British whatif

[WJC]

WJC

Not sure of that. If Britain declared war because Lincoln didn't concede on the Trent Incident I think it would have to be war. Intervention is probably the wrong word because I suspect that Britain wouldn't initially at least directly aid the south or even recognise it as its not in our interests to do so.

That would involve holding defensive positions on the Canadian border using troops sent across during the winter and by boosting the Canadian militia while mopping up as much of the union fleet and imposing a tight blockade on the union coastline. This will seriously impact the union war machine, especially since at this stage its still pretty fragile and heavily dependent on imports. If this was accompanied by attacks on union harbours this could see some RN losses but is likely to do further damage.

I think it must be remembered that if war breaks out over the Trent seizure then the existing south/north conflict will be very much a side issue for London, although it will be aware how much that will limit Washington's options.

Steve

Thanks for your response.
That's why they call this a "What if?" There are no wrong or right answers.
As to sending troops to Canada, that was an actual response to the Affair: in December 1861, just a month after Trent was boarded, Britain ordered 25,000 troops to Canada and the Royal Navy Mediterranean Squadron was ordered to send all available ships to the North American Atlantic waters.
As I mentioned, I don't recall ever seeing any contemporaneous plans for military action against the United States, although I am sure that British planners had them. So far as I know, the troops sent to Canada were intended to defend against a U. S. attack, not for offense- at least initially.

 

[WJC]

Just as an aside - how the heck did France get involved in Mexico? Did they depose Santa Anna? Did they swoop in after the Mexican/American War?

The French, with the support of Britain and Spain, invaded Mexico because President Benito Juarez, faced with a financial crisis, temporarily halted repayment of loans made by European powers to his country.

 

[steve59p]

We can't discount the possibility of US Commerce Raiders. Even in the American Revolutionary War John Paul Jones was able to do a fair amount of damage to British commerce and managed to sink a British warship. The US had a lot of manpower and ship building capability. It is not a given that the RN and British commercial shipping would not suffer serious damage.
Leftyhunter

Leftyhunter

Yes there would be problems and definitely some losses. However the idea that convoy is a 'defensive' and thus unsuitable doctrine for the RN hasn't set in yet. Also Britain has a considerable fleet and industrial capacity as well as a lot of experience of partrolling and blockading/assaulting defensive positions. Furthermore, with the south in rebellion the union has a fairly short coastline - other than in the Pacific where it has limited resources.

Also there are the question of limited numbers of ships and heavy guns. Does the USN seek to defend its coastline, operate blockade runners or raiders. The last two are especially in competition as the sort of fast, longer ranged ships you really need for one are also ideal for the other.

Furthermore with the advent of steam and more powerful guns raiding is markedly more difficult. Steam ships aren't idea for raiding as they need coal and a lot of maintainence but sailing ships are vulnerable to being out-maneuvered by steamers who can to a large degree ignore winds and currents. Also with larger and longer ranged guns unarmoured ships are a lot more vulnerable to damage. Which is difficult for an isolated power without the worldwide bases and connections the UK has. Especially since most of the rest of the world accepted the US is in the wrong on the Trent affair and don't want a precedent established that a nation can stop their ships in international waters in such a way. As such there will be little sympathy and support for such raiders in neutral ports. Coupled with the fact that such actions, if using privateers, have been forbidden by international treaty, albeit one the US hasn't signed.

Also while the US has a fair bit of shipbuilding capacity their by definition on/close to the coastlines. So such ships built/refitted after war with the UK starts will face breaching such a blockade. Furthermore if the RN goes full on while it will suffer some casualties, possibly even including large ships sunk, it can destroy most/all of the coastal defences and that exposes most shipyards to attack.

All in all while raiders will definitely be a problem, especially if the US commits a lot of resources to the issue and might even cause the loss of a fair number of ships its unlikely to be a serious one for the UK. A bit like the French in the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars France after the loss of their main fleets tried a lot of raiding but didn't massively impact the British economy, especially as French controlled colonial bases were captured. Ditto with the US threat in the 1812 conflict after Britain was able to concentrate ships in US waters.

Steve

 

[WJC]

QUOTE="leftyhunter, post: 2006439, member: 4725"]We can't discount the possibility of US Commerce Raiders. Even in the American Revolutionary War John Paul Jones was able to do a fair amount of damage to British commerce and managed to sink a British warship. The US had a lot of manpower and ship building capability. It is not a given that the RN and British commercial shipping would not suffer serious damage.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE]
IF the situation had deteriorated into a shooting war, the U. S. Navy would have been outmatched and defeated by the Royal Navy. It was fortunate for all concerned (except the Southern rebels) that cooler heads prevailed.

 

[Pudnhead]

What if, as a result of the Trent affair, UK decides to intervene. But what if their intervention is limited, not wanting to get into a messy ground war, they just commit the Royal Navy and effectively lift the Union blockade for the CSA.

If the CSA didn't have to worry about a blockade and was able to trade freely with Europe, is this enough to change the ultimate outcome?

If the British had entered the war, today Canada and Mexico would be considered somehow to be a part of the United States.
First of all, all the American states needed to come back together was such an event. That is why Britain never entered the war. The South was very much divided against itself. They would have reorganized because the people would have demanded it--a majority of Southerners did not own slaves. The South could never win a defensive war--which is what the Civil War was. If we can put ourselves into the hearts and minds of the British we will see how true this should be. The British must have been appalled when the South seceded--more appalled when the war broke out. Secession simply because a president had been elected? "Please", they must have said. The British are very wise. Surely they suspected the whole affair was an attempt to lure them into giving America the cause to once again take Canada from their possession. The agreement between North and South would have been this: we will take Canada which will be non slave. Mexico will be slave. They likely would have gone back to the Missouri Compromise now that the Supreme Court was out of the way and Taney could not say that Congress had no right to rule the territories though the Constitution said they did. We might even think that God was on America's side. That for the first couple of years had the British sided with the South this would have happened. But the British were too wise. That or they had something else in mind. That or they knew something else was happening that neither northerners nor southerners knew. What could that be? The lead question is a very good question. What was the foreign influence in the Civil War before and maybe during? Did the British play a role that we don't commonly know about. Of course it would not be the British people in general. Probably not. France? Some Mediterranean states. They all had a huge interest in what developed in the South.

 

[steve59p]

If the British had entered the war, today Canada and Mexico would be considered somehow to be a part of the United States.
First of all, all the American states needed to come back together was such an event. That is why Britain never entered the war. The South was very much divided against itself. They would have reorganized because the people would have demanded it--a majority of Southerners did not own slaves. The South could never win a defensive war--which is what the Civil War was. If we can put ourselves into the hearts and minds of the British we will see how true this should be. The British must have been appalled when the South seceded--more appalled when the war broke out. Secession simply because a president had been elected? "Please", they must have said. The British are very wise. Surely they suspected the whole affair was an attempt to lure them into giving America the cause to once again take Canada from their possession. The agreement between North and South would have been this: we will take Canada which will be non slave. Mexico will be slave. They likely would have gone back to the Missouri Compromise now that the Supreme Court was out of the way and Taney could not say that Congress had no right to rule the territories though the Constitution said they did. We might even think that God was on America's side. That for the first couple of years had the British sided with the South this would have happened. But the British were too wise. That or they had something else in mind. That or they knew something else was happening that neither northerners nor southerners knew. What could that be? The lead question is a very good question. What was the foreign influence in the Civil War before and maybe during? Did the British play a role that we don't commonly know about. Of course it would not be the British people in general. Probably not. France? Some Mediterranean states. They all had a huge interest in what developed in the South.

Pudnhead

To be blunt I see no credit in such an idea. For one thing at the time the union had no real capacity to successfully invade Canada or to do anything against a British blockade that would have seriously damaged their economy and crippled for at least a year their ability to properly equip the troops they had. For another thing Lincoln would never had accepted southern succession.. That was what he was fighting the war about after all.

Plus the bulk of the southern population was now committed to independence and had spent both money and a fair amount of blood on the issue. If Lincoln did blunder into a war with Britain that would give them everything they wanted by crippling the power of the union to overrun them and giving them opportunities to gain land in the west and the border slave states. They have no incentive at all to come to terms with Lincoln and the Republicans, especially given the mutual mistrust and contempt between the two parties.

I also doubt, even if such a deal had been agreed the south could have overrun Mexico. It would have lacked the capacity to project power, especially in the face of the French navy and any such attack, especially to impose slavery in Mexico would have united the Mexicans against them. If somehow it had happened you might well have seen Maximilian's regime gain enough support to suceed as the government uniting Mexico. Furthermore, apart from the extreme south Mexico isn't suited to plantation slavery of the sort established in the south.

Steve

 

[Saphroneth]

In the event of the British actually joining the war, they have to fortify Canada - it's literally the only place the Union can hurt them in a way more than the pinprick matter of commerce raiding. (CSN commerce raiding worked as well as it did because the USN didn't have much if anything on patrol; the RN is huge and seagoing and basically everywhere.)

So the two options if the British do join the war (not likely except with Trent) are:

1) Union attack on a Canada the British are trying to defend.
2) No Union attack, but Canada is defended.

If the Union doesn't attack Canada, well, they have no way to hurt the British badly enough to get them out of the war. This means the Union is suffering under a nasty and efficacious blockade - it's not just the international trade which is being harmed but the coasting trade, which was very significant - with no path out of it. Worse, it renders seaborne supply impossible for the US Army, and that means that penetrating deep into the CSA's important East Coast states is basically logistically impractical.


Anyone who thinks otherwise should suggest which of the two scenarios I've mentioned (1 and 2) they think is going on, and the date, and then explain how the Union ends either war they're involved in.

 

[Waterloo50]

What if, as a result of the Trent affair, UK decides to intervene. But what if their intervention is limited, not wanting to get into a messy ground war, they just commit the Royal Navy and effectively lift the Union blockade for the CSA.

If the CSA didn't have to worry about a blockade and was able to trade freely with Europe, is this enough to change the ultimate outcome?

Interesting question, it's not unreasonable to expect Britain to want to limit themselves to naval action but even if Parliament agreed, it was unlikely to happen because of the British monarchy, there's a thing called the 'Royal Perogative', no state of war can exist without the consent of the Monarchy. We know that Prince Albert had considerable influence as Consort and he was instrumental in calming the situation over the Trent affair, of course, parliament can make the decision to take military action without a declaration of war but in all reality any military action taken by Britain against the Union would have undoubtedly resulted in a state of war. Parliament did not have the backing of the British people and neither would it have had the backing or consent of the monarchy. Britain never supported the idea that the confederacy should be recognised as an independent state although it did recognise the confederacy with a belligerent status. I believe that the key to any naval action would have been as a direct result of the belligerent status, in other words, parliament could perhaps have avoided using the Royal Navy by providing funds to private ship builders in order to increase the number of merchant ships being built as blockade runners. The British Parliament could simply claim that the increase in funding to the shipping yards was nothing more than an investment in British industry.

 

[Saphroneth]

We know that Prince Albert had considerable influence as Consort and he was instrumental in calming the situation over the Trent affair

Though of course the Trent affair led to a war ultimatum which the Union aceded to. Since the ultimatum was a deadly serious war threat and war warnings were sent to British station commanders, this is evidence that the British were ready for war in the case of Trent.

Parliament did not have the backing of the British people and neither would it have had the backing or consent of the monarchy.

Eh? It sounds like you're implying that Parliament was unelected?

Incidentally, it's cabinet which would declare war, not Parliament.

Britain never supported the idea that the confederacy should be recognised as an independent state although it did recognise the confederacy with a belligerent status.

To be more precise the British recogized the Confederacy with belligerent status because you cannot blockade your own harbours and the Union had declared a blockade of the Confederacy.

 

[Waterloo50]

Though of course the Trent affair led to a war ultimatum which the Union aceded to. Since the ultimatum was a deadly serious war threat and war warnings were sent to British station commanders, this is evidence that the British were ready for war in the case of Trent.


Eh? It sounds like you're implying that Parliament was unelected?


To be more precise the British recogized the Confederacy with belligerent status because you cannot blockade your own harbours and the Union had declared a blockade of the Confederacy.

A state of war cannot exist without royal consent. Parliament did not have the backing of the British people for war.

 

[Saphroneth]

Parliament did not have the backing of the British people for war.

If you mean in Trent, this seems at odds with everything I've ever read about the crisis. Do you have any citations for the idea that the British were anti-war during the crisis?

As for the issue of royal consent, that issue was had out in the 17th century. Royal Assent is basically a rubber stamp and it's Parliament and Cabinet which are sovereign.

 

[Saphroneth]

As I mentioned, I don't recall ever seeing any contemporaneous plans for military action against the United States, although I am sure that British planners had them. So far as I know, the troops sent to Canada were intended to defend against a U. S. attack, not for offense- at least initially.

There was no plan for a landward attack, except for a strike on Fort Montgomery at the northern tip of Lake Champlain, but there were plans for seaward attacks. One idea was to launch an amphibious attack on Portland Maine (though this plan wasn't to a point where it would be put into action, most likely) while Milne stated that as soon as he had enough ships and a confirmation of the state of war he would head straight for the Chesapeake. Dunlop down in the Caribbean meanwhile had similar conditional war orders, and had been ordered that as soon as he was aware of a state of war (from whatever source, though presumably Milne meant vaguely trustworthy source) he was to attack the Gulf Blockading Squadron.

There were also a number of plans being thrown around for what a blockade would look like and where to blockade, some of them having assigned specific ship classes to the job.

So yes, in Trent there were plans for military action against the United States, just not a full land invasion.

 

[Saphroneth]

British are very wise. Surely they suspected the whole affair was an attempt to lure them into giving America the cause to once again take Canada from their possession.

There is no doubt that all nations are aggressive; it is the nature of man. There start up from time to time between countries antagonistic passions and questions of conflicting interest, which, if not properly dealt with, would terminate in the explosion of war. Now, if one country is led to think that another country, with which such questions might arise, is from fear disposed on every occasion tamely to submit to any amount of indignity, that is an encouragement to hostile conduct and to extreme proceedings which lead to conflict. It may be depended on that there is no better security for peace between nations than the conviction that each must respect the other, that each is capable of defending itself, and that no insult or injury committed by the one against the other would pass unresented. Between nations, as between individuals, mutual respect is the best security for mutual goodwill and mutual courtesy.
(Lord Palmerston, 17 February 1862)

 

[Waterloo50]

If you mean in Trent, this seems at odds with everything I've ever read about the crisis. Do you have any citations for the idea that the British were anti-war during the crisis?

As for the issue of royal consent, that issue was had out in the 17th century. Royal Assent is basically a rubber stamp and it's Parliament and Cabinet which are sovereign.

Parliament doesn't have royal perogative, the Crown does which means the current Government, I believe it was last used by the conservatives during the Falkland crisis. My understanding is that the PM consults with the Monarch but doesn't have to act on the advice given. I believe that Prince Albert was at pains to avoid war with the USA, the government of the time obviously planned for such an event but as I said in an earlier post Prince Alberts influence over political matters carried more weight than he's given credit for. As for my opinion on the British citizens not wanting to enter a war, I'm basing that on the British anti-slavery movement which was large and the protests carried out by those of the working class. I can't provide statistics without searching on line, I'm just doing the same as you, basing my opinion on what I've read.

 

[Saphroneth]

Parliament doesn't have royal perogative, the Crown does which means the current Government, I believe it was last used by the conservatives during the Falkland crisis. My understanding is that the PM consults with the Monarch but doesn't have to act on the advice given.

Then in what way would that prevent a war? The Cabinet declares war and the Cabinet has royal perogative, so it's Cabinet alone which is required in order to declare war. (This didn't change until Tony Blair, who surrendered that to Parliament.)

As for my opinion on the British citizens not wanting to enter a war, I'm basing that on the British anti-slavery movement which was large and the protests carried out by those of the working class. I can't provide statistics without searching on line, I'm just doing the same as you, basing my opinion on what I've read.

There's a distinction between a (very real, but general) anti-slavery attitude and the specific case of the Trent.


Royal Navy Reservists volunteered in large numbers during the crisis:



'To the Shipping Master, Limehouse.
We, the Volunteers of the Royal Naval Reserve in the port of London, having heard that our flag has been grossly insulted by an American ship of war, and people who claimed its protection forcibly taken from it and made prisoners, we write this to let you know that we are ready to fulfil our engagement and protect the honour of our flag, our good Queen, and country whenever called upon to do so.
We respectfully request you will make this our determination known in the proper quarter.
Signed on behalf of the Volunteer Reserve Force at present in London. (Here follow the signatures.)'

'To Captain Luckraft, R.N.
Her Majesty's ship Hastings, Liverpool, Nov. 30,1861.
Hearing that our flag has been insulted, we, the Royal Naval Reserve men of Liverpool, would esteem it a favour if you will kindly represent to the proper quarter our entire willingness to serve and protect our gracious Queen and country and the integrity of the flag under which our fathers gloriously fought and conquered.
J.B. BECK, for the Liverpool Volunteers of the Royal Naval Reserve.'

'To Captain Palmer, R.N., Her Majesty's Ship Castor.
Her Majesty's Ship Castor, North Shields, Nov, 30,1861.
Sir,- Having heard that our country's flag has been grossly insulted by an American ship of war, and people who claimed, its protection forcibly taken from it and made prisoners, we write this to let you know that we are ready and willing, and that at the shortest possible notice, to protect the honour of our flag, our Queen, and country wherever and whenever called on, or any provocation given for us to do so; and we will do it with a right good will, a proof of which was given when the circumstance was spoken of on the Castor's maindeck this morning, by the whole of us joining with three hearty cheers, and three times three for our Queen and country.
Signed by the Volunteers for the Royal Naval Reserve on board. [Here follow the signatures.]'

'To Captain Heard,
Her Majesty's ship Trincomalee, Sunderland, Nov. 30, 1861.
Sir, - At a general meeting held on board Her Majesty's training-ship Trincomalee, now lying in the South Dock.
Sir, seeing by the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette the insult offered to the British flag by the Americans, we, the undersigned Naval Reserve men, do freely and spontaneously come forward and offer our service to resent the insult, and will shed the last drop of our blood against any nation who dares to insult our gracious Queen or national flag.
Signed on behalf of the meeting, over 100 present,
JOHN ROBERTSON, Chairman.'

'Whitehaven, Dec. 5, 1861.
Sir, - We, the seamen of the Royal Naval Reserve in this port, have heard with indignation that our flag has been insulted by an American ship of war, and we write this to let you know that we are ready to fulfil our engagement and protect the honour of our flag, our good Queen, and country, whenever called upon to do so.
(Signed on behalf of the men of the Royal Naval Reserve, 38 in number.)
To Captain Comber, Inspecting Commander, Coastguard.'

'Maryport, Dec. 7,1861.
Sir, - We, the undersigned members of the Royal Naval Reserve at Maryport, do hereby signify to you our services in any action taken by the Government to avenge the insults offered to our flag, in the event of the American Government refusing to make the necessary reparation and apology for the stopping of the Trent and arrest of some passengers on board.
(Signed by all the Reserve, 20 in number.)
To Captain Comber, Inspecting Commander, Coastguard,'

'Peterhead, Dec. 10,1861.
Sir, - We, the undersigned men, enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve in the port of Peterhead, considering that a most wanton and unjustifiable insult has been perpetrated by the commander of the war-ship San Jacinto, belonging to the Federal Government of America, on the British flag, hereby most cordially make offer of our services, should Her Most Gracious Majesty see fit, by Royal proclamation, to call for them.
(Signed by 73 Royal Naval Reserve Men.)
To Commander Mould, R.N., Inspecting Commander, Coastguard, Aberdeen.'

'The Tyne Naval Reserve. - Shields, Wednesday [4 December 1861]. - This forenoon the letter from the Lords of the Admiralty to Captain Palmer, of Her Majesty's ship Castor, in acknowledgment of the address sent from the Tyne by the Royal Naval Reserve Force, tendering their services to the Queen in case of war with the Northern States of America, was read from the quarterdeck of that vessel to the Naval Reserve men, and was received with immense enthusiasm. The letter read was the same as that published in The Times on Tuesday. After the reply was read to the men they determined to have a demonstration in the seaport of Shields that afternoon, and at half-past 1 o'clock they mustered in strong force upon the New Quay, North Shields, as fine a body of young fellows as it was possible to clap eyes upon. The officers of the 1st Northumberland Artillery kindly put their fine band at the service of the men, who had mustered an immense number of union jacks, ensigns of St. George, &c, and when the procession was formed it had quite a warlike appearance. About 2 o'clock the band struck up "Hearts of Oak," and the men proceeded to march through the principal streets of North and South Shields. They were met everywhere with the greatest enthusiasm by the seafaring population, especially in the neighbourhood of the quays and shipping. Above 1,000 seamen are now enrolled; in the books of the North Shields Shipping-office as Naval Reserve men.'



From the Times:





Soon after noon to-day a private telegram was received in Liverpool announcing the boarding of the Trent by a Federal vessel of war and the forcible removal of the Southern Commissioners. The intelligence spread with wonderful rapidity, and occasioned great excitement among all classes. On 'Change the utmost indignation was expressed, and in a very brief space of time the following placard was posted:-
"Outrage on the British Flag. - The Southern Commissioners Forcibly Removed From A British Mail Steamer.
"A public meeting will be held in the Cotton Sales-room at 3 o'clock."

In compliance with the preceding announcement a meeting was held in the Cotton Sales-room at 3 o'clock, which was crowded to excess by nearly all the gentlemen frequenting the Exchange. The meeting was quite as remarkable for enthusiasm as numbers. After several gentlemen had been requested to preside the chair was occupied by Mr. James Spence, and on taking the chair he proceeded to read the subjoined resolution:-
"That this meeting, having heard with indignation that an American Federal ship of war has forcibly taken from a British mail steamer certain passengers who were proceeding peaceably under the shelter of our flag from one neutral port to another, do earnestly call upon the Government to assert the dignity of the British flag by requiring prompt reparation for this outrage."

On hearing this resolution read the meeting expressed in a most unmistakeable manner the feeling by which it was pervaded in favour of the views included in it. When silence had been in some measure restored, the Chairman remarked that when the news of the outrage reached this town the feeling created was one of surprise, mingled with indignation. He remarked that we had all heard of the sacred dignity of the American flag. That dignity, he proceeded to say, was a means by which the persons engaged in the nefarious slave trade could at once protect themselves by hoisting the American flag, which fully enabled them to resist any attempt to search such vessel. He trusted it would not be allowed that men prosecuting so nefarious a trade should be protected, and that men peacefully proceeding on their own affairs, under the protection of our flag, might be forcibly taken out of our ships. (Cheers.) On the contrary, he believed that the people of this country would not by any means permit such an outrage. (Cheers.) He said, in having agreed to take the chair on this occasion, he did so without reluctance or regret, and he felt deeply that he only expressed the feeling, not merely of the meeting, but of the community in general, when he said it was the duty of the people to press on the Government the imperative necessity of vindicating the honour and dignity of the British name and flag. (Loud and continued cheering.)

Mr. H. C. Chapman, as a mere matter of form, moved that the resolution be adopted.

Mr. A. Forwood said he felt much pleasure in seconding the adoption of a resolution which must find an echo in every English bosom.

Mr. John Campbell while fully concurring in the propriety of preventing any outrage from being offered to the British flag - a sentiment which was universally acknowledged throughout the kingdom - said he felt assured that there was no Englishman, Irishman, or Scotchman who would not at once, and promptly, resent any insult offered to our flag. (Cheers.) "While feeling this in the strongest manner and to the fullest extent, he considered that there still remained some reason to doubt whether the facts related, and acted on by calling this meeting, were in reality a breach of international law. (Cries of " No, no !") He referred at some length to the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, as being in some measure inclined to show that such a step as that taken with respect to the Southern Commissioners was justifiable under the existing state of international law. In conclusion, he proposed a direct negative to the resolution. As, however, he was not desirous of doing anything which would create a spirit of dissension, he was willing to adopt any middle course which could be suggested, and urged the propriety of postponing the consideration of the subject till to-morrow (this day).

The Chairman suggested that, to meet the objection thrown out by Mr. Campbell, it would be sufficient to strike out of the resolution the words "by requiring prompt reparation for this outrage."

Mr. Campbell said he could not concur in the suggestion of the chairman, and must decline to do so.

Mr. Torr expressed his concurrence in the views put forward by Mr. Campbell, and in doing so met with frequent interruption. He argued that the present meet was hastily convened, and had in its proceedings already prejudged the case, with the merits of which the meeting was unacquainted. He insisted that there was no reason to believe that the responsible Ministers of the Crown would allow any insult to be offered to the British flag. (Loud cheers.) He urged the advantage of proceeding calmly in considering a case such as the present, which, if prematurely urged to extremity, might result in involving this country in a war. (Great interruption.) He contended that to urge on the Government a particular line of conduct in respect of the proceedings now under consideration was impolitic and unjust. He would not, and no Englishman would, advocate putting up with insult; but in the present case, let him ask, what had the Americans done? [Mr. Chapman. - They fired a shot across the bows of the Mail Steamer to bring her to, and as she did not stop for that they fired a shell at her, which burst close by her. (Tremendous cheers.)]

Mr. Torr proceeded to say that there was every reason to avoid coming to a hasty resolution, and, in thanking the meeting for the patience with which they had heard him (loud and ironical cheers), he again urged on those present to consider the matter calmly and dispassionately, and not to be carried away by the impulse of feeling in a case which required mature judgment and calm deliberation. A letter had been shown to him by a Southern gentleman, in which it was stated as a positive fact that the law officers of the Crown had, in anticipation, expressed a decided opinion in favour of the legality of a proceeding similar to that which had just taken place in regard to the Trent by the San Jacinto.

Mr. J. Turner next attempted to address the meeting to the same effect as had been done by Mr. Torr and Mr. Campbell, but the feeling of those present was so decidedly opposed to that view that he was forced to desist.

The resolution, as proposed to be amended by the chairman, was then put to the meeting, and carried by a tremendous majority, and amid the most deafening and enthusiastic cheers. For the negative only a few hands were held up.

At the conclusion of the meeting, which was at 4 o'clock, a number of the older merchants on 'Change expressed privately their conviction that the meeting and its proceedings had been premature.



Note that those who are supporting the "this isn't worth a war" side of the argument are being shouted down by a huge majority of those present.


The same is true of politicians:

Benjamin Disraeli:

'The passions of the people are very high at the present moment, and if the Ministry chose to send fifty thousand men to Canada they would be supported.' (source)​

'I am a man of peace, but if we are attacked, the honour of England must be asserted and vindicated.' (Birmingham Daily Post, 12 December 1861)​

He wasn't alone. Of the MPs who made speeches during the crisis (from):

Support war in the event of reparation not being made

W. R. Seymor Vesey-Fitzgerald (Conservative, Horsham)
Col. Walter Bartelott (Conservative, West Sussex)
Mr Stephen Cave (Conservative, New Shoreham)
Sir Robert Clifton (Liberal, Nottingham)
Charles Newdegate (Conservative, North Warwickshire)
Lord Fermoy (Liberal, Marylebone)
John Harvey Lewis (Liberal, Marylebone)
John Laird (Conservative, Birkinhead)
William Cox, (Liberal, Finsbury)
Sir William Miller (Liberal, Leith Burghs)
Edward Horsman (Liberal, Stroud)
William Williams (Liberal, Lambeth)
Henry Bouverie William Brand (Liberal, Lewes)
John George Blencowe (Liberal, Lewes)
Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative, Buckinghamshire)
John Morgan Cobbett (Liberal, Oldham)
Frederick Peel (Liberal, Bury)
Henry Brinsley Sheridan, (Liberal, Dudley)
Harry Foley Vernon, (Liberal, East Worcestershire)
William Coningham (Liberal, Brighton)
James White (Liberal, Brighton)

Oppose war in the event of reparation not being made

John Bright, (Liberal, Rochdale)
William Edward Forster (Liberal, Bradford)
Alexander William Kinglake (Liberal, Bridgewater)'





There were, in fact, no mass anti-war demonstrations in the United Kingdom during the period of the Trent. There were no mass pro-war demonstrations either, of course, but there were such things as large numers of men enrolling in the naval reserve to the cheers of the crowd.



This was also evident to people not from the country. One American visitor to the UK wrote to William H. Seward declaring that "The people are frantic with rage, and were the country polled I fear 999 men out of 1,000 would declare for immediate war."





The case of Trent is so transformatively different from the general British opinion of the ACW that it's almost irrelevant to bring up general ACW material during the Trent period. You can find one or two MPs and the occasional person who opposes war if the Trent ultimatum is rejected, but the overwhelming majority of evidence - from the ultimatum to the war warnings to the public meetings, the mass sign-ups, the views of Cabinet and Parliament and of private US citizens visiting the UK - suggests that there would be no major impediment to a war during Trent.


I should also note that, with Bright being one of the few anti-war MPs, even his own constituency didn't agree (also from the Times):


What we think of arbitration in such a case as this the Americans may gather from the proceedings yesterday at a public meeting in Mr. Bright's own borough of Birmingham, where the friends of arbitration were beaten at their own meeting by an overwhelming majority. We wish we could show them in an equally public manner what the holders of American securities think. That they hope for peace, even as the Birmingham men hope for peace, and as we all hope for peace, is emphatically true; but no one of them would put his American securities, whether valuable or worthless, in balance against his feelings as an Englishman, nor would desire peace any otherwise than so far as it is consistent with the honour of his country.

 

[Pudnhead]

Pudnhead

To be blunt I see no credit in such an idea. For one thing at the time the union had no real capacity to successfully invade Canada or to do anything against a British blockade that would have seriously damaged their economy and crippled for at least a year their ability to properly equip the troops they had. For another thing Lincoln would never had accepted southern succession.. That was what he was fighting the war about after all.

Plus the bulk of the southern population was now committed to independence and had spent both money and a fair amount of blood on the issue. If Lincoln did blunder into a war with Britain that would give them everything they wanted by crippling the power of the union to overrun them and giving them opportunities to gain land in the west and the border slave states. They have no incentive at all to come to terms with Lincoln and the Republicans, especially given the mutual mistrust and contempt between the two parties.

I also doubt, even if such a deal had been agreed the south could have overrun Mexico. It would have lacked the capacity to project power, especially in the face of the French navy and any such attack, especially to impose slavery in Mexico would have united the Mexicans against them. If somehow it had happened you might well have seen Maximilian's regime gain enough support to suceed as the government uniting Mexico. Furthermore, apart from the extreme south Mexico isn't suited to plantation slavery of the sort established in the south.

Steve

Very interesting with many important points. First, what would ultimately develop had what would be the U.S. not just the Confederacy crossed over into Mexico. the problem thee is what cause would we have to do so considering that we did not do so at the end of the Mexican-American War. We simply let Santa Anna be released from Washington. But such a crossing into Mexico might have developed over a longer period of time. As to whether slavery would develop in the Mexican territory truly is another question. As you pointed out the Mexican terrain is not suitable to such an institution; however, what propelled Lincoln into his famous speech where he showed the combination of political developments between Congress, the Supreme Court, and I believe the attempts of persuasion led by Senator Stephen Douglass was that ultimately slavery was taking steps to be established in all states including the North. The point is that had we invaded Canada, the South would not have felt placated unless some understanding were in play that Mexico would be brought into the U.S. Very difficult situation.
When each of the senators representing southern states appeared before Congress to give their speeches describing their reasons for seceding, everyone at the time knew and believed that the speeches were in large part attempts to plead for the north to placate the southern states in some way so as give them something they wanted. Whether this was some kind of arrangement to establish further their right to slavery, guarantee them special rights for funding railroads, funding canals for transportation deeper into the interior of the South, or some other wish that the South might have, the sole reason of these speeches was not to secede. The threat of secession had always been a bargaining tool as in the Nullification Act. The difference between the Confederate Constitution and the U.S. Constitution the Confederacy based their constitution on was exactly the same except for 2 points. The first point was the mention of slavery being completely legal. The 2nd difference was major as well though it was not actually a change in wording but a change in meaning. The 2nd difference was a result of the change in dates of the creation of the 2 separate documents. The Confederate Constitution allowed for person born outside the United States prior to 1845 to become President. This meant that person like senator Judah P Benjamin and his first cousin senator Yowell from Florida could become president of the confederacy though they had both been born in the Islands. So there was a much a closer relationship between the 2 sections of the country than there was to Britain. There was great deal of chivalry exhibited during the war between the two opposing forces. Neither the southern states or the northern states would have wanted such an influencing presence of a foreign nation in our land. We might think that the south wanted Britain to side with them. Indeed there were some southern leaders who thought that was a good idea. but had it become a reality, I believe the majority of southern people would have rebelled against the southern confederacy more so than when South Carolina actually threatened to secede from the Confederacy. It would have been a very trying and difficult time, but still a very strong possible reality.
As far as the North's ability to develop and maintain forces strong enough to maintain a hold on Canada, our resources were far superior to Britain's. We would have had no problem; however, it is doubtful that our impetus would have been strong enough to do so unless we thought it best as a defense mechanism.
The major point is that not only was England trying to get a grasp on the developments of the war but what other countries as well would have tried to influence the outcome or developments? The southern states had always wanted to invade Mexico but were restrained by the federal government. Ever since the misguided affairs of Benedict Arnold and his escapade through the Maine wilderness in 1775 led to the death of General Richard Montgomery and the failure at Quebec City resulted in us never again considering such an invasion, the possibility of invading Mexico to make it a territory was unlikely. this was in large part due to the conflict between northern free states and southern slavery states. that conflict did hamper our ability to act as a union at times. I would hopethat the vast majority of southerners would have woken up and realized that had Britain entered the war on their side, their way of governing would have been put at jeopardy. Why should they ever trust the British more than the northerners? Why should the southern leaders ever really expect to get from Britain anything at all given that the British were trying to maintain that image that they were and had been opposed to slavery as shown in their outlawing slavery in England and it's territories decades earlier. Again, it was a hopeless cause. The foreign influence came from somewhere else.

 

[Saphroneth]

Ever since the misguided affairs of Benedict Arnold and his escapade through the Maine wilderness in 1775 led to the death of General Richard Montgomery and the failure at Quebec City resulted in us never again considering such an invasion

"Considering"? The US, or public opinion of a significant segment within it, considered annexing Canada right up until and past the 1860s; William Seward's platform for the Republican nomination in 1860 included the idea of insulting Britain to provoke a war.

As far as the North's ability to develop and maintain forces strong enough to maintain a hold on Canada, our resources were far superior to Britain's.

In what earthly way in 1860? The populations are at best equivalent and the British economy is significantly more developed, sustaining a large peacetime army and navy with functionally no economic strain at all and producing truly enormous quantities of material and materiel.

 

[CanadianCanuck]

Parliament doesn't have royal perogative, the Crown does which means the current Government, I believe it was last used by the conservatives during the Falkland crisis. My understanding is that the PM consults with the Monarch but doesn't have to act on the advice given. I believe that Prince Albert was at pains to avoid war with the USA, the government of the time obviously planned for such an event but as I said in an earlier post Prince Alberts influence over political matters carried more weight than he's given credit for. As for my opinion on the British citizens not wanting to enter a war, I'm basing that on the British anti-slavery movement which was large and the protests carried out by those of the working class. I can't provide statistics without searching on line, I'm just doing the same as you, basing my opinion on what I've read.

IIRC, the Queen does not have the practical ability to do this. In theory she can deny royal assent, but as I understand it this would cause a constitutional crisis. OTL, from what I have read, Victoria was supportive of the war if the requests of the British government were denied (public perception at the time was that the Americans were trying to goad the British into war) and Palmerston informed her that this was possible.

I think the deciding factor would be that toning down the Ultimatum was Prince Albert's last act. If the Union refused that, Victoria would probably be rather outraged considering he was keen to avoid war. From my own reading, the public at the time would have supported war (they thought it was Northern perfidy) and public opinion turned on a dime from being largely supportive of the North to being anti-Union. When events calmed down, it went away and Lincoln's actions managed to turn most British people favorably towards the North. But during the crisis OTL it was very much a bad thing to be a Northerner or one of their sympathizers.

 

[CanadianCanuck]

In what earthly way in 1860? The populations are at best equivalent and the British economy is significantly more developed, sustaining a large peacetime army and navy with functionally no economic strain at all and producing truly enormous quantities of material and materiel.

I mean, we've discussed it before. The Springfield arsenal was dependent on British steel for continued operations and had no Bessemer converters for mass production prior to 1864, and the Union didn't even produce enough pig iron in peace time to meet its domestic needs (consuming 1.2 million tons, while producing only 821,000 tons - 785,000 minus the South) importing 395,000 tons in 1860. It produced 15 million tons of coal in 1860 while Britain produced 70 million in the same year. The Union produced 15,000 tons of lead while Britain produced 89,000 tons.

It's blatantly unequal in economic terms.

 

[Pudnhead]

I mean, we've discussed it before. The Springfield arsenal was dependent on British steel for continued operations and had no Bessemer converters for mass production prior to 1864, and the Union didn't even produce enough pig iron in peace time to meet its domestic needs (consuming 1.2 million tons, while producing only 821,000 tons - 785,000 minus the South) importing 395,000 tons in 1860. It produced 15 million tons of coal in 1860 while Britain produced 70 million in the same year. The Union produced 15,000 tons of lead while Britain produced 89,000 tons.

It's blatantly unequal in economic terms.

I am not so familiar with the stats for production in 1860 for both countries including the U.S. as a whole, but I know Edited. our military armament was quite comparatively poor to the rest of the world. But logistically such a war would have been more difficult for the British--they had to first cross the wide ocean. The question that arises for me is would have the Canadians been willing to side with the U.S.? I have heard in 2 ways that the Canadians would and wouldn't have supported our efforts in Canada. I tend to believe that for the most part the Canadians would have supported us. But at the time of the CW, I don't really know.