Realistic Trent War?

[Sarthak]

I know this is a overused POD or something however in almost every thread regarding this i find two areas of the spectrum.
1. British - Oh hell no! We would kick those yankees kingdom come!
2. American - Oh hell no! We kick those pompous Brits in their arses and seize Canada!
What i find extremely irritating is that the British writers positively ignore the vast land strength the Union had at 1862. I also find it extremely irritating that the Americans simply severely underestimate how powerful Britain was in the 19th century. Until the 1890s, Britain fielded a navy that could literally go against the entire world's navies and have a good chance of winning. And the Americans fielded millions of men which was heavily not in favor for the British.

There is also this myth in America that Britain would loose all of their food supply in a war with the US. There would be a good shortage of grain but statistics show that Britain could have easily circumvented this by trading more with China (Who had been humbled in the Opium Wars) and Russia (Who was desperate for economic recovery after the disastrous Crimean War).

And there is also a myth in Britain that their navy and army would kicked the yanks all throughout their country (at least in most of threads here).

So how would a very realistic Trent War turn out to be?
Please only write about America screw/America wank or British screw/British wank if its a high plausibility and not simply stoking nationalistic flames.

 

[RPW@Cy]

There are other issues that tend to get overlooked -

Yes, Union armies were big - but one of the reasons they were so big was overseas imports. Something like 726,000 rifles according to wikipedia, with the 1853 pattern Enfield being the second most widely used rifle in the Union armies. I think it's safe to say these imports will stop.
IIRC there are similar constraints over imports of raw material for gunpowder production, especially saltpetre.
American posters in particular tend to underestimate just how much slavery was despised in 19th century Britain, and therefore just how unlikely it would be for Britain to actually go to war in defence of a slave power and how intense the domestic pressure would be to end it.

I suspect a realistic Trent war would be short and end in a negotiated draw.

 

[Thomas1195]

American posters in particular tend to underestimate just how much slavery was despised in 19th century Britain, and therefore just how unlikely it would be for Britain to actually go to war in defence of a slave power and how intense the domestic pressure would be to end it.

Yeah, there is a reason why the likes of John Bright managed to successfully agitated against the government's potential war entry. In fact, among the three British leaders, two of them firmly supported neutrality.

 

[Skallagrim]

The USA was already in a fight, against an opponent who had -- at most -- a third of the resources the USA had (in every respect, including potential fighting men), and which was additionally hamstrung by the fact that it needed to dedidicate a lot of said resources (again including potential fighting men) to making sure the slaves were properly guarded.

It still took the USA until 1865 to finish that fight.

Now suppose that, while this is happening, the USA additionally picks a fight with the world foremost power at that time. Just picture that for a second.

There are no two equally deluded sides to this debate. The USA wouldn't stand even the remotest chance of winning. That's the naked truth of it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either completely ignorant of the facts, or has stubbornly draped himself in the flag and thinks that singing the Star Spangled Banner very loudly will sort some real effect. But it won't, and it wouldn't back then.

This is not to say that the USA back then was some dumb, hopeless country that couldn't fight. On the contrary. The problem is that it doesn't matter, because Britain at the time had such a ludicrous advantage that we're not even talking about a contest here. Would it be expensive for Britain? Hell, yes. As noted, Britain would have to import certain pretty important things from elsewhere, no doubt at jacked-up prices. That's not fun. But Britain could -- and if need be, would -- afford that kind of thing. Could affort to keep it up for years, too. Not that anything like that would be needed, because it would be a very short war. Conversely, Britain had a navy that was... unmatched in the history of our entire fucking species up to that point. Very bluntly put: they had enough ships to blockade every meaningful position along the Atlantic sea-board, and then they'd have enough left over to get some real convoys going, too. All without significantly impacting strategic security elsewhere. Not that it would matter, because France would be 100% inclined to follow Britain on this, and nobody else would be silly enough to pick a fight.

So while Britain could get anything it needed from other sources (albeit at greater cost), Britain could practically seal off the USA and prevent them from importing anything at all. As has been noted about a gazillion times, the USA didn't have the means to produce gun-powder without imports. Not only did it get those imports from Britain, but Britain would also be able to cut off access to any alternative source. At this time, the USA is already in a shooting war. The supplies are dwindling. That's not good.

This brings us to Canada. First of all: while certain American politicians at the time may have boasted the US ability to get "millions" of men into combat, this was delusional. If such a thing was possible, they'd have fucking done it to crush the CSA. They didn't, because they couldn't. In fact, I very much doubt that the USA could spare the forces needed to invade Canada. Or at least: not without essentially abandoning one from of the Civil War, or reducing that to an entirely defensive war. If such a strategy was embarked upon (which would be insane, but then, starting a Trent War would be insane already...), I think that the US forces could initially land some real blows in Canada. Sure. But do we imagine for a second that Britain would just let this happen? When the actual British forces are shipped over and enter the fight, things will look very different all of a sudden. Keep in mind: most of the US forces are tied up fighting the CSA. No force that the USA could realistically dedicate to Canada under these circumstances would be a match for the force that the British would assuredly deploy.

It would be the War of 1812 all over again. Except this time, 90% of British forces wouldn't be needed elsewhere. So the Americans get driven back after some initial gains, and then the British go on the offensive. Aggressive landings on the Atlantic sea-board, and then they torch the White House. Again. Because apparently, some lessons have to be repeated. And then the USA has to sign a humiliating treaty where it accepts war guilt, recognises the CSA (including everything it claims), has to pay an indemnity to the British, and has to pay for the additional costs the British incurred because they had to scramble for alternative imports. Hell, the USA will probably get saddled with a fixed price obligation to ship grain to Britain in the future. There may even some very minor border adjustments with Canada.

The war would no doubt be more dragged out if the USA was, in this same time-frame, fully united and devoid of internal strife, but still somehow built up its OTL Civil War-era military apparatus and experience. Given that, and full US dedication to a war with Britain... it would be a longer, much harder-fought thing. And Britain would still win. Because it's the 1860s, and not the 1910s. (Some people don't grasp that the half-century in between there was kind of important to the development of American power.) So there's that scenario. But the actual scenario being discussed, with the USA opening another front in the middle of the Civil War? That ends somewhere in '63 at the latest. If dragged out until then, with a US surrender and pretty stern terms to drive the point home. (The point being "Don't ever pull this again".) But most likely, it ends much sooner, with the US backing down and trying for peace with honour -- which Britain would give, as long as an indemnity gets paid and an apology gets offered, because Britain didn't want this stupid war in the first place.

 

[unprincipled peter]

In the event of a full blown war, it isn't USA vs Britain. it's USA vs Britain's navy and a threat from the north AND vs the Confederacy.
Britain may despise slavery, but if things get hot, that hatred is going to take a back seat to winning the war. The British navy can open the blockade, the south can get goods in and out. Now it's the north's turn to get blockaded. Britain can now present a credible threat from Canada. Britain doesn't need to defeat the USA by itself. She only needs to do enough to let the south win. The civil war was a stalemate at that time. Adding Britain to the mix spells bad news for the union. Once the war is over, Britain can turn to squeezing the south on slavery.
There's all kinds of reasons the war didn't go hot, and it can be debated how vigorously Britain would prosecute the war, but any degree of open warfare tips the scales.

Or, what Skallagrim said while I was typing

 

[The Gunslinger]

@EnglishCanuck has a great TL about this very war right now. 'Wrapped in Flames'

 

[EnglishCanuck]

@EnglishCanuck has a great TL about this very war right now. 'Wrapped in Flames'

Well, not to toot my own horn...

 

[Fabius Maximus]

There are no two equally deluded sides to this debate.

As Isaac Asimov said: People who say "The world is flat" and "The world is a perfect sphere" are both wrong , but if you think they're both equally wrong, you're wronger than both groups put together.

Similarly, "America would easily crush the UK" and "Britain would easily crush the US" are both wrong, but the truth is far closer to the latter statement than to the former.

This brings us to Canada. First of all: while certain American politicians at the time may have boasted the US ability to get "millions" of men into combat, this was delusional. If such a thing was possible, they'd have fucking done it to crush the CSA. They didn't, because they couldn't

Very true. From the Union perspective, they're fighting an existential war to preserve the unity of their country, and possibly even the continuance of their way of life ("Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure," as Abraham Lincoln put it). Maybe the "fighting with one hand tied behind their back" meme is reasonable for the very early stages of the conflict, when the Union seems to have underestimated how difficult they'd find it to quash the rebellion, but once it became clear that the Confederacy wasn't going to just roll over and lose there was really no reason not to pull out all the stops to try and defeat them before either war-weariness set in or an outside power got involved on the Confederacy's side.

The British navy can open the blockade, the south can get goods in and out. Now it's the north's turn to get blockaded.

Not only that, but the South had somewhere in excess of 70,000 soldiers guarding its coastline from Northern raids. If the RN sweeps the ocean of Union fleets (which is likely to be one of the very first actions the British undertake), these troops can now be redeployed to the CSA's northern fronts, at the same time as the Union has to take troops away from these areas to guard its own coast and the Canadian border.

 

[ThecrownPrince]

I was actually coming up with how a Trent war could allow for the survival of the second Mexican empire and confederacy.

 

[Ran]

I'd be more interested in reading a timeline where it somehow erupted into war and that didn't happen, and the US still goes ahead with the Emancipation proclamation so there's no pretending it isn't a pro-slavery intervention ... though I guess that's just OTL with minor changes, since the US seems a lot more more likely to accept paying an indemnity than the UK is to declare that isn't enough and send troops off to die to restablish slavery.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I'd be more interested in reading a timeline where it somehow erupted into war and that didn't happen, and the US still goes ahead with the Emancipation proclamation so there's no pretending it isn't a pro-slavery intervention ... though I guess that's just OTL with minor changes, since the US seems a lot more more likely to accept paying an indemnity than the UK is to declare that isn't enough and send troops off to die to restablish slavery.

It wouldn't be a pro-slavery intervention, though, it would be a pro-freedom-of-the-seas intervention (and Britain, as the world's foremost maritime and commercial power, took the freedom of the seas very seriously indeed). There's no guarantee that Britain would even open diplomatic relations with the Confederacy, especially if it still hopes that the Union will come to its senses and sue for peace: probably, it would just fight its own war concurrently, with any benefit this brings to the Confederate cause being purely incidental.

 

[Ran]

It wouldn't be a pro-slavery intervention, though, it would be a pro-freedom-of-the-seas intervention (and Britain, as the world's foremost maritime and commercial power, took the freedom of the seas very seriously indeed). There's no guarantee that Britain would even open diplomatic relations with the Confederacy, especially if it still hopes that the Union will come to its senses and sue for peace: probably, it would just fight its own war concurrently, with any benefit this brings to the Confederate cause being purely incidental.

I think that's how it would really go (well, provided it escalated to war at all -- obviously OTL it didn't, and for good reasons), but I was specifically thinking of Skallagrim's hypothetical when I wrote that (and how Lincoln threw in the towel without issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in a timeline I remember -- I think it was How Few Remain, but it might have been a different one):

It would be the War of 1812 all over again. Except this time, 90% of British forces wouldn't be needed elsewhere. So the Americans get driven back after some initial gains, and then the British go on the offensive. Aggressive landings on the Atlantic sea-board, and then they torch the White House. Again. Because apparently, some lessons have to be repeated. And then the USA has to sign a humiliating treaty where it accepts war guilt, recognises the CSA (including everything it claims), has to pay an indemnity to the British, and has to pay for the additional costs the British incurred because they had to scramble for alternative imports. Hell, the USA will probably get saddled with a fixed price obligation to ship grain to Britain in the future. There may even some very minor border adjustments with Canada.

(Bolding mine), if those would be British requirements for a peace treaty, it's a pro-slavery intervention with only the slightest pretension otherwise.

 

[Nivek]

The british burn some american ships and call day, USA recgonized this loss, pay some money and continue to fight the secession war...the end.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

(Bolding mine), if those would be British requirements for a peace treaty, it's a pro-slavery intervention with only the slightest pretension otherwise.

Not really, any more than Roosevelt conducted a "pro-communism intervention" in WW2.

 

[Ran]

Not really, any more than Roosevelt conducted a "pro-communism intervention" in WW2.

I think if you take the comments "any benefit this brings to the Confederate cause being purely incidental" and "the USA has to sign a humiliating treaty where it accepts war guilt, recognizes the CSA (including everything it claims)" together, it's not only a pro-slavery intervention in effect, but in intent as well.

Really-really -- and I again question if Britain is going to put their foot down on that as a requirement for peace compared to how opposed to it (and willing to offer concessions elsewhere) Republican administration is likely to be, even if the British were burning American cities and salting the ashes of the White House.

 

[Skallagrim]

I think that's how it would really go (well, provided it escalated to war at all -- obviously OTL it didn't, and for good reasons), but I was specifically thinking of Skallagrim's hypothetical when I wrote that (and how Lincoln threw in the towel without issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in a timeline I remember -- I think it was How Few Remain, but it might have been a different one):

[...]

(Bolding mine), if those would be British requirements for a peace treaty, it's a pro-slavery intervention with only the slightest pretension otherwise.

To be clear, that bolded bit mostly just follows from the fact that Britain would no doubt recognise its co-belligerent. Forcing the USA to likewise recognise this situation as a fait accompli as part of the peace agreement would follow straight from that. In addition, I describe that as a stipulaton in which the USA forced the war to be fought "to the end". In that case, Britain would want to humble the USA decisively. Forcing the USA to recognise the CSA, to its full extent, would serve that intent. The move wouldn't be meant as pro-CSA, but as anti-USA. "This happens when you pick a fight with Britain, Yank. Your capital gets torched and your country gets dismembered. Also, we'll be applying our 'balance of powers' doctrine to TWO continents from now on."

In a situation where the USA seeks peace on short notice, offering an indemnity and an apology, Britain would be far more inclined to agree to status quo ante otherwise. In which case they wouldn't rescind their recognition of the CSA (by then no doubt already issued), but would not interfere in the Civil War, either. (They'd explicitly forbid the USA from applying its blockade of the CSA to any ship flying the Union Jack, though, so even in such a scenario, the CSA might well profit from British trade that was blockaded in OTL.)

In any event, Britain would not see its actions as a pro-slavery intervention, nor intend it as such. It would be considered a separate war, making the CSA a co-belligerent (at war with the same enemy). Post-war, any victorious CSA would find that Britain wouldn't be sympathetically inclined towards its slave economy at all. Britain may even end up putting an embargo on Confederate exports.

 

[Dave Howery]

the UK wouldn't really need to put a single soldier on US soil to win... blockading ports in the north, breaking the USN blockade in the south, and cutting off vital imports would severely crimp the north's ability to fight...

 

[Ran]

Also, we'll be applying our 'balance of powers' doctrine to TWO continents from now on."

As they would have to -- keeping the two separate would be impossible, of course. That's one reason I'd be interested in reading a timeline where that happens -- and the US still does go ahead with emancipation to avoid the "get out of political repercussions free" card.

Or perhaps there would be no difference between emancipation or not aside from a slightly less racist Union post Civil War, but I think Britain would be stuck with their new ally... and suddenly needing to pay a lot more attention to an area where they previously had to pay next to none.

 

[Deathbringer96]

But the CSA wouldn't be their new ally, at most they would he just co-belligerants

 

[Ran]

Being co-belligerents requires being at war with a third party -- unless I had the wrong idea about what the 'balance of powers' doctrine means?