The problem with the Trent affair.

[wausaubob]

The US thought that Slidell and Mason would travel to England aboard the Nashville. This was impractical because the Nashville was likely to be detected and apprehended. And if the US navy had caught the Confederate ship outside British waters, there would not have been an international incident.
But the Confederate citizens waited until the Trent was available. They did not take any available ship to get from Havanna to Nassau. When Wilkes found out they were likely on the British mail ship, all previous instructions to intercept the Confederates were void. Wikes fell for the trap. He wasn't as smart as he thought he was.

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

I've never thought Wilkes to have any legal authority to stop a British ship, the incident, the conclusion of fracas, and the history bares that out.

The trap however I don't understand. A matter of practically it made more sense to take a British ship. English troops being sent to Canada was a threat, but simply that. The English and French wouldn't give without one another. If the trap was making sure they got there, it was an awful pain to have them set foot in Europe.

That being said, I could be totally wrong. I've been known to be.

 

[wausaubob]

I've never thought Wilkes to have any legal authority to stop a British ship, the incident, the conclusion of fracas, and the history bares that out.

The trap however I don't understand. A matter of practically it made more sense to take a British ship. English troops being sent to Canada was a threat, but simply that. The English and French wouldn't give without one another. If the trap was making sure they got there, it was an awful pain to have them set foot in Europe.

That being said, I could be totally wrong. I've been known to be.

There had to be numerous ways to get from Havanna to Nassah in the Bahamas. Slidell and Mason probably could have chartered a sailing ship for that link. The British mail ship was chosen on purpose. Wilkes was nuts to realize the trap that had been set for him.

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

Right. But the trap? Was it the incident itself? If the trap was bringing in England, then the trap didn't have teeth enough to grip.

 

[wausaubob]

Right. But the trap? Was it the incident itself? If the trap was bringing in England, then the trap didn't have teeth enough to grip.

I think the British were very patient about the whole incident. The trap would be better explained by our British commentators. But I suppose the British did not want to be manipulated into war by two dodgy private Confederates.

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

I think the British were very patient about the whole incident. The trap would be better explained by our British commentators. But I suppose the British did not want to be manipulated into war by two dodgy private Confederates.

Had the British send a more sizable amount of troops to Canada, to apply real pressure i could see the trap. But it wasn't an amount thwt couldn't have been mowed down had the US Army had nkt been fighting on so many fronts.

Lincoln's comment of one war at a time was pretty tellung and I think had a lot to say about how he must have felt about Mason and Slidell going there in the first place.

The Confederacy being recognized as a belligerent seems like a statement to the US. Could it have been based onnthe Trent Affair? Mason and Slidell did make it there.

Also the British turned a blind eye orba wink to Confederate raiders being build on their ways. They sold the Confederates Enfields. In a way it was a Roosveltian 'cash and carry', with guns being taken on after the ship's weee launched at a predetermined point.

An excellent, well written, and pretty fun book to read is from (at the time) Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Lyon Fremantle's Three Months In.The Southern States. Definitely worth the time.

I always wonder if he managed a cup of tea on July 2nd.

 

[wausaubob]

Had the British send a more sizable amount of troops to Canada, to apply real pressure i could see the trap. But it wasn't an amount thwt couldn't have been mowed down had the US Army had nkt been fighting on so many fronts.

Lincoln's comment of one war at a time was pretty tellung and I think had a lot to say about how he must have felt about Mason and Slidell going there in the first place.

The Confederacy being recognized as a belligerent seems like a statement to the US. Could it have been based onnthe Trent Affair? Mason and Slidell did make it there.

Also the British turned a blind eye orba wink to Confederate raiders being build on their ways. They sold the Confederates Enfields. In a way it was a Roosveltian 'cash and carry', with guns being taken on after the ship's weee launched at a predetermined point.

An excellent, well written, and pretty fun book to read is from (at the time) Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Lyon Fremantle's Three Months In.The Southern States. Definitely worth the time.

I always wonder if he managed a cup of tea on July 2nd.

Fremantle is an interesting guy, but a different subject.

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

Fremantle is an interesting guy, but a different subject.

He does however put the point on British interest in the south. A direct result of Mason and Slidell. As their mission was a resounding raspberry as far as their entirety go, it was good enough to garner more attention to the south. An addition to the belligerent and had things been different might well have added the teeth that grap needed to finally bite..

 

[wausaubob]

By the time Mason met with John Russell, at Russell's residence, the British had much more information about how the blockade was being conducted and as to how much cotton was not getting out of the Confederacy. While Mason was in London the bad news for the Confederacy rolled in over the next three months, starting with the US breakthrough on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers.

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

By the time Mason met with John Russell, at Russell's residence, the British had much more information about how the blockade was being conducted and as to how much cotton was not getting out of the Confederacy. While Mason was in London the bad news for the Confederacy rolled in over the next three months, starting with the US breakthrough on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers.

There had to have been a vested interest besides just cotton in England.

Cotton was not immaterial; it was a concern. But England found other sources for cotton, which is way I have high thread count Egyptian sheets.

Knowing what they did about the blockade's effectiveness, and the loss of the Cumberland and the Tennessee they might have seen the writing on the wall that the sourh would be bisected when the Mississippi was taken. But in war nothing is set in stone.

After rhe fall of the of the Mississippi there was still a fair amount running going through Florida, Pensacola, Jacksonville and Key West withstanding.

Mason had to have had an ear to whisper in. Slidell did not pull off a very good Ben Franklin in France and I think that is due to his not having that fur hat.

I think.thouyh you cleal up something for me. A couple try as opposed to a belligerent. A country is a country. Did being granted belligerent status have anything to do with the Trent Affair and was Englsnd's supply of raiders, rifles, and Tate jackets a part of that of James Bulloch's baby en toto?

 

[wausaubob]

When Slidell and Mason were on a British mail ship the level of protection was about the same as if they were already on British soil.
The Confederates knew that. And Wilkes must have known the schedule for British mail ships. He wasn't a complete idiot.

 

[RodentRevolution]

When Slidell and Mason were on a British mail ship the level of protection was about the same as if they were already on British soil.
The Confederates knew that. And Wilkes must have known the schedule for British mail ships. He wasn't a complete idiot.

Well Wilkes understood he needed to take the ship in to be assessed or released by an admiralty court(functionally a US district court operating under admiralty law) but he allowed himself to be talked into just removing the commissioners by Lieutenant Fairfax who was wrong but at least trying to minimise a diplomatic incident. Yet neither of their actions were likely the problem.

It probably was not even the decision to broadcast the incident for propaganda purposes that was the problem.

It was that the propaganda got hijacked by Anglophobic elements of the press and then that was the version that made it to the British. Worse it made it to the British public directly before the government could work out a way of filtering it. So faced with an angry public and being a democracy (of sorts though still with a property qualification like many US states at the time) the Government was bounced into "something must be done mode". Hence the ultimatum and military preparations.

Americans ought to be able to relate to a "hands off our boats!" attitude.

 

[wausaubob]

Well Wilkes understood he needed to take the ship in to be assessed or released by an admiralty court(functionally a US district court operating under admiralty law) but he allowed himself to be talked into just removing the commissioners by Lieutenant Fairfax who was wrong but at least trying to minimise a diplomatic incident. Yet neither of their actions were likely the problem.

It probably was not even the decision to broadcast the incident for propaganda purposes that was the problem.

It was that the propaganda got hijacked by Anglophobic elements of the press and then that was the version that made it to the British. Worse it made it to the British public directly before the government could work out a way of filtering it. So faced with an angry public and being a democracy (of sorts though still with a property qualification like many US states at the time) the Government was bounced into "something must be done mode". Hence the ultimatum and military preparations.

Americans ought to be able to relate to a "hands off our boats!" attitude.

Perhaps. But then the US had to accelerate the process of adding abolition to the war aims. Something had to be done to pay Palmerstone and the British cabinet for their patience. The prince consort died that and aggravated the mess that Wilkes had caused.

 

[wausaubob]

Well Wilkes understood he needed to take the ship in to be assessed or released by an admiralty court(functionally a US district court operating under admiralty law) but he allowed himself to be talked into just removing the commissioners by Lieutenant Fairfax who was wrong but at least trying to minimise a diplomatic incident. Yet neither of their actions were likely the problem.

It probably was not even the decision to broadcast the incident for propaganda purposes that was the problem.

It was that the propaganda got hijacked by Anglophobic elements of the press and then that was the version that made it to the British. Worse it made it to the British public directly before the government could work out a way of filtering it. So faced with an angry public and being a democracy (of sorts though still with a property qualification like many US states at the time) the Government was bounced into "something must be done mode". Hence the ultimatum and military preparations.

Americans ought to be able to relate to a "hands off our boats!" attitude.

Your post suggests that maybe Fairfax should have asked if the British captain would be willing to steam up to New York and have the passengers and mail reach England by another mail ship while the Trent was adjudicated. On the other hand Wilkes was a well known jerk.

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

Call me naive, and you'd be right. Call me lost on Admiralty laws of the 19th century, and I might well buy you coffee. I need one myself as it is rather early.

To my understanding as far as a ship of a sovereign nation carrying humans, seizure could only be based on the ban on international slave trade and intelligenceo or suspicion of said ships, which the British had signed, as had we.

The adjudication only being based on carrying human cargo, and not carrying two southern diplomats, no?

By letting the Trent go on its way after makes in my mind Wilkes what I like to call 'smart dumb'; smart enough to not take the Trent under a prize crew to New York, but dumb enough to drag passengers off that didn't fall under any treaties at the time.

Your post suggests that maybe Fairfax should have asked if the British captain would be willing to steam up to New York and have the passengers and mail reach England by another mail ship while the Trent was adjudicated. On the other hand Wilkes was a well known jerk.

As to Wilkes being a jerk... can you referance that so i can get a better grasp on the man as an officer, and those whom had a beef with him?

From what I gather he was quite talented before the war but for I know he was Bligh.

He was retained in the service of the navy, retiring rear admiral. In his annual report Welles had qualms with him, but short of reading Wilkes six volume autobiography and a broader view on his service in the war, it seems that Wells abd he didn't get on. However Wells respected the rate and not the person, so Wilkes remained.

Well Wilkes understood he needed to take the ship in to be assessed or released by an admiralty court(functionally a US district court operating under admiralty law) but he allowed himself to be talked into just removing the commissioners by Lieutenant Fairfax who was wrong but at least trying to minimise a diplomatic incident. Yet neither of their actions were likely the problem.

It probably was not even the decision to broadcast the incident for propaganda purposes that was the problem.

It was that the propaganda got hijacked by Anglophobic elements of the press and then that was the version that made it to the British. Worse it made it to the British public directly before the government could work out a way of filtering it. So faced with an angry public and being a democracy (of sorts though still with a property qualification like many US states at the time) the Government was bounced into "something must be done mode". Hence the ultimatum and military preparations.

Americans ought to be able to relate to a "hands off our boats!" attitude.

The cardinal sin of any country through time and memorium has been to mess with America's ships.

 

[NFB22]

As to Wilkes being a jerk... can you referance that so i can get a better grasp on the man as an officer, and those whom had a beef with him?

From what I gather he was quite talented before the war but for I know he was Bligh.

Wilkes had numerous achievements as an officer both before and during the war, however he was known to be a strict disciplinarian towards his men, officers and enlisted alike and sometimes showed contempt for those above him in the rank structure. He was also court martialed more than once for his conduct.

 

[RodentRevolution]

To my understanding as far as a ship of a sovereign nation carrying humans, seizure could only be based on the ban on international slave trade and intelligenceo or suspicion of said ships, which the British had signed, as had we.

International Law on the removal of persons from neutral shipping in time of war is complicated in International Law to this day. In 1861 however the US had quite pointedly refused the British a bilateral right of search even in the enforcement of the anti-slave trade treaty.

Wilkes ultimately took Mason and Slidell aboard his own ship "as the embodiment of dispatches" which might possibly have been the worst excuse he could come up as the Royal Mail at the time carried everyone's diplomatic dispatches. Even the Russians were angry about this and they are generally regarded as being somewhat friendly to the USA at the time even if for entirely their own purposes.

That said it has never been fully settled as late as 21 January 1940 the cruiser HMS Liverpool intercepted the Japanese liner Asama Marua and removed 21 German seaman who had survived the scuttling of a blockade runner.

Oxford Public International Law-Asama Maru Incident

As to Wilkes being a jerk... can you referance that so i can get a better grasp on the man as an officer, and those whom had a beef with him?

The short list would probably be anyone who had served under him and anyone who had served over him.

However a pretty good potted biography of the man can be found on Wikipedia. If you want to read the man about himself his autobiography is available on archive.org

Autobiography of Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, U. S. Navy 1798 - 1877 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

As can a work on his expeditionary career.

The forgotten voyage of Charles Wilkes : Bixby, William : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

x, 184 p. 21 cm

archive.org

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

You know I hadn't even thought of the diplomatic documents/pouches on board.