, William A. Davis, Random House, 1999

“Like the efforts to find a peace treaty between Britain and the United States, the greatest sticking point between the two sections came from precisely where to hold the talks. Holding it in either Washington or Richmond was unacceptable. Britain graciously offered cities like Toronto, Quebec or Halifax, even Kingston in Bermuda, which was declined by both Richmond and Washington. France offered to host the talks in Paris, but both sides realized this was impractical.

The hammer blow of recognition of the Confederacy further soured Washington on the so called neutrality of the European powers. It was also the last nail in the coffin for those who wished to continue the war. Unwilling to potentially earn the ire of a united section of European powers, even the most truculent of politicians grimly accepted that this was the only way to avoid a potentially worse war the United States could not win. “It is clear from the recent declarations that a sizable coalition exists in Europe in favor of the recognition of the Confederacy with… the military power to enforce its will upon these shores in its favor,” Seymour would relate unhappily to McClellan.

Finally, at the insistence of Secretary of State Seymour, the United States and the Confederacy agreed to mediate their differences in a treaty overseen by Spain in Havana…” - To Arms!: The Great American War, Sheldon Foote, University of Boston 1999.

“Havana in 1865 was inarguably the jewel in the crown of Spain’s remaining colonial territories in the New World. One of the most vibrant ports in the Caribbean, it was the beating heart of Spain’s commercial interests. Sugar, rum, cotton and a plethora of other exports ran through its harbor and into the ports of the Gulf and then back to Europe and the coasts of North America. From there Spain managed her commercial interests, and also the largest plantation economy outside of the South. The vast colonial palaces which the Spanish government used as headquarters for their civil and military administration would serve for the negotiations between the two sides.

The city was, ironically, in the midst of its own political feud not unlike that of the American Republic when the war had begun. The Captain General of Cuba, Domingo Dulce, was a staunch abolitionist and as such was much friendlier to the Northern delegation. The civil government of Havana, run by Mayor Julián de Zulueta, was far friendlier to the Confederates. Zulueta was the largest sugar baron and slave trader on the island, putting him at odds with Dule, and the two would soon have a major political confrontation over the issue. As such, while the Americans would be much more entertained by the colonial government, the representatives of the plantations, colonial commerce and business interests of the island would wine and dine their Southern counterparts[1].

The two delegations would, despite generous offers from the Spanish colonial authorities, settle at the Hotel Inglaterra. The two sides would meet in the lecture halls of the University of Havana, next to the palace for the ease of all sides…

The Hotel Inglaterra, where the diplomats would rest and informally discuss the most important treaty in 19th Century American history​

McClellan had selected the United States delegation partially out of loyalty, but partially for their skills as well. Caleb Cushing, now the unhappy leader in two defeated treaty negotiations, would be the lead negotiator for the Union. “I am sad to my bones to have to undertake so galling a duty twice in so many years,” he would write unhappily to a friend. He was accompanied by Secretary of State Seymour, who was well liked by all parties. Samuel Nelson took a leave of absence from the Supreme Court to help adjudicate the meeting as a legal expert. William B. Franklin and Joseph Smith were sent as military representatives on the insistence of McClellan.

The Confederate delegation was no less impressive, led by Vice President Alexander Stephens, it was composed of some formidable minds from the Confederacy. Though some then and now questioned the choice of Stephens, known to get ill easily and thus susceptible to the yellow fever which plagued the island, Davis is apocryphally said to have justified his choice by saying “He will go to Havana and will either secure the independence of our Confederacy, or die trying. Preferably both.”

In turn he was supported by the Assistant Secretary of War and former Supreme Court judge, John Archibald Campell. He was joined by Robert T. Hunter of Virginia and Duncan F. Kenner, one of Davis’s chief diplomats and confidants. Finally, Major General Alexander Lawton was attached as a military consultant at the insistence of the War Department.

The discussions of how to divide a nation began on October 20th. Meeting in the lecture halls there was some initial friendly banter between delegates, most of whom had worked together in the halls of Washington, and at last they turned to the awkward issue of ending the war.

Once negotiations began in earnest, it became clear neither side was willing to budge on key issues…

The basic claim of the Confederate States, the independence of the 11 states which had seceded in 1861 was fairly simple for the United States to agree to. They only controlled part of Arkansas and a small strip of coastal South Carolina. The Union delegates were more than willing to agree to part with those territories which had actively voted for secession. However, the Confederates did not merely stop there. They claimed that they should have control over all the territories they occupied, including the Arizona Territory, the Indian Territory, and Kentucky and Maryland. A claim on Missouri was quickly dropped as they had no means of backing it up, having never occupied it in force.

Cushing balked, informing the Confederate delegation that there could be no such “vast surrender of territory” for nothing in return. His fellows also adroitly pointed out that if the Confederacy claimed all of Kentucky based on occupation, the United States could claim all of Arkansas. Maryland was seen as even more of an outrageous demand. True the Confederates remained in the state capital, that was all. Furthermore they were besieged and utterly at the mercy of the army surrounding them.

Kentucky was the only ground that some of the delegates might be moved to consider. There had not been a Unionist civilian government in Kentucky since 1862 and they had taken the Confederate governor prisoner in 1864 during the Overland Campaign, and even now faced considerable discontent as the state had been declared in insurrection before the election. This was an issue the United States believed it could overcome, but arguments remained between factions, and when the negotiations commenced, McClellan had issued a firm dictate that there was to be no movement on Kentucky.

The Union delegates did however bend on the Indian Territory, an area seen less as a resource and a future drain on money due to the costs of development and occupation. The Arizona Territory, Maryland, and Kentucky issues were tabled for the moment…” - Staking Claims to a Continent: The North American Revolutions of the 1860s, James Latimer, Anansi Press, 2017

“A continuation of issues addressed at Louisville was the issue of trade on the Mississippi River. Formerly the greatest artery of trade in the United States, the advent of the canals and railroads lessened the sting of loss of the mouth of the Mississippi. However, it still carried a great volume of traffic, and the possibility that the Confederates would waylay or upcharge tariffs on United States goods weighed heavily on the minds of merchants and politicians. To the surprise of many, the Confederacy was less interested in raising tariffs on the Mississippi trade than it was on securing its territorial gains and property rights. In barely a few hours time they agreed that ‘trade and transportation on the Mississippi within the Confederacy by United States shipping, with the exception of vessels of war, shall be unhindered, save for the collection of duties.’ Both sides agreed that raising duties on the Mississippi would be discussed by joint committees of each nation…

With trade talks out of the way, the Confederates got around to an issue that they found extremely important, the issue of their slave property.

An estimated 200,000 slaves had escaped bondage during the Union’s advance through Confederate territory. Many of those had taken up arms against their former masters, something Southerners found abominable. They demanded that with the war ceasing, there be an accord for the return of their property and the potential for ‘insurrectionists’ to be brought to the Confederacy and placed on trial for any crimes they might have permitted. The South appeared to believe that they could revive the Fugitive Slave Act to settle the issue of escaping slaves.

Naturally the United States delegates refused. Even though they were not abolitionists and a few were even friendly to the South on the slave question, they could not reconcile the Confederate demands to essentially deputize their nation to allow the Confederates to pursue runaways onto American soil. “It would be a rank violation of our sovereignty over an issue the United States is now free to decide for itself,” Secretary Seymour would declare haughtily to his counterparts.

“Slavery remains legal within these United States,” Judge Nelson reminded them. “We enforce our laws and make no claim to the institutions of your country. There is no means by which the United States should feel compelled to police your negroes.”

Talks soon deadlocked as it became clear that the United States would not budge on the issue, and the Confederacy was determined to find some way to recover its property. They suggested monetary compensation, but still the Union said no. There would be no acknowledgement of the escaped slaves going to the United States in the treaty, much to the anger of the worst of the Fire Eaters in the Confederacy. The failure of the delegates to secure even compensation for their slaves was going to be an ongoing issue in Confederate politics…

The status of freedmen would be contentious well into the 1870s​

Reparations was an issue both sides believed was owed. The Confederacy believed they were owed compensation for issues that had forced them to secede. The Union delegates believed the Confederacy still owed its debts as part of the United States up until 1864. Each side argued, refused, or claimed that no reparations could be made. The Confederates argued they had seceded in 1861 and owed nothing of the war debts “the self inflicted wounds” as Stephens would call them, accumulated from 1861-65. In turn the United States did not believe it owed a single penny to the Confederacy for any damages inflicted during the war. It was another impasse that seemed unbreakable. The conversations would continue into December, and the year would creep towards its end without a firm agreement being established.

Word was communicated to Richmond that, beyond the Mississippi trade, the security of the seceding states and two territories, it seemed an impasse had been reached…” - To Arms!: The Great American War, Sheldon Foote, University of Boston 1999.

“The Davis administration met in an emergency cabinet meeting on the 22nd of December. Davis was in a furor over the ‘perfidy’ of the American delegates. Most of the cabinet agreed that there might have to be a return to military action, however regrettably, in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

It once again fell to Judah Benjamin to find a face saving compromise. He suggested that, as an honorable maneuver, the South could instead offer to pay its share of the national debt as it had existed in 1861. In exchange, the United States would guarantee a referendum in Kentucky on secession. After all, he explained, the people of Kentucky were never allowed to express their wishes on peace in an open election, why should anyone fear what they might express in a fair vote?

An irritated Davis shot back that they might vote for Union and the Confederacy would get nothing. Benjamin concurred, but said that it would mollify Kentuckians' sense of honor, as well as give the United States room to withdraw from that issue. It could also, he announced, be the reasonable stepping stone to an eventual withdrawal from Annapolis, and thus be an incentive for the United States to move forward in negotiations.

Reluctantly, Davis acquiesced to this counter proposal…” - Through Fire and Fury: The Davis Administration, William A. Davis, Random House, 1999

The quiet hand of Judah Benjamin would do much to influence Southern foreign policy​

“Though not initially well received, assurances from McClellan that a “loyal Democratic state” would remain with the United States and the Confederacy would pay deserved reparation was enough to move the matter forward. The United States delegation agreed that the Confederacy would pay ⅓ of the national debt as it existed in 1861 and in exchange both sides, rather than withdrawing, would remain in Kentucky until a referendum could be held in 1866…

Almost immediately after the ending of that issue, once again the issue of territory came up. Though the Southern delegates had made a paltry and quickly dismissed claim to West Virginia, the United States demanded territorial concessions for the security of Washington. The counties of Loudon, Fairfax, and Prince William should be ceded to the District of Columbia for the capital’s defense.

Hunter furiously exploded during the proposal. “First a third of our state is carved up and such secession honored as loyalty while we are derided as traitors, now you mean to steal yet more? How much will the Old Dominion sacrifice in blood and soil until the lust of the United States is satisfied?”

Richmond, Franklin pointed out, was a hundred miles from Washington, while the Virginia border was directly on the Potomac. He offered to exchange no territory if the Confederacy agreed to allow the United States to ring the city with heavy guns. Further acrimonious debate followed, but the Confederate delegates finally relented when the Union renounced any claims to the proposed Arizona Territory. Hunter and Stephens were not mollified however. Stephens was only later convinced to accept this as a prerequisite for the security of the nation…

One of the most difficult acts was the discussion of the collection of the dead. Tens of thousands of men lay dead in fields from Pennsylvania to Arizona. In some cases their families might never know what became of their loved ones. The treaty signers agreed that each government would, where possible, extend all care to finding and make no barrier to attempts to disinter the remains of family members or discover what had become of them as possible…

Finally, the two sides agreed that each would extend the same rights and privileges to each other's shipping in coastal and inland waters. Confederate shipping on the upper Mississippi would not be unduly scrutinized and United States shipping in the Gulf would not be unduly scrutinized or penalized. The bonds of trade would be allowed to thicken and flow…

With the final articles approved, the ratification was sent off to be agreed to in Washington and Richmond on January 2nd 1866…” - To Arms!: The Great American War, Sheldon Foote, University of Boston 1999.

“In Washington, with the meeting of the House, the treaty debates in the Senate were again acrimonious. The divided Republican party, while not presenting a fully united front, was sure it could move to, if not block the treaty, then gain more compensation from the Confederacy in further negotiations. The Democrats were all too aware that delay might severely harm their chances in the upcoming 1866 elections. There was a vested interest in getting the treaty passed so that the McClellan administration could move on to ‘bread and butter’ issues which could benefit the party.

Charles Sumner, naturally, led the charge against the treaty. His fiery invective blasted it as nothing more than a formal surrender of American power and sovereignty, while saying that his Democratic colleagues were “not merely satisfied with dishonoring the nation on the battlefield, but now felt fit to bow before the Slave Power and humiliate the United States before all the world.”

Despite his heavy, and often persuasive speeches, the Republicans had yet to command a majority in the Senate, and in the war of words in newsprint, the Democrats portrayed the delay as yet another Republican embarrassment. After all, the New York World would argue, it had been Lincoln who surrendered to the British and signed a treaty with them, was it not then his fault such a treaty had to be signed? Such twisted logic dominated the conversation, while Democratic policy makers focused solely on using their influence to ratify the treaty before potentially losing their slim majority in the Senate in 1866…

In the end, through sheer naked partisan politicking, the United States ratified the Treaty of Havana…” - The Era of Hard Feelings, William Avery, Random House, 1989

“The raucous session of the Confederate Senate in January 1866 to ratify the treaty was particularly contentious. In particular, two states, Virginia and South Carolina, argued vehemently against the treaty as it existed.

Virginia, in part because of the partial dismemberment of their state, argued that they could not in good conscience accept such a treaty. Allen Caperton of Virginia and Senator James L. Orr of South Carolina were unanimous in their dissent, and they represented two powerful political factions, and unfortunately, Senator Orr headed the Foreign Affairs Committee. Both men could command a strong force in the Senate, and even Davis was wary of challenging them outright on the treaty, instead, looking to his allies to manage the issue.

Orr was outraged at the loss of property and the “blow against the morals of slavery” by “the largest act of theft ever perpetrated on the North American continent[2]” by the United States. Many slave owners in the border states were equally outraged as they felt the administration was doing nothing to protect their property or compensate them for its loss. That this was beyond its ability to provide was beside the point.

“The very goals of our Revolution are being undermined in Havana,” Robert Barnwell Rhett would write in the Charleston Mercury. “The prospect that hundreds of thousands of slaves might simply be carried off with no compensation and perhaps allowed to return as violent mobs to murder their masters in their beds and butcher white women and children must by necessity fill the reader with dread.”

Other such inflammatory invective would follow, but despite supporters speaking out against the treaty, most of the Confederate Senate supported its ratification. However, not enough for the necessary majority. Pro-treaty Senators spoke of the need for peace, while anti-treaty Senators were appalled and outraged by the unwillingness of Davis to push for the outright protection of the property of men of means being written into the treaty itself.

Unfortunately, the two sides would be held up for two weeks, and it was only the intervention of Stephens himself writing from Havana that would convince the Senate to pass the treaty. In doing so, it created an independent Confederacy, but created rifts which would echo into the 1867 election and beyond in Confederate politics. Two of the leading secessionist states were infuriated by the concessions, and the looming post-war political showdowns now had a new powder keg…” - Through Fire and Fury: The Davis Administration, William A. Davis, Random House, 1999

“With the Treaty of Havana ratified, much was left unsaid. The Confederacy had not secured the right to pursue or even attempt to extract its property from the United States. Despite allowing the pursuit of criminals and the means of extradition across the border for murderers, thieves, and other miscreants, that method remained to be tested if those criminals themselves were enslaved persons. Even so, would it be legal for a citizen of the United States to sell a slave to the Confederacy, or did that violate United States laws on the international slave trade? Furthermore, it did not resolve the thorny issues of the Southwest, where the as yet unpacified Indian tribes raided as far north as Colorado and south as Mexico with a new means of protection in the form of the border.

For every question the treaty answered, it seemed to leave another waiting to be asked with all the problems that may entail. However, as of February 19th 1866, the two sides had ratified the treaty separating the United States in two, changing the trajectory of North American history…” To Arms!: The Great American War, Sheldon Foote, University of Boston 1999.

----

1] True as to the state of Cuba’s politics in the 1860s. Many plantation owners on the island were getting filthy rich from the plantation system, but the Spanish government had its own abolitionist faction that worked to abolish slavery on the island, much to the discontent of the Cuban planter class. That was one of the reasons many on Cuba were pro-Confederate, but the Spanish government itself was not necessarily outright pro-Confederate versus merely sympathetic to their potential to serve Spanish aims.

2] I assure you the irony is lost on him.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Treaty of Peace and Separation between The Confederate States and the United States of America.​

The Governments of the United States and Confederate States have agreed to create a lasting peace on the basis of separation and so desire to make relations between their two nations as harmonious as possible. For the purposes of Peace and Friendship they have appointed the following respective Plenipotentiaries:

Representatives of the United States:

Caleb Cushing, Horatio Seymour, Samuel Nelson, William Franklin, Joseph Smith

Representatives of the Confederate States:

Alexander Stephens, John Campbell, Robert Hunter, Duncan Kenner, Alexander Lawton

Article I

There shall be a firm and universal peace between the United States and the Confederate States, and between their respective citizens, without any exception of places and persons. The two nations shall endeavour to use their utmost efforts to preserve a perfect harmony between them and shall not permit any act of hostility whatever by sea or by land for any cause or under any pretext. Upon the ratification of the treaty the soldiers and Officers of either side shall endeavour to ensure that all public property is respected, and any private property of either side shall not be imposed upon by their forces.

Article II

The United States acknowledges the sovereign and political independence of the Confederate States of America as a separate republic. It acknowledges the territory of the Confederate States is to consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia (excepting those counties specified in Article X), the Arizona Territory and Indian Territory. The status of Kentucky is laid out in Article IX. The United States forever repudiates any and all claims to these territories.

Article III

Upon the ratification of this treaty the United States and Confederate States shall transmit orders to their respective naval forces wherever they may be operating to cease all hostile actions against the vessels and shipping of their respective nations.

Article IV

Upon the ratification of this Treaty the United States agrees to lift the blockade of the Confederate States and shall endeavour to ensure that all commerce, of whatever origin, shall be allowed to move unimpeded and unrestricted along the Confederate coasts and the waters of the Mississippi.

Article V

All prisoners taken by either side, on land or sea, without regard to race or previous condition of servitude, shall be restored within three months of the exchange of mutual ratifications of this treaty.

Article VI

Once both parties have ratified the Treaty and the attendant territorial agreements, treaty, the military forces of the United States shall begin to withdraw from all territory of the Confederate States currently under their occupation, and the military forces of the Confederate States shall begin to withdraw from all territory of the United States currently under their occupation, with such withdrawal to be completed in no less than three months.

Article VII

Military posts, forts, and other government facilities that belonged to the United States government within the confines of a Confederate state on the date of that state’s secession from the United States shall devolve to the Confederate States.

Article VIII

The Confederate States forever repudiates any and all territorial claims to the State of Maryland, the State of West Virginia and the State of Missouri.

Article IX

The people of the State of Kentucky shall be given the chance to decide for themselves whether they wish to join the Confederacy or remain in the United States. As such, a plebiscite shall be held no later than within six months of the ratification of the treaty to determine their future status. Five commissioners from each government shall be appointed to oversee and manage the plebiscite. No effort shall be made by either party to unduly influence the plebiscite.

Article X

The following counties of Virginia shall be ceded to the District of Columbia: Loudon, Fairfax, Alexandria and Prince William.

Article XI

Persons who were held to servitude under the laws of the Confederate States and were set at liberty by the military forces of the United States during the late war and have since relocated to the United States are hereby granted the legal status of free individuals. Claims of ownership of such individuals by citizens of the Confederate States are to be considered absolutely null and void.

Article XII

When traveling into the United States, citizens of the Confederate States shall not be permitted to bring persons held to servitude under the laws of the Confederate States with them onto the territory of the United States, including aboard private vessels in United States waters.

Article XIII

The vessels and citizens of the United States shall have free, unhindered and uninterrupted use of the Mississippi River for means of transportation, armed vessels of a military nature alone excepted. In the Confederate ports on the Mississippi River, citizens of the United States shall enjoy the same rights and privileges on matters of deposit and harbor fees as citizens of the Confederate States. The same privileges shall be extended to vessels and citizens of the Confederate States in United States waters of the Mississippi.

Article XIV

Tolls and Fees on shipping and trade on the Mississippi shall not be raised without a mutual agreement by either party. Both nations shall endeavour to negotiate in good faith with one another on those fees.

Article XV

Vessels of one nation that are legally in the jurisdiction of the other nation shall be subject to the same rules, regulations and protections as are extended to the vessels of the other nation, but vessels belonging to a citizen of the United States or flying the flag of the United States shall not be permitted to transport persons held to servitude in the Confederate States. When any vessel of either nation is found wrecked, foundered, or otherwise in distress within the jurisdiction of the other, the crew and vessel shall receive the same assistance which would be due to the citizens of the nation in which the incident takes place.

Article XVI

Both nations agree that creditors on either side shall face no legal impediment to the full recovery of any legitimate debts they may have accrued before the separation of the United States and Confederate States in the matter of private business, legislation passed by either government in the interim notwithstanding.

Article XVII

One third of the United States national debt as of January 1, 1861, shall be assumed by the Confederate States, agreed upon as the sum of 21,650,000$.

Article XVIII

The United States and the Confederate States, on applications made in their name through the medium of their respective diplomatic or consular agents, shall deliver up to justice such persons who, being charged with murder, attempt to commit murder, rape, forgery, arson, robbery, or embezzlement, committed within the jurisdiction of the requiring party, shall be found within the territories of the other, provided that this shall be done only when the fact of the commission of the crime shall be so established as to justify their apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime had been committed in the country where the persons so accused shall be found. The expense of the detention and delivery shall be at the cost of the party making the demand.

Article XIX

The United States and Confederate States resolve to do their utmost to aid in the discovery and disposition the remains of the fallen soldiers of either side of the conflict. No barrier shall be erected in the search for the dead or the construction of monuments to them on either side of the border.

This Treaty when the same shall have been ratified on both sides without alteration by either of the contracting parties, and the Ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be binding on both parties, and the Ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington in the space of four months from this day or sooner if practicable. In faith whereof, We the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty, and have hereunto affixed our Seals.

---

This is my attempt to write a less than comprehensive Treaty for a peace of separation between the United States and the Confederate States.

An enormous shoutout to the amazing author Jeffery Brooks who has written probably the most detailed novella Blessed are the Peacemakers about negotiations between the Confederate States and the United States on the issue of how such a treaty would be negotiated. Some of these articles were ones written by the author himself – the wording is so well done and reads in many ways like a historic document that I had to include them. Other than editing for my purposes, and some clauses that are particular to Wrapped in Flames, quite a bit of this is how Brooks wrote it. I make no claim to his work and merely have adapted his wonderful writing to my purposes. Definitely check the books he’s written out if you’re intrigued by this treaty!

 

[Teiresias]

Near as I can tell it wouldn't have bothered anyone in the halls of Parliament, but perhaps vexed members of the Court of Saint James who don't like changes in protocol.

Why do I get the feeling that many of those vexed members have jobs around protocol that could be at risk if people start thinking protocol isn't all that important?

The Governor General of Cuba

Shouldn't that be 'Captain General'?

 

[DarkAvenger]

So that's the end of the war. Doesn't look like both sides are completely happy with the result. Perhaps Winfield Scott is right that it is an armistice that would last for a generation. But I bet US animosity with Europe will last a few generations.

Also, that part about Davis sending Alexander Stephens and the apocryphal statement that he either secures Confederate independence or dies trying before stating preferably both is rather callous. Davis must really hate him to (maybe) wish for that.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Why do I get the feeling that many of those vexed members have jobs around protocol that could be at risk if people start thinking protocol isn't all that important?

Oh you may be on to something...

I've done some reading on the lives of the royal families of Japan and the United Kingdom, and apparently the courtiers who enforce protocols and tradition are just the worst. Maybe that would entice someone away from the throne of England to somewhere more rustic...

Shouldn't that be 'Captain General'?

You're certainly right it should!

 

[EnglishCanuck]

So that's the end of the war. Doesn't look like both sides are completely happy with the result. Perhaps Winfield Scott is right that it is an armistice that would last for a generation. But I bet US animosity with Europe will last a few generations.

It was a treaty that was, almost inevitably, going to fully satisfy neither side. The animosity on both sides will last a long time.

Also, that part about Davis sending Alexander Stephens and the apocryphal statement that he either secures Confederate independence or dies trying before stating preferably both is rather callous. Davis must really hate him to (maybe) wish for that.

Davis and Stephens quite famously hated one another to the point they would try to be out of the city of Richmond if the other was present. Stephens, unlike Davis, was a Fire Eater and a driver of Confederate ideological thought to the worst points. Davis, for all his faults, was more practical than Stephens in many ways, and Stephens considered Davis too extreme in his willingness to trample on states rights to win the war. The two men did not get along to put it mildly.

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

Honestly neither side should be happy about a peace treaty, that's how you know it will last!

But being serious, both sides are headed for some rough times, the USA to clean up house and recover debt while the CSA seems fine but they will have their own issues too and that aren't likely to improve with how time goes by.

 

[Icedaemon]

The relationship between Davis and Stephens is lovely, standard procedure between politicians actually openly and honestly displayed is a rarity.

Article IX

The people of the State of Kentucky shall be given the chance to decide for themselves whether they wish to join the Confederacy or remain in the United States. As such, a plebiscite shall be held no later than within six months of the ratification of the treaty to determine their future status. Five commissioners from each government shall be appointed to oversee and manage the plebiscite. No effort shall be made by either party to unduly influence the plebiscite.

But what of option 3? Independent commonwealth of Kentucky when?

They would have to get a flag first, granted. A real one, instead on a daft seal on a plain blue background.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Honestly neither side should be happy about a peace treaty, that's how you know it will last!

As all unhappy peaces do!

But being serious, both sides are headed for some rough times, the USA to clean up house and recover debt while the CSA seems fine but they will have their own issues too and that aren't likely to improve with how time goes by.

In the immediate post-war world both the US and CSA have to worry about their economies. For the US, their monetary supply is trashed, with inflation climbing to soaring heights and a domestic market that is about to contract rapidly as hundreds of thousands of soldiers are released from the army to return home. Otherwise, they've been humbled and hurt, losing a third of their territory (plus the bit of Maine snipped off by Britain) and a sizable chunk of their pre-war revenue generation. The scars of the war will linger on for some time.

The CSA is only mildly better off, but its lost over 20% of its young men between the ages of 18-25, setting the stage for a lovely little demographic shock. The Upper South has been hammered by the war, while there's nasty political divides emerging too. Economically, they're slightly better off, but only because they managed to largely stabilize their currency. There's different economic issues awaiting them, but we will get to those!

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The relationship between Davis and Stephens is lovely, standard procedure between politicians actually openly and honestly displayed is a rarity.

The relationship was just amazingly contentious. Stephens was actively attacking Davis's policies from 1862 until the end of the war OTL. Davis, to my knowledge, rarely had a nice thing to say about his VP, and generally ignored him when he was blasting him in letters for being "disloyal" to the cause. Whether the two were actually serving the same cause is indeed an open question.

But what of option 3? Independent commonwealth of Kentucky when?

They would have to get a flag first, granted. A real one, instead on a daft seal on a plain blue background.

Oh that would never be allowed to happen. Kentucky is too important as a buffer to either side.

 

[SultanArda]

There's different economic issues awaiting them, but we will get to those!

Let me guess, are these problems about slavery and/or Europeans realizing alternative cotton ways without talking to King Cotton himself?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Let me guess, are these problems about slavery and/or Europeans realizing alternative cotton ways without talking to King Cotton himself?

Somewhat, but not entirely. Southern cotton is still going to be much cheaper than any other source going into the 1870s* so their extraction based economy won't sink immediately, but will never hit the heady heights of the 1860 crop thanks to the wars destruction. Slavery will be a problem, but the sudden crippling impoverishment of many of the yeomen farmers of the Upper (and some in the Lower) South is going to be an issue that the Southern political class is not overwhelmingly ready to deal with.

Slavery of course will still be a problem, but so will thousands of freedmen who suddenly have weapons, training, and the means to use them to try and liberate their families. And it turns out that what the South envisioned its army to be in peace may not be enough to stop that...

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Chapter 112: A Tally of the Dead​

“It is easy for historians to mark points on a calendar and say that date or this day ended some conflict or a treaty was ratified. In truth, the wounds of conflicts can last far in advance of when they supposedly ended. For the Great American War, it was no different. Though when the war ended by decree on July 25th 1865, the nation had been fighting for four years, enduring blood and death before any formal peace treaty was signed. Even up until the final pen strokes at Havana, blood was being spilt in skirmishes and the bitter feuds from unresolved tensions which would mark 1866 on either side of the new borders in North America.

The casualties of the war were, even to today, staggering. It was the bloodiest conflict the United States had engaged in up to that point. Roughly 1.6 million men would participate in the war from the Loyal States at one point or another, while another estimated 750,000 would fight for the Confederacy in total. As many as 2,500,000 men would bear arms for the whole conflict. When one includes the 300,000 Anglo-Canadian soldiers who fought on land and sea at one point or another in the conflict, the true scale of the Great American War becomes clear. Almost three million men would fight, but a quarter of them would never return home.

While arriving at exact numbers of dead is difficult, official returns do offer at least some sense of the vast scale of death unleashed on North America from the Pacific slope to the Bay of Fundy. Approximately 140,000 men from the North would die in battle, while another 250,000 died of disease during the whole course of the war. Another 50,000 would perish in British or Confederate prison camps. While these numbers cannot be found to be completely accurate, and modern scholarship argues to this day over the number, it may be reliably estimated that the United States suffered upwards of 450,000 men who died in uniform.

The Confederate States suffered no less heavily. Through a combination of aggressive commanders, poorer infrastructure and other logistics issues, the Confederacy would have a larger proportion of battlefield deaths in comparison to the United States. Approximately 100,000 men died in combat fighting for the Confederacy between 1861 and 1865, while a further 29,000 died in Union prison camps. A further 166,000 are known to have died of accident or disease while in Southern service. In total, 295,000 men died while wearing Confederate gray.

Though most scholars of the Great American War have focused solely on the Union or Confederate armies, often thanks to the scholarship of the New Men in the post-war world, no tally of the dead would be complete without an examination of the Anglo-Canadian forces. Roughly 140,000 British soldiers and sailors would serve at one time or another in North America from California to the West Indies, whether in garrison, on sea or in the armies in Canada. These were supported by 145,000 militia from the colonies in North America and the Caribbean. Though it was mostly the soldiers in Canada who fought, some West Indies regiments did serve important garrison duties, which does include them in the tally of the dead. 35,000 Canadians died of all causes during the war, mainly from disease. 15,400[1] soldiers and sailors would die in combat or from wounds on the British side, while 35,500 would die from disease or accidents, including those in American prison camps. While these numbers are considerably smaller than the American losses, the British forces involved were also much smaller, in limited campaigns, with a better understanding of camp sanitation compared to the Crimean War.

Nor were the innocent spared. Whether the 85 year old widow Judith C. Henry killed by cannons at Bull Run or 19 year old William Tempest, shot at Davenport Ridge, civilians were hardly immune to the hard hand of war. The exact number of civilian deaths and the reasons for them are harder to qualify. Modern estimates place the number of dead at roughly 50,000 dead free citizens and enslaved noncombatants. That means at least 52,000 civilians died during the war. The true number may indeed be higher[2].

While estimates are difficult to discern, many who died of disease while refugees could be counted as civilian losses, but those who died from military action or persecution by military authorities are much easier to calculate as civilian casualties. Only the nascent Canadian colonies kept a firm tabulation of civilian casualties, stating that 2,089 civilians died from “Yankee cruelties” which can be considered an accounting of hostages killed in the anti-guerilla campaigns, but also those who died in battles such as Delaware Crossroads and Davenport Ridge and numerous skirmishes in between.

Many inflated claims have been floated over the years for the number of the dead, but today there is a rough consensus of how many people were killed by the conflict. All told, at least 830,000 people died between 1861 and 1866.

When all this is considered, roughly 2.5% of the American population in 1860 died during the course of the war. That roughly 1% of the Canadian population died at the same time is staggering when considering the steady climb in population numbers otherwise during this period. It could be reasonably speculated that between 1861-66 roughly 3% of the population of North America comprising the United States and modern Canada died in this whole period[3].

Though much smaller compared to the casualties of the early 20th century, it is still a sobering testament to the ferocity of the engagement across the North American continent…” - To Arms!: The Great American War, Sheldon Foote, University of Boston 1999.

----

1] If that does seem small, the battle casualties are three times those incurred in the Crimean War for instance. The larger number of disease deaths includes prison camps and anyone unlucky enough to come down with camp diseases in the West Indies.

2] This is based on James MacPherson’s estimation of 50,000 civilian deaths in the war. If I included the estimates of slaves who died, it would be higher but those are much harder to verify.

3] If I included the number of people killed in Mexico during the French invasion as part of North America, it would be smaller as a whole proportion, but still nearly 900,000 people overall. This is a massive death toll.

 

[basileus]

The relationship was just amazingly contentious. Stephens was actively attacking Davis's policies from 1862 until the end of the war OTL. Davis, to my knowledge, rarely had a nice thing to say about his VP, and generally ignored him when he was blasting him in letters for being "disloyal" to the cause. Whether the two were actually serving the same cause is indeed an open question.



Oh that would never be allowed to happen. Kentucky is too important as a buffer to either side.

And letting each county decide? Dividing the state (more or less...) according to the vote?