Plausibility Check: Any Constructive Critiques?

The following is an eraser excerpt for a little idea of mine: what if the Trent Affair had been much messier? As you know, it's not easy developing an interesting story while maintaining at least some plausibility. This is more-less by POD... if you could provide thoughts, comments or even suggest some changes, it would be much appreciated. I've never dabbled with AH so deeply so critiques from more experienced writers would be very helpful.

So here's the POD:

November 8, 1861. The RMS Trent, a British mail ship, is seized by Captain Charles Wilkes and his crew, under the premise that the vessel was carrying illegal contraband. As the Trent was being taken to New Haven, Connecticut, the crew attempted to mutiny against their American captors. Three British sailors were seriously injured, while Confederate diplomat James M. Mason was killed in the skirmishing.


Upon arrival at New Haven, the captured crew was taken to Fort Warren, Massachusetts, while the injured men were rushed to hospital in Connecticut. The Trent herself was sent to Boston just a few days later, where it was examined by customs officers and kept docked under heavy security.


Soon after, as the matter reached American newspapers, almost everyone in the United States quickly agreed that Captain Wilkes’s actions were fully justifiable and that the Americans did nothing wrong. Several respected jurists and academics backed this position; as a result, Wilkes received nationwide praise and acclaim. The British, however, were absolutely furious. They demanded the return of the ship, her cargo and the crew, safely, to the British, as they declared that the capture was unwarranted and completely illegal. Future developments hinged on the fate of the three injured British men, whose conditions were extremely critical. The US claimed that the matter was non-consequential, as they had attacked American sailors, who in turn acted in self-defence. However, Britain countered that the argument lacked validity when considering that the Trent and her crew had been illicitly seized in the first place.


Things took a grave turn when news emerged that one of the injured sailors, Thomas Kent, had died of his wounds. This meant that a British man had been unjustifiably killed after being illegally taken prisoner for no good reason. The British decided that America’s unwillingness to accept their faults meant they openly embraced the consequences such course of action would inevitably bring. The UK thus reinforced Canada with several thousand troops and sent her formidable navy out in case things heated further.


Then, the worst occurred. On the night of December 19, the Trent mysteriously burst ablaze with fire. Within minutes the ship was reduced to a smoking, smouldering heap of charred wood and floating debris. A suspect was caught two hours later: a man identified as Murray Thompson from Baltimore, Maryland.


Thompson was not in custody for long. On December 22, he escaped and made it to Saint John, New Brunswick, where he presented a series of documented proofs which stated that the Americans had intentionally destroyed the Trent but had taken him as a scapegoat; an explanation as for why the US would do such a thing was never provided.


Regardless, the British were intensely livid. There was little room for doubt: the US wanted war, and so Britain would give them one. Even as President Lincoln desperately attempts to convince the British that Thompson’s claims are false, a large stream of British ships trek the Atlantic to reinforce Canada and to a lesser extent, their Caribbean holdings. Robert Lyon, the British envoy to America, is withdrawn to Montreal the day after Christmas. As the talks for peace collapse and the last British ministers return home, Lincoln realizes they must gear for war. On December 28, the United Kingdom officially declares war on the United States.
 
Last edited:
Top