Trent Timeline with No War

The Trent Affair nearly led to war between Great Britain and USA. Lincoln quickly used his polite manners and humbly apologized for the whole thing and reminded his people to fight one war at time (in NE there was actually an outbreak of uber patriotism wanting to take on both the British and the rebels)

We've all heard about how in OTL the Trent incident the British let the Americans off if they apologized. And most of us know how close to war the North would be Lincoln was less humble.

But what if the British weren't so lenient in their original demands? Well, I tried something with an AH with no open war and... well someone pointed out I messed up in execution. So we'll do this again.

What I intend: Reach the 1970s with a drastically altered world.

What will probably happen: I mess up and have to restart this two more times. Then when I get it right, not get past the 1920 mark when real life gets in the way and vanish for 3 months, long enough that no one wants me to continue.

What fun we will get: Well, I'm sure we'll all see something interesting in the "final" version with an altered history from the 1830s to the 1900s, even if I only manage the second scenario



Timeline

Captain Wilkes catches up to RMS Trent on November 8, 1861. His orders to his crew are to capture "Mr. Mason, Mr. Slidell, Mr. Eustice, any companions, and possesions." US Marines board the Trent and size the men. I don't know why he thought a Eustice would be there (In OTL it was just Mason and Slidell) but let's say he was. An Austrian passenger (Trent seemed to carry passangers and mail) from Havana to England) was seen consorting with the diplomats and also gets arrested. Werp...
 
Timeline Update

On November 17, 1861, a British Inquiry calculates the Trent was boarded 11.5 miles from British shores... in other words unlike OTL it was boarded in British waters

On December 18, 1861, the ultimatum arrives. The British and Austrians are not letting the Americans off easy. They want a release of the prisoners, an apology, and material compensation as fines. American legal experts point out the similarities of Trent and the Impressment of Royal Navy deserters who severed on ships with flags of USA. The nations who were wronged (GB and Austria) would be allowed to trade in the ports of New Orleans, a minor port on Gulf Florida, and a minor port in North Carolina (I don't have my ACW map so I can't name them).

Lincoln complains to the British envoy this leaves the blockade rather toothless and was told a blockading nation has no right to board ships in territorial waters of a non belligerent.

Edit: Fixed the British and Austrian stuff
 
Last edited:
Timeline Update

The esteemed port of New Orleans becomes a centerpiece of the South's strategy. Goods flow in from three ports, but only one of them was a big one to begin with.

General P.G.T Beauregard was assigned the role of Defense of New Orleans back in November. Once the news of the agreement between the official US government and the British get in, Beauregard gets nearly any material he asks for.

On January 1, 1862, the artillery expert is reassigned to command one of the armies on the western front. He leaves behind extensive instructions and diagrams of the fortifications he wants finished.

On January 7, 1862, an agreement is made on how the "open ports" would work. The British and Austrian governments make their own paper certificates they give to captains of the ships. These are shown to any ship that tries to enforce the blockade. If a British or Austrian ship shows up with the certificate, they are let through. If one of them shows up without it, it is taken to a North port. If it was the right flag (It really was a British ship) then an ambassador will admonish him for not following instructions. If it was the wrong flag (Someone flying British colors who isn't British) the ship stays impounded and it's a casuis belli. I;m personally not sure how this certificate verification can work, but British merchants pre-war paid in Pounds which the Americans somehow could identify as genuine and not counterfeit, so asking a small group of naval captains to recognize a piece of paper shouldn't be too difficult.

The merchants can bring in anything that isn't artillery or rifled weapons. This deliberately left gunpowder off the "forbidden" list.

In April, Lincoln orders DC to be turned into a better fortress and more ammunition and food to be stockpiled. 70% of the factories that were previously producing more artillery are told to reprioritize and make ammunition. 30% is more than enough to meet the South anyways (which had a grand total of one factory that could produce perot guns if I remember correctly)

Shiloh isn't completely butterflied away and is a very blood battle.

In May, the Peninsular Campaign is going off much as it did in OTL with the same level of support and manpower. Unfortunately, McClellan has a sword of Damocles hanging over his head. While reinforcements are supposed to come to him, they might get cancelled anytime.

On May 21, 1862, the battle of new Orleans begins. The union had use the extra time to have a bigger invasion force. despite the esteemed Beauregard not being present to the defenses of New Orleans itself, the North finds a nasty surprise waiting for them.
 
Timeline Update

the Battle of New Orleans was an unexpected loss for the union. The defenses had been toughened up by a military engineer.

http://www.alternatehistory.com/for...new-orleans-at-the-begging-of-the-acw.420338/

Beauregard tried his best to get 2 ironclad ships for the port. However, an outbreak of pestilence caught that particular construction crew crew. Only one ship was finished, the CSS Louisiana and it was kind of a rushed job.

The North plan was simple. The ships would move in, destroy any defenses, and the transports would unload. Unexpectedly, an ironclad came out to meet them. Three volleys of canonballs were fired at it. the CSS Lousina shock, prepared to retaliate and... the engine gave out. Either the cannonballs had shaken something loose, or the screw engine's rushed job doomed the ship to be dead in the water after a short use. the crew groaned and wished careful work was done with the engines, even if it meant the armor job was incomplete.

The Union ships steamed into the rear of their quarry, the only place it could not fire back, and pounded the stern with shots. One cannonball hit hard and made a dent in the armor. Two lucky shots went into the same spot and turned the dent into a hole. The discouraged southern crew sank their own ship and surrendered.

There were more surprises waiting for the north. Coastal defense batteries were in effective threatening positions and bomb-proofs had been built to make the North's bombardment less effective. General Butler noticed something. A good 70% of the cannons shooting at them were not in fortifications that could withstand an attack from the land. Against the advice of his admiral, he ordered his army artillery units be landed in a spot where the defenders might have trouble hitting form more than one side near Fort Jackson. The landing site was shot at by the defenders and there was feriece resistance.

The guns were landed and Butler ordered some of his infantry units to disembark too. The good news for the North was that they were able to quickly threaten some of the coastal artillery defenses. Some of the defenders put up a fight while others headed to the completed forts.

Farragut however had lost three ships in the ill-advised supporting on landing in the teeth of the new Orleans fortifications. He had to pull out. Butler's decision had cost the Union himself, 3 ships, 3150 army personnel, and many cannons.

The next week, another British ship came into New Orleans. Usually, a Gulf Squadron ship would have challenged them and ask to see the certificate, but this time the North ships were going home, licking their wounds. the ship came into New Orleans to trade for cotton. Some of the locals had complained that compared to the pre-war times, they were getting only 30% of what they used to per bale of cotton despite World Prices actually being higher than they were pre-war. The merchant replied that those were his prices, the locals could take it or leave it. If he didn't get his profit here, he could always go to Egypt, where many of his colleagues have already done. Protests were silenced.

Are the British just war profiteering?
 
I am really not sure about the UK going all the way like this. I mean, the UK cut 90% of it's trade with the CSA, was still centered in Europe (Napoleon III, Bismarck, Russia.) And the UK switch over to Egyptian and Indian cotton.

main-qimg-3c8b8b2c635a3465ffc6161c906cf559


Besides, the public won't stand by and let the Empire add a slave power.
 
I am really not sure about the UK going all the way like this. I mean, the UK cut 90% of it's trade with the CSA, was still centered in Europe (Napoleon III, Bismarck, Russia.) And the UK switch over to Egyptian and Indian cotton.

main-qimg-3c8b8b2c635a3465ffc6161c906cf559


Besides, the public won't stand by and let the Empire add a slave power.

You missed something here. First off, at the start of the war it was viewed as one slave power leaving another slave power. So from the anti-slavery British public whichever side wins... who cares?

After bull run, a lot of British wrote off the North, perhaps remembering their own attempt to hold North America, so re normalizing trade would be viewed as a good thing. And in OTL, the Trent Incident was basically amounting to a mini-invasion of Britain. The OTL British left Lincoln an easy way out with only an apology. Here, I'm putting Trent in British waters (in OTL the captain DID say he didn't care if he had to peruse the Southern diplomats into British waters...) so the British wanted other concessions too. And the Austrian is there just to be funny, because their time as a relevant power is long gone.

If the incident broke into open warfare between the British and North, the South would either be coincidental allies at best (if it's viewed as one slave power against another) or pawns of a bigger game at worst (even if the slavery issue came up, the incident was basically an American insult to British honor and sovereignty). Fortunately in OTL, Lincoln gave hi humblest apology against Stweart's advice.

Also, in TTL they aren't exactly going out of their way to help the South at all. A lot of the merchants are going to Egypt anyways. The few that go to the "open ports" in the South are not looking to help the South, but get more cotton for less delivered goods. That's why the New Orleans merchants are getting 30% of the goods per bale of cotton as they used to.
 
You missed something here. First off, at the start of the war it was viewed as one slave power leaving another slave power. So from the anti-slavery British public whichever side wins... who cares?

After bull run, a lot of British wrote off the North, perhaps remembering their own attempt to hold North America, so re normalizing trade would be viewed as a good thing. And in OTL, the Trent Incident was basically amounting to a mini-invasion of Britain. The OTL British left Lincoln an easy way out with only an apology. Here, I'm putting Trent in British waters (in OTL the captain DID say he didn't care if he had to peruse the Southern diplomats into British waters...) so the British wanted other concessions too. And the Austrian is there just to be funny, because their time as a relevant power is long gone.

If the incident broke into open warfare between the British and North, the South would either be coincidental allies at best (if it's viewed as one slave power against another) or pawns of a bigger game at worst (even if the slavery issue came up, the incident was basically an American insult to British honor and sovereignty). Fortunately in OTL, Lincoln gave hi humblest apology against Stweart's advice.

Also, in TTL they aren't exactly going out of their way to help the South at all. A lot of the merchants are going to Egypt anyways. The few that go to the "open ports" in the South are not looking to help the South, but get more cotton for less delivered goods. That's why the New Orleans merchants are getting 30% of the goods per bale of cotton as they used to.

Either way, I can't see the South winning at all, or falling apart soon after, so you poison relations between the US and UK long term.

And if the Public demands London stop helping the South?
 
Top