The Trent Affair

dawna

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
canada
In realizing how close the U.S. went to war with Britain (11,000 troops sent to Canada) over the capture of James Mason and John Slidell by Captain Wilkes of the San Jacinto, I'm wondering if this wasn't the intent of William Seward, in order to reunite the States?

Dawna
 
Dawna,

Seward clung to the idea that a foreign war would re-unite the states. Neither he nor Lincoln could ever get to grips with the psychology of secession; they were such devout worshippers at the shrine of the blessed Union that the idea that sane people could ever truly wish to leave the United States was beyond them.

But there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence to suggest that the South would have reacted in the way Seward expected. Read contemporary Confederate letters and diaries and you won’t find a hint of a desire to join ranks with the North against the old enemy. Quite the reverse: “Bull Run” Russell noted in his diary, after Washington had backed down and war had therefore been averted, that

The rage of the friends of compromise, and of the South, who saw in a war with Great Britain the complete success of the Confederacy, is deep and burning, if not loud…

It is difficult to predict what the results of British (and possibly French) military intervention might have been on land. But it is clear that the intervention of the most powerful fleet in the world would have permanently broken the Federal blockade of the South.

Bill
 
I don't see what Britain had to gain in a war with the US.

They may have recognized the Confederacy but I highly doubt they would have gone to war.

Is Lincoln supposed to get scared over a measely 11,000 troops? That is only like 2 divisions. Plus, the Union Navy was getting stronger and stronger. The US was one of the few countries who had a successfully defeated the Royal Navy in past wars.

The average British citizen sided with the north while the aristocratic politicians sided with the south. Britain was just as dependent on northern grains as they were on southern cotton but eventually found new sources of cotton in Egypt and India.

When laid off mill workers in Britain were starving because they had no income for food who sent them grain supplies? Lincoln and the Union.

Britain risked having their far away Caribbean bases, such as Bermuda, captured by naval landing parties and Canada being raided.

France was too busy dealing with their puppet government in Mexico.
 
It is perfectly true that Britain didn't stand to gain from a war with the U.S.A, but there can be no doubt that war would have ensued if Mason & Slidell hadn't been released.

American naval victories in the War of 1812 have to be viewed in the context that Britain was busy fighting France at the same time. The American war was strictly a sideshow. (Most British people today are blissfully unaware that it ever happened.) In 1862 the entire Royal Navy could have been brought to bear against the U.S. navy and, despite the fact that the latter was in the process of expanding, I don't think there can have been any doubt about the result.

The contention that there was a division in British sympathies between Southern-supporting aristocrats and a Northern-supporting middle and working class is slightly simplistic (there were many exceptions to this rule) but largely correct. British perceptions were so coloured by the issue of slavery that what a Confederate would regard as the real issues were largely ignored.
 
Ah Bill,

I am reminded of the phrase, "What is truth?/the 'real' issues?" Who makes those issues 'real?' Those same people who talked, read, discussed and finally decided what was 'real' to them concerning that conflict on the other side of the Atlantic.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Neil,

As a good republican you have a greater faith in the intellectual capacity of "the people" than a raddled old monarchist like me.

My father told me, when I was a child, never to forget that eight people out of ten are as thick as a plank. Nothing I have experienced in life has made me feel that he was wrong. :smile:

Bill
 
Jonathan to John - James Russell Lowell

It don't seem hardly right, John,
When both my hands was full,
To stump me to a fight, John,--
Your cousin, tu, John Bull!
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess
We know it now," sez he,
"The lion's paw is all the law,
Accordin' to J. B.,
Thet's fit for you an' me!"

You wonder why we're hot, John?
Your mark wuz on the guns,
The neutral guns, thet shot, John,
Our brothers an' our sons:
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess
There's human blood," sez he,
"By fits an' starts, in Yankee hearts,
Though 't may surprise J. B.
More 'n it would you an' me."

Ef _I_ turned mad dogs loose, John,
On _your_ front-parlor stairs,
Would it jest meet your views, John,
To wait and sue their heirs?
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess,
I only guess," sez he,
"Thet ef Vattel on _his_ toes fell,
'Twould kind o' rile J. B.,
Ez wal ez you an' me!"

Who made the law thet hurts, John,
_Heads I win,--ditto tails?_
"J. B." was on his shirts, John,
Onless my memory fails,
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess
(I'm good at thet)," sez he,
"Thet sauce for goose ain't _jest_ the juice
For ganders with J. B.,
No more than you or me!"

When your rights was our wrongs, John,
You didn't stop for fuss,--
Britanny's trident prongs, John,
Was good 'nough law for us.
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess,
Though physic's good," sez he,
"It doesn't foller that he can swaller
Prescriptions signed 'J. B.,'
Put up by you an' me!"

We own the ocean, tu, John:
You mus'n' take it hard,
Ef we can't think with you, John,
It's jest your own back-yard.
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess,
Ef _thet's_ his claim," sez he,
"The fencin'-stuff 'll cost enough
To bust up friend J. B.,
Ez wal ez you an' me!"

Why talk so dreffle big, John,
Of honor when it meant
You didn't care a fig, John,
But jest for _ten per cent?_
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess
He's like the rest," sez he:
"When all is done, it's number one
Thet's nearest to J. B.,
Ez wal ez you an' me!"

We give the critters back, John,
Cos Abram thought 'twas right;
It warn't your bullyin' clack, John,
Provokin' us to fight.
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess
We've a hard row," sez he,
"To hoe jest now; but thet somehow,
May happen to J. B.,
Ez wal ez you an' me!"

We ain't so weak an' poor, John,
With twenty million people,
An' close to every door, John,
A school-house an' a steeple.
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess
It is a fact," sez he,
"The surest plan to make a Man
Is, think him so, J. B.,
Ez much ez you or me!"

Our folks believe in Law, John;
An' it's for her sake, now,
They've left the ax an' saw, John,
The anvil an' the plough.
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess,
Ef 'twarn't for law," sez he,
"There'd be one shindy from here to Indy,
An' thet don't suit J. B.
(When 'tain't 'twixt you an' me!)"

We know we've got a cause, John,
Thet's honest, just an' true;
We thought 'twould win applause, John,
Ef nowheres else, from you.
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess
His love of right," sez he,
"Hangs by a rotten fibre o' cotton:
There's natur' in J. B.,
Ez wal ez you an' me!"

The South says, "_Poor folks down!_" John,
An, "_All men up!_" say we,--
White, yaller, black, an' brown, John:
Now which is your idee?
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess,
John preaches wal," sez he;
"But, sermon thru, an' come to _du_,
Why, there's the old J. B.
A crowdin' you an' me!"

Shall it be love, or hate, John?
It's you thet's to decide;
Ain't _your_ bonds held by Fate, John,
Like all the world's beside?
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess
Wise men forgive," sez he,
"But not forget; an' some time yet
Thet truth may strike J. B.,
Ez wal ez you an' me!"

God means to make this land, John,
Clear thru, from sea to sea,
Believe an' understand, John,
The _wuth_ o' bein' free.
Ole Uncle S. sez he, "I guess,
God's price is high," sez he;
"But nothin' else than wut He sells
Wears long, an' thet J. B.
May larn, like you an' me!"
 
Sam,

Thanks for this. I was familiar with it, and it's not a bad bit of doggerel.

God means to make this land, John,
Clear thru, from sea to sea,


The lines quoted above constitute further evidence of the Unionist belief [discussed elsewhere on these boards at some length] that God was/is a citizen of the United States and directly involved in its creation and expansion. Agnostics like this writer struggle to keep a straight face.

Bill
 
Bill,
You're right the idea that a war with Britain would bring the seceding states back into the Union was crazy.If I'm not mistaken it was Seward who pressed Lincoln to not release the Confederate diplomats.Lincoln had better sense and didn't take his advice.Abe was unlikable but he was also intelligent.

Porter,
I would say Lincoln was very scared of going to war with the British.It's not like those 11,000 troops were all that Britain would send.They were sent as a message.Of course in the event of a war more would have followed.I think you need to reconsider France.Napoleon III wanted the Confederacy to win.Had Britain declared war on the USA it is very likely that France would've followed.France sent several envoys to Britain asking about recognition of the Confederacy but it was the British who always declined.It seems silly now, but in 1862 France was no pushover militarily.There's absolutely no way that the Union could've won that war.In the first place the north would have had to station large numbers of troops along the Canadian border.Secondly seaports would have to be garrisoned.The British could have landed their own or Confederate troops in the Northeast.With the British and possibly French navies Union invasion of confederate coastal citites would be impossible freeing up many Confedeerate troops which .Not to mention were Britain allies certainly through their make of riverclads if nothing else the Union wouldn't dominate the Mississippi.New Orleans the biggest city of the Confederacy could have remained in Confederate hands.Also the Union army's habit of enlisting foreigners would be curtailed if the boats carrying them didn't arrive.Much more of the populace of which an already substantial amount were unhappy would be affected by the war.If it even lasted to 1864 it's probably safe to assume that a peace party wins there and the war ends.
Britain could have gained the entire Confederate market for manufactured goods for starters.Secondly they could've been given favorable prices on cotton.The cotton produced in Egypt and India was pittance compared to the South's cotton output which still was the world's greatest even after the war.Thirdly they would have gained an ally and have possibly gained influence throughout the Americas.Fourthly perhaps they would have gained a little revenge.
You might also recall Grant wanted to go to war with Spain but his advisers were doubtful of success.Britain was certainly more powerful than Spain don't you think?
America now you're right could defend itself easily from foreign adversaries but it wasn't so in the 1860s.
Ashley
 
Britain has never had a large standing field army. The largest they ever created was during World War I.

When one considers the distance involved in transporting an army across the ocean I don't think the British would have risked fighting a trained hardened force like the Union army. The Union could raise men, supplies, and equipment a lot faster than the British could sail across the ocean.

The whole premise in your scenario is that the Union Navy was a pushover and I diasgree with that idea.

The French have never had a great navy until today's modern world and their army was too busy getting their butts whipped in Mexico.

The Russians were right there supporting Lincoln so they could have sent their ships to assist the Union if need be.

Again, what did Britain have to gain from going to war against the US?

Just from reading all the possible scenarios it looks like foreign intervention could have blown up into a massive global war. I don't think Britain was particularly looking for something like that especially since the average Briton was against the Confederacy.

If the Confederates had gained some more victories then maybe Britain and France would have recognized the Confederacy and tried to negotiate a settlement. However, I don't think they were looking to go to war.

The Alabama Claims scared the wits out of the British because the Union threatened retaliation if Britain continued to allow British built warships warships fall into the hands of the Confederacy.
 
Admiral Porter,

The whole premise in your scenario is that the Union Navy was a pushover and I diasgree with that idea.

As you haven't addressed this post to anyone I'm not clear for whom it was intended. Do you expect me to answer it, or Ashley, or someone else?

Bill
 
Porter,
Most of your premises make sense but France had an awesome navy at that time.You may recall that The Gloire was the first powerful ironclad and France had more.The French army was also huge.The British could have raised or recruited more troops just as the Union did.The US navy would have been an alright defensive force, but the British would have controlled the sea lanes.The monitors were frequently towed to the coastal waters that they would operate in.They weren't suited for much more than river or harbor defense.It wasn't threat of war that scared the British.If you'll recall the famous Laird Rams case Palmerston seemed to change his mind and detain them when he heard about Gettysburgh and Vicksburgh.I agree that they didn't have enough to gain to warrant a war.They after all had a huge empire to look after.I think they may have recognized the Confederacy anyway had that wily Lincoln not crafted the Emancipation Proclamation.The population certainly wouldn't want to fight on behalf of slavery.Though in Liverpool the citizens poor and rich alike seemed very pro-Confederate.France was waiting on the British but alas it was never to be.I remember reading about the Russian fleet docking in America.Britain and France had just beaten them a few years later.Do you think Russia was asking for a bloodier nose?
Ashley
 
I remember reading about the Russian fleet docking in America.Britain and France had just beaten them a few years later.Do you think Russia was asking for a bloodier nose?

No but consider what would happen if Britain attacked Russian ships: they would be fighting a vast empire along with the US at the same time.

Queen Victoria often got annoyed with all the little colonial wars, such as the Zulu War, and I don't think she would have been pleased with a full scale war.

.The French army was also huge.

I would not worry about the French army so much since they were embarrased in Mexico.

France had an awesome navy at that time.

Their navy didn't really have a winning tradition. I don't think their numbers could have made up for the veteran experience of the Union navy.

I would be much more apprehensive about the Royal Navy.

If you'll recall the famous Laird Rams case Palmerston seemed to change his mind and detain them when he heard about Gettysburgh and Vicksburgh.

He detained them after the Alabama and other ships were allowed to slip out of British docks and join the Confederate navy. Charles Francis Adams, the US minister in London, informed Palmerston of the dire conquences which would happen if more ships were allowed to be built for the Confederacy.

The Alabama Claims which took place after the war is an enticing read if you are interested.

I think the most Britain and France would have done was recognize the Confederacy and negotiate a peace. A scenario where Britain and France invades the US on behalf of the Confederacy seems just too implausible in my mind. I think they had a lot more to lose than to gain.
 
Porter,
We agree on most all of this.I don't consider it plausible that Britain and France would've invaded the US.Adams had a wonderful information network and was an unsung hero.What you said is true but Adams said letting the rams go would be paramount to war.The British government still didn't act so I think the bad news from the Confederate battlefield had more to do with their seizure than Adams threats.The British neutrality law was technically weak. I mean basically put cannons and weapons on out at sea.They issued orders to seize the Alabama but Bulloch got word so they left on the ships trial run.I'm not sure they were as guilty of accomplices as the court thought.The government didn't build it after all.They did pay the Confederacy for the Laird ships(what solace) after they were seized.The French forces actually didn't get beat in Mexico.The US threatened to intervene and the French troops left.Only then did Maximilian get overthrown.It is hard to consider the French as masculine fighters isn't it?
Ashley
 
It is hard to consider the French as masculine fighters isn't it?

I don't question the French soldier's courage. Any nation that can sustain 1 million dead in World War 1 is not cowardly.

However, I do question their leadership which historically, aside from Napoleon, is very weak.

Dien Bien Phu comes to mind.

And France probably needs to start relying on their soldiers to quell the riots taking place in Paris.
 
THe French Army in the 1850's & 1860's was far superior to the British for the sole reason they had a LOT more combat experiance. Their actions in the Crimea, North Africa and later in Italy show this. British Army ops seemed to be hampered by either very poor command structure or poor planning at higher levels. I think it was the professional cadre in the NCO ranks and an emphasis on knowing the value of a good long arm that was the saving grace of the British Army. The British Army was anything but stellar in the Crimea and I'm not certain the High Command really learned anything from their mistakes.

THe French were badly handled by the Juaristas in Mexico not through poor soldiering but because they had such problems w/ supplies; that they fared as well as they did is a testement to the spirit of the French soldier of the era. The Prussians roundly cleaned their clocks in 1870 on their home territory not a good sign in any consideration of how they might have fared against US troops. I think they would have fared far worse in North America.

As to the Navies, my own knowledge is limited to only a few works; but I am reminded of how the Brits faired against US Frigates in 1812. And IIRC a recent work on the USS Constitution and how she was built, how she fared etc against British Warships... I can see why wise British naval officers gave US Warships a measure of respect. I also understand why ships made in the US were so highly prized as prizes by both the French & British Navies.

The armarment of US Warships was second to none and their is ample evidence that they were deadly accurate. From every thing I've read the quality of the US Navy was top rate.

Do any of you have any suggestions for good reads on the subject?
 
I think one of the major reasons why the Prussians won in 1871 is their superior use of railroads. Von Moltke was an observer during the ACW and he learned that lesson well.

Which subject do you want a book on?
 
The whole point about the Trent Affair, was that the USA transgressed international law.
Consequently they had to release the men, and their secretaries, whose heads I believe were shaved?

No one ever mentions the act of piracy by the USA, in 1864, when they rammed and towed away the Florida from a neutral port in Brazil.
And then when the US Supreme Court instructed the Government to return the Florida to the Confederates, she mysteriously sank.
All the captured sailors were given ten dollars each, and ordered to leave the US within 24 hours.
And the money that was found on the Florida, if i am not mistaken, was never returned, as it should have been.
 
Back
Top