Union Backs Down From War With England.

[jessgettysburg1863]

Submitted by tonyp on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 09:20.

During the last seven weeks of 1861, the Confederacy almost got what it wished for: a war between England and the United States that would lift the Union blockade of Southern ports. The trouble began when the U.S. warship San Jacinto abducted four Confederate officials from the English mail steamer Trent, despite the men being under the protection of the British flag. The ensuing diplomatic uproar, known as the Trent Affair, brought England and the United States dangerously close to war.

See the link for the full article.

http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/union-backs-down-war-england

 

[John Hartwell]

Tempest in a teapot. If anyone thinks either Britain or the U.S. was really going to go to war over a face-saving gesture, he's very gullible (or thinking 'wishfully'). But, the inevitable tension and diplomatic brouhaha was simply not worth the bother -- so, Lincoln made the sensible decision, "One war at a time!", and released the so-called "diplomats".

Hilaritas!

jno

 

[Red Harvest]

The key point was that neither nations' govt. wanted war. Both populations however were inflamed over the incident and following the masses could result in war. British honor was offended--ironically not unlike they had offended American honor in the lead up to the War of 1812. Both became cognizant of this.

Lincoln had not approved or directed the captain's actions and therefore disavowed them, turning the CSA envoys over to Britain, without apologizing The Brits by contesting this matter had also conceded the U.S. point about due process/arbitration and respect of neutrality. Both could and did save face.

This is a good example of skilled diplomats/statesmen working together to avoid a result that both found objectionable (war.) Compare the U.S. response to how the CSA handled Fort Sumter.

An interesting point is that the Republican administration's appointees were novices--the party had never been in charge of the national administration before. Yet, they successfully worked with their British counterparts to defuse the situation.

 

[tmh10]

Both the British and Union had every intrest in getting this incident settled thru diplomatic means. Im sure both sides were very happy when a compromise was reached.

 

[Lee]

"One war at a time" sounds like vintage Lincoln. The man loved funny stories and seems to have possessed a dry sense of humor. What a pity he didn't survive the war I honestly believe he would have done great things to reunite and heal the wounded nation. If anyone deserved to see the peace it was Lincoln. Just look at his picture when he won office and look at the picture taken late in the war. Lincoln aged quickly during the war.

 

[Nytram01]

A while ago there was a thread titled "Britain in the American Civil War" in which one post potificated on the fact that it would be against all logic and level-headed reasoning for Britain to go to war with the Union. My response then would be exactly the same as the one I would give now, so I will quote it:

"...you've made the fatal mistake in thinking that wars have to have logic and reason behind them. Wars can be entirely pointlesss and countries can get involved for any number of reasons ranging from the most valid to the most invalid, the most justifiable to the most ridiculous.

British involvement in the war was not totally impossible - it was unlikely but not impossible.

Had the Parliament and Union handled the Trent Affair differently that very easilly could have led to war, cooler heads prevailed but that does not change the fact that during its history Britain has gone to war over much less than the illegal bording of a British vessel and equally illegal seizure of foreign diplomats while they were under the protection of the British Flag."​

​

The crucial thing here is that neither the British Government nor the American one wanted war with each other, and neither side saw any reason to refuse to compromise.​

 

[truthckr]

Good post Jess.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

"...you've made the fatal mistake in thinking that wars have to have logic and reason behind them. Wars can be entirely pointlesss and countries can get involved for any number of reasons ranging from the most valid to the most invalid, the most justifiable to the most ridiculous.​

​

​

I'll agree with this, with one reservation: Victorian Britain definitely had its pride, but it also tended to be quite pragmatic. As long as they could save face publicly, the British government was willing to be flexible, particularly in trying to avoid an already-bloody war that would be of uncertain gain to them. (They'd just been through a rather messy conflict in the Crimea less than ten years before, as well.)

 

[kealbo54]

"One war at a time" sounds like vintage Lincoln. The man loved funny stories and seems to have possessed a dry sense of humor. What a pity he didn't survive the war I honestly believe he would have done great things to reunite and heal the wounded nation. If anyone deserved to see the peace it was Lincoln. Just look at his picture when he won office and look at the picture taken late in the war. Lincoln aged quickly during the war.

Also one of my favorite wry statements.I can almost hear him saying it.Yes.The two men who I think aged the most are Lincohn,and Lee.The portraits of the two before and after are remarkable.Actually,everyond did,if you care to study it a little,and look at a lot of photos,but those two are the standouts.imo.

 

[whitworth]

The Confederacy lost the war. Aid from Britain was just one of the many mistakes made by the Confederate government. The government records of the British were available to historians, shortly after WWI. Neo-confederates of the 20th century, never mentioned that fact. It only proved the British government, as was proven by history, never had any interest in getting involved in the American Civil War.,

 

[Dave Wilma]

The post script to all this was how President Grant resolved all the claims between the British government and the U.S. arising from the Confederate raiders. Anyone want to know more?

 

[Lee]

Also one of my favorite wry statements.I can almost hear him saying it.Yes.The two men who I think aged the most are Lincohn,and Lee.The portraits of the two before and after are remarkable.Actually,everyond did,if you care to study it a little,and look at a lot of photos,but those two are the standouts.imo.

This is true Lee's hair and beard went from very dark to almost white. I would give the top prize to Lincoln as his photos seem to be more intense close ups and compared to Lee I feel Lee's beard obscures more of his facial features than Lincoln's as Lee's were taken at a greater distance but that doesn't diminish your example thanks for responding to my post.

 

[kealbo54]

This is true Lee's hair and beard went from very dark to almost white. I would give the top prize to Lincoln as his photos seem to be more intense close ups and compared to Lee I feel Lee's beard obscures more of his facial features than Lincoln's as Lee's were taken at a greater distance but that doesn't diminish your example thanks for responding to my post.

No problem,answering.The subject of aging civil war persona,might make an excellent thread.I just came here cause if no one else had said"one war at a time",I was gonna.I try to imagine what Civil war study would be like without Lincohn and all of his great "Lincohnisms".Al, wars have their characters,to be sure,and I may be bias,but it seems the WBTS is just chock-full of them.

 

[wilber6150]

The post script to all this was how President Grant resolved all the claims between the British government and the U.S. arising from the Confederate raiders. Anyone want to know more?

Yes, I would

 

[Dave Wilma]

Yes, I would

The U.S. and Great Britain could have gone to war after 1865 over a number of issues including the losses incurred from the C.S.S. Alabama.

Grant's secretary of state was Hamilton Fish whose appointment and eight years of productive service usually escapes historians and documentarians who need to sum up that presidency in as few words as possible. After a successful military career it's only appropriate to tear a man down. In foreign policy Grant had much to be proud of. Indeed, Fish was one of the best SecStates in history. As was Grant's custom he found good people and turned them loose on the mission.

Grant inherited all of the nation's acrimony against Great Britain generated during the way and before. The Johnson Administration almost had a treaty to settle the Alabama claims, but the senate under the direction of Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Charles Sumner rejected it. Sumner said the Alabama cost the U.S. $2 billion and proposed that Canada be ceded to the U.S. in payment. Grant was inclined to agree with Sumner, at first. Grant didn't need any more wars and London banks carried a lot of U.S. debt.

In London the Liberals bested the Tories in Parliament and negotiations resumed. Relations with Russia were falling apart and there was war in Europe. It was time to settle things across the Atlantic. The Brits didn't need U.S. yards building warships for Britain's enemies. Everyone wanted to make a deal. The resulting negotiations set up a commission to settle the Alabama claims, revise the rules of international law as to maritime neutrality, fix North American fishing boundaries, settle the boundary question between Washington Territory and Vancouver Island, and compensate Canada for terrorist raids by the Fenians.

Grant's cabinet wanted Britain to apologize for the Alabama, but Grant decided to submit claims to arbitration. He did ask the Brits to express regret. Commissioners met in Washington and in two months they had the deal. The Brits expressed regret. The Treaty of Washington is the result. With Fish's deft handling of the Congress the treaty received ratification. The U.S. and H.M Government never looked back.

Biographer Jean Edward Smith compares Grant's conduct of foreign policy to Eisenhower's and the evidence supports it.

 

[Red Harvest]

In studying some of this yesterday (particularly earlier comments of Lord Lyons) I came across an article (which I neglected to bookmark) that indicated the real danger period was in the earliest stage of the war before the U.S. had mobilized. Britain did not know whether or not the war might spread and result in another push into Canada. So the crown anticipated a pre-emptive strike in the Pacific Northwest. It would have been very difficult for the U.S. to match in any meaningful way at the time. However, through various discussions with the Canadians, Lincoln made it clear that it had no interest in war with them and actually considered it a good idea for them to strengthen their borders (rather than considering it a hostile act.)

 

[Dave Wilma]

To get an idea of the U.S. officer in the Trent affair, Charles Wilkes, look at the story of the U.S. Exploring Expedition in the early 1840s. He took a squadron to the Pacific Northwest, the South Pacific, and Antarctica and established himself as a difficult commander. For example at the end he ordered all the officers to surrender their personal diaries so Wilkes could clean up the reports of his own conduct. All the diaries disappeared, all but one. IMHO the guy was a nut job, but that has never bothered the Navy.

 

[wilber6150]

The U.S. and Great Britain could have gone to war after 1865 over a number of issues including the losses incurred from the C.S.S. Alabama.

Grant's secretary of state was Hamilton Fish whose appointment and eight years of productive service usually escapes historians and documentarians who need to sum up that presidency in as few words as possible. After a successful military career it's only appropriate to tear a man down. In foreign policy Grant had much to be proud of. Indeed, Fish was one of the best SecStates in history. As was Grant's custom he found good people and turned them loose on the mission.

Grant inherited all of the nation's acrimony against Great Britain generated during the way and before. The Johnson Administration almost had a treaty to settle the Alabama claims, but the senate under the direction of Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Charles Sumner rejected it. Sumner said the Alabama cost the U.S. $2 billion and proposed that Canada be ceded to the U.S. in payment. Grant was inclined to agree with Sumner, at first. Grant didn't need any more wars and London banks carried a lot of U.S. debt.

In London the Liberals bested the Tories in Parliament and negotiations resumed. Relations with Russia were falling apart and there was war in Europe. It was time to settle things across the Atlantic. The Brits didn't need U.S. yards building warships for Britain's enemies. Everyone wanted to make a deal. The resulting negotiations set up a commission to settle the Alabama claims, revise the rules of international law as to maritime neutrality, fix North American fishing boundaries, settle the boundary question between Washington Territory and Vancouver Island, and compensate Canada for terrorist raids by the Fenians.

Grant's cabinet wanted Britain to apologize for the Alabama, but Grant decided to submit claims to arbitration. He did ask the Brits to express regret. Commissioners met in Washington and in two months they had the deal. The Brits expressed regret. The Treaty of Washington is the result. With Fish's deft handling of the Congress the treaty received ratification. The U.S. and H.M Government never looked back.

Biographer Jean Edward Smith compares Grant's conduct of foreign policy to Eisenhower's and the evidence supports it.

Thank you very much.. Great stuff

 

[bama46]

The key point was that neither nations' govt. wanted war. Both populations however were inflamed over the incident and following the masses could result in war. British honor was offended--ironically not unlike they had offended American honor in the lead up to the War of 1812. Both became cognizant of this.

Lincoln had not approved or directed the captain's actions and therefore disavowed them, turning the CSA envoys over to Britain, without apologizing The Brits by contesting this matter had also conceded the U.S. point about due process/arbitration and respect of neutrality. Both could and did save face.

This is a good example of skilled diplomats/statesmen working together to avoid a result that both found objectionable (war.) Compare the U.S. response to how the CSA handled Fort Sumter.

An interesting point is that the Republican administration's appointees were novices--the party had never been in charge of the national administration before. Yet, they successfully worked with their British counterparts to defuse the situation.

In what way did the US and CS diplomats fail in the negotiations over Sumter?