Anglo-American War in 1895

Saphroneth

Banned
The matter of who backed down reminds me of a rather silly interpretation of the Trent affair I saw once, which again points out how the perception and the reality of the situation can differ.



The reality of the situation during the Trent was:

(setup) The US had planned to seize four persons (Mason and Sliddell, as well as others) to prevent them from crossing the Atlantic, including planning to intercept a ship inside British waters if need be.
1) The US captain boarded a British ship (a British ship sailing from a neutral port to a neutral port), in violation of the accepted rules on neutral shipping.
2) The US captain seized four persons from the ship as "Contraband", in violation of... well, in violation of a lot of things (the US had no right to seize Contraband on the ship since it was not breaking blockade; people aren't Contraband)
3) The US captain did not submit the result of the interaction to a prize court.
4) The American press made much of this, considering it laudable.
5) The British issued a strongly worded protest, demanding the return of the four persons, as well as making war preparations (shipment of arms, despatchment of troops, calling out of militia) and issuing conditional war orders.
6) After discussion, the US decided to back down - releasing the persons, who made their way to their destinations.


This is sometimes framed as the British backing down. For some reason.
 
Top