
The Trent Affair: When the Union and Great Britain Nearly Went to War - Thevet
http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/civil-war/the-trent-affair-when-the-union-and-great-britain-nearly-went-to-war/
======
arca_vorago
It acts like the British were innocent in the civil war. They weren't. They
were actively arming and financing the south because they stood to benefit
from internal strife in the US, even using their scottish rite southern
jurisdiction freemasonic web to help support the KKK (bet you didn't know that
one). Palmerston actively engaged in oligarchical subterfuge against the US,
and besides the US angle was one of the primary actors behind the 1850 onwards
expansion of the British empire worldwide (which they later, for pr purposes,
changed _in name only_ to the commonwealth). As part of this was consolidation
and removal of what Palmerston called the "arbitrary powers", such as Austria
and Russia into that empire, largely through false "national liberation"
policy (sound familiar?).

To act as if it was simply the Trent affair that was a main potential
instigator of war between the US and Britain is to be extremely myopic about
the bigger picture at play. A key forgotten piece of history in this saga is
that the Russian tsar was also under threat by the British because they came
to him to join them against the US and he refused and then sent two fleets of
ships, one to NY and one to SF with sealed orders to attack anyone who
attacked the US (in 1863), because the British were prepping for the post
civil war collapse invasion, and they even had proxy-troops amassed on the
Mexican/Canadian borders! For do not forget under Palmerston, England supports
all revolutions, except her own. I also theorize this is why they financed the
bolsheviks and post-Bakunin anarchists and assassinated the Tsars sons family
later, in revenge for foiling their plans, besides the added step of
consolidation/removal of another rival monarchy, as they were doing across
Europe.

There is also evidence the the assassination of Lincoln wasn't just a lone
nut, but had British backing. (Funnily enough, many US presidential
assassinations match this pattern).

The death throes of these losses by the British are the setup for the
following world wars, which were engineered largely by Edward the 7th.

If the British had attacked the US during this time using the Trent affair as
the excuse, they likely would have created a US-Russia-Prussia coalition that
probably would have won, essentially having WW1 in the 1860s instead.

This style of British subterfuge continues to this day.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_iRIcxsz0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_iRIcxsz0)

~~~
walshemj
Sounds like nut job fantasy's of perfidious albion - why would the UK support
the south who competed with the UK as a producer of cotton.

~~~
Zerubbabel
So that the UK could eventually conquer the United States and seize all cotton
production as per the original British conquest and institution of the
colonies.

The rest of what the above poster speaks is true. If you are unsure, you need
to examine history more carefully before you think yourself a fit judge of
"nut jobs".

~~~
walshemj
Why would you want to conquer another country when you had vast resources
already available in India.

Though if the anti catholic obsession of the monarchy had been replaced by one
to recover the colonies 1812 would have been the time.

------
megaman22
I need to resubscribe to this magazine; when I was a kid, I got it for
Christmas from one of my uncles, and whenever it would come in, I'd read the
thing cover to cover. Somewhere I've still got that stack of WWII and Civil
War magazines, I hope - they tended towards in-depth treatments of individual
engagements or units, monographs and first-hand accounts that are hard to turn
up elsewhere.

------
Feniks
I doubt either side would have been stupid enough to let it escalate because
it was clear to everyone that the North was going to win from day 1 (including
General Lee himself) and the Union knew that a war with THE naval superpower
of the day wasn't a good idea.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
The south didn't have to "win" they just had to not lose before the Union got
tired of the war.

If you want to send an army into another country without local support you
need a massive manpower and material advantage. After you account for that the
two sides look more equal.

If Gettysburg had been a southern victory things could have turned out very
differently.

~~~
bsder
> If you want to send an army into another country without local support you
> need a massive manpower and material advantage. After you account for that
> the two sides look more equal.

Or you simply need to be willing to sack and burn the opponent until they
starve.

In addition, the slaves, who outnumbered free southerners by quite a bit, were
not necessarily unwilling to cooperate with the Union soldiers. That's very
different from trying to pacify an area that will fight to last man.

