The Trent Affair and the Resulting British War Plans Developed Against the United States
Bristol, RI
Forward
In Petersburg, Virginia, the tour guide was asked, “Could the South have won the Civil War?” Her response was, “Not unless someone came to their aid. It’s really incredible that the South kept it going for so long.”
Today, the US and the UK are the best of friends. We have fought two world wars and participated in numerous other military actions such as Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Historically, however, this was not always the case. By the outbreak of the American Civil War, the British Empire and the United States had a strained history. Both republic and empire had fought two wars and come close to blows on numerous other occasions. Competition occurred not just in the acquisition of lands in North America, what is now Canada and the Western United States, but also for the lucrative world carrying trade, of which the Americans became dominant over the British by a narrow margin right before the commencement of the Civil War.
There are many what ifs in the American Civil War. One of the most interesting to explore is that of British Intervention. Intervention is really a nice way of saying, “war.” In reality, the British Empire and the United States came very close to war during the period.
The following examines the infamous Trent Affair and its aftermath. Particular emphasis is placed on the British War Plans developed against the United States.
- The British Reaction to the Confederacy’s Secession From the Union
The eleven states forming the Confederate States of America declared their independence with very little bloodshed. This was done democratically. Federal facilities were seized throughout the South. Prior to the Trent Affair, no nation, however, offered the Confederacy full diplomatic recognition or even belligerency status.
The British view of the conflict was best expressed in Lord Russell’s comments to Parliament:
When Russell went to the House of Commons that evening, he was bombarded with questions from MPs, not a few of whom shared Clarendon’s view. He could give little enlightenment, but to those who expressed a desire for British intervention he warned against such a reckless move. “Nothing but the imperative duty of protecting British interests, in case they should be attacked, justified the government in at all interfering,” he told the House. “We have not been involved in any way in the contest. For God’s sake, let us if possible keep out of it” ( Forman 91–92).
In this, the British Empire was much like the United States in both World Wars: intervention would only come as a result of being directly attacked.
2. The British Reaction to the Battle of Manassas
On July 21, 1861, the Union and Confederate Armies finally met in a major engagement. Up until that time, it was the largest battle ever fought on North American soil. 35,000 Confederate Troops under the command of General Pierre Gustave-Toutant Beauregard faced the invading Union Army of 37,000 men under General McDowell ( Ward and Burns 61–62).
At first, it seemed that the battle was going the Union’s way; victory seemed inevitable for Lincoln’s Army. Unfortunately for him, something surprising occurred:
But holding a hill at the center of the southern line was a Virginia brigade commanded by Thomas J. Jackson, who believed the southern cause literally sacred and was able to convey that religious certitude to his men. While other southern commands wavered, his held firm. General Bernard Bee of South Carolina, trying to rally his own frightened men early that afternoon, shouted, “Look, there is Jackson with his Virginians, standing like a stone wall!” Bee himself was killed a little later, but the rebel lines held and the nickname stuck. It was the turning point (Burns and Ward 67).
This battle was not only seen by Americans, but by the British as well. It was profound evidence that the South could win. The following expressed the view of Lord Russell, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs in London:
“The men were overworked,” Russell explained in his report, “kept out for 12 or 14 hours in the sun exposed to long-range fire, badly officered, and of deficient regimental organization.” The army’s lack of experience, he added, made an orderly retreat all but impossible. Russell also blamed the generals for the subsequent mayhem in the capital; Washington was held hostage for two days while drunken soldiers roamed the city. “The Secretary of War knows not what to do, Mr. Lincoln is equally helpless, Russell recorded (Forman 131).
The preceding history must be taken into account in order to appreciate The Trent Affair not only in the context of Anglo-American relations, but through the lens of a global perspective as well.
3. The Trent Affair
President Davis was wise enough to realize that Confederate independence was an achievable aim with the aid of foreign princes. To that end, he sought to establish relations with the British and French, the superpowers of the time. Manassas proved the necessity of enacting General Scott’s Anaconda Plan. The Spanish Empire, via Cuba, followed Britain and France’s favor of the Confederacy:
Northern morale had ebbed again, when an open confrontation at sea with Britain made matters still worse for the Union. The American warship San Jacinto, patrolling off Cuba, stopped a British steamer, the Trent, and arrested two Confederate envoys on their way to England. The two agents-James Murray Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana-were well-known secessionist firebrands, and when they arrived at Boston their captor, the Antarctic explorer Captain Charles Wilkes, was welcomed as a conquering hero. The New York Times urged a second Independence Day declared in his honor; Congress voted him a special gold medal. Jefferson Davis denounced the seizure as beneath the dignity even of “barbarians.” Britain was no less outraged…. “You may stand for this,” the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, told his cabinet, “but damned if I will.” He demanded the immediate release of the two Confederates, and backed his threat by dispatching eleven thousand British troops to Canada, ready for action (Burns and Ward 81).
Since the ending of The War of 1812 with The Treaty of Paris, this incident was the closest time, before or since, that the British Empire came to declaring war on the United States. In Richmond, on November 18, Davis addressed the Confederate Congress, “these gentlemen were as much under the jurisdiction of the British Government upon that ship and beneath its flag as if they had been on its soil” (Forman 179). He was obviously doing everything in his power to get the British involved.
In London, on December 3, the Prime Minister learned that an American agent had bought up Britannia’s entire saltpeter reserves which were 4.5 million pounds. It was still set to be shipped to the United States. An immediate export ban to the Union was enacted. The British Admiralty issued an alert to its stations world wide. War seemed imminent. When Admiral Milne, stationed in Bermuda, received his orders to ready his squadron, he replied,
“The ships companies are in a high state of excitement for war, they are certainly all for the South. I hear the Lower Decks to-day are decorated with the Confederate colours” (Forman 183).
Palmertson no doubt knew the dangers of war with the Union. He had only to look at the reports from The War of 1812. Not only had the Royal Navy lost a squadron in the Great Lakes, but the US Navy had accounted rather well for itself. The Admiralty was no doubt aware of the destructive power of the Dahlgren Guns developed by the American Admiral John Dahlgren. They were undoubtedly also aware of the deficiencies found in the British Armstrongs which were the most common guns in the British fleet.
4. The Resulting British War Plans Developed Against the United States
The issue was serious enough that the cabinet formed a six-member war committee. Adm. Milne no doubt was confident that, with the resources at his disposal, he could break the blockade of southern ports and counter blockade the North. Perhaps the British War cabinet believed that such blows would produce impetus in the Union to end the war.
The British had a long history of operational harmony between its naval and army forces. The following gives a glimmer of what was discussed:
The War Plan called for the Royal Navy’s North American and West Indies Station to be heavily reinforced. It’s commander, Adm. Alexander Milne, proposed to break the blockade at Charleston, decisively engage the U.S. Navy, blockade the North, dominate the Chesapeake Bay, and strike at Washington by coming up the Potomac River (Tsouras)
Maine was also of interest to the British:
Maine would be the first target, with simultaneous actions by the Royal Navy to blockade Boston, New Bedford, Newport, Long Island, New York and the Delaware River. If necessary, some of these ports would be bombarded into submission (Forman 184).
Why would Maine be the first target one may ask? Few people at the time realized the state’s geographical importance. It jutted like a spear, nearly severing the Eastern Maritimes from Quebec and Ontario. Added to this was the Grand Trunk Railway. It was the first international rail system. It ran from Halifax, to Portland, then back to Canada via Montreal. The Crimean War and Manassas had proven that the moving of troops, artillery, and supplies,via railway, was imperative to victory.
Was the American War Department ignorant to the threat posed to Maine? Perhaps they simply had their hands full and were focused on the South.
That Christmas, President Lincoln decided to back down stating, “One war at a time.” Mason and Slidell were released. They moved unimpeded to London and Paris.
Prime Minister Palmertson was undoubtedly reviewing the casualty reports both for the Royal Navy and the British Army during the war of 1812. They were a sober reminder that a war with America would be very costly not only in pounds but in resources and human life as well (Foote). Never before, and never again, would a British Prime Minister have it in his power to see the United States permanently divided.
One of the results of the Trent Affair was that Britain, France, and Spain gave the Confederacy “Belligerency Status.” It was one step away from full diplomatic recognition. Without a doubt, the negative history between the United States of America and the British Empire, coupled with the Confederate victory at Manassas, influenced these collective European decisions. It basically made it legal for the European powers to arm the Confederacy as well as provide financial support. It was economic warfare against the United States.
Afterward
Why did the United States of America and the British Empire back away from the brink? Lincoln realized that he had his hands full with the Confederacy. The British, on the other hand had just concluded the Crimean War with Russia. Going to war over the seizure of a ship was a flimsy reason. In history, the First World War, for example, Britain would declare war using such pretexts.
British entry on the side of the Confederacy would greatly have increased its chances for independence. If that had occurred, we would possibly be two nations. Never before and never again would the British Empire threaten war against the United States.
Would the British War Plans have been successful? We will never know. It has been stated, however, “God favors the side with the heaviest battalions.” British entry would, at the very least, have made the contest more equal.
Works Cited
Burns, Ric, Burns, Ken, and Ward, Geoffrey. The Civil War, An Illustrated History. Alfred a Knopf, Inc, 2010.
Foote, Shelby. The Civil War, A Narrative: Ft. Sumter to Perryville. Random House, 1958.
Foreman, Amanda. A World on Fire, Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War. Random House, 2010.
Tsouras, Peter. Britannia’s Fist: From Civil War to World War. Potomac Books, 2008.
