Trent Affair Goes Hot

Have you actually read the Milne Papers? Or any of the other secondary sources talking about British discussions on a potential war with America or imposing a blockade? We know exactly what the British thought about the blockade and what they needed, we even know what Milne thought he needed. This quote has almost nothing to do with it.

(What Milne said in retrospect is more important then what he said talking about a hypothetical war. He knew more in 1862 then say 1860.)

According to Llyod's of London only 1,175, and the British recaptured 373, for a net loss of 802. Or maybe 7% of the British merchant marine was effected by American privateers, so essentially an annoyance. They're not likely to do much better in 1862. If they only use their engines to run, they won't really be able to use them to run down ships will they? That means they can't catch steamers, and they will be mildly ineffective.

The Lloyds list may not be complete, the Privateers had a better count, they got prize money, Lloyds was paying it out. A ship that can sail at 17 kts can catch just about any merchant ship, only another Clipper type ship can match that speed. Ships of this type ran the Union Blockade in the OTL, and made runs to China. They only need their engines if they have to run too close to the wind.

Even if your right losing 7% of your assets is bad. A merchant ship had a 99% chance of making a successfully crossing of the Atlantic in WWII, that didn't mean U-Boats were essentially an annoyance."

They'll use South American ports eh? Pray tell what will the Royal Navy's South East Coast of America Station have to say about it? They have a squadron there already, not great for potential raiders.

If they see them they get sea spray in the face. Trying to catch a blockade runner, where you know where he's trying to get to is one thing, trying to catch him running free in the ocean is another thing altogether.

You're just declaring the blockade would be porous without evidence so, whatever, unsupported assertion.

No I didn't say it, Admiral Milne said did.

They can, but not quickly. The British will already have numerous ocean going ironclads in service since they started building them pre-war, and they can build or convert new ones probably faster than the Union can even build them. The Americans launch one, the British can probably match it with two. American ironclads won't be a particularly big deal if the British already have their own on station.

The Americans would have an ironclad advantage at least into well into 1863. Ships like Warrior were harder to build then casement type ships, or monitors. British Ships have to be transatlantic ships. See HMS Captain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Captain_(1869)



What? I've literally just corrected your continuously incorrect assertion the British felt they couldn't hold Canada west of Montreal. And yeah, the deciding factor for any campaign in Canada West would be a fleet on Lake Ontario, much like 1812.

I'll have to find it from the research I found, and posted on an earlier thread. It was Montréal. Now your back to saying the Union Army can't take Toronto without controlling Lake Ontario?

No, my assessment is that the Anlgo-Canadians, fighting on their home ground, will be able to hold off attacks by larger American forces. My significant exception to that is they can't hold the Western province, and Toronto would doubtless fall.

What "Old Brains" thinks has a hell of a lot to do with it. The calculations on both side are pretty emphatically not different, and the British discussions say so, and simple geography does the rest, or did the geography of North America undergo substantial change between 1812 and 1862. In any event, "Old Brains" just happened to become General in Chief of the Union Army, so his opinion counts for a hell of a lot more than yours.

Old Brains wasn't the Commander in Chief of the Army in 1862. Winfield Scott, and then George McClellan were.



Literally, what are you talking about?

You said the British needed a public apology to end the war. A statement of regret wasn't enough, so what would do the trick? I'd shed a lot more tears over the deaths of thousands of people, then over the Trent Affair where no one was killed, or even injured, and no property was damaged.
 
Last edited:
So is a U.S., Russia, Prussia, maybe Italy? Versus C.S., British Empire, France, Austria type war at all possible?
If you're looking for a POD for a 19th Century 1st World War, I don't think the Trent Affair is gonna be it :). Russia, Prussia, and Austria would've said "meh, not our problem" and there wasn't a unified Italy quite yet...
 
So is a U.S., Russia, Prussia, maybe Italy? Versus C.S., British Empire, France, Austria type war at all possible?
Not even remotely. Russia is still trying to bring its military up to snuff from the Crimean War, and Poland is going to flame into rebellion in 1863. Prussia is just getting over a constitutional crisis in 1862. Austria has no skin in the game, and neither would Italy. France is going to be knee deep in Mexico.
 
Not even remotely. Russia is still trying to bring its military up to snuff from the Crimean War, and Poland is going to flame into rebellion in 1863. Prussia is just getting over a constitutional crisis in 1862. Austria has no skin in the game, and neither would Italy. France is going to be knee deep in Mexico.
More accurately it's Britain, Canada, the Confederacy and to a lesser extent France versus the United States in a Trent War. Russia would just only give them word of mouth support but nothing else.
 
More accurately it's Britain, Canada, the Confederacy and to a lesser extent France versus the United States in a Trent War. Russia would just only give them word of mouth support but nothing else.
They couldn't do much either. Russia's economy was bust during this time due to the multiple uprisings and the aftermath of the Crimean war. Russia also basically depended on Britain from the 1860s to feed Alaska and their far east. Not a good propositions.
 
They couldn't do much either. Russia's economy was bust during this time due to the multiple uprisings and the aftermath of the Crimean war. Russia also basically depended on Britain from the 1860s to feed Alaska and their far east. Not a good propositions.
Well not directly of course as I said before.
 
The Lloyds list may not be complete, the Privateers had a better count, they got prize money, Lloyds was paying it out. A ship that can sail at 17 kts can catch just about any merchant ship, only another Clipper type ship can match that speed. Ships of this type ran the Union Blockade in the OTL, and made runs to China. They only need their engines if they have to run too close to the wind.
Too bad there's a dearth of American ships that can do 17 knots then. A sail frigate is doomed against a steamer.

Even if your right losing 7% of your assets is bad. A merchant ship had a 99% chance of making a successfully crossing of the Atlantic in WWII, that didn't mean U-Boats were essentially an annoyance."
This is about as non sequiter as it gets as a statement.

If they see them they get sea spray in the face. Trying to catch a blockade runner, where you know where he's trying to get to is one thing, trying to catch him running free in the ocean is another thing altogether.
You were talking about raiders, now it's blockade runners?

But to be generous, any American blockade runner going to Europe first has to run the blockade, cross the British patrolled Atlantic, sneak past the British patrols from bases directly in Britain, the British controlled Straights of Gibraltar, and the islands in the Mediterranean, grab what it wants, sneak back out again, recross the British patrolled Atlantic, then run the blockade again. Those are not good odds at going undetected.

Any American raider has a similar problem. It's a non-trivial chance of being spotted and engaged.

No I didn't say it, Admiral Milne said did.
[/QUOTE]

He did not.

The Americans would have an ironclad advantage at least into well into 1863. Ships like Warrior were harder to build then casement type ships, or monitors. British Ships have to be transatlantic ships. See HMS Captain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Captain_(1869)
You base this on what exactly? The Captain is again, a non-sequiter. Try looking at the links to the Crimean War ironclads I posted a few pages back. You're woefully ill informed on this subject as far as I can tell, you could try reading any of the links posted. America had absolutely zero advantage in ironclads over the British.

I'll have to find it from the research I found, and posted on an earlier thread. It was Montréal. Now your back to saying the Union Army can't take Toronto without controlling Lake Ontario?

No, my assessment is that the Anlgo-Canadians, fighting on their home ground, will be able to hold off attacks by larger American forces. My significant exception to that is they can't hold the Western province, and Toronto would doubtless fall.
Save your breath, your research doesn't exist and from the fact you think I've gone back on what I've said about Toronto, you'd better re-read some of it. I've pretty liberally insisted on what I think is possible, and have written quite a bit of it too.

Here's Jervois report from 1864. Have at 'er. That's the important one distinct from the Commissioners Report from 1862. If your thinking of Kenneth J. Bourne's article, there's a link you can see on very poorly done article you keep quoting. I'll save you the trouble and point out that no, there's no consensus in that one that they can't hold Canada west of Montreal.

Old Brains wasn't the Commander in Chief of the Army in 1862. Winfield Scott, and then George McClellan were.
Do yourself a very big favor and read the last bit about what Lincoln takes out of the library on January 8th 1862. Look who wrote it. I'd then cheerfully invite you to go back and see where I posted a link to that author's book and what he wrote, which we know Lincoln will be reading.

You said the British needed a public apology to end the war. A statement of regret wasn't enough, so what would do the trick? I'd shed a lot more tears over the deaths of thousands of people, then over the Trent Affair where no one was killed, or even injured, and no property was damaged.
Again, what are you talking about? This doesn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:
I'm not 100% sure you can. I believe you'd have to convert it to a web document for it to be viewable here. But I'd very much like to get my hands on that PDF.
I had it from the time I had to write an essay an Anglo-American relations in the 19th century in uni. Just shy on 400 pages, it basically expresses that American commerce raiding would be a tough nut to crack if all resources were mobilized, however states his full capabilities in blocking the Union, whilst breaking the Blockade of the Confederates.
 
I had it from the time I had to write an essay an Anglo-American relations in the 19th century in uni. Just shy on 400 pages, it basically expresses that American commerce raiding would be a tough nut to crack if all resources were mobilized, however states his full capabilities in blocking the Union, whilst breaking the Blockade of the Confederates.
That would be a great resource to have available. Hmm, if its possible to send it as a pdf file I could send you my email and I could download the pdf and see if I can get it uploaded somewhere as a webdoc? I think you can do that in adobe.
 
That would be a great resource to have available. Hmm, if its possible to send it as a pdf file I could send you my email and I could download the pdf and see if I can get it uploaded somewhere as a webdoc? I think you can do that in adobe.
I could if I didn't have uncorrupt the file properly as well. Probably by tomorrow evening or day after tomorrow. Though If i had the time, I would take 300 screenshots and paste them here, however that takes too long. Nonetheless, there are some good links on Milne's papers:-

core.ac.uk › download › pdf


etheses.lse.ac.uk › Courtemanche__Vice-admiral-Milne
 
The thing about either casemate-type ironclads or the early low-freeboard monitors, is that they almost uniformly made for terrible sea boats... painfully slow and a tendency to be auto-sinkers in rough seas. In that regard, the USN had quite a bit of catching up to do with the RN....
 
I could if I didn't have uncorrupt the file properly as well. Probably by tomorrow evening or day after tomorrow. Though If i had the time, I would take 300 screenshots and paste them here, however that takes too long. Nonetheless, there are some good links on Milne's papers:-

core.ac.uk › download › pdf

etheses.lse.ac.uk › Courtemanche__Vice-admiral-Milne
These are really useful, thanks, Sarthak.

I had a brief skim through using ctrl+f for "blockade" and found the following two passages of interest:

"His course of action, when additional reinforcements had arrived was, after crushing the U.S, fleet, to establish a blockade from Cape Henry, Virginia, to Maine. Some of the places to be blockaded were the Chesapeake Bay area, the mouth of the Delaware, Sandy Hook and New York harbour, the western end of Long Island Sound, Boston and Portland, Maine. Milne would enter the Chesapeake, try to cut off all supplies to Washington, and ’if possible to get at the capital.' He urged the Admiralty to give him a double set of colliers, used in relays, so that none of his blockaders would have to return to Halifax or Bermuda for coal. As a rendezvous for these colliers and for other uses, Sir Alexander planned to take possession of some harbours in the Martha’s Vineyard area of Massachusetts. The commander-in-chief contemplated the creation of five or six separate squadrons for blockading purposes with & minimum of fifty-four ships." (core.ac.uk › download › pdf - page 121)

"However, as was done for the blockade of the South, many of the fast lake steamers could be armed at short notice. It was true that Britain had the advantage over the Americans of being able to pass ships through the canals from the sea to the lakes; but the largest warship able to navigate the shallow canals was the Nimble Class, a five gun, eighty horse power gun boat displacing twelve feet, and even these ships would have to be substantially lightened for the journey. " (core.ac.uk › download › pdf - page 102)

The first seems pretty clear cut that the British felt capable of enacting a blockade of across much of the Union coast. However, the second - if you continue reading the pages 102/103 - suggests that British control of the Great Lakes might actually be harder than imagined due to the size of the canals/locks prohibiting the passage of larger vessels. That being said, I suppose if there had been need for it, the British would have found a way of overcoming that issue despite the costs being "prodigious" (page 103).

Northstar
 
Yes, no one said the war would be easy, and on the local level, the American shipbuilding capability of the Americans were greater in the Lakes. Though in the open sea, Britain was uncontested. In the lakes however, Britain would be contested.
 
Top