If they will not meet us on the open sea (a Trent TL)
- Thread starter Saphroneth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- trent
I think I've got you on this. Per Article 2, clause 2, section 2 of the Confederate constitution, the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors'. The Confederate Congress isn't in session in November 1862: it broke up on 13 October 1862, and it wouldn't reconvene until 12 January 1863.* So Mason's appointment could have been approved on the first day of its third session**; he could have gone straight down to the docks, and arrived in Britain just in time to deliver his credentials on Thursday 29 January 1863- the day after the US ratifies.
*this causes a problem with it ratifying the treaty on 7 November. However, it's possible it held an extra session or sat longer purely to ratify the treaty. By that point, the members would probably be desperate to get home and happy to shelve any confirmation of appointments until the New Year.
** If Mason has been in prison in the North since November 1861, I imagine he'd rather like to spend Christmas at home. And perhaps the Confederacy announced a national day of Thanksgiving for their independence?
Saphroneth
Banned
Right, minor retcon it is then. (I looked up sitting times for HMG but forgot to for the CSA. Whoops!)
He could have done this - but if the lawyers in the UK had done their job properly he would not have been accepted at the Court of St James until two months after the US ratification of the treaty when it was fully in force.
if the Spirit had been flying a confederate flag in the meantime then as far as the RN was concerned they were not under the protection of any sovereign power - yet.
Saphroneth
Banned
Yes, that's more of a me a culpa than anything. I'll change a few past posts and note the edit.
As Seward found out, if you're in the wrong you're much better apologising with good grace.
There's an argument that slavers are pirates already, but I don't think this line is a practical one. Remember that the UK has recognised Confederate belligerency: it's difficult to then turn round and argue that the flag has no validity. Otherwise, they'd have handed over CSS Sumter to the American warships chasing it.
I didn't say it had no validity - I said it gave them no protection. Recognising that a flag is indicative of a military faction is one thing. Choosing to aid that military faction is another. Turning that into offering a legal protection from RN ships seeking to prevent the slave trade, a trade that is universally condemned (officially) is a completely different thing. Under the 1842 agreements the RN is obliged to request a US ship to intervene if it wants to stop a US flagged ship. The Confederacy is not US flagged - it doesn't fall under the 1842 convention. Essentially the RN can treat the Confederacy as a ship of unknown origin and once it is boarded the US citizens may be entitled to US protection (not CSA - yet).
But all the nations which have dealt with Confederate merchant ships so far have acknowledged that they don't belong to the US either:
'Towards the end of June 1861 a merchant-vessel under the Confederate flag made her appearance in the Port of London. This was the first case of the kind... The Peter Marcy therefore remained unmolested in the Victoria Dock, flying her Confederate flag.
As early as the preceding April the same question had been raised at St. Petersburg by the American Minister (Mr. Appleton). Prince Gortschakoff had answered that, while things continued as they were, commerce between Russia and the Confederate States would not be interrupted... If they chose to deny that they belonged to the United States, that would make no difference. This involved no recognition of nationality; it was a concession in aid of commerce. Regulations to this effect were subsequently issued by the Departments of Marine and Trade...
A similar course was adopted, but not without dispute, by Spain. The Governor of Cuba having issued an order under which "vessels proceeding from and bearing the flag of the Southern Confederacy" were to be permitted to enter and clear "as vessels proceeding from a foreign nation which had no accredited Consul within this territory," Mr. Seward wrote to Mr. Schurz to express dissatisfaction. His Government expected, he said, "that such vessels should be treated in all respects as American, and subject to the laws and consular authority of the United States"... Senor Calderon Collantes refused to comply with this unreasonable requisition...
These cases fairly represent the general course which nations may be expected to pursue in respect of the unarmed ships of a revolted community, whose independence has not been recognized.'
('A historical account of the neutrality of Great Britain during the American civil war,' Mountague Bernard)
This isn't quite correct. The Webster-Ashburton treaty doesn't say anything about the Royal Navy being 'obliged to request a US ship to intervene'. What it says is:
'ARTICLE VIII. The Parties mutually stipulate that each shall prepare, equip, and maintain in service, on the coast of Africa, a sufficient and adequate squadron, or naval force of vessels, of suitable numbers and descriptions, to carry in all not less than eighty guns, to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws rights and obligations of each of the two countries, for the suppression of the Slave Trade, the said squadrons to be independent of each other, but the two Governments stipulating, nevertheless, to give such orders to the officers commanding their respective forces, as shall enable them most effectually to act in concert and cooperation, upon mutual consultation, as exigencies may arise, for the attainment of the true object of this article; copies of all such orders to be communicated by each Government to the other respectively.'
It's phrased this way because the default position is that you're not entitled to board a foreign-flagged ship unless you have a treaty with the appropriate power which permits you to do so, or you're claiming belligerent rights. The British in 1842 claimed that they had a right to stop a ship and confirm that its flag matched its registration; the Americans disagreed, arguing that it was for the power whose flag was being misused to detect and punish infractions. It was the American interpretation which won out, with the quid pro quo as embodied in this clause being that the US would station more ships on the African coast so the British wouldn't need the right of visitation.
Britain didn't sign conventions with other European countries agreeing to refrain from boarding their ships. It signs conventions permitting it to board their ships, and it does so because of that default position that you have no right to board.
"I didn't recognise the flag" cannot be an allowable excuse for boarding, because absolutely any captain could claim not to have recognised a particular flag. Board whoever you want, and then brush it off afterwards by protesting bad weather or bad eyesight. A naval officer can request that a ship not flying colours displays them, and can fire a gun to coerce them into doing so. If he thinks they're flying false colours and the ship actually belongs to his nation, he can board them. But he better be damn certain if he does, because if he gambles and loses, it's the right of the power whose rights have been infringed to demand and exact reparation.
The British government has recognised the Confederacy as the de facto government of the American South for several years. It has empowered its consular agents to treat directly with Confederate officials where British interests are at stake. It's not feasible to revert from that position to 'this nation doesn't exist', particularly when you've already dealt with their merchant ships as if it does, though it may be feasible to make the legal decision that the Confederacy has inherited the international obligations of its predecessor state.
Trent War VC citations
Saphroneth
Banned
Victoria Cross citations, Trent War (selected sample)
Private James William HERBERT, Queens Own Rifles of Canada
For Conspicuous Gallantry at the Battle of Niagara on the 25th of April 1862, engaging opposing boats crossing the Niagara River with skill and bravery. The detachment of which Private Herbert was a part was targeted most heavily by enemy artillery, and his persistent and capable sharp-shooting with rifles loaded for him by the other members of his squad delayed the enemy landings by some ten minutes in his area. Private Herbert was wounded four times by shrapnel and once by musketry during this time, refusing to retreat until the expenditure of all available ammunition.
Corporal Guillaime Roy TREMBLAY, Voltiguers de Quebec
For marked gallantry at the Battle of Highgate, on the 13th June 1862. Corporal Tremblay repeatedly rode between his regiment in Highgate and the batteries two miles north with corrections and fall-of-shot, allowing the artillery to be directed so as to drive the enemy from the town. Corporal Tremblay had two horses shot out from under him during this time.
Corporal Matthew Johnson BLAKE, Ontario Volunteer Rifles (posthumous citation, with the note being that he would have won the VC had he survived.)
Corporal Blake displayed gallantry by setting an example for the men of his regiment at the Battle of Grand River on 10 June 1862. He was the first man out of the assault boats, taking the regimental colours when the bearer was shot down, and carried them up to the enemy position. This inspirational example drove the men of his regiment to maintain the advance in the face of a heavy fire, and contributed significantly to the capture of the enemy defences.
Corporal Blake died of his wounds the day after the battle, having been hit by musketry eleven times and cannister twice.
Sergeant Aidan Daniel WALSH, 2 Battalion 18th Regiment of Foot (Royal Irish)
Sergeant Walsh displayed conspicuous gallantry at the Battle of Keeseville on the 19th June 1862. When his battalion was cut off and came under friendly artillery fire due to a dire miscommunication, Sergeant Walsh rallied the battalion and took over ordering their fire. Exposing himself to enemy fire, Sergeant Walsh ensured that the Battalion was not overcome by the enemy and ensured that they successfully made it back to the friendly positions to the north. Sergeant Walsh also led a bayonet charge during this time, and was badly wounded in the thigh which later caused the loss of the leg.
Major Jacob Marsh ALEXANDER, Royal Marines (HMS Donegal)
Major Alexander commanded the land attack on Fort Delaware on the 25th February 1862 after the wounding of the colonel of the 45th Regiment of Foot, leading from the front in exemplary fashion. His bravery and leadership led directly to the defeat of a force twice the size of that arrayed against his own, delivering a heavy and accurate fire on the enemy in spite of their own fire as well as the fire of the fort, and subsequently engaged and disabled several of the fort guns.
Trooper David Nathaniel SCOTT, 18th Hussars
For Marked Gallantry at the Battle of Niagara on the 25th of April 1862. Trooper Scott successfully held the flank of his regiment against two squads of enemy cavalrymen, using the capabilities of his rifle to the fullest while under heavy fire. Trooper Scott was hit five times over the course of the skirmish by rifle and musket bullets, including a bullet which carried away the two forefingers of his right hand, and continued to keep up an accurate fire on the enemy despite this - managing to load despite the damage to his limbs and fire using his left hand.
Subadar Thaman THAPA, 66th Bengal Native Infantry
For conspicuous gallantry at the action of 8 May 1862 outside San Francisco, at which Subadar Thapa on his own initiative brought his men around to the flank of the enemy position and launched a charge with the kukri. The appearance and surprise of this charge terrified the enemy, forcing them to retreat, and Subadar Thapa's personal example in continuing the charge despite two wounds from a revolver and one rifle bullet lodged in his leg contributed significantly to the victory.
(n.b. this is actually the Indian Order of Merit, though it is generally agreed he would have earned the VC if eligible)
Captain John Tyler CHAPMAN, Travanacore Nair Regiment
Captain Chapman demonstrated conspicuous gallantry on the 13th June during the battle of Sacramento, leading his men to attack a number of loopholed houses and capturing all of them. His actions discommoded the defending enemy, leading to their retreat from the city earlier than would otherwise have resulted.
Seaman William LAURENCE, HMS Defence
Seaman Laurence took over command of the nr. 2 Armstrong gun on HMS Defence after the loss of the gun-captain during the action of 21 April, and with Seaman Brands loaded two rounds of Martin's Shell despite the uncomfortable temperature of the rounds at that time. He also sighted in the gun on both occasions, thus contributing significantly to the defeat of the Galena in this action, and was wounded considerably by splinters entering the gun-port and produced by spall including the loss of one eye.
Private James William HERBERT, Queens Own Rifles of Canada
For Conspicuous Gallantry at the Battle of Niagara on the 25th of April 1862, engaging opposing boats crossing the Niagara River with skill and bravery. The detachment of which Private Herbert was a part was targeted most heavily by enemy artillery, and his persistent and capable sharp-shooting with rifles loaded for him by the other members of his squad delayed the enemy landings by some ten minutes in his area. Private Herbert was wounded four times by shrapnel and once by musketry during this time, refusing to retreat until the expenditure of all available ammunition.
Corporal Guillaime Roy TREMBLAY, Voltiguers de Quebec
For marked gallantry at the Battle of Highgate, on the 13th June 1862. Corporal Tremblay repeatedly rode between his regiment in Highgate and the batteries two miles north with corrections and fall-of-shot, allowing the artillery to be directed so as to drive the enemy from the town. Corporal Tremblay had two horses shot out from under him during this time.
Corporal Matthew Johnson BLAKE, Ontario Volunteer Rifles (posthumous citation, with the note being that he would have won the VC had he survived.)
Corporal Blake displayed gallantry by setting an example for the men of his regiment at the Battle of Grand River on 10 June 1862. He was the first man out of the assault boats, taking the regimental colours when the bearer was shot down, and carried them up to the enemy position. This inspirational example drove the men of his regiment to maintain the advance in the face of a heavy fire, and contributed significantly to the capture of the enemy defences.
Corporal Blake died of his wounds the day after the battle, having been hit by musketry eleven times and cannister twice.
Sergeant Aidan Daniel WALSH, 2 Battalion 18th Regiment of Foot (Royal Irish)
Sergeant Walsh displayed conspicuous gallantry at the Battle of Keeseville on the 19th June 1862. When his battalion was cut off and came under friendly artillery fire due to a dire miscommunication, Sergeant Walsh rallied the battalion and took over ordering their fire. Exposing himself to enemy fire, Sergeant Walsh ensured that the Battalion was not overcome by the enemy and ensured that they successfully made it back to the friendly positions to the north. Sergeant Walsh also led a bayonet charge during this time, and was badly wounded in the thigh which later caused the loss of the leg.
Major Jacob Marsh ALEXANDER, Royal Marines (HMS Donegal)
Major Alexander commanded the land attack on Fort Delaware on the 25th February 1862 after the wounding of the colonel of the 45th Regiment of Foot, leading from the front in exemplary fashion. His bravery and leadership led directly to the defeat of a force twice the size of that arrayed against his own, delivering a heavy and accurate fire on the enemy in spite of their own fire as well as the fire of the fort, and subsequently engaged and disabled several of the fort guns.
Trooper David Nathaniel SCOTT, 18th Hussars
For Marked Gallantry at the Battle of Niagara on the 25th of April 1862. Trooper Scott successfully held the flank of his regiment against two squads of enemy cavalrymen, using the capabilities of his rifle to the fullest while under heavy fire. Trooper Scott was hit five times over the course of the skirmish by rifle and musket bullets, including a bullet which carried away the two forefingers of his right hand, and continued to keep up an accurate fire on the enemy despite this - managing to load despite the damage to his limbs and fire using his left hand.
Subadar Thaman THAPA, 66th Bengal Native Infantry
For conspicuous gallantry at the action of 8 May 1862 outside San Francisco, at which Subadar Thapa on his own initiative brought his men around to the flank of the enemy position and launched a charge with the kukri. The appearance and surprise of this charge terrified the enemy, forcing them to retreat, and Subadar Thapa's personal example in continuing the charge despite two wounds from a revolver and one rifle bullet lodged in his leg contributed significantly to the victory.
(n.b. this is actually the Indian Order of Merit, though it is generally agreed he would have earned the VC if eligible)
Captain John Tyler CHAPMAN, Travanacore Nair Regiment
Captain Chapman demonstrated conspicuous gallantry on the 13th June during the battle of Sacramento, leading his men to attack a number of loopholed houses and capturing all of them. His actions discommoded the defending enemy, leading to their retreat from the city earlier than would otherwise have resulted.
Seaman William LAURENCE, HMS Defence
Seaman Laurence took over command of the nr. 2 Armstrong gun on HMS Defence after the loss of the gun-captain during the action of 21 April, and with Seaman Brands loaded two rounds of Martin's Shell despite the uncomfortable temperature of the rounds at that time. He also sighted in the gun on both occasions, thus contributing significantly to the defeat of the Galena in this action, and was wounded considerably by splinters entering the gun-port and produced by spall including the loss of one eye.
Last edited:
Saphroneth
Banned
Hm - not sure if that Gurkha one was kosher at the time, he might have had to get an Indian award instead. (VCs were awarded to Gurkha units, but to their British officers - the problem is that that engagement didn't have a British officer there, he was elsewhere...)
According to wikipedia, the VC wasn't opened to native Indian troops until 1911, so no (Europeans in Indian service were eligible from 1857). The highest order available to the Subadar would be the Indian Order of Merit.
Saphroneth
Banned
Hm, that's something that SPOILER might change, but for now he gets the Indian OM with a footnote.
It's still early days for the medal, so it's by no means impossible for the rules to change if it becomes patent that something isn't working right. There was at least some demand that Indian troops (or rather, Indian civilians) receive appropriate recognition:
'not only the officers' servants, but the followers belonging to European regiments, such as cook-boys, saices and bhisties (water-carriers), as a rule, behaved in the most praiseworthy manner, faithful and brave to a degree. So much was this the case, that when the troopers of the 9th Lancers were called upon to name the man they considered most worthy of the Victoria Cross, an honour which Sir Colin Campbell purposed to confer on the regiment to mark his appreciation of the gallantry displayed by all ranks during the campaign, they unanimously chose the head bhistie!' ('Forty-one years in India,' Roberts; whether this is apocryphal or not I'm not sure, but the 9th Lancers did hand four VCs out at Delhi- one officer, one sergeant and two ORs, just as the ballot requirements stipulate)
Last edited:
13 - 19 Mar 1862
Saphroneth
Banned
13 Mar
The Committee on Fortifications reports to the Confederate Congress. This takes quite a long time - their recommendations include major coastal fortifications for Charleston, Savannah, Gosport, Albemarle Sound, New Orleans, Galveston, Mobile and San Diego, more minor fortifications to cover many of the smaller inlets such as the York river (or the Potomac, which derails things for half an hour over whether to move the Confederate capital to Washington DC or to dissolve the District of Columbia), as well as land forts at strategic locations along the Parallel Borders, the Ohio, the Mississippi (another derailment about river transit rights) and the Mason Dixon Line. Smaller forts are suggested for Indian Territory, among others.
The Senators and Representatives debate long into the night (indeed, technically they are still sitting on Saturday) about where forts should go, how it should be funded, whether this is a State or Confederate matter and shouldn't Tennessee have a fort too?
16 Mar
Last debate in the Capitol in Washington. It is, as it happens, about fortifications - and goes nowhere fast. The somewhat bitter joke is that the debate will take so long the Confederates will be kicking them out for nonpayment of rent.
Robert E. Lee consults with contractors about what to do with the unsightly army camps on the grounds of Arlington House.
17 Mar
Resolution in the British Parliament on the Polish Affair. It does not go so far as to condemn Russian actions before the revolt, but certainly does not condone their actions since either.
Indeed, the main point the debate turns on is whether to afford the Poles the recognition of being a belligerent.
18 Mar
The State of Colorado is formally welcomed into the Confederate States of America. Communication remains difficult at first, as the most reliable route for rapid communication is essentially to send a coded telegraph through the Union. (Construction of a cross-continental telegraph continues apace, along with surveying for the transcontinental railroad.)
The capital is selected as the small town of Los Angeles.
19 Mar
Battle between Mexican Republic and French-Mexican Empire forces at Santa Cruz de Rosales. There is no particular great victory, with the pro-Maximilian forces holding the field but the pro-Juarez forces taking only light casualties.
Most of the central area of Mexico, and the majority of the coast, is now under pro-Maximilian control. Pro-Juarez forces mainly remain strong in the north and near the CSA border, despite these areas having a fairly high concentration of Conservatives in the Reform War - as such much of Juarez' military is tied down dealing with guerilleros.
Already heavily in debt (the pretext for French intervention in the first place), Juarez' government is mainly funding itself off silver mines in Chihuahua and Sonora, and French plans to capture the remaining ports on the western coast as springboards to attack the silver mines are being advanced.
The Committee on Fortifications reports to the Confederate Congress. This takes quite a long time - their recommendations include major coastal fortifications for Charleston, Savannah, Gosport, Albemarle Sound, New Orleans, Galveston, Mobile and San Diego, more minor fortifications to cover many of the smaller inlets such as the York river (or the Potomac, which derails things for half an hour over whether to move the Confederate capital to Washington DC or to dissolve the District of Columbia), as well as land forts at strategic locations along the Parallel Borders, the Ohio, the Mississippi (another derailment about river transit rights) and the Mason Dixon Line. Smaller forts are suggested for Indian Territory, among others.
The Senators and Representatives debate long into the night (indeed, technically they are still sitting on Saturday) about where forts should go, how it should be funded, whether this is a State or Confederate matter and shouldn't Tennessee have a fort too?
16 Mar
Last debate in the Capitol in Washington. It is, as it happens, about fortifications - and goes nowhere fast. The somewhat bitter joke is that the debate will take so long the Confederates will be kicking them out for nonpayment of rent.
Robert E. Lee consults with contractors about what to do with the unsightly army camps on the grounds of Arlington House.
17 Mar
Resolution in the British Parliament on the Polish Affair. It does not go so far as to condemn Russian actions before the revolt, but certainly does not condone their actions since either.
Indeed, the main point the debate turns on is whether to afford the Poles the recognition of being a belligerent.
18 Mar
The State of Colorado is formally welcomed into the Confederate States of America. Communication remains difficult at first, as the most reliable route for rapid communication is essentially to send a coded telegraph through the Union. (Construction of a cross-continental telegraph continues apace, along with surveying for the transcontinental railroad.)
The capital is selected as the small town of Los Angeles.
19 Mar
Battle between Mexican Republic and French-Mexican Empire forces at Santa Cruz de Rosales. There is no particular great victory, with the pro-Maximilian forces holding the field but the pro-Juarez forces taking only light casualties.
Most of the central area of Mexico, and the majority of the coast, is now under pro-Maximilian control. Pro-Juarez forces mainly remain strong in the north and near the CSA border, despite these areas having a fairly high concentration of Conservatives in the Reform War - as such much of Juarez' military is tied down dealing with guerilleros.
Already heavily in debt (the pretext for French intervention in the first place), Juarez' government is mainly funding itself off silver mines in Chihuahua and Sonora, and French plans to capture the remaining ports on the western coast as springboards to attack the silver mines are being advanced.
Last edited:
Saphroneth
Banned
Aside - it's incredibly hard to get good maps of the Maximilian Affair. I'm getting maps of the Mexican-American War, the Reform War, the Pastry War, the Civil War in Virginia (?) and the Civil War in England (??) instead.
Donald Reaver
Donor
You could make a case this leads to a movement making native troops of the Empire eligible for the same medals as white troops. With the added help of wanting to separate themselves from the racial policies of the Confederacy you could have a vignette 20 years down the road with Thaman Thapa being awarded a V.C.
Skallagrim
Banned
It is indeed very hard to find maps on the subject. The best I can point you to is this series of educational maps about affairs in North America in the relevant period. The quality isn't stellar, but the territories held by either side in Mexico are marked on these, at least. Perhaps they can be of some use to you? One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Nine.
Along the same sort of lines as the above comments regarding Subedar Thapa's VC, this is also an anachronism. The VC wasn't awarded posthumously until the early 20th century - prior to that the best that could be expected would be a note in the gazette stating that the individual would have received the VC had he survived.
Saphroneth
Banned
Whoops!
The times do rather change, don't they... the choice is basically for me to change it to "died of wounds some time later", make the action non-fatal or to make the medal "honorary" in having it noted in Gazette.