I really enjoy your version of Lincoln, if the movie is any indication you've pretty well nailed his tone.
I really enjoy your version of Lincoln, if the movie is any indication you've pretty well nailed his tone.
I can't help but read his dialogue in Daniel Day Lewis' voice. Which is a very good thing.
1) The immediate release of the Confederate commissioners
2) The dismissal of both Captain Wilkes and Captain McInstry from naval service
3) The issuing of a formal and public apology on the part of the United States government for the actions undertaken by members of its Navy
4) The United States would pay for the damages to HMS Terror and would provide financial restitution for the damages done aboard RMS Trent. The amount to be paid would be determined solely by Her Majesties Government
The Cabinet felt these demands to be reasonable, and Queen Victoria was in agreement.
the point in bold is where the British step from reasonable demand to folly... the other 3 are actually reasonable, but demanding the dismissal of officers is where things are going to become impossible for the Americans to respond in a manner the British apparently feel necessary. They wouldn't of in 1812 and didn't even when the Chesapeake -Leopard affair in 1807 until the US ship was fired on (while it was helpless to respond).
So the British just made war inevitable. Sure you can blame over zealous American officers, but you can't blame American policy. You can blame British policy. Although the officer in charge of the American boarding party should face court martial (I didn't say automatic conviction, I mean a trial).
Good to see this back indeed. The previous version was shaping up to be a fine timeline and I've no doubt this one will follow suit.
the point in bold is where the British step from reasonable demand to folly... the other 3 are actually reasonable, but demanding the dismissal of officers is where things are going to become impossible for the Americans to respond in a manner the British apparently feel necessary. They wouldn't of in 1812 and didn't even when the Chesapeake -Leopard affair in 1807 until the US ship was fired on (while it was helpless to respond).
So the British just made war inevitable. Sure you can blame over zealous American officers, but you can't blame American policy. You can blame British policy. Although the officer in charge of the American boarding party should face court martial (I didn't say automatic conviction, I mean a trial).
Thank you! I'm hoping to do one better than the previous one so I'm trying to keep things strong out of the gate.
I wasn't entirely satisfied with the way I handled the ultimatum originally, so I felt that changing it was necessary to make it politically impossible for the US to accede to.
The second point is the least reasonable, but given Palmerston's history (pushing for the fall of Sevastopol and harsh terms on the Russians, pushing for the burning of the Summer Palace and more, desiring a harsh ultimatum OTL during the crisis) so I think it's in line with Palmerston's character to make such an arrogant command. Without Prince Albert, or a sympathetic voice in the British Cabinet for American interests I think that it's probable something like that would slip through to the ultimatum. Factor in British anger and I can see it as being seen as somehow a good idea.
From a practical perspective I would say that making the whole series of demands an ultimatum (which they were close to doing OTL) would have been a failure of policy in and of itself. Adding the really arrogant point is rubbing salt in the wound.
From a narrative perspective if I don't make the ultimatum harsh enough Lincoln could probably find a way to soften the situation to his advantage
Fortunately (for the TL at least) Palmerston is not the type to go for half measures when he feels like being vindictive.
he and everyone else of importance knew the UK could not defend BNA in 1862 (including Wolseley, for crying out loud)
and everyone knew the BNAers would not.
And yet Pam recognized reality in 1864.
I'd put a heavy asterix on that. All the relevant data points to the fears of a United States, not one embroiled in a civil war, being able to overrun Canada. Otherwise the views of those in power are much more sanguine.
They had fairly good reason to be.
Except the people in British North America themselves and the Commissioners appointed directly to assess the possibility of defence in the Province of Canada themselves in 1862 apparently.
I wasn't entirely satisfied with the way I handled the ultimatum originally, so I felt that changing it was necessary to make it politically impossible for the US to accede to.
The second point is the least reasonable, but given Palmerston's history (pushing for the fall of Sevastopol and harsh terms on the Russians, pushing for the burning of the Summer Palace and more, desiring a harsh ultimatum OTL during the crisis) so I think it's in line with Palmerston's character to make such an arrogant command. Without Prince Albert, or a sympathetic voice in the British Cabinet for American interests I think that it's probable something like that would slip through to the ultimatum. Factor in British anger and I can see it as being seen as somehow a good idea.
From a practical perspective I would say that making the whole series of demands an ultimatum (which they were close to doing OTL) would have been a failure of policy in and of itself. Adding the really arrogant point is rubbing salt in the wound.
From a narrative perspective if I don't make the ultimatum harsh enough Lincoln could probably find a way to soften the situation to his advantage
Fortunately (for the TL at least) Palmerston is not the type to go for half measures when he feels like being vindictive.
More than a minor difference considering Denmark set itself up for the war by giving Prussia and Austria a casus-beli which Britain couldn't refute.
Now had the Austrians boarded a British ship and taken some Danish politicians off the British perception of the issue might have been a tad different.
I didn't say you are wrong however, and definitely powerful nations make grand miscalculations routinely in history (including the US, sigh), but future historians are not going to be kind to the British government of the day for getting themselves involved in a risky, expensive war due to arrogance.
And the original British response was (before it was edited by Prince Albert) almost bad enough to push things too far in OTL
Or if the Austrians or Prussians had gotten into an incident with a British warship that ended with 32 RN dead or wounded, surely that would have led to war.
Oh wait.
Yeah, even contemporaries are going to be harsh on them IMO since it will be seen in a light worse than the Crimean War I think, with no Indian Mutiny to bask in, in the aftermath to deflect problems.
I actually have plans for two irreverent playrights to make a point of referring to how pointless it all was...