The Trent Affair, could World War One have started in 1861?

[GatorFarmer]

Simply google "Trent Affair" if unfamiliar... but a brief synopsis. In late 1861 the controversial U.S. Navy figure Capatain Wilkes, formerly commander of the United States exploring expedition, ordered shots fired across the bow of a Royal Mail Packet, the Trent. He ordered the boarding of this ship by armed sailors and Marines and arrested several Confederate emissaries on board.

The United States and England came much closer to war than many realize. The British rushed 80,000 Enfield rifles and field artillery to Canada. They also began to send troops to Canada and banned the export of war materials.

The French had agreed to back whatever move England made. That December they invaded Mexico, with British support in violation of the Monroe doctrine.

Meanwhile, relations between England, France, and Russia were still bad over lingering hard feelings related to the Crimean War. The Czar would actually go as far as courting the United States government during the American Civil War and sending military missions.

Turkey, aka the Ottoman Empire, had been allied with Britain and France in the Crimea.

Russia, at this time, still had a presence in North America, being the owners of Alaska.

In Europe, Prussia, soon to be Germany, was a growing power. Shortly after the ACW they would fight a land war against France...and win. Prussian troops besieged Paris. American General Phillip Sheridan was official envoy to the Prussians. England and France were not popular in America then, the U.S. military even adopting pickledlaub helmets on the Prussian model.

The intervention of a dying Prince Albert as well as Captain Wilkes being...disavowed... averted war. But it was a near run thing.

The Union had, by 1861, over 500,000 soldiers. Arms were in short supply though. U.S. industry had not caught up with demand and all Europe had been scoured for weapons. Import of Swedish steel was important. Even old Hall carbines were put back into service.

England however was the strongest naval power in the world and the French, yes really, were regarded as the finest land army in the world.

Thus one wonder what might have been. Shelby Foote, a noted author on the Civil War, said that he always felt the Union fought the war with one hand tied behind its back and that if pushed hard enough could have doubled its efforts.

Circa 1862 there were about 20 million people in the North. Someing like one in five or one in six people in the Confederacy eventually served under arms. With the Union population, assuming a like effort, that would mean a U.S. Army of as many as four million. During the Franco Prussian War, the French managed about 900k men under arms. The Prussians 1.2 million. The British, pre WW1, I think managed a half million man Army for the Boer War.

Thus, I wonder, who would have won. The British and French Alliance would have had Canada, a theater of operations out of Mexico, and of course the Confederacy. Spain was no longer much of a power, but would go to war with the United States in 1898 and supported France and France England in invading Mexico.

Russia always had an eye on India, and Afghanistan. This was called the Great Game. They had just been at war with England, France and Turkey. Alaska was pretty empty, but did border British Canada. Might the Czar have entered the war?

Prussia did fight the French soon after, so it might not be far fetched to imagine Prussia entering the war.

The Ottoman Empire always had territorial disputes with Russia, and fought the Russians at Plevna soon after the ACW. They could be expected to want to fight Russia.

Italy was not yet a nation, but soon would be

Austria-Hungary was a great power, sort of. Just after the ACW they would be badly beaten by the Prussians...but the Ottomans were their traditional enemies, they were not too fond of the French, and would later fight the Russians over what Serbia in 1914....kicking off the real WW1 where they allied with Germany.

What might have happened with war coming in 1861? With the Union, Russia, Prussia and perhaps Austria Hungary on one side versus England, France, Spain, and the Ottoman Empire? Would the United States have won? Would the CSA be an independent nation now? Would Canada now be divided up as a series of states?

Ireland was already restive and many Fenians fought for the Union during the ACW, and some for the CSA. Would Ireland have rebelled?

Would Sepoy troops, Bengal Lancers, Ghurkas and Sikhs have fought it outon the Great Plains? Or in Maine...or the disputed territory of Oregon?

Could the Royal Navy have broken the Union Blockade and perhaps in turn have blockaded the Union?

And what of Border States like Tennessee and Maryland...now torn between hascent support of the CSA and yet with historical hard feelings against Britain?

Imagine the rally around the flag recruitment in the North with the idea of traitors at home conspiring with foreigners to conquer America...Part of VA split off to side with the Union, thus West Virginia....would parts of the Confederacy have rejoined the Union?

Would the French Foreign Legion have invaded Arizona and Colorado?

Would the Briitish once again burn Washington, D.C.?

What roles would Spencers, Henrys, Gatling guns, Sharps, et al have played in bolstering the American cause?

Makes you wonder, doesnt it?

 

[Dennis The B]

The British people weren't in any particularly hot mood for war with the U.S.. They had a belly full from the Crimean War, and the natives in India were indeed restless (sorry for the pun). Even with a base of operations in Canada, Great Britain would have a difficult time logistically with materiels. She also had growing problems in Africa, and had just finished with the Opium (Arrow) Wars. Britain also had a Liberal Party prime minister (Palmerston). And while he was for the secessionist states of the Confederacy, he was also anti slavery. He would have a very difficult time in reconciling his conflict. He was also in a bind economically. While the British needed Confederate cotton, they needed Union corn even more.

Faced with an invasion from Canada, the mood of the Northern States may have changed geometrically. And the 3,000 troops sent to Canada were more or less a facade. Early Confederate successes were hailed, but when the tide started to turn in 1862, Britain was in another bind, with the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. They also had dirty hands with the Confederate commerce raiders, selling CSS Alabama, but keeping their hands clean by not arming the ship in Britain.

The French lost their British and Spanish support, when they learned that France had intended to expand its control over the entire country. For the French to consider any expedition across the U.S.-Mexican border, may have presented them with an unmanageable problem.

From the American Revolution, until the alliance with Britain in The Great War, the U.S. and British had a number of incidents besides the Trent Affair, and none of them led to anything but a flurry of diplomatic notes and political speeches.

 

[GatorFarmer]

I had read that British reinforcements were more substantial. That in addition to 80,000 rifles to arm the Canadian militia, closer to 20,000 British reinforcements were deployed to Canada with plans for more.

Palmerston told his cabinet something along the lines of he would be damned if he would stand for it.

The beauty, from a British point of view, is that it was a cause for war that could be separated from the Confederate cause if need be.

The British papers had the time, and many in the United States, were in favor of war. I am not sure, given what happened in the Boer war, that the British learned much from Crimea.

Supposedly the plan to stave off an invasion on acanada involved seizing New York City...a Gangs of New York era NYC teeming with Irish....Stalingrad a century early, waiting to happen.

There were living veterans of the War of 1812 at the time, and perhaps someone alive who had been a drummer boy or some under George Washington.

The Sepoy mutiny was freshly, but decisively crushed. But we must remember that the United States had its own Indian problems, even in places like Minnesota.

What could the Sioux have managed if supported by the factories of Birmingham?

Meanwhile, Union rear areas that sent many troops South would now be the front line with Canada...Maine...Michigan...Wisconsin.

Whatever troops Britain started with would have been bolstered by a Canadian militia armed as well, or better, than any hastily raised American formations. Presumably 80,000 Enfields meant an ability to mobilize at least that many Canadians. The hastily formed and forming Union Army was unproven and was to be plagued by leadership problems. The bulk of American forces would have been deployed against the CSA and be confronted by a new large force to the rear.

Could Ambrose Burnside for example have managed to defend Washington?

Would a fleet of monitors had to sail the Great Lakes?

It would seem an interesting counterfactual point of departure. If Britain won, America as it is now would not exist, let alone as a world power. If the Prussians, Americans and Russia won...the England might have truly stood alone against a hostile Europe.