The Trent Affair.

[andym]

Oi,can we have our mates back please?[:D][:D]


The Trent Affair, also known as the Mason and Slidell Affair, was an international diplomatic incident that occurred during the American Civil War. On November 8, 1861, the USS San Jacinto, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet Trent and removed two Confederate diplomats, James Mason and John Slidell. The envoys were bound for Great Britain and France to press the Confederacy’s case for diplomatic recognition by Europe.

The initial reaction in the United States was enthusiastically in support of the capture, but many American leaders had doubts as to the wisdom and the legality of the act. In the Confederate States, the hope was that the incident would lead to a permanent rupture in Union-British relations, diplomatic recognition by Britain of the Confederacy, and ultimately, Southern independence. In Great Britain, the public expressed outrage at this apparent insult to their national honor. The British government demanded an apology and the release of the prisoners while it took steps to strengthen its military forces in Canada and in the Atlantic.

After several weeks of tension during which the United States and the United Kingdom came dangerously close to war, the issue was resolved when the Lincoln administration released the envoys and disavowed Captain Wilkes’ actions. No formal apology was issued

[uncc]

[:-] Sure, just as soon as we get ours back...

http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/08/08a.htm

[Twotribes]

You are aware of one of the reasons for the war of 1812? Britain was shangia highing American sailors right off American ships, they even attacked an American WAR ship.

[Greybriar]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

You are aware of one of the reasons for the war of 1812? Britain was shangia highing American sailors right off American ships, they even attacked an American WAR ship.

That was called impressment.

[Grell]

That's very interesting Andy, never knew that.

Regards,

Grell

[Arsan]

I first heard about this Trent affair on the set of historical events AGEOD's AACW has on the affair [:D]
On some games you can learn more history that on school [;)]

[OrpBde]

I first of the affair on Ken Burns The Civil War.If Lincoln hadnt let Mason and Sliddell go the British were going to send 8000 soldiers to Canada along with what they already had there.Lincoln gave in and said one war at a time.
JMW

[Twotribes]

Ya cause a few thousand British in Canada were a dire threat.

[Arsan]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Ya cause a few thousand British in Canada were a dire threat.

Maybe not, but if the thing scaled up it could suppose the Royal Navy messing up on the blockade of the CSA and the UK economy and industry (the first in the world back then) helping the south with money and guns and why not, maybe an expeditionary force or two.
That would be a dire threat... specially accounting that France was more pro CSA than the UK and only needed the British approval to help the south.
Bear in mind we are talking about 1861, when there was been no Emancipation declaration and slavery was not still so much of an issue on the European public opinion...

Big fires start with little sparks... if you don't stop them.
Regards

[Capt. Harlock]

ORIGINAL: andym

After several weeks of tension during which the United States and the United Kingdom came dangerously close to war, the issue was resolved when the Lincoln administration released the envoys and disavowed Captain Wilkes’ actions. No formal apology was issued

"Dangerously close to war", is, if anything, an understatement. It is the opinion of many historians that if the original note had been sent from London to Washington, the U.S. would not have backed down. By great good luck the trans-Atlantic cable was on the fritz, and Queen Victoria showed the first draft to Prince Albert. The Prince realized the note left no room for diplomatic manuever, so he literally climbed out of his deathbed and suggested some alterations. With the Queen's wishes behind the changes, they were made and gave Secretary of State Seward just enough wiggle room to find a way out that saved enough face for both sides. (Prince Albert succumbed to typhus a week later.)

Science fiction author Harry Harrison wrote a couple of novels on an alternate timeline where the Prince collapsed before he could make changes (plausible) and Great Britain decided to attack both North and South (not so much).

[lordhoff]

In addition, the British Ambassador to Washington didn't mention the threat part of breaking diplomatic relations and told Sec't of State Seward that while the return of the envoys was inflexible, we'd be rather easy on the apology. The US admitted the act was illegal but basically said they'd do it again of need be. That part was ignored and the rest accepted as an apology. Napoleon III had already stated that should England go to war, France would also so it could've got interesting.

"Great Power Diplomacy 1814-1914, Norman Rich, McGraw-Hill, 1992, pgs 155-156. My latest read [:)] .

[anarchyintheuk]

Above all Lincoln was pragmatic. I don't see a situation where he would have allowed it to get to war. He'd have caved regardless and done whatever the British requested.

[Capt. Harlock]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Above all Lincoln was pragmatic. I don't see a situation where he would have allowed it to get to war. He'd have caved regardless and done whatever the British requested.

I can't really agree with that -- there were some points on which Lincoln refused to give way. ("Hold firm, as with a chain of steel." is a quote from him.) He refused to accept the Crittenden Compromise (and a good thing too!) when it might have prevented the Civil War. And he refused to evacuate Fort Sumter, when he knew very well that was where the shooting could be expected to start. It's true that we don't have the Damoclean Sword of the vote of no confidence hanging over our President's head here on the left side of the pond. But you can't back down on everything and still govern effectively, and Lincoln knew it.

[anarchyintheuk]

Holding firm on principle is one thing, such as defending federal property (Ft. Sumter), standing up for your right to illegally seize people on foreign registered vessels is another. In any event it wasn't like there was a strong clamoring for war w/ the UK that he had to hold in check.

Can't remember the biography I was reading, but he came to his decision pretty quickly with words to the effect of "one war at a time". Lincoln basically let the Monroe Doctrine lapse during the Civil War under the same reasoning.