The Trent Affair causes the British to mobilize

[Everdarklegion]

In OTL the Union navy stopped, boarded and captured two Confederate ambassadors on the British vessel the Trent. Lincoln was able to successfully find a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but what if Great Britain was less receptive to diplomacy and war broke out between GB and the Union, thus giving the CSA legitimacy?

My opinion is that the Royal Navy would break the blockade of the South thus allowing the Confederate States access to international trade. GB would send a small army South from Canada but I suspect that Union forces would successfully defeat any British invasion. With British recognition, Napoleon III might be willing to officially recognize Confederate independence, if the CSA helps with the subjugation of Mexico. Great Britain might force the Union and Confederate leaders to negotiate peace in 1863.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Hoo boy have I got a TL for you then.

 

[Marc]

In OTL the Union navy stopped, boarded and captured two Confederate ambassadors on the British vessel the Trent. Lincoln was able to successfully find a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but what if Great Britain was less receptive to diplomacy and war broke out between GB and the Union, thus giving the CSA legitimacy?

My opinion is that the Royal Navy would break the blockade of the South thus allowing the Confederate States access to international trade. GB would send a small army South from Canada but I suspect that Union forces would successfully defeat any British invasion. With British recognition, Napoleon III might be willing to officially recognize Confederate independence, if the CSA helps with the subjugation of Mexico. Great Britain might force the Union and Confederate leaders to negotiate peace in 1863.

Some variation of the British entering the war has been gone over in great depth on a number of Confederate victory threads.
What hasn't been done - at least I can't recall seeing it - would be a "Sleeping Giant" scenario where the British end up getting themselves in whole lot of hurt, and rethink why should they continue to support a rebellion that they have very mixed feelings about.
[There have been discussions that suggest it would be more difficult for the British than they might have anticipated defeating the US, but not that could end up far too costly for the return on investment.]

 

[AltoRegnant]

Ultimately I don't think the CSA would gain much help. The Brits might get pissy but they have India and Egypt for cotton, and "yes let's invade a country that stretches a continent wide and who's got industrial power comparable to the European powers in a smaller area."

I doubt it would go anywhere.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Neither side had anything at all to gain from a war, so a diplomatic solution was really the only plausible outcome. The U.S. had much more to lose and was in the wrong, so U.S. concession is the more likely result, as per OTL. The various Trent Affair discussions on this board all start from a point of the U.S. acting completely irrationally and then devolve into shitstorms.

It's a somewhat interesting scenario in a strictly military sense but a very very unlikely historical counterfactual.

 

[Dave Howery]

I never thought it would be much of a war, mainly because of the sheer dominance of the RN. You can make arguments about the land war, but with the war at sea such a mismatch, the US is going to have little choice but to seek an armistice...

 

[Marc]

I never thought it would be much of a war, mainly because of the sheer dominance of the RN. You can make arguments about the land war, but with the war at sea such a mismatch, the US is going to have little choice but to seek an armistice...

As noted, an actual conflict between the United States and Great Britain would have been extremely unlikely. However the assumption that the Royal Navy would would have been sufficient to break the United States doesn't hold up. Yes, the blockade of the South would have been broken, but the evidence suggests that it wasn't really that effective; certainly not in 1862, and throughout the war the South was able to obtain some significant supplies through the blockade runners - long term it had a serious economic effect (and perhaps more significantly, psychological damage), but rather little militarily. And a blockade of Northern ports would hardly have had any effect on the Union war effort. And once Halifax is taken...
More generally, there is an odd tendency to see the Union as being soft on the war, i.e. willing to walk away from what they considered a righteous conflict. I think this a wistful mistake in judgement akin to how the Japanese saw the U.S. in 1941.

 

[History Learner]

The Federals were dependent on the British for gunpowder, lead and even firearms themselves. They get hopelessly smashed in 1862 if they fail to appease London and start a war.

 

[Everdarklegion]

Ultimately I don't think the CSA would gain much help. The Brits might get pissy but they have India and Egypt for cotton, and "yes let's invade a country that stretches a continent wide and who's got industrial power comparable to the European powers in a smaller area."

I doubt it would go anywhere.

At the outbreak of the US civil war, 90% of GB's textile industry relied on southern cotton. GB was forced to seek their cotton supply elsewhere.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

In a more direct response to the OP, historically the Trent affair did cause the British to mobilize. They shipped 11,000 troops to Canada and were working the Royal Navy dockyards in double shifts to mobilize warships for the expected conflict. The PM at the time (Lord Palmerston) sincerely believed, along with most of the cabinet, that the Union was going to lose the war. In that light they felt it was probable that the government in Washington would be attempting to cover up its losses by fighting a 'short victorious war' against Britain to annex Canada to make good their losses in the South. To us of course, this is a crazy assumption but it is worth pointing out that the British public and politicians throughout the whole of the historic Civil War were getting a very lopsided view of the conflict, their news was always 2 weeks to a month stale and they had very little conception of how the government in Washington worked and quite frankly had very little understanding of the personalities involved. Lincoln was an unknown entity who in 1861-62 was almost universally seen as a country bumpkin by people reporting on the war to London. The only person well known in London by members of the Cabinet was Secretary of State William Seward, and he had a reputation for saying that the Union should invade and annex Canada, which was one of the great reasons the British thought that the Trent affair was a prelude to war.

On the flip side, when you read about the brief time period from November to December 1861, you see the Union going from a period of smug 'we've twisted the lions tail' to a 'oh shit this was probably a bad idea' mindset. The one guy who realized from the start it was a bad idea? William Seward! When you get into first hand accounts everyone realizes that fighting a war with Britain and fighting the rebellion at the same time would have been impossible for the Union, they did a massive trade with them, and investment went both ways across the Atlantic which would have very bad knock on effects. Ironically, Lincoln nearly made the worst mistake of his presidency by holding out to the last minute to accede to British demands by thinking he could avoid an embarrassing situation by letting the matter be settled by international arbitration, it was only when the power he pinned his hopes on, Napoleon III's France, rather bluntly said they supported the British position, that he completely backed down.

The aforementioned mobilization and the realization that they couldn't fight two wars at once caused the Union to decide that discretion was the better part of valor. The British, who by all accounts were willing to fight but felt they were being forced into it, accepted the release of the commissioners and a somewhat rambling letter from Seward (seriously, try reading it, it is a masterpiece of twisting logic) and didn't make any further fuss.

My personal belief is that it would take far more than just the seizure of the Trent itself to keep the cabinet in Washington from backing down, but if Lincoln had bulled through to make international arbitration his goal the British were going to go to war because they fundamentally didn't understand the government in Washington and the world would have been a worse place for it.

 

[Fiver]

In OTL the Union navy stopped, boarded and captured two Confederate ambassadors on the British vessel the Trent. Lincoln was able to successfully find a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but what if Great Britain was less receptive to diplomacy and war broke out between GB and the Union, thus giving the CSA legitimacy?

My opinion is that the Royal Navy would break the blockade of the South thus allowing the Confederate States access to international trade. GB would send a small army South from Canada but I suspect that Union forces would successfully defeat any British invasion. With British recognition, Napoleon III might be willing to officially recognize Confederate independence, if the CSA helps with the subjugation of Mexico. Great Britain might force the Union and Confederate leaders to negotiate peace in 1863.

As has been noted, this isn't very likely. OTOH, the Trent Affiar blowing up is the most likely possibility for any European power getting involved in the US Civil War. The subject tends to be dominated by Trent Warriors who think it would be a curbstomp for one side or another. EnglishCanuck's timeline, linked above, is a rare exception.

 

[Everdarklegion]

In a more direct response to the OP, historically the Trent affair did cause the British to mobilize. They shipped 11,000 troops to Canada and were working the Royal Navy dockyards in double shifts to mobilize warships for the expected conflict. The PM at the time (Lord Palmerston) sincerely believed, along with most of the cabinet, that the Union was going to lose the war. In that light they felt it was probable that the government in Washington would be attempting to cover up its losses by fighting a 'short victorious war' against Britain to annex Canada to make good their losses in the South. To us of course, this is a crazy assumption but it is worth pointing out that the British public and politicians throughout the whole of the historic Civil War were getting a very lopsided view of the conflict, their news was always 2 weeks to a month stale and they had very little conception of how the government in Washington worked and quite frankly had very little understanding of the personalities involved. Lincoln was an unknown entity who in 1861-62 was almost universally seen as a country bumpkin by people reporting on the war to London. The only person well known in London by members of the Cabinet was Secretary of State William Seward, and he had a reputation for saying that the Union should invade and annex Canada, which was one of the great reasons the British thought that the Trent affair was a prelude to war.

On the flip side, when you read about the brief time period from November to December 1861, you see the Union going from a period of smug 'we've twisted the lions tail' to a 'oh shit this was probably a bad idea' mindset. The one guy who realized from the start it was a bad idea? William Seward! When you get into first hand accounts everyone realizes that fighting a war with Britain and fighting the rebellion at the same time would have been impossible for the Union, they did a massive trade with them, and investment went both ways across the Atlantic which would have very bad knock on effects. Ironically, Lincoln nearly made the worst mistake of his presidency by holding out to the last minute to accede to British demands by thinking he could avoid an embarrassing situation by letting the matter be settled by international arbitration, it was only when the power he pinned his hopes on, Napoleon III's France, rather bluntly said they supported the British position, that he completely backed down.

The aforementioned mobilization and the realization that they couldn't fight two wars at once caused the Union to decide that discretion was the better part of valor. The British, who by all accounts were willing to fight but felt they were being forced into it, accepted the release of the commissioners and a somewhat rambling letter from Seward (seriously, try reading it, it is a masterpiece of twisting logic) and didn't make any further fuss.

My personal belief is that it would take far more than just the seizure of the Trent itself to keep the cabinet in Washington from backing down, but if Lincoln had bulled through to make international arbitration his goal the British were going to go to war because they fundamentally didn't understand the government in Washington and the world would have been a worse place for it.

The British already feared the expansion and growing industrial capabilities of the US. In OTL, they actively had been seeking ways to halt American growth. It would not be that far of a stretch to think that GB use this opportunity to weaken the Union before it could get any stronger.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The British already feared the expansion and growing industrial capabilities of the US. In OTL, they actively had been seeking ways to halt American growth. It would not be that far of a stretch to think that GB use this opportunity to weaken the Union before it could get any stronger.

They feared them yes, but on the practical level what could they do about it? The previous two wars with America were bloody and one resulted in disaster and the other was a stalemate. They had tried to use soft power to curb US expansion, with disputes in the Oregon Territory, some wrangling over the territorial boundary out west and attempting to prop up an independent Texas, but really unless they intervened forcefully what was there to accomplish?

Even in OTL's Civil War, many saw the chance to deal a blow to the Union. Palmerston was about as anti-American as you could get for an aristocrat in the Victorian era, but he quashed all attempts at recognition by his colleagues in cabinet and Parliament. This was because, while he believed Britain would handily win any war with the US, it would also be an expensive and bloody war which had the potential for national embarrassment. If, as in the Trent affair, Britain had a cause for war he was gung ho for it, but he had no love of the Confederate States of America for the sake of weakening the United States as a whole. He stuck firmly to the policy that Britain would only recognize the Confederacy if the Confederacy proved that it was winning the war since then there would be no real risk of having to fight on behalf of Confederate independence. He wasn't going to throw away British blood and treasure out of spite. Despite the bad wrap he can get in these discussions, he was a pretty canny politician in that regard.

 

[Marc]

The Federals were dependent on the British for gunpowder, lead and even firearms themselves. They get hopelessly smashed in 1862 if they fail to appease London and start a war.

How long do you realistically think it would take a country that within a decade was to surpass Great Britain as the leading industrial manufacturer in the world (and was already close in 1860) to domestically replace lost military imports?
Yes, the U.S. was that economically powerful and certainly had the know how to gear up for a massive war effort. Reading the history of the North in terms of economy from the 1820's on, one gets staggered by how enormously it grew and continued to grow throughout the Civil War period - and by how the U.S became the industrial innovator of the age [one of the amusing side notes of history, early on we were very aggressive in stealing European technology, once we became a leader ourselves, very aggressive in preserving patent protection].
As I noted, the British Navy by itself isn't going to bring the U.S to its knees, and the South isn't either.

 

[Fiver]

The Federals were dependent on the British for gunpowder, lead and even firearms themselves. They get hopelessly smashed in 1862 if they fail to appease London and start a war.

The US was importing lead because it was cheaper, but there were plenty of domestic supplies. Until the British could establish a blockade, the Union could still import powder and guns from other countries. After that, they could still have used blockade runners, like the Confederates did in OTL. Establishing that blockade would have taken months. The British identified 13 different points on the Union Coast that needed to be blockaded and estimated they needed "6 Line-of-battle, 11 Frigates, 23 Sloops, 20 Gunboats" plus a further frigate and 6 gunboats to block "Cay West and the Tortugas". That is more than 1/3 of the ships that Brain had available for active duty worldwide. Admiral Milne, the man who would have been in charge of establishing the blockade, noted on his copy of the report that the proposed number of ships was "entirely inadequate" and later wrote that the British "Line of Battle ships would never have stood the gales and seas off the American coast".

 

[The Professor]

I see we're descending to "X would totally win" territory again. *sigh*

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

The next step is to start copy-pasting arguments from 10 years ago as though they were people's own.

 

[m0585]

Honestly, neither side wanted an actual war; it was more about honor and national pride. Yes the British shipped troops to Canada and made preparations for war, but both sides had a lot to lose in actually fighting each other.

With that said, @EnglishCanuck has an outstanding TL on a potential blowup of the Trent Affair.

 

[Marc]

The next step is to start copy-pasting arguments from 10 years ago as though they were people's own.

Well, the core problem is simply that the Civil War is still an unhealed wound in the American psyche. Or, as an old friend of mine liked to say, Never forgive, never forget is up there with no retreat, no surrender... Then he would mix up for us some Sazerac and gossip about Jazz.

 

[BELFAST]

it is an interesting question and the effect of such a conflict in the short medium and long term.
I think one of the short term reason the British did not was food.
After the corn laws were repealed the British were very dependant on imports of wheat from the Union and the harvest in europe at the time were bad leading to hunger.
I think the British needed Union wheat more than they need Confederate cotton.
Union diplomats seem to have done a better job than the Confederate ones.

Assuming the British and French join the war on the CSA side what do they gain?
Access to Cotton, tobacco,Sugar,Naval stores and Rice from the CSA
Tariff free access to CSA markets for their industrial good and weapons
They also limit the size and power of a potential rival to its empire.

How would in help the CSA?
The biggest effect would be the economy with the ports open this might help control inflation.
The British have the printing presses to forge Union green backs on a large scale to disrupt the Union economy.

How would the Union hit back?
I think the US could build commerce raider to disrupt British and French ships world wide and drive up insurance rates on Lloyds of London.
There there was even an implied threat that the Union could build commerce raider for the IRB(The Fenians) and crew the with Union sailors.

Assuming the CSA can win with this help how do things change?

Bad relations with the USA and possible a arms race with Navy on both sides.
America might aid rebel groups in the British empire like in Ireland and South Africa etc. British might have a lot more problem in South Africa and Ireland.
Catalpa rescue this could lead to further tensions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalpa_rescue
In WW1 the British might think twice about joining the war as they may not get help in loans or USA joining war on their side.
If the British do join the war they might need to come to an early settlement with the CP maybe 1916.
Short war may mean no communist in Russia and no big loans for the USA so the default on war loans form Europe of the early 1930s that caused so many problems for the US banks might not happen.

It would be interesting to see what effect the loss of the south states have on Government of the people by the people for the people as mentioned in the Gettysburg address.

that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address#Text_of_the_Gettysburg_Address

Would it mean and end to Democracy? Would democracy be seen as a less stable form of government compared to monarcy?
Would USA be seen as weak and lead to the great powers in Europe taking more interest in the America north and Latin America?