American Civil War: Trent Affair

On November 8th, 1861, two confederate diplomats bound for Great Britain and France were removed from the British ship RMS Trent by the Union Captain Charles Wilkes. The British are angry that their neutral rights are violated, and their natural pride has been insulted. Pressured by both the common people and the elite upper class, the spreading fear that the USA will invade Canada, and support from Napoleon III of France, Parliament makes plans to build up its army and navy in North America in preparation of invading the Union before they invade Canada. That is the Alternate history of the American Civil War.

In real life, the UK did build up troops in Canada and did make plans to invade the Maine. The invasion of the US didn't come about because the issue was resolved though diplomacy in January of 1862.

However, as the opening suggested, what if it didn't get resolved through diplomacy but through war?

We know that France and the UK can work together as they did during the Crimean War (1853-1856) in which the UK deployed roughly 250,000 troops and France deployed 400,000 troops in Crimea against Russia. We know that France fought in Mexico from 1861 to 1866 and they wished to use Mexico as a means to counter the USA, so I see the French entering to try and prevent the USA from becoming too big.

I'm interested in the details. If the UK and France were to go to war with the USA, when is the earliest that they could go to war with the USA?

My best guess as to when they could go to war against the US is in August of 1862 as I assume it would take that long to build up the same troop size that they had in the Crimean War and train troops.

In terms of skilled commanders that France and the UK can bring, I have no idea what generals France or the UK had that were skilled.

The overall battle plan for the Anglo-Franco alliance might involve swiping into the New England states, capturing them, and moving south to capture Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and then the capital.
The fall of the capital, I think, would bring the war to an end and, indirectly, end the American Civil War as the Union would not be able to fight the Confederacy efficiently.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab09.txt

What do you think the battle plan would be for the Anglo-Franco force?

I know that the Lincoln signed a bill after the Battle of Bull Run (July 21, 1861) to enlist 500,000 men into the army. I'm not entirely sure if the Union reached that number. I know that General Pope had roughly 75,000 men during the Northern Virginia Campaign (July 19 – September 1, 1862), General McClellan during the Peninsula Campaign campaign (March - July 1862) had roughly 121,500 men, and General Halleck assembled a force of roughly 120,000 men on the western front to take Corinth (Siege of Corinth April 29, 1862 – May 30, 1862). The numbers add up to 316,500 men, but I don't know how many men they had in reserve, they were training, and how many they used in other theaters or wars (Dakota War 1862).

During 1862, how many troops did the USA have and where?

Although the Union is usually remembered as having a ton of bad generals except a few, in reality, the Union actually had many good generals: Meade, Grant, Sherman, Halleck, Thomas, Rosecrans, Reynolds, Sheridan, Oliver Howard, Don Carlos Buell (An Officer), John C. Frémont, Winfield Scott Hancock and likely more. Sadly, many of these commanders would already be involved in either the western or eastern theaters. Only John C. Frémont, who was waiting in New York in 1862 would be the overall commander of any force in defense of the invasion.

How many other good commanders could the Union depend on in 1862?


Finally, I believe that the Union would likely use delaying tactics to slow down the combine Anglo-Franco army while the Union builds up their army. The Union would likely have to us the militia in the northern states to delay the force.

What do you think the battle plan would be for the Union force?

Overall, do you think that the Trent Affair could've result in an all out war with the Union? If so, could it have influenced the American Civil War either by drawing it out longer or ending in a Union lost? Or is this all implausible?

You may wish to start here:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=301246

Shamless plug, but I think all your questions are answered.

Best,

Here's another thread about a similar incident two years earlier:

http://forum.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=315410

The general consensus was that America would end up losing. Presumably in any hypothetical Trent War America would be more likely to lose, due to her having to simultaneously fight a civil war.

If it did come to war, expect to see Britain teaming up with the CSA, probably sending advisers and maybe ground troops to help the Southern armies. Equally important will be British naval aid, since with the RN on their side the Confederacy would be able to break the Union blockade and trade with the rest of the world.

Additionally, we might see a British army landing on the West Coast, which was too far away from America's centre of gravity for the US to defend easily. An invasion of New England would be difficult to pull off, since the area was near the heartland of the USA, so the Americans would consequently have a much easier time sending reinforcements than the British would. That said, if it were co-ordinated with a Southern advance on Washington, we might see at least one of these attacks being successful. The Brits might also just try a raiding strategy, making sudden landings on major ports and sacking them before significant reinforcements can arrive.

In the end, though, I actually doubt that a Trent War would be that serious: America was busy fighting the Civil War, and Britain made far too much money from trading with the USA to really want a drawn-out war. Most likely we'd see some naval combats, a bit of raiding, and then peace, probably involving America paying compensation to the British government.

I don't think it would be necessary for the enemy to land troops anywhere in the US... simply establishing a blockade and breaking the Union blockade of the south would wreak havoc with the US economy and give a huge morale (and material) boost to the Confederacy. What the RN can do is a sure fire war winner, while invading the USA and fighting it out is chancier (although still in the enemy's favor)...

see also

A Trent Affair What If... ( 1 2 3 4) Eckener

WI: The RMS Trent sunk?
DownrangeDowner

British American War in 1865? ( 1 2)
Jim Smitty

An Accident of Fate ~ A Different Trent Affair
Syphon

WI: Britain goes to war with America during the ACW ( 1 2 3 4 5 6)
Erodoeht Tlevesoor

L'Affair Trent ( 1 2 3 4)
DJB001

and one by the infamous 67th Tigers
An Unfortunate Event: The Trent War ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... Last Page)
67th Tigers

WI 1861 Trent affair lead to war ( 1 2)
Fredrick II Barbarossa

The Trent War ( 1 2)
Snowstalker

Plus several 'CSA wins' scenarios where this is part.

Oh. And Harry Harrison's Stars and Stripes Trilogy use this as a PoD, but it goes off the rails fast.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

see also

A Trent Affair What If... (

1 2 3 4) Eckener

WI: The RMS Trent sunk?
DownrangeDowner

British American War in 1865? (

1 2)
Jim Smitty

An Accident of Fate ~ A Different Trent Affair
Syphon

WI: Britain goes to war with America during the ACW (

1 2 3 4 5 6)
Erodoeht Tlevesoor

L'Affair Trent (

1 2 3 4)
DJB001

and one by the infamous 67th Tigers
An Unfortunate Event: The Trent War (

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... Last Page)
67th Tigers

WI 1861 Trent affair lead to war (

1 2)
Fredrick II Barbarossa

The Trent War (

1 2)
Snowstalker

Plus several 'CSA wins' scenarios where this is part.

Oh. And Harry Harrison's Stars and Stripes Trilogy use this as a PoD, but it goes off the rails fast.

Click to expand...

The funny thing is that I did try searching for it, but I didn't find any. I guess my search was poor.

Carl Clausewitz said:

The funny thing is that I did try searching for it, but I didn't find any. I guess my search was poor.

Click to expand...

Searching can be tricky, I agree. Especially on this forum.

Carl Clausewitz,

Nearly all of the information you want is available in past discussion threads going back several years, searching on 67th Tigers will find you most of them as he was so prolific. Dathi has referred more to actual time - lines which are fun but have less information.

The one thing you asked that is not usually discussed is the earliest date for a war. This is an interesting one. The earliest possible date a war over Trent could start would be sometime between the 20th and 22nd of Dec. 1861 and would require an almost immediate formal presentation of the British demands by Lyons to Seward and a very swift rejection of them or a counter proposal by the Union cabinet thereafter. This is pretty unrealistic. The most probable scenario for a war is that the Union cabinet makes counter proposals to the British demands at the meeting on Boxing day (26th Dec)* were this to be done then the British legation would withdraw from the USA and two or at most three days (28/9th) later small British scratch forces would have attacked over the border at Rouse Point and some of the other almost unmanned Union border forts and posts. It would take a few days for Lyons report to reach Bermuda. One day at most to organise the naval forces there and three days after that to reach the Confederate coast and sever the supply line to the Union blockade so around New Year's day for the first naval action on the east coast. Several days more before the news of the war reaches the British Gulf squadron which was mostly at Vera Crux Mexico.

Note that Union forces in San Francisco would hear news of war several days before the British at Esquimalt and have the possible option of attacking the unsuspecting Royal Navy there sometime around 1st or 2nd Jan.

Lyons would likely reach Britain on or about 10th Jan.. Parliament would be recalled at the earliest possible date from its Christmas recess on 6th Feb. so the earliest that the Union minister in London could be served with a formal declaration of war would be 7th Feb.. It is possible that the Union might sue for peace before this date.

* In OTL the Union cabinet decided to yield to British demands at this meeting.

frlmerrin said:

Carl Clausewitz,

Nearly all of the information you want is available in past discussion threads going back several years, searching on 67th Tigers will find you most of them as he was so prolific. Dathi has referred more to actual time - lines which are fun but have less information.

The one thing you asked that is not usually discussed is the earliest date for a war. This is an interesting one. The earliest possible date a war over Trent could start would be sometime between the 20th and 22nd of Dec. 1861 and would require an almost immediate formal presentation of the British demands by Lyons to Seward and a very swift rejection of them or a counter proposal by the Union cabinet thereafter. This is pretty unrealistic. The most probable scenario for a war is that the Union cabinet makes counter proposals to the British demands at the meeting on Boxing day (26th Dec)* were this to be done then the British ligation would withdraw from the USA and two or at most three days (28/9th) later small British scratch forces would have attacked over the border at Rouse Point and some of the other almost unmanned Union border forts and posts. It would take a few days for Lyons report to reach Bermuda. One day at most to organise the naval forces there and three days after that to reach the Confederate coast and sever the supply line to the Union blockade so around New Year's day for the first naval action on the east coast. Several days more before the news of the war reaches the British Gulf squadron which was mostly at Vera Crux Mexico.

Note that Union forces in San Francisco would hear news of war several days before the British at Esquimalt and have the possible option of attacking the unsuspecting Royal Navy there sometime around 1st or 2nd Jan.

Lyons would likely reach Britain on or about 10th Jan.. Parliament would be recalled at the earliest possible date from its Christmas recess on 6th Feb. so the earliest that the Union minister in London could be served with a formal declaration of war would be 7th Feb.. It is possible that the Union might sue for peace before this date.

* In OTL the Union cabinet decided to yield to British demands at this meeting.

Click to expand...

Good suggestions, although 6th Feb. seems too late for Parliament to meet. True it might normally not meet until then, but the Prime Minister has always (AFAIK) had the power to recall Parliament early if a major crisis occurs, and an outbreak of war would fit most people's definition of a major crisis.

Quick question, what actually triggers the war? Because unless Britain or France changes its mind and decides to intervene directly to support the Confederacy, the United States is going to need to be the one to declare war. Unless it's already decided that an independent Confederacy suits its interests, Britain has little to gain and potentially a lot to lose by fighting with the United States at this point. Its military buildup is defensive. So unless something changes behind the scenes, Britain is unlikely to go to war simply over an insult; Lincoln is going to have to be the one who makes the decision to go to war with Britain. And what his motivation for that would be, given the likely outcome, I don't know, considering that Lincoln was not a hothead.

Sucrose said:

Quick question, what actually triggers the war?

Click to expand...

You mean what triggers actual hostilities, right? What triggers the war is the fact that the US violates British neutrality by boarding their ship and then (presumably) refuses to make restitution when presented with an ultimatum. Following this, Britain declares war in defence of its neutral rights. This is similar to what happened in the Arrow war several years earlier. Britain is actually being nice by delivering the ultimatum: the US didn't bother to do so in 1812.

Without getting into the issue of how successful their plans would be, Britain saw this predominantly as a defensive war in Canada and an offensive war at sea. So actual hostilities start after a period of preparation where Britain reinforces Canada and the NA&WI station, calls up and drills Canadian militia, and bans exports of arms to the Union. However, any war that did take place would have been an entirely separate conflict from the civil war the Union is fighting at the same time. There was no intention either to recognise the Confederacy or to co-operate with them when the war broke out. Again, this was similar to what happened in the Arrow war several years earlier, which took place while the Manchu government were fighting the Taiping rebels.

Sucrose said:

Lincoln is going to have to be the one who makes the decision to go to war with Britain. And what his motivation for that would be, given the likely outcome, I don't know, considering that Lincoln was not a hothead.

Click to expand...

That's the point. Why would Lincoln trade the very low risk that the released Mason and Slidell will talk European powers into joining the war for the certainty that Britain would declare war if they refused the ultimatum?

Dave Howery said:

I don't think it would be necessary for the enemy to land troops anywhere in the US... simply establishing a blockade and breaking the Union blockade of the south would wreak havoc with the US economy and give a huge morale (and material) boost to the Confederacy. What the RN can do is a sure fire war winner, while invading the USA and fighting it out is chancier (although still in the enemy's favor)...

Click to expand...

Agreed, with the CSA still mostly intact, the Union Navy not having been built up, and the North still reeling from Bull Run, the RN can pretty much end the ACW and force the Union to come to terms by itself. Though the idea of British troops fighting side-by-side with a Slave Power is little more than AH fancy.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

see also<snip>

and one by the infamous 67th Tigers
An Unfortunate Event: The Trent War (

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... Last Page)
67th Tigers

Oh. And Harry Harrison's Stars and Stripes Trilogy use this as a PoD, but it goes off the rails fast.

Click to expand...

67th Tigers' Trent Affair TL was seemingly written in response to Harrison's dreck. Tit-for-tat, I guess. Personally, i don't think two drecks make a masterpiece.

Sucrose said:

Quick question, what actually triggers the war? Because unless Britain or France changes its mind and decides to intervene directly to support the Confederacy, the United States is going to need to be the one to declare war. Unless it's already decided that an independent Confederacy suits its interests, Britain has little to gain and potentially a lot to lose by fighting with the United States at this point. Its military buildup is defensive. So unless something changes behind the scenes, Britain is unlikely to go to war simply over an insult; Lincoln is going to have to be the one who makes the decision to go to war with Britain. And what his motivation for that would be, given the likely outcome, I don't know, considering that Lincoln was not a hothead.

Click to expand...

Trent Affair TLs tend to either write out Lincoln or treat him as the buffoon his contemporary critics saw him as. It takes a particularly...unique...shall we say, POV to find such thinking in 2014.

robcraufurd said:

You mean what triggers actual hostilities, right? What triggers the war is the fact that the US violates British neutrality by boarding their ship and then (presumably) refuses to make restitution when presented with an ultimatum. Following this, Britain declares war in defence of its neutral rights.

Click to expand...

Not to mention in response to the criminal piracy of USN Captain Willkes, who promptly hanged both envoys before opening fire on and sinking the Trent, and then machine-gunning, uh, I mean, gatling-gunning the lifeboats! A true war criminal, that bastard Willkes. At least he was hanged at Nuremburg.

This is similar to what happened in the Arrow war several years earlier.

Click to expand...

Uh, you DO KNOW that the British were the Bad Guys in the Opium Wars, right?

Britain is actually being nice by delivering the ultimatum: the US didn't bother to do so in 1812.

Click to expand...

The USA from the Articles of Confederation to Washington to Madison had been demanding the release of the 1000+ Americans (NO, I AM NOT counting real British deserters, the British sea captains didn't give a good goddam about the legal status of the Americans they "impressed") onboard the Royal Navy's warships. That's more men than were in the entire US Navy. The British had been given warnings and ultimatums aplenty, which were answered by the Admiralty with contempt. And the US Congress issued a formal declaration of war, not the undeclared war Britain had been waging on American seamen since the Treaty of Paris was signed.

Without getting into the issue of how successful their plans would be, Britain saw this predominantly as a defensive war in Canada and an offensive war at sea. So actual hostilities start after a period of preparation where Britain reinforces Canada and the NA&WI station, calls up and drills Canadian militia, and bans exports of arms to the Union. However, any war that did take place would have been an entirely separate conflict from the civil war the Union is fighting at the same time. There was no intention either to recognise the Confederacy or to co-operate with them when the war broke out. Again, this was similar to what happened in the Arrow war several years earlier, which took place while the Manchu government were fighting the Taiping rebels.

Click to expand...

Eminently logical.

But if you study the language in SOME of the Trent Affair TLs you can clearly discern the author's personal relish in writing a story of the dissolution of the USA, by telling stories of British regiments, French legions, Canadian militia, and Southron divisions traipsing through the length and breadth of the USA, as the "unnatural American experiment" quickly breaks up into a series or warring factions and internecine strife. And here's the kicker: Thereby leaving the more experienced wiser heads of Europe to rule the Continent of Europe and the rest of the world as they have always so ably done.

Trent Affair TLs by-and-large like to pretend that the 20th century does not/will never exist.

That's the point. Why would Lincoln trade the very low risk that the released Mason and Slidell will talk European powers into joining the war for the certainty that Britain would declare war if they refused the ultimatum?

Click to expand...

Exactly. He wouldn't, and didn't. But if your storytelling goal is to manufacture a balkanization of the USA, then all you have to do is write up a story about some guy who just happens to be named Abraham Lincoln.

robcraufurd said:

You mean what triggers actual hostilities, right? What triggers the war is the fact that the US violates British neutrality by boarding their ship and then (presumably) refuses to make restitution when presented with an ultimatum. Following this, Britain declares war in defence of its neutral rights. This is similar to what happened in the Arrow war several years earlier. Britain is actually being nice by delivering the ultimatum: the US didn't bother to do so in 1812.

Click to expand...

This seems unlikely. Nations don't really go to war because their honor was besmirched in some diplomatic snafu, they go to war because of a calculated decision somewhere to go to war if the opportunity presents itself, and then they make sure that the opportunity presents itself. Now, if the US made a habit of boarding British ships, the British might start seriously reconsidering their unwillingness to get involved in the war as the United States would be making it increasingly difficult for them not to, but it would still boil down to how much Britain thinks it's in its interests to try and break the Confederacy off from the United States. Also, at that point the scenario would rely on the United States deciding to willfully goad Britain into the war, which seems insane. So like I said before the real POD here would be a change in British perceptions to deciding that war with the United States and a Confederate victory would be in their interest.

Anybody who thinks Britain would go to war over an illegal search-and-seizure believes Britain went to war to avenge one man's ear.

BTW, what the HMS Leopard did to the USS Chesapeake totally trumps what the USS San Jacinto did to the HMS Trent Despite my previous post's snarkiness, nobody on the Trent was hurt, much less killed.

The British didn't go to war over President-Little Belt

usertron2020 said:

Anybody who thinks Britain would go to war over an illegal search-and-seizure believes Britain went to war to avenge one man's ear.

BTW, what the HMS Leopard did to the USS Chesapeake totally trumps what the USS San Jacinto did to the HMS Trent Despite my previous post's snakiness, nobody on the Trent was hurt, much less killed.

Click to expand...

Cripes, the British didn't go to war over President-Little Belt in May, 1811; the idea that Palmerston et al would launch Operation Imperial Storm in December, 1861, over the likes of Mason, Slidell, two male secretaries, and the delay of the Trent for a few hours is ludicrous.

Again, the US and UK managed to avoid war repeatedly in 1861-65, despite provocations ranging from Trent to the Laird Rams to Chesapeake (a US flag merchant ship pirated by BNA nationals, for god's sake) to the simple reality Bermuda and the Bahamas went from being the sleepiest of imperial backwaters to some of the wealthiest spots in the world because of blockade running - in the face of the British declaration of neutrality - in a period of months ... and the reason the two nations did not is largely because of the good sense of men like Lincoln, Seward, Adams, Weed, Scott, etc. on the one hand and Russell, Cornewall-Lewis, etc., who are all the same individuals who are supposedly going to go to war over the Trent.

Which, don't forget, effectively leads to an active military alliance between a nation founded on the ideal of imperial, constitutional, and governmental stability and whose foreign and domestic policy had been against slavery since the 1830s with not just rebels but rebels who rebelled over the fact their faction lost an election predicated on preventing the expansion of slavery into federal territory. Yeah, that will happen......maybe if Palmerston has an aneurysm.

It is worth remembering that even Palmerston, at his most ballistic, didn't go to war in 1864 with the Prussians or Austrians over Denmark, (didn't even really threaten it, actually) despite the fact that control of the Baltic exits might have slightly more importance to Britain than whether the Trent was delayed in its passage for a few hours... and (it is worth adding, so I am) this decision brought Pam to within 18 votes of losing a no confidence vote in Parliament, and it took an alliance between the arch-proponent of gunboat diplomacy and men like Cobden and Bright - who had been pilloried for the advocacy of peace with the Russians in 1854-56 - to avoid it.

Frankly, maritime provocations are not uncommon in history - as witness this week's P-8 and Mig deal in the South China Sea. I don't see the US nuking Peking over it, do you?

If such was the default, of course, the UK would have attacked Albania and China in 1947, and the US would have taken Tel Aviv in 1967 and Pyongyang in 1968 - which are all examples of how ridiculous the "Trent War" scenario is; nations - especially democracies - don't act that way, in the Nineteenth or Twentieth centuries.



It took me 70-odd pages of 12 point TNR to get to the point where I thought actual active hostilities between the US and UK was remotely plausible in Burnished Rows of Steel, and along the way I had to:

• have the rebel War Department take up a strategy of trying to create an Anglo-American breech in 1861, two years ahead of schedule, by what amounts to special operations along the US-BNA border;
• as such, have the St. Albans Raid occur two years ahead of when it happened historically;
• have Albert die a month earlier than historically, and in a way that diminishes the royal family and estranges those in the know from Edward;
• have Victoria withdraw from public life;
• have an 1861 equivalent of Trent-Little Belt-Chesapeake rolled into one;
• have an 1861 version of Bronkhorstspruit, except in Vermont, not on the veld;
• have the rebels continue (literally) sniping at US posts along the border from inside BNA;
• have various additional diplomatic back and forth, mirroring the timeline and short of war period of the Russian War to the month;
• finally, have active hostilities break out on the US-BNA border in March, followed by declarations of war in April...

And I'm still not satisified even all of the above would have led to war. See:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=301246


So, the reality of any of the "single incident" provocations between the US and UK (or UK and US) ever leading to war is ridiculous; the people involved at the highest levels were all too sharp, and the stakes involved were all too low (or high, depending on one's point of view) to justify it.

One other point - someone posted the British would wage a defensive war, if such broke out; oddly enough, that's exactly opposite to what passed for their war plan, which included proposals for not one, but two invasions of the US - an attempt to seize control of Lake Champlain, using the minimal British forces immediately available in the Province of Canada (as ordered by Cambridge, and to Williams); and an amphibious invasion of Maine, as mooted in London, largely by the Army, in what can only be described as the seriously misapprehended idea that a) Maine was not loyal, and b) by seizing Portland, somehow the full length of the GTR, all the way to Montreal, could be controlled...neither idea suggests much in the way of realistic appraisal of the geography of the northern United States (physical and political), much less the correlation of forces in place in North America in the winter of 1861-62.

But yeah, other than those minor details, it's "Britannia, 'eff yeah!" all the way down...

Best,

One correction, the Brits and the US had been successfully avoiding wars since 1812, it's in noones interest to fight.

And Britain was neutral in the ACW in much the same way and the US was neutral in the Arab Israeli wars.

Well, 1815, I'd say, but yeah, but I was being polite...

Gannt the chartist said:

One correction, the Brits and the US had been successfully avoiding wars since 1812, it's in noones interest to fight.

And Britain was neutral in the ACW in much the same way and the US was neutral in the Arab Israeli wars.

Click to expand...

Well, 1815, I'd say, yeah, but I was being polite...

Best,

The date of the attack interests me because it makes me wonder how it would affect some campaigns like the Peninsular campaign. For example, if Joseph E. Johnston didn't get injured during the Battle of Seven Pines, then Robert E. Lee wouldn't have been commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Although McClellan wasn't a great general, he was able to get within a few miles of the capital while Joseph E. Johnston was in command of the army. Maybe McClellan would've been good enough to check any Confederate advance on the eastern theater?

Any Trent War would require a POD before the incident itself in order to make one or both sides eager to fight. Maybe if in the run-up to the American Civil War various top American politicians tried to unite the country against a common foe by whipping up anti-British sentiment, and that they were successful enough in this for an American invasion of Canada was seen by London as a real possibility. That way Britain might well want to pre-empt this and take the Americans down a peg or two, and what better time to do this when they're fighting a major civil war on the other side of their country? The Trent Affair in this TL would be more a handy pretext than the real cause of the war.

Sucrose said:

This seems unlikely. Nations don't really go to war because their honor was besmirched in some diplomatic snafu, they go to war because of a calculated decision somewhere to go to war if the opportunity presents itself, and then they make sure that the opportunity presents itself.

Click to expand...

If it seems unlikely that Britain intended to go to war in the event of an American refusal, it begs the question of why Palmerston wrote "If the Federal Government refuse compliance, Great Britain is in a better state than at any former time to inflict a serious blow upon, and to read a lesson to the United States which will not soon be forgotten"; why the Duke of Newcastle warned the Governor General of Canada to prepare for war; why a six-member war committee was created to plan for the conflict; why 11,000 troops, and nine ships are sent to the theatre and more ordered to prepare. In fact, every primary source I've read- British and American, official and unofficial- has indicated they expected the refusal to result in war. In the interests of disclosure, could you let me know which primary evidence you've seen that leads you to believe Britain wasn't planning on following through on its threat of war?

Sucrose said:

Also, at that point the scenario would rely on the United States deciding to willfully goad Britain into the war, which seems insane.

Click to expand...

Depending on how much you've read you may not be aware of this, but a sizeable proportion of British public opinion thinks that the whole point of the Trent affair is the Union deliberately forcing a war on Britain. The purpose of this is to either allow them to patch up their troubles with the South (a version of the solution discussed in Sewards April memo) or, alternatively, just to let them to duck out of a civil war they know they're losing and blame it all on the British.

usertron2020 said:

Not to mention in response to the criminal piracy of USN Captain Willkes, who promptly hanged both envoys before opening fire on and sinking the Trent, and then machine-gunning, uh, I mean, gatling-gunning the lifeboats! A true war criminal, that bastard Willkes. At least he was hanged at Nuremburg.

Click to expand...

usertron2020 said:

BTW, what the HMS Leopard did to the USS Chesapeake totally trumps what the USS San Jacinto did to the HMS Trent Despite my previous post's snakiness, nobody on the Trent was hurt, much less killed.

Click to expand...

I assume you're prepared to concede that the fact that nobody was killed has absolutely no relevance as to the question of whether Britain's neutral rights were violated.

usertron2020 said:

Uh, you DO KNOW that the British were the Bad Guys in the Opium Wars, right?

Click to expand...

You'll notice I never said a word about whether they were right or wrong. The rectitude of Britain going to war because the Chinese boarded a British flagged vessel in 1856 has nothing to do with its relevance as to the question of whether they'd go to war for much the same reason six years later.

usertron2020 said:

But if you study the language in SOME of the Trent Affair TLs you can clearly discern the author's personal relish in writing a story of the dissolution of the USA

Click to expand...

I've read a few of those. I'll tell you what I've read more of though: stories where an gout-ridden autocratic racist bullies a hysterical harpy and an out-of-touch, somnolescent cabinet into declaring a crusade against a nation they profess to despise, but secretly tremble from. A motly collection of titled fops, whose stunning incompetence is matched only by the ridiculousness of their accents, lead a mass of sullen parade-ground automatons with outdated weapons, tactics and uniforms into what they confidently predict will be "Quick spot of bwattle bwefwore twea, dontcherknow".

The Union, all internal dissention quelled by the appearance of the British, disengages from its existing conflict with an ease verging on the casual, unerringly plucks talented generals from its officer corps in a way it seemed unable to do historically, swiftly forms hordes of patriotic volunteers into disciplined units of crack marksmen equipped liberally with repeating rifles and breech-loaders. The combined ingenuity and industry of the North send forth tides of inventions plucked, as narrative requirements dictate, from the next ten years of engineering developments or steampunk novels: ironclads, spar torpedos, machine guns, tanks. After a brief period of British success sufficient to make what follows seem less unfair, the Union curb-stomps the minescule British army, sinks and burns the Royal Navy in lovingly described detail, captures and annexes Canada (which the Canadians have secretly been longing after for years), and - page count permitting - liberates Britain's other colonies starting with Ireland and working through the remainder alphabetically.

At least two of these fantasies were committed to print: I've no idea how many were written or, indeed, are being posted on these very boards at this moment in time. Wish fulfilment (regardless of side) isn't my sort of thing any more than it seems to be yours.